Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438

Disruption by GoRight
GoRight, a civil POV pusher on global warming related topics, recently returned from a 6 month hiatus. Since coming back, he has proceeded to disrupt numerous global warming related articles. He's already been warned by myself and R. Baley, however, he continues in his pattern of adding specious or fringe theories attributed to less-than-reliable sources, and then edit warring when they are removed. Can someone please look into this? Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is particularly concerning, but the remainder is something that should be sorted out through civil discussion to the point that there is consensus. Edit-warring when there is no consensus isn't helpful - if he doesn't cease with that, then please leave a note as I think a topic ban would then be warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In my defense, here, the edit you note above was a direct verbatum quote from the cited article. In general I prefer to let the original author's words speak for themselves rather than my trying to paraphrase and thereby potentially introduce nuances into the meaning that would be unwarranted.  In retrospect, I agree that I could (should?) have been more sensitive to the direct naming of names ... but still the words are those of the article's author and not my own.


 * I have since moved on from this specific edit and attempted to provide a much more neutral version,, that conveys the important aspects of the charge with the contentious aspects having been removed. I have also provided an extensive discussion of why this particular source should be considered WP:RS even within the context of WP:BLP.  See  and.


 * I am a GW skeptic. I do not try to hide this fact.  But this fact makes me unpopular with the GW alarmists that frequent the GW pages, of which Raul is one.  Anyone who frequents these pages will quickly recognize that there is a small group of editors who work in concert to prevent the addition of material that is counter to their personal POV by taking turns reverting changes from editors they disagree with (thus easily overwhelming an individual's ability to respond under WP:3RR), which effectively gives them a pocket veto to push their POV by simply disclaiming consensus (many times without any discussion).  In his short time here,, Solomon quickly faced this group when he was merely trying to correct what he knew first hand to be false and misleading information.  His experience was that of any GW skeptic here and he recounts those experiences acurately, IMHO, in , , and most recently.


 * This case is a prime example of their modus operandi. Raul simply comes in, reverts my edits, provides no discussion or justification for why he did so on the talk page or even in the edit summary, yet tells me on my talk page that I am not allowed to use the article described lest he block me.  There are extensive on-going discussions on these points yet I believe that Raul has yet to comment there even once.  Personally, I find that behavior to not be within the spirit or the intent of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  Feel free to review my edit history.  I am confident that it will show a consistent record of making extensive attempts to reach consensus on the talk pages of the articles I have edited, as well as the proper use of dispute resolution mechanisms such as RFCs and the Noticeboards to bring in outside perspectives.


 * I freely admit to being WP:BOLD about adding material to these pages, but being WP:BOLD and edit warring are not the same thing. It takes two (or more) to edit war.  Again, review my record of reverts and take note of the names on the other side of the "war".  I think your will find a great commonality among them.  Since my one and only block here I have lived within the limits set forth in the policies and gudielines.  In fact, please note that I have thus far respected the demands of User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 as they apply to WMC yet both keep expanding the scope of their demands so as to prevent me from making any contributions related to the Solomon articles.  Is this particularly reasonable on their part?  --GoRight (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he may cease with that particular edit, but that's not going to stop his general disruption on GW articles. I like the idea of a topic ban, though. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - since he's continued to edit war on the Fred Singer article (adding a hitpiece written by ex-Wikipedian Lawrence Solomon about that article) I've warned him that the next time he does, I'm going to block him. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that this editor has engaged in extensive discussion at Talk:William Connolley and gone on to reference those remarks to similar issues at Talk:Fred Singer. Blocking is not justified in this case unless the editor violates 3RR. I suggest you use dispute resolution instead. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Disruptive article editing - which he is doing in spades - is blockable. As for the talk page, he only started engaging on the talk page *after* R Baley told him (on his talk page) that is made another edit like it he'd be blocked. (And while he was simultaneously edit warring on William Gray, Global Warming, and Fred Singer). And, if you actually read what he says on tah talk page - he's talking *at* people, not too them -- he has yet to convince a single other person of anything except that he has no desire to abide by our rules. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add that I also disagree with your threat to block GoRight if he makes the same edit again. You are involved in these articles yourself and you should not use your admin position in this case. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as the arbcom has stated a number of times, the three revert war is not a license to revert war within limits. If he cannot edit within the expect norms of behavior - and so far, he has not - then he's going to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, I have myself had occasion to recently remind you of our long-standing norms against threatening to block users you are yourself in a dispute with. ArbCom has now made the non-involvement requirement more explicit, in two recently closed cases. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, first of all, as I see it, GoRight is within our expected norms, has engaged in thoughtful talk page discussion and has some support for some of his edits. Second, you are in an editorial dispute with him and your blocking him would be very inappropriate; you know that, I know that and so do 1000+ other admins. If this editor needs blocking, I suggest you ask another admin here rather than take it on yourself (this also protects you from hassles over admin abuse). Third, I think our traditional forms of dispute resolution are called for, not sanctions.


 * For what it's worth, I probably agree with you much more than with GoRight on many broader scientific and policy issues off-Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think GoRight is a civil editor with much to contribute. His talk page comments are well-written with reasoning is supported by our policies and guidelines (more so than some but not all of the opposing comments). We have time-proven dispute resolution processes and rules and we need to follow them.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, his talk page contributions are mostly form without content, fluff-pieces propped up by cherry-picked sentences from our policies. It's most obvious in the "global warming causes earthquakes" discussion here, where he insists on adding patent nonsense (or maybe he insists   that he was right to add nonsense albeit not insisting on actually adding it any more? Or may be he insists that his insistence is justified?) based on an MSNBC story that apparently he knew had already been withdrawn by other news outlets and that is based on a crank article in a crank "journal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that which you call "cherry picking" I call quoting the relevant portions of the text as a means of communicating effectively. I have never claimed that the policies don't apply in their entirety.  If you feel that there are portions of these policies that I am violating then please, by all means, "cherry pick" them with some discussion of how my material violates them so that we can objectively evaluate the merits of your claim.  --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. The text GoRight added was well sourced, even though I probably would not include it. But threats to block by an involved admin are way over the line here. When exactly did civility become a blockable offense? ATren (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rather more than a content dispute. The edit cited by Ncmvocalist at 05:13, 24 June 2008, for example, raises serious Biographies of living persons concerns.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a cited opinion piece from a large Canadian newspaper. I do happen to agree that it doesn't belong, but it's not so clear cut as you would make it and it's certainly not blockable. I've seen content disputes over blog-sourced criticisms in BLPs by respected editors; this claim sourced to a Canadian newspaper is tame by comparison. ATren (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What it amounts to is that one person writing an opinion piece has made a very serious charge about another person (which happens to involve a characterization of the latter's interactions on Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there). There are serious BLP concerns (one guy's factual and potentially defamatory statement is not normally to be given such weight in that context) and even without BLP it contradicts the general tenor of mainstream reporting on the matter (see WP:REDFLAG)).  There are enough concerns that, if the writer persists, and moreover if he has a history of pushing this line or similar ones, administrator action may become necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We typically don't make such judgements about reliably sourced claims, you know that. BLPs are littered with criticism from ideological opponents from published sources. If you keep acting naive to this fact, people might start accusing you of civil POV pushing. ;-) ATren (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that we are discussing the BLP of Fred Singer NOT William M. Connelly in this instance. The edit I provided was only meant to highlight the fact that the page in question is considered to be unfair and inaccurate by an independent 3-Party source as published in a reliable news outlet.  I have explained above (subsequent to your comment here) the rationale behind including the verbatum quote.  Given the desire of Raul and R. Baley to "protect" WMC I have offered a much more neutral statement, yet Raul still objects ... without following the customary rules of discussion by commenting on the Talk page I might add while accusing me of not abiding the rules.


 * With respect to WP:BLP (as it applies to the subject of the article, namely Fred Singer) and WP:RS I have provided an extensive analysis on the relevant talk pages to jutsify my position. If Raul or others disagree with that assessment let them offer substantive rationale on a point by point basis as to why.  A pocket veto of no response followed by a revert, a threat, and now action here is not what I think any of you would consider "within the norms of behavior" on wikipedia, and most especially not for an admin.  Do you disagree?


 * Raul labels me a Civil POV pusher, which I take as derogatory BTW, and which I find particularly ironic since he is doing exactly the same thing only he has the benefit of adminship to boot. Using techniques such as we see here to effectively silence his opposition, especially when such opposition is properly cited, is just as effective of a POV pushing technique as anything I am doing ... not that I agree that I am POV pushing in the first place.  Indeed, this is the entire point of the Solomon piece as it relates specifically to the Fred Singer BLP.  It is effectively being skewed by Singer's critics here at Wikipedia by preventing his supporters from making appropriate corrections.  This discussion is a case in point.


 * And I likewise object to the characterization of myself as being "disruptive". I am only being "disruptive" to the extent that I seek to add material, properly sourced, which is in point fact within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines but does not align with Raul's agenda here.  Apparently I may be "disruptive" from the perspective of Raul and others advancing their personal agendas on the GW pages, but I am most certainly NOT being "disruptive" from the perspective of attempting to bring a proper balance to the GW pages.  Merely posting things that Raul personally disagrees with does NOT equate to disruption.  --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * GoRight, BLP applies to all material about living persons regardless of article. Please familiarise yourself with the policy. In general, a single opinion piece is usually considered insufficient for an over-the-top claim like "second most powerful man in the world in the GW debate." -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point - nobody said he's been uncivil. He's a a POV pushing edit warrior who doesn't understand or abide by our basic policies regarding reliable sources, but nobody said he's uncivil. He has, however, been highly disruptive, and that is most assuredly blockable behavior. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, re-read what I said - I never said you called him uncivil - quite the opposite, in fact. I object to the link to Civil POV Pushing as if civility is some sort of a violation. The implication seems to be that you object to his civility in this dispute. As to the claim of POV pushing, his text was reliably sourced (even if I agree with you that it didn't belong) so it comes down to a judgement call between editors on two sides of a contentious topic. If repeated attempts to add sourced material is considered POV pushing, then repeated removal of that sourced material would seem to be POV pushing as well, no? ATren (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Raul, assuming what you say is true (and I don't buy it), you are not supposed to block editors with whom you are engaged in editorial disuptes. The community's rules on this are very clear: please see WP:BLOCK. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Raul, as for a topic ban, which you mention above, I think only ArbCom can institute one of those; I suspect they would want to see you pursue other forms of dispute resolution first (as I have already suggested). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the BLP allows for emergency action by involved administrators. In this instance I don't expect that Raul654 will have a problem persuading an uninvolved editor to act. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided direct and specific references to both WP:BLP and WP:RS with justifications for why my reference is applicable. All I get in return is hand waving assertions that I have somehow violated WP:BLP with respect to Fred Singer but with no specific substance or rationale to back up that side of the discussion.  It is blatantly unfair to just say, well, "because I think so" as Raul, and thus far yourself, have done.  Please quote for me the specific text from either WP:BLP or WP:RS that I have supposedly violated along with a direct discussion of how my contribution violates the indicated point.  Perhaps then we can atually discuss the merits of your argument as opposed to simply bickering endlessly.  --GoRight (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the update here. Hopefully, the matter ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's advisable for a block to be imposed by an admin who is considered involved - none of us want a very avoidable controversy and drama to follow.
 * This does not overlook the fact that edit-warring is unacceptable - it just means the tools should be used by someone else, regardless of the end result.
 * If the editor can control himself in his conduct (at least), then that's that. If he can't, then either a short block will need to be considered by an uninvolved admin. If it's something more, then as the community, we can institute a topic ban.
 * Please keep up with any updates here - I think we can afford to keep this open for about a week. Will ask an uninvolved admin for help if there's any major problems.


 * Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't see a clear-cut BLP violation. I see criticism of one notable figure by another quoted in an article. We have tons of that in our BLPs -- just look at articles like George W. Bush --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the statement in the op-ed is factual in nature, being an accusation of misconduct by a third party, there's no question about it: it's a BLP matter. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the edit I'd cited earlier? There's no need for emergency measures at this point - I'd cited that 2 days ago, and it hasn't continued since...has it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if Reliable Sources were to adopt the rule almost all wikipedia science articles use: Non peer reviewed sources are not reliable sources when reporting about novel scientific results. GoRight, Blue Tie and some other editors know that this is the rule used on the Global Warming article, but they will nevertheless add text from non peer reviewed and will then start to argue that it is consistent with official wiki policy. :( Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist, this is the William Connolley material that I am writing about:
 * In a May 2008 editorial, Lawrence Solomon, a critic of the accepted theories on global warming, called Connolley's influence on the global warming debate second only to that of Al Gore as a result of his position at Wikipedia.
 * As for the Fred Singer diff you provided earlier, I agree with your assessment. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol...that was not the sort of thing we drafted the BLP remedy for, but if an admin takes an emergency action under the BLP remedy based on that edit, they should expect to be squarely bonked on the head.
 * At this point, if the edit-warring is not contained on that article, then stronger measures may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. While I was not the author of that piece above, I have tried to defend it both through reverts and on the relevant talk page, and extensively so.  This serves as an example of the lengths to which the GW alarmists will go to censure even the mildest of criticism.  They find themselves in the position of arguing that WMC is NOT, in fact, influential which I suppose calls into question his notability ... although I have no objection to the William M. Connolley BLP but I would seek to have it treated comparably to the BLPs of the GW skeptics to which WMC himself frequently seeks to add negative material and in some cases from his own WP:SPS sources.  Prior to my recent actions on WMC's BLP it contained literally NO criticism or negative content which I contend is clear POV pushing by the editors there in light of the fact they are are aware that such information exists.  --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of process redirect being attempted (again) at Reaction to Tim Russert's death
There is a merge discussion happening at the above page, and now the users who failed to have the page deleted at AfD are attempting to redirect it during the middle of this discussion, apparently as a backdoor to getting their way. Also, there's some other guy named Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The that redirected it without even bothering to join the discussion first. Whatever side of the merge discussion one falls on, this is wildly inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "out of process" redirect. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When we're in the middle of a merge discussion, that you didn't even bother to join, after a contentious AfD, that you took no part in, then yes, there ARE out-of-process redirects, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. You did something that you had to KNOW would be contentious, in the middle of a discussion that was not even CLOSE to being finished. S. Dean Jameson 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion? If I recall correctly, you complained about the result of the AfD (which wasn't actually in your disfavor) here on ANI. When you didn't get what you wanted immediately, you "retired" from Wikipedia, saying you scrambled your password (which you clearly didn't do). Now, you come back just so you can revert a couple times and then start another ANI thread. Whatever discussion is taking place, or was taking place, on the talk page, you didn't seem interested in participating in it. --  tariq abjotu  15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted a notice here that people were trying to "merge" the article without having consensus to do so. The closing admin made an unorthodox statement that you guys tried to spin as justification for preemptive merging, which I also felt was in bad form. I became frustrated when it appeared that some of you were simply trying to bully your way into what you wanted, and yes, I scrambled my password. I then checked back to see how the discussion was progressing, and saw that some of the deletes (as well as one guy who hadn't participated at ALL in the discussion) were at it again, trying to remove the article without consensus. I requested a new password, was given one, and here I am again. My status has nothing to do with those of you who are trying to enforce a merge/deletion without consensus, and during the middle of the merge discussion, though. Please stay on topic. S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can all read what Sandstein said about the closure and it does not say what you suggest. We opened a merge request, as suggested by Sandstein, even though s/he made his/her position clear that a merge was in order; it just needed to be hashed out on the talk page. There were some new people who showed up for the new discussion, with merge again coming out on top (maybe even more so than in the AfD). I'm not sure what you're finally going to consider "consensus" and I'm not sure what you're expecting an admin to do about this anyway (we are at ANI). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a mechanism for an outside party closing a merge request (as you have clearly demonstrated in response to Anticipation / Tony's move). And it seems to me you're not very interested in how this current "discussion" progresses, given (as I will say again, because it's relevant) you stormed out early on and because you keep pointing your finger at supposedly bad-faith (and "bully"ing) delete voters when no such voters exist. --  tariq abjotu  16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read his talkpage? He made it CLEAR that his statement shouldn't be used to justify an immediate merge, but as a recommendation that a discussion about doing so take place. As for what I expect an admin to do, I would hope that if people keep trying to circumvent discussion by enforcing their own will, they would be blocked for it. It's completely unacceptable. S. Dean Jameson 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Be bold. Of course I've no intention of getting into a squabble over this, but as the Tim Russert article covers the events more than amply and more material can be copied from the history of the  Reaction to Tim Russert's death if it's really necessary, and moreover the redirect can be reverted at any time, my edit was utterly harmless and merely acted as a polite nod in what I consider to be a productive direction. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Being bold has nothing to do with usurping a discussion without ever having participated in any way, shape, or form. S. Dean Jameson 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, if there is an ongoing AfD discussion, how come there is no link to it at the top of the page?? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter for ANI; really. --  tariq abjotu  16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tariq. Listen, this is very simple:  As per WP:BRD, Anticipation did nothing wrong.  He boldly redirected the article.  He was then reverted, now we continue the discussion on the talk page.  I am not sure I agree with Horologium reverting it back two more times, after all, it is not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRD.  But the edit war seems to have stopped, so let's just let it go and continue the discussion. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, now Tariq is contentiously blanking/redirecting the page. This HAS to stop. In the middle of a discussion ABOUT whether this should happen, people should not be taking such actions. S. Dean Jameson 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit war still seems to be hot. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I said it had cooled off there had been no reverts in half an hour and I thought the editors had found something better to do. Urgh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now Fletcher has joined the tag-team blank/revert squad. Is this acceptable in this community? S. Dean Jameson 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we going to do anything about these editors tag-teaming in this way? There's no consensus for this action, yet they have worked together to enforce their position. S. Dean Jameson 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, five separate editors have attempted to merge the article, and you have reverted all of them. There was one additional revert (by ), but you have reverted five editors six times on two separate days. Maybe you should take that to mean that you are not the sole arbiter of the article's suitability.  Horologium  (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've offered to make a list of the editors who have opposed you. That they didn't happen to be online when you were trying to bully your way to backdoor deletion is beside the point. There's no consensus to do what you're doing.
 * I have S. Dean Jameson a 3RR warning. I have no comment on whether I feel there is really consensus or not to merge, but regardless of that, 3RR is not tolerated. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I've reverted as inappropriate, unless you warn the other editors involved in the edit war as well. S. Dean Jameson 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have three reverts. The next highest editor, by my count, has two reverts in the past 24 hours.  If any of them reach three reverts, I will warn them too.
 * One reason for the 3RR rule is to prevent a single editor from disrupting a de facto consensus. The fact that three other people are reverting your changes, and nobody is reverting them, should give you pause to question whether you are in the right here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ouch. S. Dean, none of the other editors you have reverted (or Everyking) has three reverts on this article. But, it's okay. Jaysweet, it's not necessary; S. Dean is already aware he's pushing it. --  tariq abjotu  17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's the "deletes" and "merges" that have a few people attempting to force their views without consensus doesn't make you any more right. No consensus equals keep. Not delete, redirect, or merge. Those are just the rules. S. Dean Jameson 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh... S. Dean is now canvassing on the talk pages of some of the keep !voters. --  tariq abjotu  17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh all you like. You had been citing their absence from the discussion as evidence of consensus, so I am making them aware of the discussion. There's nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, given both the limited audience AND the inflammatory language, it's a blatant attempt at Votestacking. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Inviting the "keeps" to a discussion that their absence was being used as some kind of "evidence" in is not inappropriate at all. And it's not a "vote" but a discussion. I've offered MULTIPLE times to make a list of all the people who made arguments against deletion/merging. They've never taken me up on it. I simply wanted the people with opposing views to be aware that the "no consensus" AfD they participated in was being backdoored by the deletes. Nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, everything wrong with that, your martyr act notwithstanding: you've selected only those sympathetic to your minority view -- and no matter how you spin it, it IS a minority view, at best -- AND used inflammatory language to urge them to act in exactly the way you want. That's textbook votestacking, and all the aggrieved bluster or rewriting reality won't change that. --Calton | Talk 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing wrong with that. I simply asked them to "participate" in the discussion, as they may not even be aware that it's happening, and their non-presence was being used as some kind of evidence. Insult me all you like, the fact remains that notifying people of a discussion doesn't equal votestacking. S. Dean Jameson 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your characterization is spin bordering on outright falsehood. You writing, The "deletes" from the AfD on Reaction to Tim Russert's death are attempting a backdoor delete is NOT simply asking them to "participate" by any stretch of the imagination, and adding meaningless clauses like "the fact is" doesn't make your falsehoods factual, given the evidence is plain to see. --Calton | Talk 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not. And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do. Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. S. Dean Jameson 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not.  - Don't make up things out of whole cloth; your odd interpretations of actual events are annoying enough. As for your loaded question, it's really hard to see what exists primarily in your imagination.
 * And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do.  Nooooo, that's not "informing" -- unless your personal dictionary conflates "information" with "propaganda" -- and certainly NOT a fair thing to do.
 * Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. - Your mindreading attempts notwithstanding, I don't know why they'd think that, considering that the AFD closer wrote, explicitly, Even though there's no consensus to delete, however, there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.--Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed on ANI? Is actual admin attention required here? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stated before, and I'll state again: if those who want the article deleted keep circumventing discussion by blanking/reverting, they should be blocked. S. Dean Jameson 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ain't gonna happen. They have not violated 3RR.  Previously uninvolved admin  has already indicated that there are not going to be administrative repercussions due to the redirect.  --Jaysweet (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (after E/C; response to Jameson's rant) You just don't get it, do you? There was no consensus for deletion; in that, just about everyone is in agreement. However, there was a CLEAR consensus to do something to the article, since two thirds of the people participating in the AFD wanted to either merge or delete the article. You (and one other editor) have reverted five separate editors who have attempted to merge the article into the main article, as is appropriate. There is no abuse here on the part of those attempting to merge, but you arguably should be blocked for Disruptive editing at this point. You have been told by MANY different editors that you are in the wrong here, including two who nominally supported your viewpoint at the AFD, but you are not listening.  Horologium  (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As to why it's still being discussed, you might want to have a chat with Mr Vexatious Litigant, above. --Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I got that. No need to antagonize him further, okay?  Thanks.
 * Dean, one advantage of a merge over a delete is that all of the edit history is still there for you to see -- so if a consensus should develop to restore the article, no admin assistance is necessary, you can just restore it.
 * One option you could look into would be to file a Request for Comment to try and get additional people involved, which might help establish consensus..? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly amenable to me. I just want the disruptive redirects in the middle of an open discussion to stop for now, that's all. Let's hash it out, and THEN make a decision. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK poor fact checking issues -- does it matter when articles on main page are wrong?
Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Wikipedia could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not quite the Oti, either. In fact, I think the location marker puts the park in Benin on the wrong side of a divide.  --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have felt for quite some time that our obsession with keeping DYK featuring only Wikipedia's newest articles results in a sacrifice in its quality. I really think we should drop or substantially alter the five-day limit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do recall a suggestion to use facts from recently listed Good Articles but I don't recall the outcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea--reward articles that have had people work on them and review them. I started a discussion at WP:Did you know, talk.[]  I would like to see more people care that the encyclopedia doesn't get its facts straight, and then highlights the incorrect facts along with plagiarized material on its front page. It's something I think the writers who get their facts straight and the writer who don't plagiarize would care about a lot.  Because someone of the other kind may be editing along side you discrediting your work.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should only do two updates a day, and require articles be 2500 characters. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't insinuate Blechnic that the people currently working on DYK don't care to "get the facts straight". I just spent three hours singlehandedly vetting DYK submissions for eight viable hooks for the current update. I don't recall seeing you there trying to help, nor in fact have I ever seen you trying to help on the submissions page. But you seem quite keen on criticizing the actual contributors who you claim don't "care" enough about the quality.


 * As for your criticisms - you claim that plagiarism and mistakes are rife on DYK but have only up to now provided a single example. So there is no evidence that this is a serious problem. We only have your word for it. But I must say I haven't actually seen you doing anything to correct any of these alleged problems, so again it appears to be a problem you want somebody else to fix. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A single example? No, they are all over the place. I just read one article, it's plagiarized.
 * Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized from this page. Maybe it's in the public domain, but it doesn't say that it is.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles written by Carol Spears that appeared on DYK were plagiarized. The article Deux Balés National Park moved one of Africa's major drainage basins to the other side of the divide. I haven't seen a single article on DYK that wasn't plagiarized or wrong. Are you going to correct Beth Wambui Mugo or shoot the messenger? I'm betting Wikipedians will continue to shoot the messenger--it's much easier than finding a solution. Actually, I tried to correct it the first time I found plagiarism in an article on the main page, I got attacked viciously by half a dozen editors and three admins, blocked for a week, and threatened with a ban if I ever tried it again, so don't tell me I haven't done anything.--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, the Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized, I have to take the rap for that one, I didn't check it thoroughly enough and it should be pulled from the front page and the DYK removed. But I can't do everything. We simply don't have enough people on the project, and while I've picked up many examples of plagiarism, one or two are bound to slip through. But I don't think we get that many.


 * As for Carol Spears, I didn't know about this case but we do rely to some extent on the good faith of our contributors, and if someone is routinely plagiarizing material it's not unusual on wikipedia for someone to take a while to pick it up. I can't actually recall Spears submitting any articles to DYK but maybe she did. So again, one or two examples do not prove there's a chronic problem. But anytime you do find plagiarism at DYK, by all means inform us so that we can deal with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Carol was the one promoting or suggesting the articles she wrote be put on DYK. I don't know who did. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have pulled the Beth Wambui Mugo article from the front page as a possible copyvio until further notice. Thanks Blechnic for picking that up. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This a direct product of DYK's current format, the fact that articles appearing there are usually 2 - 5 days old precipitates the ammount of these situations. If DYN is supposed to attract interest to articles, then we should try to rotate it towards Stub/Start class articles that we already have, those are becoming more ignored by established users. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the current system, any article expanded over 5 times is eligible. That is an incentive to work on start and stub class articles. For instance, I took Christopher Smart to 50k and submitted it to DYK. There are many people like myself that do such work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plagiarism in DYK articles before as well. I feel fairly confident that I could create an article based on plagiarized content and submit it to DYK and it would pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Caribbean H.Q., find a way to reward responsible contributors: those who don't plagiarize, who spend the necessary time to write an article, and wind up with just a stub or start class article. It takes me five days to write an opening paragraph for a brochure on a plant pest, and that's after every else has done the research, and I've read their research.  Yes, Akhilleus, it would be pretty easy.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess one step we could quickly take would be to formulate sanctions for those who submit copyvios to DYK. First offence - three month ban from submitting articles to DYK. Second offence - indef ban from DYK. Something like that should help deter users who are tempted to take short cuts in order to gain a DYK award. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the DYK medal by itself makes much difference to article-writing incentive. If a person thinks purely along these lines, they would have to write 50 articles to get 2 medals. It's much easier to get barnstars by grandstanding, etc. Writing articles is not an efficient way to get barnstars, in the case of a person who planned their wiki-routine on optimising their barnstar count, they would not write articles. As for things being on the main page, a lot of FAs with blogrefs, non-RS, COI references have made it on the front page. That's not to say anything about articles with deliberately concealed POV pushing etc. A lot of articles are only of interest to the author, or people from a certain country or ethnic group, in which case the person/group can do whatever they want to.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we both know that elides the question of misuse of DYK. The star is used as a relatively low-cost way of attempting to demonstrate "productivity" by otherwise disruptive SPAs. This is not to say I don't submit some of my own and others' articles to the template myself, but to overlook the the incentive structure here would be inappropriate. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK are supposed to include hooks that are cited in the main body of the text. With that in place, there should be no copyvios (as cited) and it should meet verifiabiltiy (as cited). As such, there really is no problem with DYK, and there should be no alterations to it. The admin who work DYK put a lot of effort into it and perform a thankless task. Perhaps we should instead take the opportunity to actually thank their contribution that dramatically helps Wikipedia as a whole instead of bringing up issues that aren't actually issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of both articles, I apologise for any inconveniance I have caused. The park coordinates was a mistake, and I completely messed up on that one. As for Mugo, I automatically assumed Kenya was the same as the US in terms of government sources, and I would like clarity on the issue. I was on a wikibreak while all this occured, and I am not cutting corners to work for the 50 DYK barnstar; instead, it is simply an area that I work a lot in. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know Kenya's copyright laws, but why not always state clearly that it is copied verbatim from a source, or simply rewrite it? It wasn't particularly well written, which is how I knew it was a copyright violation or plagiarism or just plain copied and pasted.
 * Ottava Rima, are you saying that any crap that winds up on the main page to the shame of Wikipedia should be left there? Interesting since not a single person responsible for the crap agrees.  Thank you Editorofthewiki for simply apologizing for the park coordinates mess up and saying you blew it.  If you need help in the future on West African geography, or fact checking on west African geography, geology, or natural history, let me know.  I can usually add some specific details, and link appropriately.  I also know some of the geopolitical boundaries, like Black Volta Province is called Mouhoun, and can verify information like this, and often source it.    --Blechnic (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I appreciate what the DYK admins do, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I don't blame the admins, but I do find fault with the system. And just to clarify this: I've been opposed to the five-day limit for quite some time; not just because of this incident. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Using pejoratives to describe pages does not mean that there is a problem. DYK is there to supply interesting information to draw people towards a new page so they can start editing. All that is required is an interesting fact that is provided in the body of the text and cited. If it is cited, it cannot be a copyright violation, unless it is a quote over 300 words (aka fair use). Regardless, your problem seems to be with the pages that happen to be on DYK, not the hooks which are displayed on the main page. DYK does not cover the pages. It only covers the hooks. If you feel that there is a copyright violation, please go to WP:CP. However, it is the article, and not the DYK, that would be the problem. Your anger is misplaced. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll write the word shit 500 times in an article, then put in a good hook, well-referenced, and researched: this meets your criterion for a DYK. No, you've made assumptions that have no basis in actual Wikipedia policy.  I could be wrong, please do provide me with a link to the policy that says any crappy article that has a single good line, well-reference can be a DYK.  Oh, look, when describing the hooks, here's the language: "While we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles, articles dealing with living persons are especially sensitive. Please keep the Biography of Living Persons policy in mind."  Notice it doesn't say "accuracy and neutrality in the hook," but rather, "accuracy in all articles."  This is what an encyclopedia strives for: accuracy.  Keep dismissing its importance all you want, but it just makes Wikipedia look like shit.  --Blechnic (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Spamming content into an article is a disqualifier for DYK, and it is one of many things checked. Each article is reviewed before being processed for something as obvious as that. However, it is not the job of the DYK admin to search for every sentence in order to find an unattributed citation. It is not the place of the DYK, nor should it be. DYK deal only with hooks and the size of an article/content needed for such. There is a forum for copyright violations. If you feel that you have found some, please take it there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, by all means, remove that sentence about article content from the DYK page, so that their idea of the requirements conforms to yours, rather than letting readers think the page describe the DYK process and guidelines, instead of you being the only one that describes it. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blechnic, I am at a lost to see what you are actually asking. I can quote directly from the page, if you wish, but I am sure that you can easily scan over the page and see that my information conforms to what is said here. Now, I believe your only problem is with the articles themselves, and that you cannot put forth an argument that directly links the DYK process to the copyright violations. So, I suggest that you work with the WP:CP investigators and you can patrol the DYK candidate list hunting them down if you prefer. Heaven knows that Wikipedia needs eager volunteers willing to scan for copyright violations, and you have made it abundantly clear that you have such desire and eagerness. Your contribution would be a great boon for the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in copyrights. What I do is something few people do on Wikipedia: I write articles about African agricultural pests and about tropical African vegetation and geography and biodiversity. I think that moving from working in an area where I have knowledge that almost no one else on Wikipedia has, to an area where I don't have knowledge but a lot of people argue against me as if they are experts, is not a situation that would have a positive benefit for Wikipedia.  This is a chronic suggestion to Wikipedia editors with any type of rare knowledge: why you don't join in some general pursuit, where many people have knowledge, instead of focusing on that narrow area where we're missing hundreds of major articles?  It's curious.
 * I quoted from the page on Did you know, by the way. It didn't seem to communicate anything to you.
 * It's clear this is not an issue of great concern on Wikipedia: accuracy. Even though the DYK selection criteria, under "the hook," says, "we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles" you're here to fight me to the death that "accuracy in all articles" is not part of DYK.  They state it.  That long quote is a copy and paste, but, damn, you're going to beat that idea out of me.  Please, go beat it out of the DYK page you keep quoting from and claiming it doesn't say what I just pasted from it.  But, clearly, Wikipedians think that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy, and strives to avoid accuracy, and they're going to go all out to sock it to anyone who thinks that it means something when Wikipedia guidelines say "we strive for accuracy in all articles."
 * I can't fight you. You refuse to read what's there for some reason, or refuse to believe it, or refuse to acknowledge it.  I can only read what's there, and can't ignore it willfully like you might be doing.  It's there.  That's all.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about anyone fighting here? If I have a problem reading, then I have a problem reading. You feel that there is a problem with Wikipedia. I offered you a place that deals with such problems. You say it is with DYK, but it has already been demonstrated that they only deal with hooks. What exactly do you want? You claim to be too busy working on pages to patrol for copyright violations, but you are here telling us about all of the copyright violations you have found. Could you at least submit those to the copyright violations board so they can be processed? This is a place to deal with incidents that happen based on users. Is there one user causing a problem? If so, please put up the diffs, explain what the user is doing, and make a case. If its some greater philosophical idea or a change, take it to village pump. If you want to aid with the removal of copyright information, take it there. There are plenty of options and ways to act. You already offered yourself as knowing of tons of problems with violations, so I will emphasis the latter once again. As you admitted, you already put in the time researching about all of the problems. Now please finish by submitting it to the appropriate location so it can be dealt with. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn. I did.  I was personally attacked. I was harassed.  I was blocked.  The problem is not a one incident problem that you can't seem to get beyond, it's an ongoing lack of concern about dealing with the problem.  And this needs more widespread attention.  Since you're not interested in reading or understanding what I have to say, there is no point in your speaking to me about what you haven't read or bothered to understand.  So, please take your own advice and finish by submitting yourself to the proper location, one you're bothered to read and understand.  Thanks.  --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that if you would have used the copyright violation noticeboard, the above things would have happened. I also believe that your misplaced criticism upon DYK may have resulted from the history you have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Sock puppet hysteria, revisiting years of in-fighting, it's not about the encyclopedia's quality. --Blechnic (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with badly maintained DYK largely stems from a poor admin-corps. It is by far more fun to hang out at drama boards and IRC then update the DYK page and check the articles to appear on the mainpage for compliance with policies. In fact, the entire DYK work is done by a handful of admins, and when they are not around, the page does not get updated for many hours after the deadlines. For a while I tried to check articles within the areas of my knowledge and was often pointing out to their poor referencing, POV pushing, misleading hooks, etc. only to get badmouthed by the article's proponents with DYK admins not getting involved for their being too few. It is never too late for ANI/IRC admins to make their DYK editing debut and concern themselves with content of this project. --Irpen 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be an administration obsession with drama that interferes with a diversity of needs being well met. What's IRC?  Thanks for the post, this was needling me, but I couldn't quite identify it, what is incongruous about Wikipedia: it's stated goal versus the means of actualizing it that has been adopted by many in the community (writing the encyclopedia versus watching the drama unfold).  --Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IRC = Internet relay chat. It's what we had to use for real-time communication before kids had instant messaging. It's still very useful for group chats. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with DYK is a problem endemic to the project as a whole. In the race to create and catalog as much information as possible, the core principles on certification and citation of all information are almost always bypassed. When these objections are noted, the objectors are treated as pariahs who want to destroy content and tear apart the fabric of the encyclopedia.


 * The promotion of DYK articles clearly needs to be overhauled. Everyking's suggestion on slowing down that process is a good one. The rules that govern promotion of articles in DYK should be enforced on all articles in consideration without exception. If an article isn't cited, it shouldn't be promoted. The DYK awards process should be suspended since it does not encourage the creation of quality articles, only the creation of more articles. Anyone who is caught plagarizing articles should be prohibited from making future DYK suggestions (and/or blocked completely). Plagarism has never been treated with a soft touch here and I don't know why DYK is under exclusion in this respect. For an editor to plagarize an entire article from another source -even if that source is in the public domain- and then submit that work as their own to DYK is troubling, to say the least. I don't have much confidence that this practice will end with this thread, so again all suggestions should be scrutinized for copyright violations and this can be most effectively executed by slowing down the process, as Everyking notes below. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no proof to verify that copyright issues are a problem, and based on the limited amount of DYK chosen per day, Admin are selecting the best available. There is no just cause to prompt such a dramatic change. There is a copyright notice board. It is sufficient enough. If you feel that copyright issues exist, be bold and report them there yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been several examples cited already. Given how easily these were overlooked, I would call it a problem. Considering the haste in which DYK articles are promoted, I doubt the noticeboard would a very effective tool in combatting plagarism in DYK. Criticizing me for not reporting copyright violations won't be a very effective argument since it doesn't solve the larger problems at DYK. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out any examples that haven't already been addressed, and please point out where on the copyright violation forum these examples have been placed to show that people are putting them through the proper channels. There is no "haste" about any DYK articles, and all copyright violation articles, if they are to such extremes, have been deleted. The hooks are directly cited. That ensures they are not a violation, and the main page has no actual copyrighted material on it. You are attacking DYK without just cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a bad idea to slow down the DYK process and post fewer articles at a time to ensure better quality. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a recently completed discussion that's a little bit related. DYK is used as a process to add interesting content to the main page, a laudable goal. It's also used somewhat as a process of rewards, look how many DYK's I've got! To the extent that DYK is a reward, it will tend to have the same perverse incentives as the recently-disposed-of Award Centre. I've often wondered why an interesting fact added to any article would not be worthy of a DYK. Perhaps a rethinking of the entire process is in order. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is not about finding current articles. Its about promoting new articles. It would defeat the whole justification of having a DYK . Its not about something interesting. It is about having something interesting in a new topic that would draw people in to editing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to exclusively promote new articles, rather than articles of all sorts of "ages", in this way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the main reason DYK was formed was over the fact that new articles rarely get as many views, and would lack editors. That right there is a major reason. Established pages don't need a bump. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Far from the truth. Long-standing articles frequently languish in obscurity, and could most definitely use a bump.
 * But anyway, we're a bit off-topic for this noticeboard, I think, as this sort of discussion probably should occur on an appropriate talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is just logically unsound. If a substantial article "languishes" then it is a topic that deserves to languish. New topics need a bump to draw in those who wouldn't have known an article on a topic existed. There is a huge difference between a red link turning into a blue link, and a topic that no one really cares about. All topics have a chance to become DYK. If they didn't, then they probably didn't deserve to be, or no one put the effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK Joining threads >>>
There's a more extensive thread at >>> here on the DYK talk page

Please continue discussion there!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania
A new(?) user is deleting referenced material, adding unreferenced information, messing up the whole infobox etc.. On the talk page a conversation started, but meanwhile the article is going through rapid changes. What to do in a situation like that? I can't solve the situation by simply adding referenced material (which I usually do), because the infobox may contain only one information. Semi-protection does not protect against users with an account. I'd like to ask an administrator to revert the article to the last version before Idsocol got "involved". The changes since are questionable to say the least. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Squash Racket, I think it's a little bit early to discuss the issue here as long as the discussion on the talk page didn't end until now.--Olahus (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just like the new user, you too were editing the article in an arbitrary way as the diffs above show despite having no concensus on the talk page (even keeping the changes of the new user like nothing happened). Squash Racket (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * no, no it hink that I have resolved this issue already.

Just asking: is Smith Jones an administrator closing a thread on ANI? Squash Racket (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he is not. Do you feel that his closure of the thread was inappropriate? Antelan talk  00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I got exactly zero answers for my concern mentioned above. The infobox of the article looks messy right now, referenced material disappeared, and I don't want to edit war over it. Please see the page history, you feel everything is just fine there? Squash Racket (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:PrisonBreakguy
Continued use of edit summaries to insult other editors. Examples:, , and. After being warned about the edit summaries (by numerous editors besides myself, (although he has blanked his page repeatedly, old version here), he takes his rudeness to the warning user's talkpage instead. examples: and  Nar Matteru (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for a recent, relatively minor instance of incivility: ; taken alone, it's not much, but upon review of their edit history and truly extraordinary number of previous warnings, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. If his behavior resumes upon the block expiring, I'd suggest going straight to indef, rather than gradually escalating blocks, as some people just don't get it, and there's no sense spending too much of our time hoping and praying that they will. --barneca (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good block. I see you noted the need to remodel their interaction upon the block expiry at their talkpage, but without any persuasive reason (such as, "or the next block will likely be of considerably longer duration"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I tweaked my message. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor changing BCE/CE to BC/AD
-- the bad guys have been blokked. This may be too trivial for this board, but it doesn't fit anywhere else. has been warned repeatedly for systematically converting BCE/CE to to BC/AD. According to the Manual of Style, "[i]t is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." A block may be appropriate. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best on WP:AIV, but fair point and blocked for a short time. Black Kite 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and he's back, this time as . --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Black Kite 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing
I seek help with removing some personal attacks aimed at me for my off-wiki activities. On Talk:J. Michael Bailey, User:WhatamIdoing states that I "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape." My requests for her to remove this false statement went unanswered, and instead she escalated things to a BLP noticeboard posting which outlines why she thinks I am a bad person and is thus entitled to make such assertions. I responded there, but no one stepped in, and her accusations and rhetoric continue to escalate. This clearly violates Wikipedia policies. I've edited here with all kinds of people who find my off-site activism odious, from white supremacists to alternative medicine practitioners, without incident. Since User:WhatamIdoing refuses to discuss this one-on-one, I'm hoping someone can help me out. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You feel you have the right to attack someone's INNOCENT CHILDREN in a extremely vile and hateful fashion and hide behind "satire" IRL, but start bleating about "personal attacks" and demand protection when someone draws attention to your reprehensible off Wikipedia behaviour on Wikipedia? If you can't take it then you shouldn't dish it out. Exxolon (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My research is finding some interesting things. When exactly did you decide it was acceptable to refer to someone's five year old son as a "precious womb turd"? Quite frankly there should be MORE documentation of your off wiki behaviour here if this is the sort of thing you think is okay. Exxolon (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Exxolon. While I don't presume to judge whether your real-life statement was harmful and/or tasteful, it should not influence a discussion in which you are clearly discussing the article in an impassionate, neutral manner, and addressing legitimate questions of sourcing. A person's editing should never be restricted based on a belief that they are morally reprehensible; let them be judged by their actions as editors. Dcoetzee 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing any restriction on their editing. If you read carefully they are asking for restrictions on another editor Exxolon (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet more hypocrisy. This editor has an advert/post on their site for "TransYouth Family Allies" of which they are apparantly a director which has part of it's manifesto "TYFA envisions a society free of suicide and violence in which ALL children are respected and celebrated." - unless they are the children of someone whose opinions you disagree with in which case they are fair game for whatever crap you feel like throwing at them. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply asking WhatamIdoing not to make things up about me, and I have asked her to remove that misinformation. And if people want to berate me for off-wiki conduct, that should probably happen off-wiki. It's disruptive here. Jokestress (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I had said here that W's behavior had turned outrageous. In followup email conversations, it becomes increasingly clear that W is unable to separate strong personal feelings from the kind of thought that is needed to be a sensible wikipedia editor. Personally, I would think a stern warning is in order; accusing a fellow editor of making libelous accusations is not much different from making legal threats. It appears that Exxolon has the same problem, or has bought into the same "facts"; I doubt that either of these individuals has even seen the actual content that they are so appalled by, but even if they have, that old event that is not documented in reliable sources is not a reason to attack a fellow editor; like Jokestress says, you don't have to like her or what she has done, but off-wiki problems should stay off. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yoshihiko
User is back - see  Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive436. On 21 June he (or she) uploaded a lot of copyright images and laboriously upgraded the article IdeaPad from a factual article to a glossy advertisement. He then went on a recipe rampage, uploading a stream of recipes for Spanish fried rice, Italian Fried Rice, etc. His only response to strings of messages and appeals to stop was to blank his talk page from time to time. Eventually he was blocked for 31 hours and reverted. Now he's back working on IdeaPad again, uploading more copyright images and blanking his talk page. I have reverted it and tried again to explain, but I seriously doubt if he understands English. Can anyone think of what to do, short of an indef block? The name sounds Japanese, but another previous string of edits were to Wuzhou, so maybe Chinese? JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left her (name ends in "-ko", a Japanese indication of femininity) an ANI-notice but also advised that she needs to listen to other editors. -- Rodhull andemu  22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left him/her a message in Spanish. I'll try Chinese and Japanese next as that user seems to have an asian user name.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noted the ko. I had thought it was only part of the name. So I left the user a note in three languages first common then Chinese and Japanese.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This user should be blocked for spamming. Repeated attempts to communicate have not done anything; this might. The pages are unquestionably spam. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The user should be blocked. Even attempts in multiple languages has prove fruitless. This user is clearly not here to edit properly this is most evident from her lack of communication.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, she has yet again blanked her talk page and is still uploading images, and still getting copyright notices. I have blocked her indefinitely, on the basis that this does not mean "forever", but she should heed advice, and talk to us. The ball is in her court. -- Rodhull andemu  22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is a child - able to copy and paste, but with no idea how to respond to messages except by blanking them and hoping they'll go away? JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible, but all she needs to do is to ask a friend "what does this mean?". I'm wondering why she's contributing here rather than ja:wiki, for example. You might think she'd be more at home there if English is not her first language. Or have I missed something? -- Rodhull andemu  23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked her to respond in the kindness way I could. I will translate all to Japanese shortly.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I thought my Japanese was good enough to translate that but it isn't. Can some one else? <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"> Rgoodermote Not an admin  23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The most obvious conclusion here is that they're a Lenovo employee, a Chinese firm, promoting the IdeaPad. The rest is explainable by their being a newbie with limited knowledge of English. They're here because they're looking to promote to the English-speaking market. I suggest we grab a zh admin to explain conflict of interest to them. Dcoetzee 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note for zh:User:Smartneddy, an established zh administrator, to point him here and see if he can help (their admin noticeboards seem to be protected at the minute). -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image experiment
I'm having a break from admin stuff, for various reasons. But I thought it'd be an idea, during this time, to experiment to see how well our copyright policy is enforced. It was quite enlightening. I removed, per policy, a large amount of WP:NFCC-failing images from a number of articles, using a throwaway account. It is intriguing to see that a number of our users appear to believe that "consensus" (i.e. they would like to see pictures in their articles) is more important than policy. Some histories for you - most editors at articles eventually understood our policies, but one particular group appeared to believe that our policies don't apply to them; one two; three, preferring to claim that some sort of "consensus" amongst editors that edit these articles holds sway. It is unsurprising, therefore, that large numbers of featured articles fail our own policies. The question is, what are we going to do about it? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your second and third link are identical. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed my own incompetence :) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed per policy 7, but that states One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.  How is that relevant? RMHED (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "7" is a typo in the edit summary - see below for policies. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find a policy specific to lists, just this guideline. RMHED (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I think you are misreading policy. Could you explain the removal of the images?  Hobit (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. They fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8.  In fact there couldn't be a clearer example really, and we've been through the "non-free images in lists" thing numerous times (see below). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not Kite, but speaking as an editor who was extremely involved when we actually started enforcing this in lists of x articles a little over a year ago, The image must not be decorative and must be the subject of commentary/criticism to qualify as fair use. Lists do not get in depth enough to satisfy the second part, and are by definition at that point decorative. There's a couple AN subpages dedicated solely to this, as well as myriad other pages. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If they're used for identification, then it's not just decorative. That's not to say that any image used for identification necessarily meets C#8, but this misuse of rhetoric is getting a bit out of hand. — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 07:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User requesting block of itself?
. Anybody an idea why the IP is marking its own host as being an open proxy? I can't see any abuse from this host so far, and it's not actually blocked. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an open proxy and it's now been blocked by another admin. Chances are, the edit was made by someone who was testing to see if it was open. Some admins on here do that. It's no biggie, so don't worry about it - A l is o n  ❤ 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not at all worried about it, I was only confused, because in general, IP's are blocked because they use open proxies in an abusive way. They won't usually report themselves for a potential abuse. Never mind. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

 * Copied from User talk:Giovanni33 per request. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a period of one week per Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Upon reviewing New antisemitism and its talk page, it appears that you have not discussed your changes to the lead since last month. Also, you have been slow edit warring on the article, as opposed to seeking a consensus for your edits by discussing them. This block will be added to Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's, and I will make a comment at WP:AE. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. You certainly haven't addressed your last two reverts to the lead as far as I can tell. Also, your second link was to a comment made after you had already been reverted. A comment made after your change has already been reverted cannot possibly comply with the requirements of your parole. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at and . It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.[] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And why, precisely, should Giovanni33 get the privilege of having his unblock requests transcluded to WP:ANI? What's wrong with the normal channels? Jtrainor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he's got an active RfAr. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. RfAr is wrapping up.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose block. It appears that Giovanni has been engaging in discussion and has been observing his requirement to not revert more than once per week. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose block. The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbitrary [sic] Committee is not legitimate? It's a good thing that users of this website have been directly instructed to ignore such reasoning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ridiculously poor block. The fellow kept to his revert parole, and nobody discussed matters with him on the talkpage. If that's an incorrect reading of the situation, perhaps a little more data is required. But on reading the above, I see no reason for the block. -- Relata refero (disp.)
 * Oppose block: I think he did everything that was required of him, and stuck to the 'parole'. Putting aside the current RFAR, unblocking is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: if not blocked for this, he will be blocked anyway by Arbcom, and perhaps this plethora of legal threats that keep coming from him and we keep ignoring per WP:DFTT would be enough? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good block, of course. Not only did Giovanni33 not discuss the obvious revert, but his block has been supported on his Talk: page by the administrators User:PhilKnight and User:Pilotguy. This is someone who has been blocked so many times that the "older 50" link is actually live when you look at his block log. And why are we discussing the topic here anyway, rather than the usual place, his Talk: page? Why does he get special treatment? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block and perhaps lengthen Why Giovanni thinks he can flout policy and from arbcom rulings concerning him is beyond me. I'm suprised he hasn't been indefed yet. Jtrainor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can impose a community ban for the time-being; but ArbCom are going to impose a stronger and more effective ban soon. So I'll ask the question - is there any admin who'd be willing to unblock? In the absence of a yes, and with even 1 more response of no, I think we're done here - and it could be extended as indefinite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. User is clearly disruptive, and per above. Lengthen would probably be a good idea. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - responding to Ncmvocalist: any extension of the block to indefinite is likely to be reset by ArbCom to one year, and then voted on again by ArbCom at the end of that year. That is not a "stronger and more effective ban", it is a fairer and more effective ban, that will discourage appeals to the community or single administrators willing to unblock, but still leave open the avenue of appeal to ArbCom. I presume you have read the remedies they are voting on? The community can impose a ban separately, but please don't conflate the two. In my view, it is best to leave well alone and let the arbitration close without muddying the waters. This feels like rushing to impose a community ban before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of interpretation. Given the limited scope of appeal, and specified duration, I do think it's a stronger measure. Categorising it that way does not mean it's unfair, or otherwise.
 * The community ban does not, will not, nor is intended to affect the Committee's decision. It's (as always) a preventative measure only. An indefinite period is because there is no definite period by which the decision may be enforced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Jayjg for telling me about this discussion. Given that I've already declined an unblock, I obviously confirm that in my understanding the ArbCom restrictions have been applied correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor's identity outed at Open Office XML
An editor has been outed, and his real life identity has been revealed. See the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML. It began some days ago with this edit by, which cross-matches external web pages to identify the editor. The particular links have been removed, but the identity of the user is still visible. also added the person's real name to his post. The identified editor has not returned to Wikipedia since the outing. Here is a message I sent to user:Ghettoblaster, and a message I sent to user:Warren about the incident.

The article is a hotbed of edit waring. I'm not sure if you also want to deal with that issue, but on my subpage is a documentation of the edit waring on one of many content disputes happening simultaneously. The place is a madhouse! Looking down the article history will show more reverts. I note that has already been blocked multiple times for edit waring on this and related OOXML pages. -- Lester  10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out in the discussion on my talk page, I was not aware of breaking any Wikipedia policies by adding a conflict of interest warning with proper references to the original discussion. I removed the real name of the editor in question and the weblinks from the discussion as soon as I found the Wikipedia outing guideline. My intention was to inform other faithful contributors that the editor in question in all likelihood had a confict of interest. I have already been informed that I posted my findings at the wrong place and I will add all my findings to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard later. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think a google search on the user's handle is a big deal. WP:OUTING is a bit of an over reaction, mostly caused by cases of stalking and intentional harassment from the past.


 * Also, the irony of this situation is that these kinds of posts attract more attention than the situation normally would have. It seems this was already resolved on the article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The links have been removed, but the guys place of work is listed on the first post, and his real name is still listed on the second post. It's still there now. I pleaded with the authoring editors to remove it, to no avail. I was hoping someone here would remove it. It's a sad way for an editor to be knocked out of Wikipedia by having his identity exposed. -- Lester  12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to take things into context. This guy is using the exact same handle for his public e-mail address, and probably other websites, where he lists his real name. This really isn't private information at this point. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would indeed like an admin to take notice how several editors aided by quite a lot of anonymous edits repeatly removed information from an article even after 6 or 7 reputable sources to substantiate the information that Office Open XML is and free file format and open format file format were introduced. I would suggest an admin look into the use of sockpuppets by any of the users that were removing the words free and open from the article. I would note that already twice people with a grudge against Office Open XML have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting whilst editting the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ned on this. Context is everything. This is a fellow who has been writing his own bio, posting his own photos of himself, posting links to his own workplace and using a username that is directly associated with him. I think he's basically outed himself and I really don't see how this can reasonably be seen as a violation of the harassment policy which excludes cases where an "editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself". I also agree that posting these kinds of cases to ANI is not the best way to handle it because it's only going to draw heaps of attention to the "outing". I think it's better to deal with it quietly and privately, if possible, Lester. Sarah 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The link between the outed editor's real name and wiki name were found externally by Googling, then published on the OOXML article talk page. It could not have been proven without looking at external websites. If that is now acceptable practice on Wikipedia, I will remember that next time. The outed editor seems to have left Wikipedia as a result, which to me is sad. -- Lester  02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lester, you're not going to stop editors from looking people's usernames up on Google. I've done it myself and I know many others have, too. So I'm not surprised that an editor who suspected someone was spamming Wikipedia with external links to their own articles and writing self-promotional content would check Google and then identify the conflict of interest. Sure, they could have identified the COI in a better and more discrete way but I'm still not seeing an egregious privacy violation that warrants the use of admin tools. You seem to think the guy stopped editing because of this but I think you're just assuming that and I strongly doubt it myself. He was never a regular editor and has only ever edited very sporadically and months apart, mostly (though not always) only returning when he has a link to add to another page, so I suspect that he likely doesn't even know about this issue and will be back again when he has another article he wants to spam. The guy has been using Wikipedia for self promotion, adding links to his own off-site articles into articles, including, I believe, the OOXML article. This is a conflict of interest issue, as far as I can see. After originally seeing this report, I went to the OOXML talk page to delete the edit in question from the history but upon reviewing the evidence further I reached the conclusion that this guy has outed himself and never attempted to conceal his identity. He hasn't tried to protect his own privacy on Wikipedia but rather seems to have been quite open about who he is by using this pseudonym and posting his own "self" images and so forth, so I don't understand what you're looking for here. What is is that you're looking for? Please explain what you would like me to do as an administrator. Sarah 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I do agree with you about the edit warring on that page as listed here User:Lester/free&open and I intend protecting it if it continues. Sarah 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any serious "outing" here. From what I can see, the user had effectively done that already.  Warren removing the information would be largely symbolic since the edit would remain in history.  This hasn't enabled anything that someone could not already investigate with fairly minimal effort if they were detirmined to find this individual's name.  As was said before, no significant personal information beyond that was released either.  -- <font color="midnightblue">Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Insults from user MauritiusXXVII
I want to report that the user MauritiusXXVII has insult me on this talk page saying me"xenophobic and racist user". It is not the first time to do it so i would beg some administrator to block him because this behavior is not admitted on Wikipedia. Even he make a call to other users to go against me on this same edition. He has gone beyond the tolerable limits.

He does not like my edition on Chile article but you can check yourself that Chile is painted in green on third world map and it is listed on the developing countries article so he is trying to deny the reality.

He is involved on edit warrings on Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Notice that he (and other user) does not accept what prestigious sources say so he undo it all my editions to change them for his thoughts. And notice he has not supported his editions with sources but only his points of view, even when he brought a source he falsified it .I am editing with sources and do not waste the time to reply all his offensive comments against me on my page talk, so i want protection from injury. I want to be able to edit on Wikipedia without suffering mobbing.--Sclua (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it hilarious that Sclua is complaining about personal attacks, see the third warning on his talk page about making petty vengeance edits on Chile, all of them reverted by uninvolved editors and my warning for using edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying [].


 * See the previous ANI thread where Sclua is reported for personal attacks and POV and winds up doing again personal attacks against me and Maurice, questioning my neutrality, implying that it's ok to answer to "you push a catalan POV" with "you are anti-catalan", and a long etc.


 * Add to this: repeated attempts to remove and misquote sources with a clear POV bias, blanking of warnings on his talk page with complains of harassing against him, and jumping with accusations of fascism, nationalism, liying and POV pushing against anyone questioning any of his sources.


 * I guess it's time to start a RFCU. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to point the admins to my past report about Sclua, which remained unsolved. The situation has got worst and worst. I beg the Admins to seriously take action about this situation.

This user has repeatedly been breaking Civility, No personal attacks and Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:
 * Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be '''Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
 * Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:
 * "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
 * "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

After calling me "Southamerican" in a clearly despective and disruptive way, he decided to vandalize (there is NO other way of calling it) the article of Chile, just because I have some userboxes in my talk-page related to that Country and that Sclua believed I was a citizen.

He vandalized the article a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

Each and every time but the last (which was me), it has been other users who have expressed their nonconformity with these edits as you may see here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Tangerines) and here (user:Likeminas).

Even another user claims having reported him for this behavior here

It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... user Sclua is consistently attacking this article simply in order to personally attack me. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

As per WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL: "Some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I asked in Chile's talk-page for other users' help to revert what is clearly vandalism and personal attacks against me (and all the people of Chile), something I believe Wikipedia (and his admins) should IN ANY WAY tolerate. But User Sclua blanked it.

I ask the admins to take a look at Sclua's talk-page and see the enormous history of warnings this user has have... All of them blanked each and every time by him.

User Sclua has just limited his contributions to erase, criticize, insult, revert good faith and referenced edits by other users in articles related to Catalonia and to vandalize the article of Chile.

User Sclua is clearly not assuming the good faith edits by other users and is privileging of the passivity of the admins to warn or block him for his disruptive behaviour.

I believe my point sufficiently explained but I am open to bring further explanations and references if the admins desire so. --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are now discussing a Request for Comment - this is a good idea. Do that.  In the meantime, I have warned Sclua to stop adding "Third World Country" to Chile over and over again, and have told him to stop his POV-warring on the Coat of arms of Catalonia article. Maurice, one thing you did that didn't help was revert on Sclua's talk page to reinclude your warnings after he removed them.  Please don't do that again, it doesn't help things. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia). And notice that Enric Naval lied when said that Periku was blocked due to his request when the reality was that Spanish admin rejected his request.
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] If someone tells a lie then is a liar and the phrase "red bars" was a lie, simply. I see Enric naval defending personal insults due to my edits-warring. Incredible incoherence with what he told the other day "Sclua's excuse for being uncivil is that others have been uncivil first, but that's not a excuse for incivility."
 * [[Image:Stop.png|25px]] I could fill their both talk pages with a lot of warnings but i am not here to waste my time. They both have cleared references, have made me personal attacks, falsified sources, edited-warrings...
 * [[Image:Fig. 50 - Arresto all'incrocio - 1959.svg|25px]] It is childish only consider what users with all the evenings free to waste on Wikipedia are doing in my page talk and ignore all their bad style.
 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|25px]] I called fascist who was blocking my access to several pages but they both, now, are pretending falsely that i called it to them. They needs liars to supported their points of view.
 * The past reported was solved being archived, this is, rejected by its weak reasonings.
 * i can say the same to them, they both have repeatedly been breaking Civility, No personal attacks and Assume good faith.In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia they have been engaging in edit warrings.
 * On my page talk only see Aragonese users for obvious reasons and another one who on the Spanish wikipedia say that does not come from Spain.
 * Maurice brings a quote that he does not apply The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
 * i think it is incredible that a report for a personal insult ended up with a threaten against me from <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B> . This admin still has not cleared the post where i am insulted and where there is a call on other users to go against me so i think his behaviour is cleary biased. No reproach against maurice. It has to see it to belive it.
 * if Wikipedia admits personal insults this may be the jungle.--Sclua (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted at the top of this board, if you feel someone's being impolite/uncivil, consider posting to wikiquette alerts. As another administrator as noted, if you have a dispute over the validity of the content of the article, please consider a request for comments. or mediation. -- slakr  \ talk / 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence page of an arbitration case missing
Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence

This case is still open, and no reason has been given for the page's sudden deletion. The Arbcom don't respond to repeated queries, so I thought it best to bring it here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion log gives a reason. I don't see any problem here.  Friday (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The deletion log says "Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.". Have you tried talking to User:Dmcdevit, the admin (and former arbitrator, and checkuser and oversighter) who deleted it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbcom policy allows for evidence to be considered in private. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I'll note that has not edited since June 3, 2008, so that probably won't work.  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon... — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been about a month. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is mention here in an April comment by Dmcdevit that a non-public name had to be oversighted from the Evidence file. Maybe they need to make a policy decision as to whether some statements in the file constitute WP:OUTING or not. It seems reasonable to assume that Arbcom will not close the Homeopathy case without restoring the Evidence file. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One would think so ... but the first vote to close was made today. GRBerry 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe they decided they don't need no stinkin' evidence... — CharlotteWebb 12:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though I think User:DanaUllman is a massive... whatever, the community deserves to examine the evidence that led to his ban, as well as to the discretionary sanctions placed on homeopathy-related articles. I'm dismayed that several requests on the arbitration pages and WT:RFAR have sat unacknowledged by even a clerk.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They should at least say what they intend to do. They can't be so busy that they can vote but not respond to questions like that. I suggest going to the talk pages of the arbitrators who are voting and asking them directly, but politely, and pointing them at this thread. I second Charlotte's comment: "Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon..." Failing that, there must be an explanation of why all the evidence has been deleted, and non of it restored (even copy-pasted restored after redaction, regardless of the loss of page history). Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no urgency, at least momentarily. There's no point asking here because it's a matter that is decided by the Committee - not the community. Would suggest asking the Committee again once the case is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Admininstrative attention needed at Lyme disease
Can I ask some uninvolved admins to look at Lyme disease and Talk:Lyme disease? A small rotation of SPA's have been pushing the unsourced theory that Lyme disease is the result of biowarfare gone awry, along with other sundry beliefs. OK, it's being handled; DGG, Antelan, SandyGeorgia, and I have been working on the article, which lost its GA rating as a result of this nonsense. Recently, though, the ringleader account,, claimed on the talk page that a specific Lyme researcher had threatened her with death. I think this requires urgent administrative attention as a WP:BLP issue, but as I am involved in dealing with this account's POV and WP:SYN issues, I'm not comfortable handling it myself. Any input or additional eyes would be appreciated. MastCell Talk 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This requires lots of eyes - unsourced claims that a living figure have made death threats should be removed immediately and on sight. I cannot stress how seriously such a matter should be taken. If they repeat the claims after warning, they should be blocked immediately. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of eyes needed long term, or we're looking at another homeopathy; medical editors can deal with the content if uninvolved admins pitch in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * checking the edits, the editor in question has been warned about the BLP concerns - if they repeat the accusation, they should be blocked immediately without the necessity for further warning. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a rotation of redlinked accounts at Lyme disease. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SSP? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side comment, I don't think WP:BLP was needed here (the same comment should still have been removed even if it wasn't about a living person). The comment seemed to have been an aside on a talk page, not something that was being proposed to be put in the article. It is obviously unacceptable, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the talk page of the article about the researcher in question, but it could just have been removed from the talk page of Lyme disease as irrelevant and off-topic. As it is, more people are now aware of this allegation than would have been previously. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered simply removing it myself. However, this editor has already launched various accusations of censorship as well as personalizing issues quite a bit. I thought that on balance it would be better to have more editors involved, rather than me being the point person not only on policy/content matters but also removing or editing her talk page posts. I've found that when you're in a content dispute and you start removing someone's talk page comments, regardless of how inappropriate, it doesn't tend to go well - even more experienced editors don't react well to it. I've gone through phases where I've tried to "enforce" the talk page guidelines by removing clearly off-topic bloggy posts, and it doesn't work - people honestly feel deep down that talk pages are a zone of complete free expression. As far as I know, BLP is the relevant policy and applies to all namespaces, including throwaway remarks about a living person on the Lyme disease talk page. MastCell Talk 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with MastCell; it is less than optimal for an involved editor to delete that content and deliver warnings. It will be helpful if admins uninvolved with the content can keep an eye on the article, to keep issues separate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to keep an eye on the researcher's article as well. I presume we are not mentioning the name, but those who have been following this know which article I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you edit under your real name or your real name is easy to work out, then you should take care when editing this article. People who oppose this viewpoint have a tendency to have mud-slung at them up and down the internet. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already being slung at MastCell; anyone home ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease controversy will also require eyes and careful monitoring. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems that we are all working for them (some of us are paid, some of us are govt shills, some of work for the medical companies - take your pick) and they are busy trying to work out who editors on the article are in real life. In addition, some has suggested that If just a few people volunteered to cover certain times of the day, and learned how to go into Wiki and press the “revert to previous button”, then it would be an ongoing thing and we could keep a good version going all of the time. Also being discussed here. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note about the recruiting above: signs as Elena Cook.  Folks, we're going to need help here; Lyme activists can be aggressive and are well organized.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74
Can an uninvolved admin swing by Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and provide a resolution? A RFCU for another user revealed that it was possible and a number of IP addresses had !vote stacked on several !votes on Talk:Barack Obama that has perpetuated a general distrust of new users and lack of good faith on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that almost reads like a mini ArbCom case. Well, I think WorkerBee's possible use of IPs aren't addressed on that page. I ran some of the checks, if there are any questions I can answer please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just even less effective than an ArbCom case, alas. The rampant edit warring on the article may have calmed down, but the incivility and lack of good faith on the talk page persists. Also, another Obama-related sockpupptry case could do with a resolution from an uninvolved admin. This one adds in the added interest of possibly being a ban evasion by, aka  and apparently , who may have returned as an IP address to a topic that got him an arbcom case and ultimately a ban for failing to comply with the rulings of that arbcom. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the things WB74 has said in his own defense are worth repeating here:


 * "My concern is that the Sprint IP addresses used to vote could just as easily have been used by Clubjuggle or Bobblehead, or anyone else on that page, to create 'bad hand' accounts. It could have been Shem, SCJ, Tvoz, or any other editor. The checkuser admin himself said that there is no direct IP link between me and the IP addresses listed above, so your case is very weak. It could just as easily have been someone else's 'bad hand' account."


 * "[This is] a lot like saying, 'The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost.'"


 * Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, our intention behind that discussion was to limit edit-warring, so I'm glad we managed to clear that up a lot, at least. But I'm concerned about the issue you've brought up - can you provide diffs of the assumptions of bad faith/incivility you refer to on that page? If possible, please limit them to those occurrences that occurred after 20 June. I'm not going to touch SSP stuff (as usual) - I'll leave that to Lar to sort out, if he still doesn't mind. Thanks :) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed at page on Arnab Chakrabarty
Jyotinda has been consistently vandalising the page on Arnab Chakrabarty, deleting information about his tutelage under Buddhadev Das Gupta, and then giving a biased version of facts. Examples include, ,. I had left several warnings, which he earlier chose to ignore. Only on my third warning did he respond. Though I personally felt the reason to be specious, I incorporated his viewpoint into the article, giving both sides of the picture. I left a note on his talk page, saying that since the matter was controversial, it was more expedient to retain both views.

Subsequently, 24.239.168.174 once again changed the article to reflect a one-sided view. A comment was left on my talk page. Though it was unsigned, it strongly indicated that Jyotinda and 24.239.168.174 are one and the same. Thedagomar, using Huggle, reverted the edit to my version. Again, though, 24.239.168.174 altered it to reflect his biased version. Now 66.31.201.117 has added what is clearly an act of obvious vandalism. I request user Jyotinda and both IP addresses be blocked from editing this particular article. Incidentally, I had first raised the issue at the vandalism page, where I was advised to report the matter here. Thanks.AbhikMajumdar (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I mistaken that the source you are trying to get back into the article here is not authoritative? Even the wording is a bit weasely as "some sources". It looks legitimate to remove this information until you can come up with a more definitive source for the assertion. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have cited three references, of which at least one must be taken as authoritative beyond reasonable doubt. This is a write-up in "The Hindu", one of the most respected daily newspapers of India. The "weasely" words were actually inserted to placate Jyotinda. I think I shall remove the words accordingly. AbhikMajumdar (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Threats made by user
has made a threat on my talk page. I requested an AfD since a number of cite tags have been removed and no sources added and I've requested for sources on the talk page and felt that there was no point on having something thats not sourced on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of threat do you perceive that to be? It's not a death threat, and is only an idiom. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A threat of revenge. Also the user isn't assuming good faith. If I was to make those comments to them I would be finding myself blocked. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, for some reason I was interpreting this as a more serious threat. That's what I get for rapidly rising out of bed and coming to the PC. Issuing a generalised warning. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And another uncivil comment about myself on another editor's page. Bidgee (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If would like, Im happy to remove the comments... however the comments were made in jest - and were in no way meant seriously or as revenge... rather a very loose way of expressing ones astonishment at, what appeared at first - a very hasty and uncalled sudden deletion of the page - an integral part of The Australian TV Project. If you taken offence, I apologise.--Bortholomew (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page of the article in question, this isn't the first time you've been less than civil to other editors. Please try and keep a cool head when editing, and remember to assume good faith in others, they're simply doing what they feel is best for the project--Jac16888 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should never by uncivil or not assuming good faith to any editor whether if it's in jest or not. It was not hasty. The article has had many no source tags which have been removed in the past and as per policies since it doesn't (or didn't) have any sources which is why I did it. I tried not to do it in the past but nothing was done. Bidgee (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

- Well Im sorry - Until tonight - I have NOT ONCE seen tags for under-referencing on this page... so, if you can; understand why it is so confusing to not only see that tag but also one calling for deletion all at the same time... Had i noted the tags, i can assure you: the referencing would have been done... cause there was never anything to hide.


 * as well as the request on the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

- Ok, sweet. Cheers Bidgee. --Bortholomew (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Superguys
Account is being used only for vandalism, as far as I can see. __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User's been reported to WP:AIV, where this sort of behavior is handled. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Since the user vandalized after final warning, I have reported it to WP:AIV and the user should be blocked shortly.
 * In the future, please submit simple vandalism reports to WP:AIV rather than here. It helps us to save time and resources.  Thanks!!! :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. Just went on the first appropriate-seeming page I found. Will try to remember this for future use... ;-)  __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

27 June
Hi, I found it shock to see the name of Hindi famous actoress "RAKHA" in the list of Death list of 27 JUNE (2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.1.198 (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, she appears to be still alive and well as far as I can tell. I have removed the incorrect information.
 * In the future, please be bold and remove incorrect information such as this yourself using the "edit this page" tab at the top of each page on Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mueller
An editor has expressed an opinion that the subject as well as the sources that state that Greg Mueller was a former professional hockey player are untrue, I've pointed out that the WP:V doesn't deal with what is true but rather what is verifiable which I mention on Talk:Greg_Mueller, the editor, has responded by edit warring, and making remarks on my talk page such as "Are you his boyfriend or what" and I'm "acting like a child", he latest edit to the Greg Mueller article he has inserted the words "was never" a former professional hockey player, which very well maybe a WP:BLP vio, I don't want to get into a edit war there for I'm asking for outside assistance to settle this matter.▪◦▪  ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue would seem to be whether the citation is valid or not, and that's a fair question to raise. What evidence is there that the citation is legitimate vs. just something that somebody made up? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a fair question. I notified the user of this thread, and also gave them a brief-but-friendly NPA warning ("are you his boyfriend or what?" is not appropriate, even if his challenging of the source is) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious allegations from IP 24.90.201.232 at American Renaissance (magazine)
Anon IP 24.90.201.232 keeps reinserting very serious allegations about the editors and admins of Wikipedia at the American Renaissance (magazine) article herehereand here. Not sure what to do with this, but it may sound like something the legal department might want to look into. Just reporting it for appropriate admin attention.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true - the anon user is reporting that the magazine in question has made those allegations (which, apparently, it has). It's verifiable, it's referenced, and the user has reported it correctly.  Nothing much wrong there (other than the use of primary sources and/or whether that particular story is notable enough to be included in the article, but those are hardly matters for urgent admin attention).  You're right, the legal team might want to deal with the magazine itself, but I don't think the IP editor is doing much wrong. Waggers (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I brought this here thinking this might be a way for this to be rbought to the attention of the legal department. I agree that the edit seems sourced (I won't susbcribe to AmRen to check it was actually said), but it seemed like a direct attack on Wikipedia, its editors and its admins. What would be the best way to bring this directly to the attention of Legal? (Meaning what AmRen has said)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that material is actually irrelevant in terms of that article and should be removed on that basis - because it's not about the subject but about a 3rd party and it would be coatracking to stick it in there. It belows on one of the criticisms of wikipedia article - if anywhere. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to subscribe to AmRen to read the article. It's available here [ http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/06/post_2.php ]. You need a fairly strong stomach to get to the end, as it's pretty odious stuff, but in a nutshell, it says we're a bunch of lefties conspiring to hide the truth about many people, events and issues for reasons related to our political agenda. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to wash my eyes after reading that. Ugh. We might want to ensure that there are editors and admins watching the articles brought up in the article and the comments section. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both what the anon is adding and what the anon is removing appear to be a POV-push of some kind, both against wikipedia and in support of that magazine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To bring an issue to the attention of the "legal department", you may e-mail Mike Godwin at the address provided at his user page. I would note that there does not appear to be anything in the AR article over which the Foundation might bring a cause, and that given the inclination of the Foundation to promote and protect free expression the Board would never counsel legal action in a (relatively innocuous) situation like this, even did the text present something actionable (as the instant text, I would emphasize, almost certainly does not), and so I might offer that you need not to write Mike, but you surely may, of course, if you like.  Joe 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I asked for advice about this material at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. The responses there were that the material should be kept short, if at all. It'd be more appropriate in the "Criticism..." article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that the author of the article, Nicholas Stix, has a history with Wikipedia. Last year there was a user with a few IPs who was constantly adding references to Stix and his work, almost all published in blogs. Because of the appearance that the editor was Stix himself, I posted a notice on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6. Note also that there was once an article on Stix which was deleted per Articles for deletion/Nicholas Stix. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives blocked
has been blocked for repeatedly removing information from Steny Hoyer. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Committee needs to be notified then--Jac16888 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be simpler to just semi-protect the page? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be indeed, and I have just done that. Could someone please unblock the IP?  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't protect pages to stop a single account. Blocking the account is correct.  Protection is not correct. Jehochman Talk 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the one that blocked the IP for 24 hours. Seems straightforward; I think its unnecessary to protect the page. Also, I reported the block immediately afterwards as required. Maybe a heads-up on my talk page would have been prudent ;-) (ec with Jehochman) <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  |  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Besides that, this I.P. is a long-term abuser across multiple articles. Blocking is very clearly the appropriate instrument here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the IP is a serial abuser. It is one of the ones used by the thousands of workers at the House of Representatives. Chances are each time it's editing an article, it's probably a different editor. Blocking this IP has a similar effect to issuing a range block. Risker (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Viewing its editing habits, we see a frequent return to several of the same articles, including Hoyer's. Besides that, if the I.P. is so dynamic, why does this one, of the hundreds or thousands assigned to the House of Representatives, stand out as an abuser? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP is not dynamic, it's a proxy, used by evewry single staffer in the House of Representatives.  Horologium  (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this would be the part where I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about, then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx5)I think that the section that was repeatedly removed (resulting in the block) is a potential BLP violation. The source is a blog citing another blogger, and it's pure partisan venom from a firebrand blogger upset that Hoyer is not far enough to the left for her liking. The block itself was within policy, since there was no discussion from the congressional IP address, but someone who is a bit more objective than I should take a look at that section and assess its validity. (NB:I have no use for Jane Hamsher, and consequently am not able to objectively assess that section myself).  Horologium  (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section that was repeatedly removed is the whole Congressional Reputation section, with references to the NYT, WP, Saloon, The Nation, RollCall, and many other newspapers. Most of it also looks very unexceptional to me... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of it, yes, but I think Horologium is right that some of it needs removed. I see at least one link to a blog, and generally speaking, blogs + BLP + politics != good encyclopedia article.
 * Anybody feel like combing through it? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)That first sentence (with the citation from Politico's blog) is the one that I am concerned about. As I noted, their blogger is simply repeating an opinion from Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake. The rest of the paragraph is not a problem, IMO, but that first sentence might need to be jettisoned.  Horologium  (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the entire section, and concur that the first sentence with its reference (it's a blog quoting another blog) does not meet our sourcing requirements, so I have removed it. The rest looks good, the sources match the content, and they are generally considered reliable sources.  Risker (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed "collaborated", which is definitely a loaded word. The section about Hoyer's relations with lobbyists seems to be a bit slanted, but I'd like to see some more eyes on it. The facts are there and verifiable, but there's a definite POV in the verbiage used here.  Horologium  (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Hills Have Eyes documentaries
Hi. An IP notified me about this afd. I think it should be attended by admins that are more experienced with Afd closures. Thanks.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio editor has returned
Indef blocked who uploaded lots of commercial images (with no EXIF) claimed as PD-self has returned as. Same area of interest, username, lack of talk interraction, upload of obvious images that are copyright violations etc... Would someone do the honours to the account? - Peripitus (Talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

someone forgot to unlock a talk page?
I reverted what looked like a biased edit from User_talk:Feta, but I couldn't explain him the problem with the source because his user talk page is indef blocked to prevent abuse of "unblock" template. However, his block log only has a 24 hour block for incivility which expired more than a month ago and he hadn't edited since then. Please someone check to either unprotect his talk page or indef block him instead. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I've unprotected the page. Nakon  23:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I came back from checking a few of his comments, and I would like to ask an admin to review his edits and consider blocking him for biased edits. I mean, he is making biased edits on silly stuff that looks like the same clumsy withewashing that he was doing on a greek-macedonian source. This indicates such a deep subjacent tendence to bias everything that it's almost unbelievable. Also, he is making broken AfDs and broken IfDs. Notice that this last IfD has a similar pro-greek anti-macedonian pro-FYROM bias to the edit I reverted. I mean, every edit I checked was misguided and/or unsourced like this edit changing what is an easily verifiable and known fact, ant to mention being convinced that jewish rule the whole planet and also wikipedia, and that "wikipedia is a good means to promote jewish propaganda against EVERYONE", someone needs to either advice this user or block him.


 * I urge an admin to go through his history and check carefully for greek-macedonian bias problems and lot of bias problems on general, and advicing and keeping an eye on him after warning him.


 * I have not warned him of his thread on him because I would like a more experienced user to approach him, since I am not sure on what to tell him. Maybe this should be moved to WP:AN for better discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Fagen spam
I'm not sure where to report this. The promotional biog. of an opera conductor called Arthur Fagen is appearing appended to a series of pages: John Avison, Omer Létourneau, Stanley Saunders, Keri Lynn Wilson, Samuel Wong and possibly many others. It can't be removed because the text does not appear in the edit window. Can somebody have a look? (Shepbot has just done a run through these articles though it seems unlikely that this is related to the spamming in any way.) -- Klein zach  00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed - the text was inserted in to Conductor-stub. --Golbez (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks. -- Klein zach  00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the text is still there - except for the first article John Avison. In that case I seemed to get rid of the spam by deleting the Canada-musician-stub even though this had no text attached. -- Klein zach  00:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard refresh the pages. You probobly have it cached. Viridae Talk 01:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the pages? What can you see? (I did refresh and got rid of my cache as a matter of course). The spam is still there. -- Klein zach  01:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah nothing there for me. Add &action=purge to the end of each pages URL and load the page. Might work? Viridae Talk 01:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't work, but interestingly If I log out and look at the page the spam disappears - it reappears when I log in. -- Klein zach  01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that would indicate it isnt the page, its your browser. It will go away eventually? Viridae Talk 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I rekomend clearing your caches et al. Smith Jones (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)
I try to avoid this page, but seems this is the only option. I speedy closed the above AfD, as a previous discussion was closed four days ago. However, "Killerofcruft" has disagreed, and reverted my close, twice now. I find this to be highly inappropriate, and would appreciate help in the matter. Thank you.  Al Tally  talk  12:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the notability questions he has posed? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this - I became aware of the article after reading about it here on AN/I today, before that I had never heard of, edited or had any connection to the article. I carefully reviewed all of the sources and found that there is not a single mention that is not either a listing, by the author itself, trivial or entirely unconnected to the subject matter. There are literally NO Reliable Sources for this article - it is not notable in any way shape or form. It exists and that's it. Generally there is a gentleman's agreement (and as far as I'm aware that's all it is - a suggestion not a policy) against re-opening AFD so soon (and I'll confess I missed the fact that it had been AFD's so soon) but my understanding is that is to stop involved parties using the AFD process as a weapon to hit each other over the head with. I have come to this article cold, I have reviewed it, I have searched for reliable sources. I cannot find any reliable sources, I cannot find any non-trivial sources. On that basis, I have made a good faith use of process. If this is closed, I'd like someone to be specific about the minimum period I'll have to wait because as soon as that is up, I'll just AFD it again - again in good faith, because of the lack of notability and the lack of reliable sources about the subject matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll list it, without regard for the current state of the article? Assuming that it currently fails RS now. That hardly sounds like a good faith nom to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - obviously I meant with the qualification of if the sourcing remains the same. apologies for any confusion caused by my brevity on this matter. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I don't typically care for rapid re-noms.. and even though IMO KoC's username has a dash of implicit bad faith, which I also don't care for... my inclination would be to let the AfD play out. The article has major notability concerns, and the previous AfD only really dealt with the COI concerns.
 * However, DilligentTerrier should weigh in before any decision is made. He has been involved with the cleanup of the article and his opinion would definitely count for something. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This prior AN/I section re Killerofcruft should be noted. Similar behavior is continuing; the issue is not notability of the article but incivility, which is particularly a problem in AfD where tensions tend to be high. Koc acknowledged being a "returned user having exercised his right to vanish" which explains how a new account is suddenly so active in such a manner. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to my incivility in that AFD? please be specific and provide diffs. Your constant accusations and bad faith attempts to slur my name are getting tiresome. If you have problems with my activities here - open a RFCU, if you have a problem with any particular edits of mine - bring it up on the relevent article talkpages. in all cases, provide diffs and don't throw around accusations you are unwilling to back up with specifics. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim that it was in that AfD, though I have not reviewed it. It's here in AN/I and elsewhere. Example: the response immediately above. The effect of my post was
 * (1) To connect this report with the prior AN/I notice,
 * (2) To separate the issue of conduct from that of notability, which is not an issue to be resolved with AN/I, ordinarily, AN/I being designed for dealing with editor behavior, not content issues, but some are easily distracted. I.e., an editor might (this is not necessarily a present claim against Koc) be grossly uncivil or disruptive in, say, proposing an AfD that is a proper AfD, i.e., the article is actually not notable. More to the point, an editor might close an AfD in a manner ultimately found to be improper, which is then reverted by another instead of (a) discussing it or (b) going to DRV. The second is considered to require the first, and both are preferable, and sometimes even required, in lieu of using reversion. Edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue. *Any* revert without discussion, where the reason is debatable, is arguably edit warring. and
 * (3) The editor has been uncivil, repeatedly so. My response is a graduated one, which has not yet reached the level of requiring proof; however, everything I've said could be backed with diffs, and will be if I come to the conclusion that it's worth the effort. At this point, I'd only suggest reading the prior AN/I report, which contains examples, and the User's Talk page and contribution history. Next step is to formally warn the user on User talk:Killerofcruft, that the user had not been formally warned was one of the arguments against block in the prior report; I'm refraining from doing that myself, at this point, but I will if any reasonable editor suggests that I take on the task.
 * At this point, my comments are discussion, of user behavior, not a formal attempt to sanction the user. Koc narrowly escaped being blocked in that last AN/I report and I had nothing to do with that; in fact, my comments probably helped reach the conclusion that action against the user was not yet warranted.


 * So that's a "no I'll just keep making accusations" --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusations, no. I'm not making accusations, generally. I point to evidence, sometimes I present obvious conclusions from the evidence, typically quite solid ones (though I make mistakes from time to time, and I try to apologize for them promptly when they are pointed out). However, what Koc considers "accusations," yes. Consistent with policy, guidelines, and the welfare of the project, I will continue to comment on what I observe, as part of the essential process by which Wikipedia regulates itself. There are now two AN/I reports in as many days over Koc behavior, involving different users, with no sign to me that Koc recognizes that his behavior is at all problematic. The first AN/I report, referenced above, was closed with a comment that it should be sufficient as a warning regarding his edit summaries (though more was mentioned in the AN/I report than that). Subsequently, Koc commented that it was closed "because it was a lot of crap." I would call that defiant disregard of a warning.--Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * just so people don't think I left this hanging - I will make no further comment to abd - it just seems to feed ... well whatever this is suppose to be. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The first AFD was handled improperly, as it resulted in a keep but without a discovery of whether adequate sources exist. The second one should probably run- the first one wasn't useful.  Friday (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it was procedurally correct. It just so happens that nobody had much to say about the notability and verifiability. I still feel uncomfortable with starting an AFD so fast after the last one was closed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Too many aliases in this discussion. In addition to KoC,  is a redirect to . Unclear what that means. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the article, I've made my comments on the talk page and in the AfD. There's no third-party confirmation of notability. I've tracked down the unlinked citations in the article. (See the talk page and AfD page for links.)  The cited articles are on line, and they're very, very brief mentions of the article subject. This is self-published original research by a new editor writing their first article. The article looks better-cited than it is until you find and read the citations, and discover there's almost nothing there. I was planning to send it to AfD in a few weeks, after allowing time for it to become clear that  it's not notable.   --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now at least 3 editors on that second AFD who are saying "too soon to renominate", totally ignoring the point that the original AFD ignored notability. Thus, this apparently self-promoting and dubious article will likely get retained. Wikipedia at its finest. NOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The inventor of the language and the main author of the article seems to bang the lid down on this one --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the RS or notability issues, the 2nd AfD should be procedurally speedy closed. The first AfD had its chance at the article and to renominate four days later is disruptive as it takes time and energy better spent on writing and improving articles. This also points out the need for policy on a minimum interval between nominations. A collaborative project the size of WP has to have process, or it won't work. Keeping an article that may, or may not, be notable enough does infinitely less harm than violating process, in spirit or letter. The editors voting to keep in the 2nd AfD (due to unseemly haste to renominate) understand that problem and are correct. If the article is still believed to be inadequate later on, come back in three months and renominate. Also, Killerofcruft as a username seems to display an inherent bias toward deletionism. — Becksguy (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting the right answer is more important than some arbitrary time limit between AFDs. As pointed out, the first AFD ignored the sourcing issue, for some reason.  Friday (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If sourcing was so important, it should have been included in the 1st AfD. It had its chance at the right answer. It's not about arbitrary time limits, it's about minimizing the disruption to Wikipedia. We have an overwhelmingly large number of AfDs, more than anyone can keep up with, even in their areas of expertize. Renominating because someone wants a second (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) shot at an article, especially within short time periods, just adds to that massive problem. And four days just boggles the mind as disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Becksguy. The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Killerofcruft has it right. If the subject is self-promotional and not notable, then the first AFD is irrelevant. The "you had your chance" stuff is childish. Getting it right is all that matters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And according to my count, the previous AFD had a grand total of TWO "Keep" statements aside from the original author. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article, and the "you had your chance" argument doesn't hold water. Even without bringing up notability, it was teetering on being deleted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should take the time to get it right. That includes working on the article to find reliable source, sometimes it isn't obvious, and, in fact, it may not be obvious to the original author. The claim, above, that the inventor isn't aware of RS and therefore it does not exist, is a non-sequitur. Now, for me to find out the truth of this, myself, could take hours of research, on a topic where I have no knowledge. This is a community project, and we take advantage of community resources. It takes time. For this reason, when an AfD closes without consensus (which was the case here, in fact), immediate renomination disrupts the process of improving the article. Yes, it was "teetering on being deleted." Should we keep it teetering? I'd say we should give it a month. It survived AfD, and debating notability doesn't find sources for the article. Patient work does. Sometimes RS exists and is not googleable. If no RS appears in a month, nobody would be questioning the renomination. It is only that it was done a few days later, by a newly registered "returning user who exercised his right to vanish," an apparent deletionist from the user name, that is the problem. That user edit warred to keep the 2nd nomination openm which was the cause of this AN/I report, which got distracted by the notability question. User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name -- may indeed be right about the article, but what's the hurry? What's the problem with taking the proper time and following the proper process, which does not include edit warring? --Abd (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't argue for "speedy" deletion. But if the author himself can't find a reliable source for this article, then what likelihood is there? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the last two days something like (and this is from skimming) >80% of Abd's edits have been a) about me or b) have involved subjected I was already editing or discussions I was already involved in. At least 3 of those edits were removed as personal attacks. People asked me to tone down the edit summaries - I did that. People said my name could cause problems - I changed it. I have no problem with people querying my actions - when asked on my talk page, I have answered. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like he's out to get me. Maybe it's in my mind but I honestly feel he's following me around try to cause trouble.   --Allemandtando (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this content dispute on ANI? People have a right to bring a rightful AfD if they so wish, they are entitled to their (IMHO rightful) opinion that this should be deleted and IMHO no-one should ever be on ANI for creating an AfD in good faith, just because the complainer on ANI disagrees with it. If Crufty's name is ensuring he's harassed, then maybe he should be encouraged to change it, but apart from that leave Crufty alone!:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Sticky Parkin should look at the beginning of this discussion? It was brought here because User:Killerofcruft -- who has now changed his name to User:Allemandtando -- was edit warring with an administrator. The discussion, which was originally and properly about user behavior, was sidetracked into what should have been a question resolved through ordinary process (discussion and, in this case, DRV, if discussion fails -- but discussion wasn't tried -- unless an AN/I report is "discussion"), that is, whether or not the article is notable. Above, Allemandtando dashes some hopes that he is going to change his behavior as well as his name. He's done a number of things worthy of comment. The appropriate thing, when comment is made, isn't to challenge the comment but to examine the behavior. He claims to have done that, and we can hope that he does, but what do I have to do with this AN/I report? Or, for that matter, the one filed yesterday? If I were "out to get him," the number one thing I would have done would have been to warn him, so that his behavior would then have been promptly blockable. I'd have, by yesterday, filed an SSP report, just in case, and I'd have taken several matters to AN/I. But I didn't. I see now that he has also withdrawn the problematic AfD nomination, and a compromise seems to be in the making. Good move. I haven't pursued him and I have no plans to. However, given what's come down, I do plan to keep my eyes open. I'll grant, it is not easy to recover from the level of negative attention he has drawn in the few days since he registered; offenses that might not raise an eyebrow otherwise can result in a block. But he's not in danger from me, personally, only from the consequences of his own actions as seen by the community. Which I do not think blockworthy, yet. As was the conclusion from the last AN/I report, he can be considered warned. User:Arcayne may have played a role in calming the waters, for which he is to be commended; let's hope they stay calm.--Abd (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that Killerofcruft/Allemandtando has withdrawn the AfD nomination, but reserves the right to renominate in eight weeks, pending the addition of sources. I endorse that compromise. Will a uninvolved admin/editor close as withdrawn by nom, without prejudice to renomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, as there are other delete or delete/userfy votes, it isn't automatically closed if withdrawn. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were to adopt a "negative" kind of username, it would be along the lines of "Killerofcruft" -- something like "Death to spam". Several of us will be watching that article, so its author had best come up with some sources, or he'll be hearing about it again soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not up to the author alone to come up with sources. This is our project, not his. In any case, if the original attempt to close the AfD had not been interrupted by edit warring, there wouldn't have been those delete or delete/userfy votes at this time, and we'd either see an adequate article down the road a bit, or another AfD, this time a proper one. AN/I didn't work this time: properly, seeing the rapid renom after close, without going to DRV instead, the user involved should have been warned about edit warring, and the AfD promptly closed by a new administrator, avoiding a whole lot of wikifuss. Next time, please, administrators, don't allow a proper AN/I report -- and this one was proper on the part of User:Al tally, who reported instead of edit warring, himself, -- to be derailed over content issues, as this one was from the beginning by Baseball Bugs, who asked Al tally a question about notability that was, for our purposes here, irrelevant. The user could be right as rain about the notability of the article, and the edit warring still not permissible.--Abd (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the spammers and self-promoters win. So far, they've won this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A note on the players in the AfD:
 * is a redirect to.
 * is a redirect to.
 * has been blocked indefinitely pending a name change.
 * Have I missed anyone? --John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ← I think things are getting too muddled here. Really, the 2nd AfD isn't out of process. The nominator was unaware of the first nomination and, in good faith, nominated an article with no reliable sources for deletion. Now, if we want to be slaves to process, the correct procedure would have been to close the 2nd AfD, file an appeal at DRV stating that the 1st AfD did not have enough participation to get a result and that it should be relisted to gain a consensus. Which would wind up either re-opening one of those AfDs, or creating a 3rd one.
 * Rather than tying ourselves up in red tape, I'd say it's more effective to simply let this AfD run its course. The final decision could be appealed at DRV if you really wanted, but I'd say it's frivolous. If the article is kept, it should stay for at least a couple months before being renominated. If it's deleted or userfied, there's no reason it can't be written (or undeleted) later with proper sourcing. Process may be important, but we shouldn't let it get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I rarely invoke WP:IAR, but I think this is a case that calls for it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even now, the article's defenders are working feverishly trying to prove notability, i.e. trying to find some shred of evidence that anyone besides the article's author has ever heard of this computer language. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... at 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) you said on the AfD page "Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable". So now some folks are actually trying to improve a Wikipedia article. Whatever perverted mischief will they think of next ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. They must have heard me, then. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. As it stands, article neither passes notability or sourcing areas. When the creator of the language is struggling on that area, surely the common sense answer is just to delete and userfy, some experienced admins helping the creator of the language to work on the areas of concern.  If those areas are addressed then put the article back into mainspace.  Or would that upset peopleby removing the lolzdrama? Minkythecat (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Several comments combined:
 * 1) The 2nd AfD is not only out of process, it's an abuse of process and a bad faith nomination, especially after being properly closed twice by an admin. It's a rogue AfD and compromised.
 * 2) And no one here is willing to abort it as either improperly continued by Killerofcruft/Allemandtando after reverting an admin twice, or as withdrawn by the nom, or both.
 * 3) I would think that Al Tally as an admin would have been supported here and given the help he requested against an editor that clearly, willfully, and knownly abused process. I find that lack of support troubling.
 * 4) The content issues in this ANI thread are absolutely irrelevant and just muddle and derail this thread. This page is about behavior, not content, as it says at the top of the page. The content related comments should be in the AfD, such as it is.
 * 5) Between this thread and the AfD, there are ten editors with process concerns. Some of us with major and highly serious concerns. To allow this abuse to continue is infinitely more damaging and disruptive to Wikipedia than the existence of one article that may, or may not, be notable.
 * 6) The number of editors and their comments indicate that there is a real community concern about this nomination process. I don't think this issue is going away soon.
 * 7) And no, it's not about drama (or lolz, which is a horrible word), it's about process. It's the social contract that we have to follow to make collaboration possible in such a massive project. Otherwise, it's anarchy, as exemplified in this AfD nomination.
 * 8) As to ignore all rules in this case: Does anyone really think that the ends justify the means, when those means are clearly wrong and against WP core values?
 * 9) Although I assume good faith as to Killerofcruft/Allemandtando's intentions to improve WP, I (obviously) disagree with his methods.
 * 10) To paraphrase Col. Jessup, as played by Jack Nickelson in A Few Good Men (1992): We follow process, son. We follow process or Wikipedia dies. It's that simple.
 * — Becksguy (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What a mess. What went wrong?  The original author of the article was writing his first article, about his own work. The first AfD was over the wrong issue (COI rather than notability), and didn't get much attention.  Then, the author of the article provided a number of plausible-looking references without links. It took about a week of digging by multiple editors to check those references. Upon examination, they turned out not to support notability; most had been generated by the original author of the article.  By then, in the second AfD, multiple editors had already looked at the article, saw that it appeared plausible and had seemingly good references, or noted that the second AfD was too soon, and voted to "keep". That's how we got here. No one is really to blame for this.    --John Nagle (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary, although I have my own different opinions on who is to blame. Several editors who should have known better have not done right here.  We'll be needing someone to close the AFD who can focus on the relevant issues without getting sidetracked by handwaving arguments.  Friday (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a good summary. But note that the AfD might well have been closed some time ago following the nominator's withdrawal of his nomination if Friday had not objected to that. It is no use adopting a "holier than thou" attitude here, Friday; you know you have helped to stoke the fire on this one. I don't have a problem when you express your sincerely held opinions - we had a frank but civil exchange on views on the AfD page - but I do have a problem when you then come running to AN/I blaming other editors who "should have known better". You have been as much a part of this tug-of-war as myself or anyone else. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think people are getting too heated about this issue. I think the article should be allowed to stand at the moment, with the understanding that there is no problem with resubmitting it for AFD again in a few weeks time. I could make arguments about process, but I think just postponing decision for a while, and then starting the discussion on a fresh slate later, is going to be a better outcome in the long run, since it will give people some time to relax and calm down, and hopefully the final discussion will be briefer, and hence easier to evaluate, than the current one has been. --SJK (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please go close the AfD? The time period for discussion has expired and recent comments are shedding more heat than light. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding warning templates to article talk pages

 * (also may have edited from, , , )

At ongoing edit warrings at the articles far left and Communist Party of India (Marxist), User:Sindhian (one of the parties of the dispute) has placed warning templates (intended for user talk pages, Uw-delete3) on the article talk pages, threatening his oppenents with being blocked. Moreover he consistently makes false claims of vandalism and false claims that he will post reports about this. Is there any possibility for intervention by other editors against this disruptive behaviour? I have tried to reason with him, for example on the vandalism issue, but so far to no avail. --Soman (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note on his talk page about the inappropriate use of the user warning templates. It looks like he was just confused in regards to that.
 * Regarding the remaining issues, it looks like he is being very aggressive with the criticisms and controversies sections, but it also seems like he does have some sources. ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes, but before I look deeper to see if there is disruptive editing and/or edit warring taking place, do you think there is a possibility of rewording the content he has proposed so that it is more neutral?  Or is he using unreliable sources and/or taking the sources out of context, in such a way that the content could not be refactored in a neutral manner? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
 * On a related note, it appears and  are the same person.  For now, I will assume good faith and assume he just forgot to log in or something, but we should keep an eye out about this in case he uses the IP to circumvent the three-revert rule. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaysweet, I am new to this forum and am still learning, so may have made some mistakes unknowingly and would like to apologise for that. Please understand I am not reverting edits but just the the deleats by 'Soman, Ism Shism and other annon users' who seem to be working in tandem to escape the 3R rule. I am being ganged up against as these people take turns in reverting my edits. Kindly look into the history of Soman and you will see that this game has been played with many other editors in the past making them leave in frustation. I kindly request a detailed investigation to ensure this type of harrasment to editors is not repeated.
 * There is also, and , seemingly the same as Sindhian. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, yes, that appears to be the case. Well, he seems to be inactive right now.  I would say, continue to try to get him to engage on the talk page, and if he continues to revert without discussion, let me know.  If we count the IPs, he has been dangerously close to WP:3RR on occasion.  Even if he doesn't cross 3RR, edit warring without discussion on the talk page is not permitted. Let me know, I will try to engage him, and we'll go from there.  Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least, based on the article history and apparent IP sockpuppetry (whether or not by Sindhian) and vandalism, I have semi-protected Far left for a short time. Hopefully, a more stable version will expedite resolution of this content dispute. — Satori Son 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. My gut tells me Sindham is not IP-socking on purpose, but it's hard to be certain -- semi-prot will prevent us from having to deal with that issue altogether, and we can focus on the other problems.  Thanks Satori! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While editing articles I have also experienced these issues with Sindhian. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sindhian just made yet another reversion at Communist Party of India (Marxist). I think this is the 4th or 5th revert, so definitely already in violation of 3RR.  I have issued a 3RR warning, and if he/she reverts again, I will report to WP:ANI/3RR.  (I do not tolerate 3RR under any circumstances, as I feel it is downright poisonous to the collaborative principles of Wikipedia) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to lunch, so if he/she reverts in the next hour or so, somebody else will have to make the report :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have forgotten to log in some times but did not delibrately do it as I use two computers. My issue is that Soman and some other users have been blanking my complete edits with little pretex or frivelous reasons, I am just reverting them back. Soman is supported by 'Ism Schism' and other annon users. Please see the discussion. If you look at the history of CPI(M) page you will see that Soman and other people have been blanking entire edits and this has resulted in some good authors leaving and their work lost. Kindly count the number of times Soman has blanked edits and he seems to have some annon users and others supporting him. Intrestingly he always removes edits which are not favorable to CPI(M). The result is the CPI(M) article has become completely onesided and a lot of intresting material has been deleted and editors lost. Sindhian (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have explained my causes for my edits in the respective talk pages of the CPI(M) and far left articles. I have tried to engage Sindhian in discussions on the issues, with limited success. Sindhian's edits at wikipedia is limited to whitewashing the BJP/RSS articles, whilst filling the the CPI(M)/far left articles with endless ranting, a fact that points to that his sole intention with editing wikipedia is pov-pushing. A lot of the problems are typical newbie errors, like faulty use of references and errouneous claims of vandalism. I have several times been accused of pov-pushing, I let my own actions be judged by others. --Soman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling "endless ranting" is a personal attackSindhian (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sindhian's latest move is to reintroduce deleted passages of a banned User:Hkelkar sock from the January 2008 edit war. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, please. This noticeboard is not for mediation or dispute resolution. I will repeat what I have told Sindhian: I strongly suggest filing a mediation request with the Mediation Cabal. The MedCab is staffed with volunteer editors who are extremely experienced in this sort of dispute resolution. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassed
'Soman, Ism Shism and other annon users' who seem to be working in tandem to escape the 3R rule are deleting well referenced articles in CPI(M) and far left. I am being ganged up against by these people and they take turns in reverting my edits. Kindly look into the history of Soman in CPI(M)and you will see that this game has been played with many other editors in the past making them leave in frustation. I kindly request a detailed investigation to ensure this type of harrasment to editors is not repeated. Sindhian (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have missed my suggestion above. Please consider taking this to the Mediation Cabal or some other Dispute Resolution process. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Satori Son, these people will say and make it look like it is a content dispute. This is vandalism where a froup of people take turns in blanking sections which they feel are not good for the image of their party. They force the editor to revert more than three times and get him banned. They harrass and discourage people from writing and have compromised the NPOV of most of the articles Indian political parties. Some administrators aslo seem to be supporting them. They are waging a political and propaganda war here. Since my allegations are serious and have serious impact on the NPOV of Wikipedia, I again request a serious investigation preferably by someone who can be trusted to be neutral. Please look into the edit history of CPI(M) to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sindhiam, Wikipedia is NOT the place for POV pushing. You continue to push your POV on numerous articles and editor's talk pages as well. Original research, and your personal opinion, are not what you should insert into articles. Editors have tried to work with you, but you must contribute as well instead of claiming harrassment and/or a conspiracy against you. Nobody is that important. Please review Wikipedia policies further as that might facilitate you making valued contributions to Wikipedia. Good luck and happy editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ism schism, I am not pushing my POV. If you look at my edits carefully I have clearly used words like allegation and referenced these allegations. I am trying to make these articled NPOVSindhian (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,

Definition of Vandalism according to wikipedia is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Please understand that I am appealling against an organized vandalism by a group of people who have a history of compromising the NPOV of the CPI(M). They take turns in deleting and blanking the page and frustating the editors. I looked into the history page and realized this has been going on for many years and a lot of editors and their edits have been removed.

Since no action has been taken against them and the victims have been penalized I suspect they may be overtly and covertly supported by some adminstrators.

All I am asking is to do is look into the history of CPI(M) and see the pattern and vandalism for yourself.

I have read many articles on Wiki and have seen that almost all articles provide space for the opposite point of view. Why is the opposite point of view getting deleted in CPI(M)Sindhian (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that there really is - a vast right wing conspiracy against Sindhian. I just got back from our daily vast right wing conspiracy meeting on Sindhian's recent edits. We had a vote and decided that Sindhian just might be a POV pusher. His edits speak for themselves - as well as the attack article he created in, Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war, which Sindhian used to attack the CPI (M). As it was an attack article, it was speedly deleted according to Wikipedia policy. My hope is that this pattern of attacks, as demonstrated in Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war - does not continue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Ism Schism' wants to enjoy this moment of triumph by being sarcastic, which displays his contempt for other contributors. CPI(M) is an extremist party involved in massacre and violence. This is a fact and an opinion of a vast majority of people in India. And this fact and opinion is missing from Wikipedia. It seems CPI(M) propaganda machinery has taken over the wikipedia, where it is stopping people from writing a truth which is determental to it. I am also speaking for the victims of CPI(M) whose voice seems to have been gagged in the CPI(M) ruled states as well as on Wiki. In fact if you look atthe contributions to Indian political parties on Wiki, you will see that all any one opposite to CPI(M) has been harrased, banned or chased away and his contributions deleted by a gang of people. Sindhian (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want wiki to be a balanced encyclopedia please ensure that the contributions are not controlled by a gang. The proof for this allegation is there on the History of CPI(M) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Sindhian (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take this to Dispute Resolution. With that said, I'm closing this trainwreck. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves
Seems trivial, but we've got an IP address insisting on removing the fact that the 1994 season ended by a strike, thus leaving the impression that the Braves "finished" in second place, and thus implying a break in their divisional win streak. Hence it's laying the groundwork for a POV-push. He won't address the points I made on the talk page. Not sure what to do at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave the editor a 3RR warning and reverted -- however, I would recommend that you change it to a footnote. There seems to be precedence for this, e.g. New York Yankees seasons.  --Jaysweet (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This kind of depends on what the IP address' motive is. His argument is that "nobody else does it that way", but so what? The Braves are a special case because of the division-win streak. I'll see what I can do about a footnote. Thanks for the suggestion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, in both the main article and Atlanta Braves seasons, where the IP address had made the same gripe. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria edit war
User:Martin compaq has been edit warring on this template (see history here and also changing other related philatelic topics despite warnings and requests to discuss. Several of his other edits are also pushing his POV regarding Transnistria. I have already left a 3RR warning on his talk page but it is beyond my capabilities. An admin told me that there have been socks around this topic. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, User:Alison has already indef blocked him as a sock. Thanks anyway ww2censor (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK update warnings
We've had a discussion over finding a solution for delays in DYK updates, on basis of which I've created warning templates that would be updated to indicate the proximity of an update and the need to complete nominations and the update. Now the question is, and I feel that this status template should be maintained here as well, so that any/all active admins can keep an eye on the updates - a legitimate view expressed was concern about cluttering this page with too many things, but as DYK is a part of the main page I think its proper upkeep is an important function so it is justifiable to host this status template here. Any thoughts? <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the main template that I'm suggesting posting here is DYKUpdate. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  06:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever thought to use editprotected to get their attention? I don't know how fast that is updated but it would seem like another way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism software
Does anyone know of a good free plagiarism software program? I haven't been able to find anything on the net, and as we have a user who has detected multiple episodes of plagiarism in articles submitted to DYK, that project is effectively at a standstill until the regular updaters are able to find an effective way of detecting plagiarism. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pick random sentences and google (thats what turnitin does effectively). Also compare sources to sentences. Viridae Talk 07:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the user who was picking up the plagiarism has just retired from Wikipedia after I threatened to take him to AN/I for breaches of wp:civil. So I guess it's "business as usual" at DYK for the time being. However, I think the user in question raised some legitimate concerns about plagiarism, and I'd still like to get hold of some free software if anyone knows of any. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one last point to be clear: you threatened me for finding plagiarisms, and that was the threat: you would and will accuse me of anything in order to stop my pointing out the dreadful state of this project. You don't want to hear it, or know it.  You would rather spend your time and efforts finding something against me than working to find the plagiarisms.  I'm not leaving because I'm worried about an incivility accusations, what could be more incivil then be found guilty of claiming another's work as your own and then passing out rewards for it?  I'm leaving because Wikipedia honors copying from others and claiming it as Wikipedia's own.
 * I just found out about the Triple Crown award. I told you there was a reward for DYK. It's very obvious to an outsider that this is the result of a frantic contest, a quest for prizes, not quality.  Do you want to guess how many plagiarisms I found in Triple Crown Award winners so far?  And, interesting enough, not just in DYKs. a couple in GAs.  So, at least you're in good company on Wikipedia.
 * You don't need software to find plagiarisms, you need English language reading skills and familiarity with encyclopedias. I write lay articles on technical subjects for a living.  I read encyclopedia articles and similar articles in journals and books that are on technical subjects for a general audience as part of my job.  After the first dozen or more DYK plagiarisms that I spotted, I just started picking them out, left and right.  The first ones I found I knew instantly they were plagiarized.  I only found two articles that I didn't think had plagiarisms in them, and these in the last 24-48 hours, and they both held up to a quick scrutiny.  Every other article I reviewed may have taken some time, but it wasn't really that hard.  Just time to find where the lines were copied and pasted from.  It's so obvious anyone who spent any time learning the skill of writing can find them.  And, you have some more waiting in the queue.
 * It's not a threat of my incivility, it's a threat to me that if I keep bringing up the problems I will be banned--effectively that is a ban, because I can write, and I find it disgusting that someone would take the work of another, claim it as their own, then show it off for a cyberspace reward to their assumed name.
 * --Blechnic (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blechnic, if you are feeling threatened, then please feel free to email details of plagiarism you have found to myself or any other administrator. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, here is the very last message Blechnic received before retiring. Not exactly a “get the torches and pitchforks" thing. — Satori Son 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fucking shameful is what it is - I'd suggest that if people think they aren't get a response when they detect plagiarism, then they inform the people being ripped off - once they start hammering on the foundation's door - people will be less inclined to look the other way. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For what is is worth, a lot of discussion has taken place recently at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism, prompted by Blechnic's earlier threads about plagiarism, which Gatoclass may not have been aware of. I would encourage people to participate in that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I'm not sure if I understand the nuances in this discussion and I'm only trying to be helpful. I've always found the online tool at [www.copyscape.com]to be very useful in finding plagiarism. Its a free tool offered by a commercial site. Justin talk 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway to incomporate this into a template so you can easily click on it (like the statistics template that shows blocks, or amount of edits, etc)? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, there is a problem with that site: "The maximum of 10 searches per month has been reached for this site. For more searches, please sign up for a Premium account. More information about this message.." Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the foundation speak to one of those companies and see who'd like to supply us a license in return for a bit of free publicity? or is this like how universities deal with plagraism, where we all make a lot of sound and hope that we don't have to look too closely at the problem? --Allemandtando (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing vandalism in Ashley Tisdale's pages
The member IntoCreativeJan is doing a lot of vandalism in Ashley Tisdale's pages (singles and albums), delecting sourcered informations (like Billboard sources for example) and clean up the pages. He is just doing it because he/she HATES the singer. So, I want that Wikipedia block this user. Thanks. Voices4ever Talk 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please some diffs as to this alleged vandalism? Also, I have alerted IntoCreativeJan of this thread. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at it briefly, and while I don't feel ICJ is vandalizing, I am concerned about ICJ's aggressive use of warnings (goes straight to final warnings on numerous occasions). --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the only one doing vandelism is you and you other accounts which include 'Triping'. Even Gimmetrow the admin agreed. You have been adding not reliable and unsources chart positons and not to mention reverting over 16 edits made to remove you fake false information. When you do not agree on the edit you seem to call it vandelism when it is not merely considered that. And you kept on adding fake references that do not even mention she song or album. And not to mention the amount of vandelism your other account Triping has done. The Billboard refernces for charts that are not official in the end all of the charts listed add up to the Pop 100 Billboard chart which is mention already. So stop you vandelism and delecting claims. If you revert anotehr edit made on those page, you will end up being blocked just like you previous accounts.Prepelos Talk 13:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Both Voices4ever and Prepelos used the highly unlikely typo "delecting" when they mean "deleting." I am having a very hard time bending my fingers in such a way that I can make this typo by accident!  :)  Was this a copy-and-paste issue?  Or is there something more sinister afoot here? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No that was a typo by accident. Voice4Ever always uses delecting when she/he means deleting. That is because Voice4Ever is Spanish. Look at the history pages for the articles and you will find that Voice4Ever always uses delecting and his other account Triping, where he always uses vandelism when he diagress wth the edits.Prepelos Talk 13:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this. There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing on Tisdale related pages by multiple accounts. ICJ isn't the only one. Some of the deletions are justifiable, but contrary to what Prepelos says, often content is deleted claiming it's not mentioned in the references, when it is. It's difficult not to see this as disruption. Gimmetrow 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel sorta awkward asking an admin this, but... if you're not going to take action yourself, do you have diffs showing sourced content being deleted with an edit summary saying it is not sourced? That might help.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.


 * I've had past conflicts with ICJ / Prepelos. Anyway, here are sample diffs: ; also check this history: . There's another complication, too. Sometimes the deleted chart references are pages which change weekly. Even if they don't currently mention the work, they presumably did in the past, and should be updated with an archive.org link or some other archived page, rather than deleted. But that takes effort, and this involves a large number of pages. Gimmetrow 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all I'm a brazilian, not a spanish. Well, I agree with some edits by ICJ and Prepelos, yeah. But, they always delets chart performances (all with reliable sources like Billboard), tracklistings and more informations in the article. I re-added some chart performances on this article but I know that they will delet it again soon ¬¬. And my another account is MSoldi, not "Triping". Voices4ever 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP 81.159.124.141 is deleting informations too. For example, he deleted the chart performances (with references) AGAIN! Voices4ever 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF?????? STop lying Voice4EVER> Check Voice's history page and check Triping's. See the similarieties in edits and removal then go to V (album) and see what the two users ahve abused. They keep on rmeoving information which is referneced and saying that it is not relibale and all of that junk made of just to make Vanessa's album look like junk. Triping and Voice4Ever ate abusers. They should be blocked and even if the chart positions do change every week THERE IS NO proof that the album was in that chart in teh frist place. And what is the truth behind this blog site ACharts.com. I do not see how relibale it is. And V (album) keeps on reducing because Triping and other anonymous names REMOVE the stuff. This is serious abuse made by Voice4Ever. And i don't bother looking. WTF????? Vanessa is my idol. And Voice4Ever is reducing more Vanessa pages because of fan jealousy, get over the fact Vanessa is WAY more popular and successful that you blonde nobody. With a so not successul album i mean what the heck it just got gold. Pathectic. Amd all of the wikipeida admins are fooled and only concerned about one user. WTF?? Do you actually think that you can fool me and the world who read this site. I get who this works. Wikipedia is the most not relibale place in the net. People can post references that dont mention the thing and get away with it. People can post referneces from FANSITES about what Ahsley wears and what perfume she has on for he said. Pathetic. You peopl should pay mroe attention to the real vandelisers and abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FortyFootEcho (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, at this point, there are so many freaking socks I have no idea who is who! (Either that or there's like five different people who all have nearly identical spelling problems edit warring over the same information in the same articles...) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected Headstrong (album) for two days. If anyone objects that I may have protected a preferred version, any admin is welcome to change it. Gimmetrow 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, I'm laughting. First of all, the album V is Gold too. And I'M NOT THAT TRIPING! I just removed repeated informations on Vanessa Hudgens's pages. If you LOVE Vanessa Hudgens, care her page, not Ashley's. Found more informations and put it in that page! It's not necessary delet chart performances in Ashley's album page. FortyFootEcho, you looks a kid. Voices4ever 17:03, 77 June 2008.

Comment: As an uninvolved editor of long-term good standing who stumbled on this, I would like to note that I have checked FortyFootEcho's contributions, and they seem to primarily be intentional deletions of and alterations to sourced information to make it inaccurate, along with edit summaries attacking other editors for just such actions. I believe you are dealing with a sockpuppet belonging to a troll. -- Good Damon 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also lots of logged-out editing from British Telecom IP addresses. Thatcher 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser ✅ sockpuppets,


 * And, as long as we are cleaning out sock drawers, ✅ that is a sockpupet of, involved in the same Ashely Tisdale nonsense.  And also be aware that , another Ashley editor, is in the same city as Voices4ever, although on a different ISP.  What makes this particularly unusual to me is that although it is a large city, it is in a non-English speaking country, so presumably the number of people who a) speak English, b) edit the English wikipedia and c) are fans of Ashley Tisdale is likely to be small. Thatcher 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring at 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season
There appears to be an edit war at 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season, see the history of the page. Some of the edit descriptions in particular appear to be quite uncivil. This appears to of been discussed here, but the IP's seemingly have ignored consensus. A request for protection was put in yesterday, but so far there has been no answer. D.M.N. (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I requested the page protection because of regular edits by a number of IP addresses (which all come from Malaysia I believe) which revert edits that myself and Asendoh have carried out, which were discussed on the talk page, and consensus reached. I don't have a problem in principle with the content going back in, if that is what is agreed on by consensus. However, despite numerous attempts to get the IP(s) into the discussion, they have consistently failed to get involved, or even bother using edit summaries to explain their rationale. Consequently I asked for page protection (and admittedly asked for the wrong type). Hopefully Administrators can see that we have done all we can to encourage people to join in the discussion, but that they are steadfastly refusing to join in, and that the page protection can be enacted as requested. Ged UK (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Di-no license
I tried to restore this template so it's consistent with the other di-templates, but Carnildo continues reverting me, citing only "Restore human-readable version". I don't want to have an revert-war, but I can't see a reason having one template inconsistent with the other templates. → Aza Toth 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, IMO it reads better in the non-"human-readable" version. ff m  23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience with running ImageTaggingBot is that fewer people are confused when my version is used than when the standard version is used. It gets even better when you remove the garbage from the bottom half of the template. --Carnildo (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carnildo. "His" version is much more usable for newbies who do not know how to tag images for copyright. The ff's version may be more pleasant for eyes but less usable Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All di-templates have always been targeted towards the image, not the newbie. → Aza Toth 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom "garbage" has always been there for admins to use, if you want to change that common behavour, perhaps you should open up a project for changing that behavour. → Aza Toth 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

All di- templates should preferably be converted to imbox since all image templates have been standardized. I fact, I never saw AzaToth's version before... but it looks horrible. deletable image seems completely redundant. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * is in fact using → Aza Toth 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer AzaThot's. Carnildo's version can give the uploader the mistaken impression that any image can be saved, by just finding some copyright tag and putting it on. In the worst case, this will lead the clueless (or bad-faith) uploader to just select some false tag at random. We should be realistic: If uploaders provide no copyright information, in 99% of all cases it's because it's a copyvio, and deep down in their hearts they know it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't look any different. What's under discussion is how the template is made up; Do we have a readable template (in source) using imbox directly, or use an intermediate template, which doesn't make any sense as the text is fixed anyway? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, then we're talking about different things. I thought you guys were talking about this difference in wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

98E is back
I have had to log out to post this, because this kid keeps on following my contribs. Anyway, User:Haymail is a sock of User:98E. The contribs are obvious: he is trying to follow up on a conversation we had on commons, the same type of articles are edited, he follows around my contributions, and shows the same characteristic cluelessness and sockpuppet denial (see User_talk:71.233.232.196, commons:User_talk:71.233.232.196). I am particularly annoyed, because I have been trying to keep the connection between my two accounts somewhat quiet, but he keeps going around blasting it (doubtless this was the purpose). I categorically refuse to file a WP:SSP; we've been feeding this troll for years, and I won't do it anymore. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Haymail blocked as obvious per WP:DUCK. Tiptoety  talk 07:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And.. he posted a unblock request. Tiptoety  talk 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CU confirms that Haymail is Besuto (also blocked as a 98E sock) and Intfictexpert, whom I have just blocked. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block
Can someone please block again, a persistent long-term vandal. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I only see one (very snarky and unhelpful) edit in the last 10 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, to be fair, the IP was blocked for 7 out of those 10 days... BencherliteTalk 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it starts up again a month-long break would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a very long term, very slow thing that's kind of hard to get a grasp of just from glancing at this particular IP's contribs. I probably shouldn't have bothered with this report. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on my watchlist now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Insult by administrator PMAnderson
Hi everybody!

PMAnderson is insulting other users (non-native English speakers, precisely ) calling them "aliens".

here "As you can probably tell, I have had enough. If any editor supports this who actually has English as his native tongue, do let me know; until then, I utterly oppose this effort by aliens to rewrite the English language for their own convenience."

I don't think such a person is appropriate for beeing an administrator. :((( --Áñtò &#124; Ãňţõ (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alien can mean not native. In this case not a native speaker so it might not be as bad as first thought. However bad choice of words. Have you notified them of this thread? Or tried to clarify what (s)he meant? That would be the first step. Viridae Talk 10:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it reads as if he was using "alien" to mean "foreign" and not the extraterrestial meaning. I'd ask him, in case.  <font color=#660000>weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  10:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson is not an administrator. D.M.N. (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WL. this is not an "incident". The complaining party is apparently thinking of Aliens in a sort of wry confirmation of Pmanderson's point :) dab (𒁳) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an incident. The word should not have been used in the context, and tne sentiment was somewhat hostile to good faith, but I don't think the user meant any harm by it. Orderinchaos 14:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary. I linked to alien (law), as Abto would have seen if he had clicked on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunctioning
Can someone please block User:SoxBot VII? It's adding dozens of inappropriate tags to redirects and refuses to stop. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Example: repeatedly adding uncategorized tags to redirect pages.
 * In at least one case the bot also edited from an IP address.--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot's user page claims that an edit to User:SoxBot VII/Run will shut the bot down, but this does not work. The bot's owner is on vacation until the 29th.--Srleffler (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it takes a short while. It's stopped for now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Anyone can unblock at any time if they are happy it is fixed. Viridae Talk 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whew. It's a bit scary when they do that. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: the bot has continued to make edits under the IP 91.198.174.201 despite this block. --Mars2035 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now THAT's really scary. I assume someone's informed the bot operator of this discussion (and he really needs to make sure that IP editing doesn't happen again). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that everyone...It ran for a while, and worked...I don't have access to my bot code though, because the onyl computer that can access it is without internet (A power outage last night knocked out the internet in my dorm).  Soxred  93  21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag team image blanking at Keshub Chunder Sen
The following anon IPs have been taking turns in removing an image of the subject from the article Keshub Chunder Sen.



The anon IPs also resort to personal attacks in their edit summaries, and talk page messages. Can someone please rv the blanking and sprotect the page? This blanking has been going on for quite some time. --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you have been changing more than just restoring the image. Was that your intention?  Are the other changes non-constructive too?  If your focus is the image, I would start by just restoring that... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to make my 3rd (and last edit until tomorrow) by just restoring the image. Let's see what the anon ips react to. Please keep an eye on the article. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As expected, the anon IPs simply blanked the "image only" edit again. This time, they used a throw-away single purpose account. See diff. --Ragib (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To protect the article from continuous anon/open proxy image blanking, I have semi-protected it. However, one of the anon IPs / single purpose accounts claim that since I have an opinion on the issue, admin action (i.e. semi protection of the article) in my part is not ok. I request an uninvolved admin to take a look at it, and decide whether or not semi-protection was not appropriate. In that case, feel free to unprotect the article. I leave it to a third party admin's judgment to decide about semi-protection. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User VintageKits breaking terms of probation?
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion going on at WP:AE; please avoid crossposting. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits' edit here referring to a murder carried out as part of the Troubles as an "honourable deed" seems to be a blatant violation of item 8 of his probation: "For the three month trial, he will not make any reference or comment anywhere on Wikipedia (in article, talk, image or project space, edit summaries or via links off-site) concerning The Troubles."

I attempted to ask Vintagekits about this directly on his talk page to make sure I hadn't somehow misunderstood the intent of the comment (although it seems crystal clear to me) however he deleted my question and flat out refused to respond to it in a civil manner leaving me with no other option but to come here as per the terms of his probation. -- ExNihilo (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, userspace isn't mentioned in the item - but it does say anywhere on Wikipedia and in edit summaries and, as such, I support some form of punishment ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference:, warnings and responses (see the intermediate revisions) ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be exact: warning,removal by VK (with accusation of sockpuppetry),revert by EN,removal by VK,revert by EN,uncivil removal by VK,VK warning EN about 3RR ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable[sic] deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the "sic"? DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It means quoted as it was, despite the spelling. See sic. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  15:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't spelled incorrectly, Brit-Eng spells it with the "u". Duncan Hill (British editor) was commenting that US "corrections" of Brit English is superfluous. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Get off yer high horses - the man just died today have a bit of frickin respect!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:CIVIL ('frickin' can be seen as unnecessary bad language) ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you for real?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)And why don't you show some respect for the man Crip murdered - calling him a 'pest' and his murder an 'honourable deed' will make his family feel great won't it? ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please recall WP:CIVIL (over-use of italics can be construed as sarcasm, which is unnecessarily rude). --Badger Drink (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm real ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Block and ban proposal
This is a clear probation violation. Item 10 thereof (10. If he breaks the terms of these conditions, in any way whatsoever, he will be banned from editing indefinitely.) calls for a ban from wiki. I've blocked him and propose the ban be invoked. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His response on his talk page was "You are joking right!?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re above, no I'm not joking. I totally agree with this stmt from above "Referring to a murder as "pest control/honourable(sic) deed" is really out of line, probation or not this is actionable. The fact that it is in userspace does not make a shred of difference. 1 != 2 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)" — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call - I fully endorse a ban ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm about to endorse, but is this also a violation, creating a redirect to an article that he's banned from editing? D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As it's related to The Troubles, yes, I would have to say. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What are we running here? what's our core business? Is it producing a encyclopaedia or is it running a virtual rest home for people who cannot get along with others ? At this stage, the sheer amount of time he takes up, clearly outweighs his value to us in performing our core business. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a ban endorsement. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You Sure can and let's make sure of that - endorse - his prohibition is clear and explicit - and that edit is clearly going to create wikidrama around his prohibition. I have seen no signs that he suffers from any form of mental deficit that means he cannot understand his prohibition and therefore I can only conclude he made such an edit because he likes the drama. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to understand what VK was thinking when he made that edit to his user space. He had to know that that was obviously a violation of his agreed probation terms. The community gave him a last chance and he's just thrown it back into the community's face. I endorse the indef block. It will be interesting to see how ArbCom react to this--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Are you in the right place?" No, you're not. Without wishing to lawyer VK's ban—I haven't been following the case, other than from a distance—this here is WP:ANI. Please take matters of arbitration enforcement to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Copied to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, make all further comments there ......<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge  .. Talk Contribs 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The community set clear standards, which were not obeyed. Enough is enough. Endorse. <font color="Red">1 <font color="Green"> !=  <font color="Red">2  15:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO a week long block would be appropriate but a longer one let alone an indef block is completely OTT. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Especially worrying here is that the nature of the comment (a perfectly valid view IMHO) appears to be a factor in the eyes of some; rather than whether or not this breaches the "conditions" and if so was that clear to Vk. Folk need to park their political POV when assessing this. Sarah777 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling a murder "pest control" is a "perfectly valid view"? It may well be in your worldview, but it isn't in most people's, and it certainly isn't here, ever (not to mention that it was from a user who is on probation in that particular area). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse the ban. <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a ban as well, his comments above certainly didn't help his case. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly... putting that on your userpage violates the probation terms (yes, the terms don't specify userspace, but that's a technicality). You agreed that if you breach them, you get banned. Endorse <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><font color="#20406F">Alex Muller  17:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, he knows that his views on this subject are controversial; he knows he's not supposed to inflame things about them; and he did something that was clearly designed to provoke a reaction. Endorse. Dr.   e  X  treme  17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.