Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446

User:Tennis expert causing disruption
Basically, a few weeks ago in the Maria Sharapova article, I enacted some fairly non-radical but (I believe) worthy edits, cutting away some irrelevant information and giving the article more flow. User:Tennis expert appeared to take great offence at this, and initially reverted my edits over and over again, until he was defeated by consensus and he subsequently gave up. Since then, however, he has continued to cause disruption in the article and seemingly is intent on discrediting my work on the page without reason: he continually adds tags to the page saying the article requires cleanup, and yet, he never gives a reason for why it requires this and says this in spite of general consensus being that the article is fine as it is. I have repeatedly requested he gives reasons for why he believes the article is poor, and he never gives one, instead just automatically adding the tags back (1). In addition, in what appears to be a further attempt to discredit me, he has in the past accused me of being a sockpuppet of three separate registered users: User:Dudesleeper, User:Musiclover565 and User:Masha4ever, with no evidence to support any of these claims. I have attempted to discuss our issues on his talkpage, but each time, he removes my comements, often with a sarcastic remark (2). Please can he be told he cannot continue to disrupt the Sharapova article in this way. Thank you. Whitenoise123 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not found Tennis expert to be disruptive in my interactions with them. Have notified them so they can comment here. Orderinchaos 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Whitenoise123, I suggest you consider filing a request for comment on user conduct.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather hear the other side of the story first - I've looked at the history and it seems to be an obscure content dispute to me. Orderinchaos 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my side of the story.

First, let's deal with sockpuppetry. BanRay started a still ongoing sockpuppetry case that originally involved Musiclover565 (temporarily blocked earlier this year for disrupting the Maria Sharapova article), Masha4ever, and ultimately more than 20 anonymous IP accounts. Whitenoise123 then interjected and said that he owned the IP accounts and that, therefore, none of those accounts could possibly be sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever based on the transparent assertion that otherwise, Wikipedia would not have allowed him to register as Whitenoise123. Because Whitenoise123 publicly claims the anonymous IP accounts in question (and even edits one of their discussion pages), he is also a suspected sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. That suspicion is logically inescapable. By the way, I never "accused" Whitenoise123 of being a sockpuppet of Dudesleeper - I merely asked Dudesleeper if one of the anonymous IP accounts in question here was his sockpuppet. I have clarified to Whitenoise123 what I did, only to be met with the classic "You say potato, I say pot-ar-to".

Second, I am responsible for initiating the tag in the "career" section of the Maria Sharapova article. The tag in the career section is needed for the reasons stated in the Maria Sharapova discussion page (as I stated in the edit summary when I originally added the tag and on several subsequent occasions) and in the tag itself: (a) the tone of the section needs improvement; (b) the section is confusing or unclear for some readers; (c) the section needs to be expanded; and (d) the section needs copywriting and rewriting. Dudesleeper originally added the tag at the beginning of the article. BanRay and I agree that the tag is still needed. I cannot speak for him about his reasoning for the tag. All I can say is that I believe the tag is justified given the well documented problems that Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets introduced. Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets revert these tags whenever they appear based on his sole opinion that they constitute vandalism, are invalid because the complaints on which they are based are invalid, are absolutely unneeded, or are no longer required. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Third, the Maria Sharapova article was high quality and stable for months after the problems caused by Musiclover565 and his sockpuppets were finally resolved. See, for example, this version of the article. The article was consistent with the standards that longstanding and established tennis editors had developed for the highest quality tennis biographies on English-language Wikipedia. The detail of the article was consistent with the detail of other biographies of highly ranked or successful tennis players. But then, without prior notice or explanation and without attempting to gain consensus, Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets arbitrarily cut vast amounts of important information from the article and greatly decreased its quality: 1. Naturally, this was seen as vandalism. When these cuts and quality degredations were contested, he used repeated reversions of myself and other editors to impose his unilateral conception of what the article should be and denegrated all efforts to restore the article as, e.g., mindless, vandalism, and illegitimate. He then shockingly claimed that there was consensus for the article to read in accordance with his efforts when there was not a scintilla of evidence to support that claim. I finally listed on the Maria Sharapova discussion page 32 important things that were wrong with Whitenoise123's version of the article (there were other less important problems with his version that there was no practical way to list). Although he made a few changes in response to the list, he flatly rejected my other suggestions or claimed that he was accepting some of them when in actual fact he did not. To clarify matters, I then on June 24-26 attempted to address each item on my list one-by-one and provided a detailed edit summary for each of my edits. This, too, was rejected by Whitenoise123, without explanation. After butting my head against the wall for weeks, I decided to add the tag to the career section of the article and then leave that section alone because to do anything else was met by passive aggressive obstructionism. But, as I have explained already, even that was unacceptable to Whitenoise123. It was either his way 100% or no way. That is where things stand now. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to bother with the sockpuppet claims again. As has been established, apart from being incorrect, they are completely irrelevent considering ML565 wanted completely different things to me.
 * As for your second paragraph - once again, you do not give proper reasons for why the tag should be added! What is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? If you can answer these questions, with examples from the article for each one, then we can talk and improve the article. I probably will not be able to respond until tomorrow though. I am, however, going to take issue with your calling my anonymous IPs "sockpuppets" - whenever I use one of these (my ISP constantly gives me a new IP for some reason), I have always made clear that it is me, so they are not sockpuppets.
 * I am not going to bother with the last paragraph either. It was established long ago that I was perfectly within my rights to enact those edits, so anything I write now would just be a rehash of something I wrote a few weeks ago. Lets keep this discussion directly relevant to the topic of the complaint please.
 * And thank you PhilKnight for the advice - I will follow it if Tennis expert continues to add these tags and downgrade the rating of the article without proper, valid reasons. Whitenoise123 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) The downgrading of the Maria Sharapova article to "C class" was done by BanRay, not me. Whitenoise123 promptly reverted the downgrading.  Because I honestly agreed with BanRay, I reinstated the "C class" designation.  Consistent with Whitenoise123's belief that only he knows what's best and that other editors are therefore wrong, he has repeatedly reverted to the "B class" designation despite his being the only editor who has expressly supported "B class" and notwithstanding that two established editors have expressly supported "C class."  Once again, Whitenoise123 makes a lot of "noise" about his having consensus for his edits when the facts clearly show otherwise.  This is the typical disruptive tactic that he uses and that his suspected sockpuppets, Masha4ever and Musiclover565, used earlier this year.  Notice some of the edit summaries that Masha4ever and Musiclover565 used in January 2008: "As BanRay as yet to provide a legitimate reason for why these edits are apparently not allowed, I'm going ahead with them. Others are more than entitled to edit statements they feel are uncited or POV."  "Please do not mindlessly revert my edits."  "Please do not revert edits without reason."  The similarities between these edit summaries and those of Whitenoise123 (and his sockpuppets) are inescapably obvious.  For example: "Please stop mindlessly reverting my edit. Thank you."   "Please stop reverting my perfectly legitimate edit or it will be reported. Thank you."
 * (2) Whitenoise123 himself raised the sockpuppet issue in his initial post here. When I responded appropriately and factually, the issue suddenly is not worth discussing.  Very strange, indeed.  He also claims that he has no control over which anonymous IP sockpuppet accounts he uses because his ISP "constantly gives ... a new IP for some reason."  Again, the facts do not support this story.  He rotates among the same anonymous sockpuppet accounts, returning periodically to many of them.  I guess that's pure coincidence and nothing he controls....  The problem with sockpuppetry is clearly shown by the edits that Whitenoise123 makes, sometimes with his "named" account and sometimes with anonymous IP sockpuppets.  This appears to be a continuing tactic, especially considering the edits made to other tennis biographies from the same IP range as Whitenoise123's admitted IP sockpuppets.
 * (3) Compare the complaint made here by Whitenoise123 to the almost identical complaint made by Masha4ever here. Are the similarities merely coincidence?  I think not.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You just don't get it. I have provided reasons for why I believe the article is B-Class: It is well-written, has all the essential information, well-structured, and in terms of citations, is extremely strong (and I intend to find citations for all uncited statements / remove all uncited statements by the end of the day). If you believe this not to be the case, you need to EXPLAIN why you think this; for instance, if you believe it is not well-written, you need to give examples and say WHY it is not well-written. I am not expecting you to do this of course, considering you have not done so so far despite many requests, but it is not good enough to just say you think it is C-Class.
 * And again, you fail to grasp the sockpuppet claims are completely irrelevent to the issue. I only raised the issue to pre-empt what I knew would come from you: an attempt to fight your case using the claims. I needed to make clear that, as ML565 intended completely different edits to me, the claims were irrlevent. If I "rotate" around anonymous IPs (which I'm not sure is true), that is completely out of my hands. I also do not appreciate your downright LIE saying I rotate between Whitenoise123 and IPs... since I registered this account on Monday (the sole cause for this being to make cases like this easier to deal with), I have always operated with this account and never with an anon IP.
 * All that complaint you cited proves is that your unresponsiveness to my requests for discussions is not a one-off, as you apparently were so in that case too. Once again, in this discussion here, I requested you answer those questions I posed about your problems with the article, and you completely ignored them in your response, instead resorting once again to pretty and irrelevent smears. Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rest assured that I "get it." I am very familiar with your behavior and the behavior of your sockpuppets (self-admitted and otherwise) since January of this year.
 * Yesterday, I added back relevant information concerning Maria Sharapova's results during 2008 that myself and numerous other editors had carefully written and included in the article for over 6 months, i.e., since the beginning of this year. Two hours later, you summarily reverted it in its entirety with the following edit summary: "Removing irrelevant information, in line with consensus."  Although reasonable people could disagree about the amount of detail that should be included in the article, none of what I added back is "irrelevant."  As for your "in line with consensus" comment, where is the evidence of that consensus?  It simply doesn't exist.  Six months of the article having the detail that I was merely trying to restore is persuasive evidence of there having been consensus to include that detail.  You ignored that consensus when you deleted that detail and now you are trying to dress-up your action by claiming a non-existent consensus for your position.  What is most telling about your latest reversion is that you made no effort to compromise.  You simply rejected everything I did, as you did before.  See my efforts on June 24-26 to address each item on the Maria Sharapova discussion page list of problems with your unilateral edits and your out-of-hand rejection of those efforts, without explanation.
 * The tools you have used since June to defend your unilateral action include, but are not limited to, sockpuppetry, frequent reversions, mischaracterizations of facts, false statements of consensus, and now intimidation and threats to seek administrative action unless I go silent and abide by your wishes. The latest example of your behavior is the third paragraph of your statement immediately above.  To be clear about what I'm talking about, let me quote it: "Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so."  Let's look at the various aspects of your statement: (1) Name-calling.  Calling my behavior "trolling" is inconsistent with numerous Wikipedia policies, including, but not limited to, WP:CIVIL.  (2) Falsely stating that I restored my version without regard to intervening edits.  First of all, I did not restore "my" version.  As I already said, I simply restored the detail that numerous editors (including myself) had included in the article for 6 months before your unilateral action.  Second of all, my edit yesterday was not a robotic restoration of the 2008 text that existed before your unilateral action, as this comparison plainly shows.  (3) Falsely stating that there is consensus for your unilateral actions.  See the previous paragraph.  (4) Attempted intimidation and threats.  "[I]f you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid...."  (5) Falsely stating that I have not responded to the request of Orderinchaos and yourself to discuss these issues.  I can understand your discomfort with my numerous responses to your allegations.  But clearly I have responded in full (here and in the sockpuppetry case involving you), and I have reasonably documented your behavior with numerous examples and why I believe it has been disruptive.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not going to bother with most of that; the sockpuppet claims are as silly as ever, and we settled that you were out of line to continually restore your version of the article ages ago, so there is no point responding to your stuff in regards to that. I am going to respond to (4) and (5) though.
 * "Intimidation and threats"?! Please! You know full well that is not what it is, and this sums up your entire input to this dispute - instead of sitting down and calmly debating the issues, you instead almost invariably resort to stupid accusations, irrelevent points or twisting my statements. This was not a threat, it was merely a warning, which are perfectly permitted on Wikipedia; I think I am probably already entitled to request that comment on conduct, but I would rather not further this dispute if I can avoid it, and so, I was just letting you know that, while I would let you off this time, I would not in the future. As you also know, that warning was not a threat to "keep silent"; as I have said, if you could actually come up valid criticisms of the article, to justify the cleanup tags and the C rating, I would be forced to accept them. But you have not.
 * It is not false to say you have not fully taken part in these discussions. Orderinchaos and I have both asked you to fully explain why you feel the tags are necessary, and that does not just mean saying "it needs rewriting"; you need to break down by citing examples and saying what you think is wrong with them. If you feel so strongly about how the bad the article is, why do you find it so difficult just to say what exactly is wrong with it? In your next response, please answer these crucial questions, giving examples for each and explaining in full why you believe them to be poor: what is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? What is wrong with the grammar? If you do not respond to these questions with valid answers, I can only assume that you do not have sufficient problems with the article, proving you only added them in an attempt to cause trouble, thus completely justifying my complaint. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You would assume wrong. But this is your usual tactic: tell editors that unless they respond in the way you dictate by the deadline you impose, you will assume that they agree with your position.  Ridiculous.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is almost a textbook case of what C-Class is designed for, in my view. It seems the correct rating for this article to me. Orderinchaos 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining why? It seems perfect for B-Class to me: every single statement requiring a citation now has one, it contains all key results so has no omissions, it certainly has a very defined structure, it is grammatically sound and flows reasonably well even if not perfectly (and certainly much better than the previous version, which for the most part contained statements like "She defeated Venus Williams. She then defeated Lindsay Davenport"), and it does not use overly-technical terms. In any case, it needs to be viewed relatively; there are many other female tennis player articles rated B (such as Venus Williams, Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic) and I fail to see how they are higher quality than the Sharapova article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitenoise123 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * C-class was introduced quite recently to reduce the gap between Start and B-class. Now that three established editors have graded the article as C, I'm going to restore the C-class template. Now as for this edit, we are still waiting for you to point out the consensus you were referring to. Ban Ray 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I will revert it back to B unless you start giving proper reasons for why it should be C. If you beliieve so strongly that it is C, how hard is it to list what exactly is wrong with it, with examples? This is a reasonable request, and until you start doing this, how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously?
 * And the consensus refers to the fact countless editors have edited the page in the past 3 weeks, and none have taken issue with my edits, apart from yourself and Tennis expert, who have not even provided proper criticisms. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CON please Ban Ray 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent". Of the countless editors to have edited the page in the last 3 weeks, only two have found issue with my edits. That is realistically as close to consensus as we are going to get. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another misrepresentation of fact.... At least 4 editors have expressly objected to your edits: BanRay, Tennisboi13, 121.152.80.151, and myself.  How many editors have expressly supported your edits?  One.  You.  At least 4 editors have expressly supported a "C class" designation for the article: SWik78, BanRay, Orderinchaos, and myself.  How many editors have expressly supported a "B class" designation?  One.  You.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I remember rightly, "Tennisboi13" reverted about one sentence. And there is no proof whatsoever that that anon IP is not your sockpuppet. As for me being the only one to support my edits - once again, as the page that BanRay so kindly pointed me to, "silence implies consent".
 * I also notice you have once again rejected my attempts to reach consensus. I started a discussion about the grading on the discussion page, and posted a polite note about it requesting input on your talkpage... you responded by removing my comment without reason, ignoring the discussion and reverting the grading back. This only leads me to assume you do not have genuine concerns about the article. For now, for the very short term, I will leave the article as C, but unless someone gives full, explicit reasons for why it should not be B shortly, I will revert it back. Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See this. Tennis expert (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop being patronising. I have gone to the trouble of clarifying my stance, it is now your responsibility to clarify yours. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If all the time and energy in the above squabble over class was put into improving the article, it'd be on the main page by now. 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, very true. And I am willing to start working with BanRay and Tennis expert to improve the article further when they start calmly debating the content rather than silly accusations of sockpuppetry or adding cheap tags for no reason. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true Tanthalas, but even though I do prefer Tennis expert's version of the article, this isn't as much about the article as it is about the User's trolling and sockpuppetry. So up until the sock case is taken (and with the current backlog it may well take a while), I will try to refrain from any communication with the user. Ban Ray 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I think that shows how impossible it is to calmly discuss things with this guy. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have outlined my case for a B rating on the Sharapova discussion page. Any input would be appreciated. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance y'all can adjourn to WP:DR? Mediation or whatever? I'm not hearing anything that requires administrator intervention. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already attempted to start this (see the Sharapova discussion page), but Tennis expert has thus far not responded. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking candidate User:Pararubbas
Dear Administrators,

My name is VASCO from PORTUGAL, i am an unregistered but willing contributor to WP, and i have, upon redirection from friendly user BanRay, come across this section, and will proceed to explain my "case":

I tend to work more on sports (football, basketball) articles, and have come across an user which can be described as anything but useful: PARARUBBAS is his accountname, and his "contributions" consist in: Gluing all the article's sentences/paragraphs into one really big, incomprehensible sentence, removing brackets that are needed for display, but, much much worse, removing just because, ALL EXT.LINKS and REFERENCES!

I have warned him twice (once in portuguese, mine and i reckon his too language, although i doubt he does not speak english, since he writes in this WIKI-version), i have talked with other users (BanRay has also warned him), and he continues to disrupt/remove at will, after being threatened with blocking (either he does not read his talkpage/edit summaries or he does and doesn't care).

Lend me your insights on this issue please, from PORTUGAL, a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User in question is . Notified them but haven't had time to dig into this yet. — Satori Son 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reluctantly blocked Pararubbas for 24 hours for continued disruptive editing. My initial hesitation with blocking was that this may be a language issue, since the user has made zero talk edits of any kind. But they've received numerous warnings and requests to discuss (even one in their likely native Portuguese), so not sure what else to do.
 * I would more than appreciate a second or third set of eyes on this (and if there's a consensus to unblock, just go ahead - no need to wait for me to come back online). Thanks. — Satori Son 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ!
Need help fixing vandalism to Henri Matisse by "The Avril Troll", etc. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Firefox running on FreeBSD is hard to squash :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it on Tom Cruise. indopug (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD participant redacting statement by nominator
An AfD discussion is currently ongoing concerning Allegations of apartheid, an article that was the subject of an arbitration case last year. Unfortunately one of the participants,, has repeatedly deleted part of the nominator's introductory statement on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" and "blatant attempt at well-poisoning". I have asked Leifern to desist from redacting the nominator's opening statement and take it up with the nominator instead if he feels there is a problem. The nominator has also objected. Leifern has a history of doing this sort of thing; he deleted an admin's closing comments during a related AfD last year on the bogus grounds that they were "unauthorized". This seems to be more of the same.

This clearly isn't appropriate behavior - I don't think I've ever come across an AfD participant attempting to censor a nominator's opening statement before. I would take action myself but as a participant in the AfD I think I would be seen as "involved". It would be helpful if someone could have a word with Liefern about the matter. Given that the AfD itself is getting fairly heated, I think it would also be helpful if someone could keep an eye on it to deal with any further problems that crop up. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The content he is removing is links to previous related AFD's and other discussions. I dont see how this is poisoning the well, however providing additional relevant information in an attempt to reach a consensus (based on current and past discussion).  I agree it is wrong to remove this section. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my take on it, too. Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) is (hopefully!) the last in a long series of AfDs on "allegations of apartheid" articles. The issues that have been raised in all of them (basically WP:SYNTH) are pretty much identical so it's quite useful to look back at the arguments that were made in those discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think editing someone else's nom is probably not a good approach, if the nom is good faith and the material doesn't constitute an attack or some other egregiously bad material. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that comments should not be removed from an AfD without a compelling reason, in analogy to WP:TPG, and that such a reason is not apparent here. This should be sanctioned as disruption if it continues.  Sandstein   18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We've already had one ArbComm case related to these articles, AFDs, and DRVs. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator can proactively manage this without letting it become another major mess.  GRBerry 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It would, of course, be helpful if you all, before making a stink about this, had checked back at the page and noticed I had, instead of deleting the section, commented on the section after it was restored. So all this is totally unnecessary.
 * 2) ChrisO is a heavily involved in this issue and has no claim to any semblance of impartiality, nor has he any standing in commenting on what is appropriate behavior or not.
 * 3) The history that ChrisO talked about was when another editor (I can't remember if it was an admin or not; it should be irrelevant) took it upon himself/herself to write on a page that was expressly closed for further editing. I reverted that in keeping with the text, on the principle that rules apply equally to everyone. Since then, the relevant editors and I have talked and are on amicable terms with each other.
 * 4) It's my considered opinion that a decision to delete or keep any article should be based on the merits of the article itself. There is no limit to the number of references, articles, etc., one could bring in to "inform" voting editors, and in this case the additional comment was made after the initial nomination. In this particular case, ironically, both CJCurrie and ChrisO have been complaining about an imagined cabal of pro-Israeli advocates that they think have been relating the existence of one article with the existence of others. Yet, they find it appropriate and convenient to make such comparisons themselves when it suits them. So it's my opinion that the AFD is not made in good faith, but it's not my habit to take every and any personal grievance I have to noticeboards and what-not. --Leifern (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The keywords in #4 above is, "It's my considered opinion." We all have our opinions on how things should be done and many of us disagree. That is what the process is about. Just removing stuff you disagree with is how edit wars start. I am glad you stopped removing it, that is comendable, please try not to take the AFD to personally, it is about the article, not about you. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had no involvement whatever in these deletions, or in any apartheid articles whatever, for that matter. In my considered opinion, Leifern, your considered opinion is quite wrong. The pattern here relating to the articles is useful to see. Further, if the material is irrelevant, trust the other editors and the closing admin to realise that for themselves after you comment to that effect. Further, I don't think there is any arguing with the point that you should not change the words of others except in very limited, very circumscribed, very well understood circumstances. If it comes to my notice that you are doing so in future, you may find yourself warned again, and if that is not sufficient, blocked. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It sure does. I better not disagree with ChrisO again. --Leifern (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are Liefern, by all means nobody should ever disagree with you . Disagreements are going to happen, even between the most experience editors.  What sets them apart is how they handle it.  It appears to me that you are handling this pretty poorly. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could have dealt with it better. But it would be my sincere recommendation that before you make such a judgment, give me admonitions, etc., that you take the time to understand what's going on - especially when the notice comes from an admin who is deeply involved in the issue. ChrisO took this immediately to the AN/I board without raising it with me first, ignored my request to discuss it on the Talk page, and then made additional accusations against me. To boot: all this after it was apparent that the behavior you think was so awful was discontinued. So maybe I screwed up, but I wasn't the only one - and I came to my senses on my own. --Leifern (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, I am not involved with this at all which allows me to view this in from a neutral point of view. I reviewed the situation independantly and reached the conclusion I reached on my own (as I am assuimg those who also independantly reviews this did).  I take Chris )'s words with a grain of salt as I take yours.  both are involved parties and therefore it required independant research. Also to note, I actually complement you above for stopping and engaging in discussion.  The best thing to do now is just move forward! Chris <font color="4169E1">lk02  <font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really not that complicated - as I said on your talk page, there are certain circumstances where you're allowed to edit others' comments, but this isn't one of them. I'm glad you've now chosen to discuss things with the nominator. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... next time, Liefern, if you turn up here, start by acknowledging the truth of certain things instead of insisting about matters. Or at least start by asking instead of asserting. That will help things go more smoothly next time. As for talk page stuff, yes I agree with that. And Chrislk02, sarcasm probably doesn't help. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123
User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reprinted from my talk page:
 * ":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"


 * More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stalking editors from page to page and harassing them, as John Carter has been doing to me for over a year now is unacceptable conduct. It looks particularly bad when an administrator continues to engage in behavior of this sort against an editor in good standing, after they have repeatedly been asked to stop. It looks even worse when that same administrator escalates his campaign of harassment after the editor (who has good cause to complain) supports a motion to have him desyssoped as I did here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me and attempting to create conflict and confrontation on articles that I am editing. As I have stated previously, I deliberately avoid articles you are involved with. Extending me the same courtesy might be considered conduct befitting an administrator. Cleo123 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that on top of attacks and claims about rule violation without any real proof, the user also resorts to bullying others as seen here. Not only is the above user dramatically reinterpreting Wikipolicy, but making outrageous claims about US law. This disruption has spread to multiple talk pages and seems to revolve around one person in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reinterpreted policy? Gee, WP:BLP seems pretty clear cut to me. What part of this do you think I'm misinterpreting?
 * "Basic human dignity. Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia.
 * For the record, I do not think I've made any "outrageous claims" about US law. I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately. Please, explain what part of these policies you think I am reinterpreting? And if you are, in fact, so confident that your interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL are correct, please, go right ahead and create this free standing article yourself instead of encouraging a newbie to do it for you. Cleo123 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you just admit that your incivil actions are based on the possible language of something you have not yet seen? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article. It would appear that you may not have taken the time to review the contribution history of the editor you've been encouraging. I have "seen" the material, and removed it from the article in accordance with WP:BLP some time back. The editor in question has apparently "seen the light" thanks to my intervention and stopped reinserting libelous material into the article. As I see it, the conflict between the two editors was resolved a while ago. For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown. You seem to be trying to create some sort of new conflict, not mediate one. Cleo123 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Game? You think this is some game that you can go around making up rules, harassing users, and the rest? No editor is listening to anything you say, because you are a disruption. Audemus and Dem came to terms before you started attacking people. They are waiting for you to stop your harassment so we can continue to expand the page. You already admitted that you are here to attack people, and now you admit that you have no grounds for your attacking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter), cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I, by contrast, have never been blocked for anything during my years on Wikipedia. Please, do not make false accusations against other users. I have not harassed anyone. I have not edited the talk page of the article in nearly a week. So, I'm not sure what anyone might be waiting for. Although I haven't edited the article in a while now, none of my edits to the article have ever been reverted by anyone. Considering Dem1970's message on your talk page, in which he says I am "right on", your above statements seem to be very misleading at best. Cleo123 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None of your statements have support except by yourself. That should clue you in about the nature of your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its obvious to everyone here how blatant your misuse of the truth is especially when you quote that I was "banned" while linking to a post I made in which I stated I would be gone from the FAC review process until the end of the summer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Upon closer review, I see that the vote was never actually tallied. Although the majority voted to ban you, you essentially banned yourself and took a wikibreak before the vote could be tallied. My apologies. It was not my intention to mislead in any way. Cleo123 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more fact twisting by Cleo123--as usual. Looks to be like John was open to recall for desysop'ing while involved in a content dispute with another couple editors, and haven't even corresponded with Cleo123 for about a year.  Then Cleo123 can't let go of his old vendetta after all that time--which's really sad--and WP:STALK'ed in and reposted his old WP:CIVIL-violating diatribe from the year-old and already-resolved dispute from List_of_converts_to_Christianity, a dispute which Cleo123 lost and twice refusing to accept the outcome of mediation (against him) and insulted the mediators, and got his tag-teaming friend User:Bus_stop indef-banned for disruption, incivility, tendentious editing among other vices (The mediator back then already noted Cleo123 has a tendency to misstate facts and "twist other's words in obvious ways", this is just another example).  Don't worry, RFC is coming in a few days once I find the time to assemble the factoids, hope you'll all participate.  Tendancer (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, provide some links for these less than civil allegations. Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have provided the links re: John's self-open-to-recall which in turn contained a diff directly to your own lengthy diatribe against John Carter two posts above, as if you think your WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations are something to be proud of.  Not to mention you already twice vandalized my talk page in response to the links I provided re: a mediator's comments against you.  In light of that fact and your sudden amnesia about those diffs and your requests for links; it seems at best disingenuity, at worst yet a disruptive ploy to waste other editor's time.  The links above to List_of_converts_to_Christianity and User:Bus_stop also contain reams of info about your tag-team edits and how that eventually got Bus_stop banned (while you pretended to go on a wiki-break to hide from actions against you ), it's actually rather comical if you're actually claiming you need links/references to that history as you were centrally involved for months.  Please stop being disruptive.  Tendancer (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask you to provide links to substantiate all of your less than civil allegations. What's the matter? Can't provide any? Oh, and BTW, that's quite a jump you're taking where Bus stop is concerned! Arguing some points on the same side of a debate with someone is not the same thing as "tag team editing" with them. I'll remind you that quite a few admins were involved with the discussions you've referenced, none of them seem to have shared your view of my conduct. I know that it was very upsetting for you that your POV on the Michael Richards article did not prevail. But Wikipedia has its policies where living people are concerned. It's policy. It's not me - and stalking and harassing me for a year does little to change policy. Want to call Michael Richards a racist and Kyle Doss a hero? I suggest you start a blog and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your seemingly childish vendetta. Cleo123 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report over Cleo's personal attacks found above here. I do not appreciate being attacked in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, if you want links at last count I have 23 in the RFC to outline your deplorable conduct, expect that to be submitted sometime within the next 24 hours. Thank you for link #24 with yet another evidence of your WP:NPA violations and yet another example your twisting other's words (as a mediator already pointed out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_converted_to_Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=138303758) and inventing lies to falsely accuse others of WP:BLP.  Why don't you go ahead and see if you can even attempt to find a diff where I wanted to call Michael Richards a racist or call Kyle Doss a hero.  What's the matter?  Can't provide any because it doesn't exist and is a complete invention?  And once again you avoided the question, please explain why you would need links re: John Carter's voluntary recall and a direct diff to your length diatribe when all you had to do was to scroll up and see your own post from Jul 6.  (and that reposted diatribe is a year old for heaven's sake, I really hope you still haven't let go because you lost that "fight"?  Wikipedia is WP:NOT a battleground.  To quote you, please consider "start a blog and stop disrupting Wikipedia with your seemingly childish vendetta" if you're being disruptive because you can't let go.  Tendancer (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Can't let it go?" My contribution history clearly shows that I have avoided articles you and John Carter are involved with. The two of you, by contrast, have been following me from article to article for over a year now, attempting to provoke confrontations with me. During the course of your little cyber vendetta, I've watched the two of you repeatedly flame, knowingly argue against Wikipedia's policies, file bogus complaints and most recently, we have John Carter arguing for the creation of an article designed to malign a living person, just to antagonize me. I am not the one who is disrupting Wikipedia. You two are. The record is quite clear. Cleo123 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP
The above user has proven that they are using a misinterpretation of BLP to make unnecessary changes. Look at this current string of actions which incorporates WP:CHILD, a policy that has nothing to do with pages on notable children - here, here, and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your posting here is quite misleading. Why not provide copies of the messages I've exchanged with CalendarWatcher, which you've clearly seen, as they explain the very routine edit that you are taking issue with. I made a very minor edit to the biography of a child actress, removing the exact day of her birth while leaving the month and year. As I explained:
 * I believe that both of the policies I cited do, in fact, apply in this case. WP:BLP specifically states:
 * ''"Privacy of personal information
 * "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."


 * The minor in question does not appear to be widely notable and her DOB has not been widely published. More importantly, the private information may well have been posted by a WP:CHILD".'


 * I honestly, don't see what you seem to think is so controversial about this edit. The information does not appear to be publicly available anywhere. The user who inserted it, has edited little other than articles related to the child actress. I think one can safely assume from the user's edits, that they may be a child. More importantly, the young actress does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I am simply exercising caution, in accordance with policy. It seems to me that you are following me about. You also appear to be trying to create conflict where there shouldn't be any and disrupt Wikipedia. Please, stop. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also note that considering the substance of Ottava Rima's latest complaint (a minor edit to a date of birth), the title he has given this thread "Abuse of BLP" could be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL Cleo123 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Child has nothing to do with pages, only with Wikipedia users. That is just one of a constant trend of outright miss-attributing policy. Furthermore, birthdates are not personal information. They are part of public record. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As Cleo123 seems intent on holding up our 'exchange'--not really an exchange since Cleo123 didn't bother responding on my user-talk page, where'd actually see it--I found both responses unconvincing, eccentric, and--especially in the first case--wildly off-topic, Cleo123's original response showing interest not so much in the issues as in scoring points against his or her enemies (the passive-aggressive formulation 'Interestingly enough' absolutely triggered my alarms). The attempt at back-pedalling by claiming that WP:CHILD might apply because a child might have edited sounded particularly grasping at straws. In my opinion, Cleo123 doesn't really understand the actual policies he or she claims to uphold--or at the very least is applying their own standard and looking for justification afterward. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has on more than one occasion cited a non-existent policy that notability requires "wide notability" (an undefined term) and stating that notability should be established by national sources, a statement which is in no way supported by policy. I believe the editor in question would be very well advised to review the policies in questions, and, should they wish to make changes to those policies, to request such on the talk pages of the relevant policies, rather than by fiat elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Please, do not misrepresent my statements. Cleo123 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At 9:00, June 30, as per here, you stated the information was not notable on a national level, which is substantially similar to the statement I made above. Also, it has been stated by others that you have yourself at least one leveled an accusation against Ottava which might, in itself, qualify as libel were it to be included in an article. And you also appear to think that inclusion of the subject's date of birth in the Imdb database here somehow qualifies as being not "widely published", a statement I personally find absolutely ridiculous, and I imagine most people would agree with that assessment. You have also made it clear that you are yourself have a good deal of difficulty of assuming good faith of anyone who disagrees with your original interpretations of policy, as can be demonstrated by the recent exchange on your own user talk page. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my remarks. Taken out of context they may appear harsh, and perhaps they are, however, I think that any user who actually takes the time to review Audemus Defendere's contributions to the Steve Windom article and its talk page will agree that the user was editing both the article and the article's talk page in a manner that was clearly demonstrative of a personal vendetta against the article's subject, whom he repeatedly accused another editor of being. Most troubling of all, however, were statements he inserted into the article which seemed deliberately designed to give readers the false impression that material that has been proven in court to be libelous, was in fact true. I removed those remarks from the article some time back and since then no one has reverted my edits, including you. I can only assume that the community agrees with my "misinterpretation" of policy. I stand by my assessment that Audemus Defendere was making Wikipedia a battleground for a real life dispute. Rather than discouraging Audemus Defendere, who seems to have a personal involvement in the criminal libel conviction, you have actually gone so far as to encourage this newer user to create an entire free standing article apparently designed to defame Mr. Windom and showcase salacious details of libelous material. Thankfully, Audemus Defendere has heeded my advice and stopped disrupting the article. You, by contrast, appear to be trying to create a new conflict.


 * The trial does not warrant its own freestanding article, as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I am apparently not the only user who has told you this. The criminal trial, which involves misdemeanor charges, did not receive significant national news attention and does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. That's all I was saying. Please, stop taking my remarks out of context, in what would appear to be some sort of attempt at retaliation for my support for your desysoping.


 * No one has reverted any of my changes to the article, because my interpretation of WP:BLP is, in fact, correct. If you sincerely feel that I am wrong, well then, please, explain why haven't you reinserted the libelous and misleading statements into the article???? If you really think that this matter deserves its own freestanding article, why don't you create it yourself, rather than encouraging a newbie to do it for you? With the exception of Windom, all of the key players in this event are private citizens who do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Likewise, the trial did not receive widespread national news coverage. If one were to logically follow your argument in this situation, Wikipedia would have thousands of useless articles dedicated to local libel suits, just because they are salacious. I'll remind you again, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. Cleo123 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleo123, please explain to everyone how you are capable of seeing into the future, because you keep claiming that you know exactly how everything would turn out before any proposals or drafts are made. I'm sure the government would also like to know how you came across such powers. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I note once again that Cleo123 seems to repeat, bordering on insistence, that anything be notable nationally to be included. That is, to my eyes, a laughable and possibly conscious misinterpretation of WP:NOTABILITY. In fact, Cleo has made that same mistake earlier, and has had it pointed out before as well. I have yet to see any evidence provided by that individual to support this frankly ridiculous interpretation of policy, but would be very interested in seeing anything which does support such an remarkable claim. And, as Ottava has said above, you seem to be indicating that somehow you have already reviewed all 1600+ articles in the main Birmingham paper, not counting any additional articles elsewhere, to jump to your rather amusing conclusion that the content does not meet notability standards. Have you in fact done so? If not, then your statement is an irrational jump to conclusions by an individual who has to date so far as I can see done no research on the subject at all, and on that basis, basically what it seems to be, an unsubstantiated, pre-emptive, presumptuous, jump to conclusions. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John, as you know, I am not the only editor to tell you that your proposed spin-off article, which you proposed titling "The Steve Windom Scandal", does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and is problematic on a variety of fronts. There are undoubtedly thousands of libel cases filed each year in every state in the union. If this case, which involves misdemeanor charges, is to be dubbed notable enough for a free standing article, it would have to have received significant national media coverage, which would set it apart from all the rest. Your argument that a thousand or more local newspaper articles makes this event notable enough for a free standing article, does not mesh with WP:Notability. For example, my sister lives in a town where local residents are fighting the construction of a power plant. With all the local media coverage, I get over a thousand google hits. Does that mean that Wikipedia should have a free standing article on the subject? Of course, not! If notability were based purely on the number of google hits, as opposed to the quality and caliber, Wikipedia might be overrun with articles on minor lawsuits that received lots of local media coverage. Again, if you think I am wrong, go right ahead and create the "Steve Windom Scandal" article. What are you waiting for? Why waste your time here complaining about my viewpoint? Why do you care what I think? Your time might, in fact, be more productively spent creating this article that you purport to so earnestly believe in. If my interpretation of policy is incorrect, as you seem to think it is, your article will survive a deletion debate. If my interpretation of policy is correct, the article will be deleted. Why not let the community decide? Cleo123 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

outsideish note
I'm not uninvolved here (see my talk page), but it seems to me like John Carter and Ottava Rima are in the right here. Cleo123, you're GROSSLY overstating the issues here with vague threats about lawsuits and the like. You are not the subject of the article (who I might add, is a public figure, being the Lt. Governor of the state. If the subject of the article has a concern, (apparently not, since they're supposedly in contact with Ottava Rima), they can contact the foundation with any legal threats. You keep bandying about libel this, libel that, without any significant evidence that it is in fact libel. I reviewed the article and found a perfectly neutral article on the subject. Misusing BLP the way you are, and you're starting to edge into the "chilling effect" zone of "no legal threats". &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes! The article IS perfectly neutral, thanks in large part to my edits! I think you need to slow down and review the article's contribution history and the talk pages, before jumping to conclusions, which is what you seem to be doing. I do not object to the article in it's current state - it's my version! LOL! As I see it, there is no dispute. The dispute seems to have been resolved. The problem is that Ottava Rima, who seems to have appointed himself as some sort of mediator, now seems to be arguing that the libel which was removed from the article should now be expanded upon and showcased in it's own free standing article, based on some unseen offline communication he claims to have initiated with the article's subject.
 * As for "legal threats" - I have done absolutely nothing of the kind. That's a really outrageous statement. You need to go back and review the discussion. And I am not "bandying about libel this and libel that" - OMG! The article that we are discussing concerns a libel case, for goodness sake! I've responded to Ottava Rima's unusual interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say the article in its current state. I said the article as I reviewed it. You are indeed bandying about libel this and libel that. The article concerns a libel case. Ok fine. It's not libel for us to discuss the case in the article. Commenting on documents of public record, which are allegations made by others, does not equate to libel committed by us. That's the part I don't think you seem to get. I saw the article with all that material in, and I didn't see anything that struck me as BLP-worthy that should bring out the machetes. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask you to review the article's contribution history. Why do you speak and offer inflammatory opinions without investigating? At the point at which you entered the discussion, I had already fixed the article! Frankly, I believe you owe me an apology for jumping to conclusions. I think you are way out of line - that's "the part I don't think you seem to get." This is about a user inserting POV commentary from a juror designed to leave readers with the false impression that court proven libelous material might actually be true. Cleo123 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. And sounds like you have made up your mind, rather than having an open mind. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a little note - if any admin wants copies of the emails that the Lt. Governor has sent to me, I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Email is not a reliable source. At best, you could forward it to OTRS. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, he has the information, or should have the information, that I sent him about such (in case there was a problem). These are just correspondence about opinion on the matter (Cleo claimed before that the page's subject, Steve Windom, would never talk to someone like me because I am too "libelous"). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said anything of the kind. I said you do not represent Wikipedia. You are not an employee of Wikipedia. It is very inappropriate for you to be contacting the subjects of articles on behalf of Wikipedia, and having legal discussions with them. Likewise, you should not be asking another user for legal advice for Wikipedia as you did here. Sorry, but I think you are way over the line. Cleo123 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SwatJester is an active member who has experience with Wikipedia and legal matters. It is quite appropriate to contact people like him in order to get an opinion on how the policy works. Now, here are your actual comments that prove you as being completely wrong: "and we certainly do not go running around contacting the subjects of articles! Oh, ya, right Steve Windom is busy chatting with you offline - telling you it's okay to republish libel about him! LOL! I believe that like I believe a group of five administrators asked you to be a mediator on this article! LOL! BTW- I'm still waiting for the links that substantiate those claims" found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have filed a RFC for Cleo123 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendancer (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Verwoerd
Probable sock puppet of banned user Auno3 (see Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (5th)) now edit-warring to include a "dysgenics" section in the Human article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned on talk, I believe I have followed all standards as an editor and scientist. Now, Timvickers, Wobble, and another accuser seem to be angry that some editors support my position. I have tried to debate the validity of sources, but they are playing hardball by accusing me of being those editors who support me. If I were a "sock", how come no one has yet come to my defense. That's right. I dont even canvass like what this gang does. I wanted to wait until editors SEE my edits, but Timvickers doesnt even want anyone to see an edit that I made in good faith and I am sure anyone will agree conforms to all of Wikipedia's standards. I can only plead that there are a few people with enough common sense to see through this intimidation. Verwoerd (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody may want to take a look at this diff. Sort of tells us where this editor is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, just because of my belief that you are putting this on ANI? To set the record straight, I have been very clear that I believe that races are different, but none is superior. It is just science. If humans were any other species, as biology dictates, the races would very clearly belong in subspecies. It is only because of political correctness that this concept is not upheld. Verwoerd (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be your belief, but it is not apparently shared by the majority of the academic community, and thus too much content relative to it would violate WP:Undue weight. Also, the fact that you expressed an opinion which is not shared by the majority of the academic community and are seeking to add material relative to that belief can make you appear to be violating WP:COI, which I suggest you read. If and when the consensus opinion of the academic community changes, then the changes you seek to make might be acceptable. Until then, however, they probably aren't. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two statements, one from Auno3, one from Verwoerd. The topic for both is "Continuing evolution"

Auno3 "There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

Verwoerd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human&diff=prev&oldid=224690401 It's a simple matter of two and two is four. If human evolution is not occurring, then obvious dysgenics is moot. But the fact that humans are evolving shows that the theory can be true, that it cant be discounted. And then there is the mountain of research on dysgenics. Verwoerd (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)]"

Likewise:

Here, Verwoerd removes an image from the Interracial marriage article...

A confirmed sock of Auno3 removed the same image from the Miscegnation article. (See Suspected_sock_puppets/Auno3_%283rd%29).

I'm sure we can compile lots of evidence. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many other editors have supported these actions. Not only me, but the editors of two scientific papers who put their name on the line to publish their research on human evolution. Auno3 may agree with me on many matters, but so does half the editors at many of the articles you just mentioned. An examination of the talk pages of those articles confirms this. These accusers dont want to discuss the matter at hand, only at accusing me of using other accounts to create "false support". I have been acting in good faith, yet these editors have been canvassing and trying to direct attention toward a meaningless and false issue. Verwoerd (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise this user is using an inappropriate username considering he's been removing images of people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying, naming oneself after the "primary architect of Apartheid" (Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) while editing interracial marriage articles must be considered inflammatory behaviour surely? Surely this user should change their username? Alun (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this user changing between differnt user accounts is the primary problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, looks like a duck to me BTW. Cheers. Alun (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am deeply offended by this. You have all made it much more personal. For what? Because you want to stifle me? Accuse me of having an "inappropiate" username? Verwoerd is a last name of many South Africans. It's like saying that someone can't have the username Bonds because there is a man named Barry Bonds. The inappropiate username rule only applies to a word that is unambiguous. For such insensitivity to a mere name, I believe Tim Vickers has acted in a way contrary to the responsibilities of his position. Tim, Wobble, and possibly Ramdrake are only able to muffle this discussion for so long. No one has come to my defense, yet they say I am participating in sockpuppetry. They couldn't prove that, so now they say there's something wrong with my name. I can only imagine why no one has said anything. Because they too will be accused. I only plead that there are other administrators with enough common sense to see through their objectionable behavior. They have repeatly deleted my revision to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I did it because there were no sources, it was not expressed in the opinion section of that newspaper. And most science articles are somewhat opinionated, so all they wanted to do was add emphasis and POV push to make the article seem false. Yet, my addition to the Human article is deleted despite having sources. They say Dysgenics is fringe, yet even the largest journals in Biology Nature has commented on the importance of dysgenics trends. I also had a reference linking to the Science (journal) on the current state of human evolution that was deleted. That these people would delete a source from the best journal in the best category of sources according to Wikipedia (third-party peer-reviewed journals) is testament to the inappropiateness of their behavior. Verwoerd (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't take it personnally, because it isn't. It's however very much a matter of respecting Wikipedia policy. What you wish to do is in direct violation with policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, looking at the book review you linked in Nature it states:


 * You are misrepresenting references as if they supported, rather than refuted your arguments, and edit-warring against a clear talk-page consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont misrepresent what I mentioned. I clearly said that they said the topic was important, which they did. So a discussion should be written on dysgenics, though not necessarily supporting it. Verwoerd (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the topic was important to genetics, it should be easy to find articles from geneticists that discuss dysgenesis. Several of us have gone through this search, to find out zero articles on dysgenics by geneticists. That, in and of itself, should speak to the lack of importance of the subject in genetics. As per TimVickers below, redacting comment. You're absolutely right, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to discuss the text of the human article, that is talking place at Talk:Human and a straw poll is showing a clear consensus against adding this material. This is however the best place to discuss what should be done about this obvious sock of User:Auno3 Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim, I believe your edits and accusations have been odious. You have even smeared my name saying that it should be changed because I share it with a controversial figure of the 20th century. Your closely aligned man Ramdrake then said that it was not personal. You should read WP:No personal attacks. Verwoerd (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's Alun\Wobble who suggested you should change your handle. And for the record, TimVickers and myself aren't closely aligned at all, except for haunting biological science-related articles,every now and then and for the both of us being trained scientists.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt either of you are scientists. Sounds more like Essjay Science Edition. Both of you are afflicted by the most serious form of tunnel vision I have ever encountered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verwoerd (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I love looking at specifics. In this edit, Verwoerd removes the following pictures from the interracial marriage page:


 * 1) A black man in a tuxedo and white women in a white dress with veil, and a description of "[[:Image:Beach-wedding-couple.jpg|Black male and White female on their wedding day]"
 * 2) A black man in a tuxedo and a (probably) south-east Asian woman wearing a white dress, veil and holding flowers, in a church, and a description of "''A couple leaving the altar
 * He cites in his edit summary "I think the discussion shows that only relationships where the races are known based on sources should be pictured" - that's kinda ridiculous objection given the descriptions and the pictures themselves.  On Mainstream Science on Intelligence, Verwoerd is attempting to describe the Wall Street Journal as a science publisher, when deor accurately describes it as an opinion piece in a newspaper.  This may or may not be axe grinding, but it's certainly sloppy editing.  Verwoerd may not be stifled but he does seem to be being corrected.  Also:


 * This edit contains inappropriate focus on intelligence and evolution and eugenics (which is rejected pseudoscience, when artificial selection would ‘’perhaps’’ be more appropriate). Also, the NYT article linked to does not to support the idea that evolution has been accelerating since 5,000 years ago.
 * Verowoerd might be helped by a re-reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR; if you’re having trouble finding sources that explicitly back up your points, you shouldn’t make them up or extrapolate to a version of the truth. WLU (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User Video777 and Youtube links
is an SPA who does nothing but link to a specific Youtube video, despite being reverted by both the XLinkBot and me. My concern is that this link violates copyright; Video777 claims the copyright holder uploaded the videos, but I see no way of verifying that. I was going to protect the article or block the SPA, but I thought I'd bring the issue here first for review. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being so vague. Beam 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vague how? What's vague?   Corvus cornix  talk  01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I chimed in on Video777's talk page and explained that I agreed with you, since there was no proof presented that the YouTube user calling himself Kempler was actually Kempler.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * COuldn't it be further argued that since the film in question isn't even available, it's an irrelevant link; it focuses on the person, not the topic. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he kept edit-warring it in, and got blocked for 24 hours. Let's see if that encourages him to think of another approach. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured sound candidates/When Johnny Comes Marching Home
Can someone close this? Per the instructions on WP:FSC, it's clearly passed (and clearly has run well over the timescale), but Durova was concerned that, since I know her, it might give an impression of impropriety if I did it.

Because, you know, checking there's three supports, that it's run 14 days, and that there's a majority of support cannot be done objectively. Sad thing is, she's probably right that there's people stupid enough to object.

I'll handle the other ones I haven't voted on, but as WP:FSC is so badly managed at the moment, I think I'll be a bit cautious. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I voted on Featured sound candidates/Etherea, so someone else will need to close that. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The recording is so overly data-compressed it's no fun to listen to. Hence, given my selfish take on it, I must recuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks all; Tawker has closed the nomination. Durova Charge! 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Death threats made against user by IPs in the Sandbox
Example diffs (there are many more from apparently dynamic Roadrunner IPs) - probably connected to User:Inaethofdrug.

  

Reporting here just in case. Thoughts?

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm not an administrator)Hi. Have they (~a dozen or more?) all been blocked? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, all blocked as far as I can see. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c) You did the right thing. I was just in there using it to preview something, and I happened to glance over the history. I was debating on whether or not I should request semi-protection for the sandbox, of all things. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it would help if I paid attention to who protected it. I was going to say that you protecting it was the right thing to do, but since you didn't protect it, that may come off as a little strange. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi'ed the sandbox for a few hours; let's see how that goes. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had my finger on the protect button at the same time as you, I guess... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should punish the "editor" who just refined it to say different death threat, he was just being creative. Beam 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What, the guy who threatened him with martinis? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore them. Block for death threats, but other than that, don't worry about it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Threats of Violence, I suggest you inform the threatened editor and let him/her decide to call the police or not. Bstone (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. That admin has already been informed, and says it's just "stupid 4chan/Grawp wannabees", and ignore. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper making death threats in sandbox (redux)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&action=history. Not sure how to proceed, I just blocked one of the IPs. Botnet maybe? –<font face="Verdana"> xeno <font color="#DCDCDC">cidic ( talk ) 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuation from yesterday. Half  Shadow  02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * woops - merged. –<font face="Verdana"> xeno <font color="#DCDCDC">cidic ( talk ) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if someone will be awake in 3 hours, perhaps remember to put the move protection back on. cheers, –<font face="Verdana"> xeno <font color="#DCDCDC">cidic ( talk ) 02:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't work?
I'm probably missing something, but the page CP-violation was moved despite it being protected (sysop-only move). Any idea what's happening here? Fram (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is probably a coincidence, but all these pages (there are quite a few with the same problem) were move-protected by User:NawlinWiki (despite some ofthem being move protected already at the time he protected them again). I'll drop a note to get his/her comments. Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very clever. He actually didn't move the page. He just performed a null edit and created an edit summary that made it look as if he had. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Grawp have anything else to be doing? :( Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish he played Diablo II so I can hunt him down and restore Wikipedia's honor on there. Same goes for every other vandal. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské  <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 05:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Ward
Some time ago Dr. Ward, myself, was instrumental in airing an expose on cults. No names were mentioned but the cult and its behavior itself was questioned. Inquiry emails to this group led to attacks from them upon my character. They called my family and terrorized us with threats. They have taken personal information, such as my name, credentials, address, IP address, and added it to a resume I had posted online. They then changed all of the information to say things that would defame my character. They also linked my name to a questionable character that frequents different web blogs, of which I have no associations with whatsoever. It has upset not only myself, but the Church I Pastor, and the organization I belong to. In an email to me he boasts there is nothing I can do about it "because I deleted it but anyone can still retrieve it from the edit history." Going by the name of BlazinPaddles he opened a Wiki account earlier this month and his history shows he has ONLY edited or written about Dr. Ward. He may have found good reason to edit anything anyone had quoted from my books (I did not submit these quotes) that wasn't properly referenced, however, his reason for doing so is revealed in the ridiculing character assassination he has launched. He has written horrible, demeaning things about my person and my biography and linked my name with a quarreling character I do not even know. It is important that all of the history of these demeaning statements be erased. Please help me. Here are pages containing the urls with the statements he posted. You will find they were posted by himself and then deleted by himself in order to create a retrievable edit history:

(every url on this page contains character defamation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blazinpaddles&action=history

(His addition in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oneness_Pentecostalism&diff=prev&oldid=223823639

( In this one he deletes Dr. Wards name for no apparent reason)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Apostolic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=224001794

How can I permanently erase this libelous information from the edit history? MrCreveal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the deleted text on User:Blazinpaddles made legal threats, so I have blocked this editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that as well ,the entirety of that user page needs to be fully oversighted nad/or deleted. It's a lunatic rant against the man. I'd further state that it appears to be some sort of doctrinal conflict, with Ward supporting a Oneness_Pentecostalism movement in a branch of christianity, and BP opposing it, and the peopel promoting it, on theological (certainly not logical) grounds. That OP page needs a serious clean-up, most of the sources are from writings by the promoters of the movement, not outside coverage, and it reads in sections like a pamphlet. That, however, is not ever enough reason to attack the man, instead of his edits. I might be tempted later tonight to headover and stub back anything not supported by neutral reliable sources, but I also agree with Dr. Ward above. BP needs a block, and a lot of oversighting may be needed as well, per WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the revisions. I'm not sure whether oversighting is required, since I didn't see any privacy violations, but I didn't read it that closely, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * having read a number of the diffs for the talk page stuff, a lot of it's heavy personal attacks which claim that the victim's been in legal and/or social troubles for various decisions. none of it's cited or links, so I think it's a WP:LIBEL problem, and may need followup. Sarcasticidealist's deletions ofthe user page were a great start though. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi indef block
two cents ==

archived discussion Just a correction muntuwandi was blocked a total of 6 times.
 * Elonka
 * Heimstern
 * Ryulong
 * TigerShark
 * Spartaz
 * Seraphimblade

These admins basically modified existing blocks and once found that the indefinite block imposed on MW was not justified.
 * Caribbean H.Q.
 * Neil
 * mastcell

therefore of the six blocks, four were reported by or had something to do with one particular editor. It is pretty obvious who this editor is. This editor for reasons best known to him/herself seems intent on preventing MW making any contributions to articles that he/she WP:OWNs. If MW is so disruptive, why is it that only one editor is constantly crusading to have him blocked. For example, in this last block Muntuwandi was engaged in an edit war with Dbachmann. Yet this same editor came out of retirement almost with the sole intent of reporting MW. One would expect, that it would be dab taking an active role in pursuing a block for MW but dab has not said anything. It seems that this is an issue between these two editors. Muntuwandi has been editing since 2005, and almost all his blocks have been associated with this one editor. It seems almost vigilantish. Umuntuwandi (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Umuntuwandi is bothering to refer to Muntuwandi in the third person. I have no hand in Muntuwandi's month-length block, and I might add that I found that duration somewhat harsh. What brought about Muntuwandi's indef ban isn't his edit wars against consensus, but his incorrigible attempts to evade the block after it had been imposed. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Block Requested Chronic Vandalism/Abusive Behaviour 122.108.106.162
The following user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.108.106.162

Has been Vandalising several pages even after repeated warning messages, they have also sent abusive/crude messages to talk pages of myself and other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolomorte (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave the user a final warning, then blocked them when they vandalized again. For future reference, WP:AIV is geared specifically to handle this sort of thing, but your vigilance is appreciated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)
I request administrators attention to the article in which two Users User:Lakshminivas and User:Sriramas have been making inputs inspite of repeated requests. The information they insert is not appropriate for the section "Introduction" and it disrupts the natural flow of the article. The input by User:Lakshminivasin "Surnames" section does not have any basis. It is not supported by any evidence. My editing in this section is being persistently reverted by this user, inspite of my appeals. I also suspect that these users are sockpuppets of each other. Please pay attenton to this matter.Kumarrao (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
- personal attacks - Need your glasses checked - What the hell are you talking about  - your ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed  - trolling claims   --windyhead (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks?--Miyokan (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. - No personal attacks --windyhead (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And?--Miyokan (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a big problem with the "glasses" or "what the hell" comments, but the "ability to interpret logic" comment was indeed out of line (comment on the edits, not the editor), and one needs to be very careful about accusations of trolling. I can't say I am innocent of ever calling someone a troll, but general speaking you shouldn't do so unless you have reason to believe that you will never cross their path again on-wiki.  Accusations of trolling pretty much destroy any sort of collaborative spirit on Wikipedia.
 * Miyokan, I am a little worried you don't see any problem at all. As I said, the "logic" comment was way out of line.  If personal attacks such as that one persist, it could definitely result in a block.  --Jaysweet (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What planet are you on? Minor "rudeness" is not personal attacks, if you want to see personal attacks, check out User:Folantin's insults and racial comments on Russian editors here.--Miyokan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're pushing it. Miyokan, do you honestly not see how that could be considered uncivil? Also, your question of what planet he is on is also approaching poor conduct. While I have a really lenient idea of civility, the fact that you can't see how one could take offense by those comments (whether rightfully or not) is more worrisome than the comments themselves. Be careful. (3 God Damned Edit Conflicts)Beam 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC) And pointing out others' comments is not a defense of YOUR comments. I want to know that you see how your comments are not helpful and can be taken as offensive, again regardless of the intent. Beam 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the glasses comment was funny. Ostap 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok removing it then --windyhead (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the "3 God Damned Edit Conflicts" comment was funny! Bishonen | talk 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC).
 * "what the hell are you talking about" is minor rudeness, I agree (although one could always make a case even that was covered under the civility policy). That's why I wasn't worried about it.  Saying that someone's "ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed" is an ad hominem attack, no two ways about it.  Calling someone a troll also is a comment on the editor rather than their edits.  This is prohibited on Wikipedia, whether you want to accept that or not.  Pointing to someone else who has also been incivil and/or made personal attacks is a complete red herring, and we will not be fooled by that.  Your actions are your actions.
 * (BTW, saying "What planet are you from" to me when I am trying to provide a balanced response is in itself highly incivil. That's not going to win you any friends)
 * At this juncture, you really have two choices: Recognize that some of your comments have exceeded what is tolerable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia, in which case no further action will be taken; or continue down this path and see where it takes you.  I am not an admin and do not have the ability to enact a block, so I am not threatening you -- it is impossible for me to threaten you.  However, I have been around the project long enough and am familiar enough with the policies to tell you that if you continue with those comments in an unapologetic manner, there is a high likelihood that it could result in a block.  This is just reality, not my doing.  --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be at WQA - not here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those comments weren't personal attacks, at worst they very mildy uncivil. Looks to me like you're trying to kick up a fuss over nothing. RMHED (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to me that windy here is just upset that he lost an arguement. p.s. I suggest you review the arguments that windy made before you judge Miyokan's "insult" of his logic. -- Bogdan що? 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not me who degraded to discuss the editor --windyhead (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks observed. Minor incivility, but this is not a big deal. Closing this as no administrator intervention is required. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there was relevant context, Miyokan should have mentioned this instead of ridiculing the entire concept of civility. While I wouldn't ask for action for what I agree are not severe civility issues, it sort of bothers me that Miyokan is like "So fucking what?" and the community is willing to endorse that attitude.  But you know, whatever... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Miyokan sent a gloating message to everyone who expressed concern over his "minor incivility".


 * It's fine to say, "Look, this is a relatively minor issue of incivility, we are not going to take administrator action. User is warned to maintain civility." It's another thing entirely if a user is saying, "Neener neener, I can be incivil all I want as long as I keep it 'minor'" and for the community to implicitly approve that attitude. As my initial response showed, the concern was not the minor incivility itself, it was that Miyokan thinks incivility is okay as long as it's minor. Perhaps we should change the Nutshell summary at WP:CIV to read "Participate in a respectful and minorly uncivil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others without first subjecting them to mild ridicule. Don't worry if others are uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors unless they recently lost an argument with you"? Hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. This is the third dispute I've removed seicer's resolved tag of no personal attacks (although, the other two were on WQA). There are legit. concerns here, however minor they might be. If non-sysops who've expressed concerns about incivility get those sort of messages (noted above by Jaysweet -  ), then sysops should be stepping in because the message has not sunk in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * + another diff --windyhead (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". This clearly constitutes a personal attack as defined at WP:NPA, and I have issued a final warning accordingly. I think a block may be necessary if this occurs again - it's simply causing too much disruption. Papa November (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning requested
I am requesting banning of user:PravdaRuss which is SPA account and puppet of unknown user. It is possible to see that he has made 12 edits. 10 of this edits are revert of myself and last 2 are vandalism in "my" articles (articles created by user Rjecina)--Rjecina (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can add that during time of his edits 17:05-17:15 and latter in 17:27 I have recieved death threat on Croatian wikipedia on 17:19 --Rjecina (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account indefinitely. The account was obviously only created to harass . CIreland (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue
Yesterday I started this thread about a user who is similarily reverting all of Rjecina's edits all the while labelling his good faith edits as vandalism in the edit summary of his reverts. Two warnings I left for the editor were deleted and marked as offensive by the editor. Would someone please be willing to take a look at his contributions and determine whether a sterner warning by an administrator is due?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one month - it doesn't take much to see:
 * nearly all the edits have incredibly loaded contents or edit summaries
 * most of them seem to be targetting the one editor
 * the IP is exclusive enough that what we would consider an unusually lengthy block for an IP would not rope in unrelated good faith editors. Those with already-created usernames can still edit anyway. Orderinchaos 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another related user?
See  Corvus cornix  talk  23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * J.A. Comment may or may not be related. Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245 is an open case in which he/she is mentioned. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And another
... looks like more of the same. --Onorem♠Dil 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And . SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikkidd
was originally brought to this board's attention on one week ago here and was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. He is back to that tactic on Petroleum again, pushing a wp:fringe topic that he won't let go. This topic has been kicked around to death on the petroleum and peak oil and other talk pages, and according to scientific as well as wiki-community consensus is fringe at best, and Wikkidd has only repeated what he said over and over again before his block (citing 2 specific researchers as "proof" of his position, who are notable only for supporting this fringe hypothesis).

Wikkidd has also blanked another user's talk comment, and started passing out personal attacks. NJGW (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being watched. Thanks, <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Probelms with User:75.47.194.16
This person keeps blanking his talk page, and he is linked to a group of other Ips, who vandalise these Intersate topics.. See my contribs. Youll find out what i mean. Thank you. Just find User:75.47.194.16 II MusLiM HyBRiD II   —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads --75.47.194.16 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't restore removed comments --75.47.194.16 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to explain how this is vandalism please. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone is allowed to remove whatever they like from their own talk page. Besides that, this is a content dispute. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, any editor (along with IPs) can blank talk page comments as they please, other than active block and sockpuppet notices along with any general info tags about the IP address. Blanking a comment is a very handy means of knowing someone's read it, so there isn't much worry about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II is wrong to restore comments to 75.47's talk page, and is definitely wrong to remove infoboxes from articles. However, 75.47 is not innocent; see Requests for comment/75.47.x.x; today he was doing his normal mix of good and bad edits. I believe he was uncareful with the infoboxes, saving versions with problems. I'll create the necessary redirects. --NE2 14:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, as far as I can tell, here's the sequence of events. 75.47 made edits like, which now look fine, but at the time used some nonexistent templates, screwing up the infobox. II MusLiM HyBRiD II assumed it was simple vandalism, and it escalated. --NE2 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the talk page of to briefly explain WP:BLANKING. Hopefully that difuses the situation a bit. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved admin protects BLP article
Admin Míkka reverted Michael I of Romania back to a version which reflects his edits -- and has protected it. Before proceeding to make edits, I called for concerned Wikipedians to reject the ownership of the article which has been held hostage since 9 March 2006 by Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky (several of these accounts were banned as sockpuppets, but a quick glance will expose the striking similarity in the edits & talk page comments of all of them). Although I didn't know Míkka was an admin when he demanded, on threat of my being blocked, an explanation of my edits, I replied at length about the concerns which led me to edit it extensively but selectively. Bottom line: the subject of the article is a living person, and the article, along with several others such as King Michael's Coup and Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen (Michael's son-in-law, a living person who has publicly complained about the content of his and Michael's wiki articles!) etc., accuses him of betraying his country to Soviet Communists during World War II by ousting pro-Nazi dictator Ion Antonescu, switching Romania from the Axis to the Allied side, and then fleeing abroad with stolen national treasure. This point of view is not the prevalent view of Michael -- see the more mainstream historical assessment reflected in the Encyclopedia Britannica's article, which gives an almost opposite impression of Michael's wartime deeds. Prior to making edits, I had reported the POV & undue weight, and the ownership which protects it, requesting deletion of King Michael's Coup (and, subsequently, asked that Michael I of Romania also be protected from renewed violations of BLP) at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Meanwhile, Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky reverted all of my edits (which had toned down but did not eliminate the article's anti-Michael slant) and he threatened to continue doing so on the talk page. I reverted, however, no violations of 3RR have occurred and the anti-Michael reverts had stopped, so I hoped the "owner" realized that someone is on to the anti-Michael pattern since '06 and has exposed it, and that therefore he would desist -- or at least that it would be a while before the BLP violations were re-inserted. Instead, today Míkka, declaring that the article had become "corrupted", reverts all of my edits on Michael I of Romania, re-instating the reported BLP violations which are pending a decision at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and then protects the page! Since this concerns a pending BLP complaint, and since the admin had been one of the last 5 editors to work on the article [here] and [here] and whose edit I had removed (in error actually), I request that his revert and protection be reversed, and that Míkka be banned from using his powers as an admin on articles relating to Michael. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You always need to notify people when a discussion is going on on ANI about them; I've just done it for you. That said, it's a bit concerning to call one party's edits in an edit war "corruptions"; I'll AGF and guess this is just some dodgy word choice. It's also a bit concerning that he's already got a 3RR warning from another article and a warning not to threaten to block other parties in content disputes. I don't know who is "right" in this case but he probably needs to be a bit more careful. I don't really see much previous involvement with the page though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to notify him, as I'm still online, but you beat me to it. The real problem here is that the BLP violations have been locked in place by admin revert & protection -- even though we know that the subject of the article's son-in-law (who has his own wiki article) has publicly complained about both articles' content, and the content on Michael I of Romania is radically different from what other encyclopedias say, violating NPOV. Action is needed. FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you failed to check your facts first. When I wrote "corrupted" I meant "corrupted". The whole bottom piece of the page (categories, references, bottom sections) was lost in the heat of the war. Obviously the warriors cared more about their egos rather the article. Also, in the talk page I explicitely wrote that any admin willing to be involved in the dispute resolution may override my actions. Because of the stubborn revert war I had to protect the page but it would have been insanity from my part to protect a page with half article missing. My another option was blocking both paries since they both are far beyound 3RR, but I opted for aricle proection giving them chance o contine discussion. Rather than using this opportunity for content discussion despite several invitations, or at least to ask me for explanations user:FactStraight jumped right into complaint departments. Now I have serious doubts as to his willingless to engage in discussions and next time I see him in revert war I will block him instead of protecting the aricle. `'Míkka>t 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) `'Míkka>t 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the corruption was due to a comment becoming unclosed out somewhere inside the "Personality and personal interests" subsection; the revert definitely closes out a comment there and it is where the article died previously. Míkka, it would have been better if you had figured that out and fixed just it before protecting.  Otherwise, what you did is fine.  The alleged BLP violation is too subtle for me to see at first glance; WP:UNDUE is a legitimate concern but not one a quick acting uninvolved administrator can give any help with.  GRBerry 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I did like you say, don't you think that the opposite side in this revert war would have thrown the exact same tantrum? As for "suble" thing, this was the exact reason why I notified Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, who are expected to have expertise to mediate. `'Míkka>t 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they would have, but for an edit that trivial (adding " -->" to close a comment) anyone neutral who looked at the diff would have laughed at the description of you as involved, even before you replied. This looked like a substantial edit at first, thus creating unnecessary smoke to support the complainants smokescreen.  GRBerry 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, this was posted before. I did not see a BLP problem at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment initiating this thread is too long and confusing. Your chances of obtaining the intervention you request are much higher if you state very briefly and very clearly what content violates WP:BLP, and why.  Sandstein   17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael I of Romania violates BLP's policy that "...the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides...Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." The mainstream view is typified in the online Encyclopedia Britannica's article, whose "take" on Michael is nearly opposite Wiki's. Disproportion, not under-sourcing, is the problem & because Michael's living, must be removed immediately. FactStraight (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The request is not specific enough. You must show what content must be deleted in accordance with WP:BLP, and for what reason. Either way, that request should be made on the talk page with an editprotected tag, and if you think the page does not meet the requirements for protection, you may request its unprotection at WP:RPP. I see nothing actionable here. Marking as resolved.  Sandstein   17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
A number of editors (MastCell, ScienceApologist, Shoenmaker's Holiday, and etc.) are trying to impose a policy change on NPOV (Fairness of tone) without waiting for the result of the current discussion on the issue. while I have no objection to this change being made if it is in fact consensus, I dislike seeing it edit-warred into place. I've left a request for page protection, but it would be nice if we could revert the page to its pre-conflict version - here and get some outside commentary as well. -- Ludwigs 2 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, check the page history at WP:NPOV, where Ludwigs2 has single-handedly reverted 4 or 5 different editors, 5 times in the last 36 hours or so, barely skirting 3RR. Or this request for page protection. Look, I've made, I think, one edit to the page, and I'm not a fan of rapid changes to major policies. That said, Ludwigs2 is edit-warring, gaming 3RR, and forum-shopping. MastCell Talk 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I note the request for page protection specifies a version the page should be protected at. That's not how page protection works. This is forum-shopping; the change should be discussed on the talk page rather than reverting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, since this forum has already been shopped, outside input is welcome on the talk page to help move things forward. MastCell Talk 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Ludwig 24 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. I think all this is retributive for this edit, which Ludwigs2 was unable to keep in the article. All the other material I see being edited by those listed above is simple tweaking of grammar and phrasing, while Ludwigs2 seems intent on removing all reference to WP:WEIGHT in the article. he's upset that he's not getting his way against multiple editors who continue to hold to the long-standing consensus, and now he's throwing a tantrum. Given how often Ludwigs2 has been involved in disputes here on AN/I, multiple times against those listed above, I'm surprised he's not blocked for longer, esp. in the light this shines on those situations.ThuranX (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is a reasonable administrative response. At the same time, I don't want to see this proposed change (which I support) entered into a bedrock policy like NPOV without wider input, so again, comments welcome at WT:NPOV. MastCell Talk 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes, from what I can see (correct me if I am wrong) deal with wording but don't actually change the policy. As you can see from this Shoemaker's edits tend to remove the "if" and format the sentences in a more standard way. There is no reason for Ludwig or Naerii to edit war back to that other version. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

...and protected for four days or until such time that a compromise or discussion can conclude. Good grief people. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig has asked to be unblocked, saying he won't edit war and I've been asked on my talk page to review Ludwig's unblock request myself. I'd like some input here first. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the admin who reviewed the unblock request and left you a note. Given his promise not to edit-war any more (and that the policy page is now apparently protected), I think the block has served its preventative purpose and can be lifted.  Sandstein   17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose. Ludwigs2 has made clear on the relevant policy talk page that HE knows the 'RIGHT (tm)' way for the page to be. His editwarring has been constant and consistent on this point, and the fact that he's immediately pledging to behave suggests he just wants to run right back to it, and will spew platitudes instead of really go figure out a better way to act and approach this. There's an increasing amount of consensus on the page, against his versions, and it would be better for that as well to allow that to coalesce into some singular idea he can try to rebutt; most of his point by point rebuttals have been deflated already anyways. Further, he's the ONLY voice for the other side, not the 'primary'. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. Nothing wrong with the block originally, but it appears to have served it's purpose. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I cautiously endorse an unblock. I am worried, but not because of ThuranX's scenario:  If Ludwigs runs right back to it and starts edit-warring again, he gets a much larger block and we all move on with our lives.  I am more worried about long-term concerns I have with Ludwigs powerful biases and how they affect his editing.  Ludwigs is almost always civil, and I've seen him do some good work... but my concerns remain.
 * However, my long-term concerns are not affected if he is unblocked now or unblocked tomorrow. Let him come back and we'll see what happens. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On general principle, if an editor is blocked for edit warring, and commits to desisting from doing so, then the block should be immediately lifted, as it is no longer needed to protect the encyclopedia. Of course, should the editor return to their warlike ways, they'll just get blocked again, and for longer, and with much less chance of being unblocked. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly - blocking is protective, not punitive. If the editor isn't being a problem there should be no need to block him again. Of course, the onus is now on him to prove that... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment that the ol' Bold-revert-discuss process got a bit stuck between "revert" and "discuss", with editors doing both at the same time (which is never pleasant, in my experience). Page protection and an unblock for Ludwigs2 seem like the ideal combination to ensure that discussion occurs without the edit warring and the associated "Stop edit warring" - "no you stop" - that is shown in the page history.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be good, no worries. I may lose my composure on occasion, but it is never my intention to become a problem.


 * Jaysweet, ThuranX - I'd happily discuss what you see as my biases (because obviously I don't see them that way; who does?) - my talk page is available to deal with any concerns you have. I'd just ask you to approach the matter with an open mind.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No thanks, I don't make extra work for myself, i hate spackling, and i don't like repainting. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, I can only count that as my loss. -- Ludwigs 2  16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Owing to the background on this I wanted more input here, thanks all for giving it and thanks Jpgordon for handling the unblock while I was out. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting IP block.
On List of Backyardigans episodes, we're geting a fairly long term vandalism from IP 69.72.70.* (69.72.70.171, 69.72.70.110, 69.72.70.146, etcetera). How much 'damage' would doing a prefix block cause? Half Shadow  21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can check yourself, I guess . Although it doens't look so awful to me to warrant a range-block. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm getting mildly tired of having to clean up after it, so if someone could shove a sock in its mouth, we certainly wouldn't complain... Half  Shadow  22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough for a prefix block. I've added it to my watchlist to help distribute the policing. -- Mark Chovain 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, page protection may be an option here. I'll report to RPP. -- Mark Chovain 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Page has 1-week semi protection. -- Mark Chovain 05:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have preferred not to do that: with the exception of the guy mentioned in the topic, most random IPs have actually been helpful. Seens unfair to lock out everyone else. Half  Shadow  16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor making racist posts
User:151.202.93.58 has made a series of posts in the last two hours most of which are either anti-Semitic or anti-Dominican American. Could someone deal with this please?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User has a top-level warning for vandalism and hasn't edited since. I suggest ignore for now, and if he does it again report to WP:AIV for blocking. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP appears to of been blocked for 24 hours; tagging as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LHC fringe theorists
Hi, I'd appreciate another admins input on an article I'm involved in, hence I cannot take any actions. If you have 10 spare mins read through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

User:Jtankers is part of a fringe theory group on the web who believe that the LHC will possibly destroy the world. He's continually adding original research links and adds material in a WP:ATT join the dots type of logic to make readers come to his conclusions. For 6 months we (myself and a number of other editors) have been trying to explain to him the meaning of reliably sourced and verifiable information. Yet he still continues to add his links and tries to sway the article to his own agenda. A quick google search of his name (James Tankersley) and a look at his user page shows his involvement in these fringe groups.

I myself work at CERN but have I believe at no time compromised my position either as an administrator or via COI by the fact I work at CERN. This can be seen on the talk page as well, when James made some unbased accusations and eventually he recalled them when pressed to show where I had abused my position.

Myself and a number of other editors have repeatedly try to explain to Jtankers why his links are not suitable, and have given him far more leeway than WP:FRINGE recommends. But all we have in return is alot of handwaving and how we are repressing him and the article is biased agianst his position. Though we have repeatedly explained to him the type of links he should find to promote his position, yet is unable to do so. We revert and he goes past 3RR, and we explain to him about 3RR and yet we are threatening him.

Yet the OR links keep coming, we keep trying to explain why they aren't acceptable but it's falling on deaf ears. You may also wish to read the LHC talk page as this is where it started before the subject matter was split away. Any help pointers etc would be appreciated. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I got as far as where JTankers alleges a Vast ecritKabalConspir'cee to get him and his, and got sick of it. There are three regular editors there, WWheaton, Khukri, and Phenylalanine desperately trying for ... over a week? to get this guy to pay attention. It's a great deal of CIVIL POV PUSH, till he gets to the conspiracy to suppress him. He refuses to acknowledge a lot of their gaps, instead purporting some great theoretical idea and demanding they all disprove it. He seems, at this point, to be actively ignoring policies. The only way he couldn't understand the policies by now is if he's deliberately refusing to ever read them, which may well be possible, but then, he's deliberately being disruptive. Another editor came in and offered an opinion, but that too, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The editor could well do with a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More on this: JTankers has brought this, in one day, to : AN, 3RR, NPOV, and COI in the last 24 hours, in what's got to be the Memorial day sale of Forum Shopping.
 * I note that the user's User page is being used as a SOAPBOX for his viewpoint, since it cannot be achieved in the article. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I MfD'd the user page, as you are right, it is a blatant WP:SOAP violation. (There is an ongoing controversy about another user's page which has WP:SOAP-ish problems, and I feel I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did not take action against this page as well) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I immediately removed all content I thought might violate WP:SOAP as soon as it was brought to my attention. --Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But where to next, we've tried to explain and he claims he wants dispute resolution but when a new editor HaeB came in and explained the position he was ignored and the information was re-added. I've said from the outset when it was included in the LHC article that it deserves an a section/article, although it does fall squarely into the realms of fringe theories it has received main stream press hence deserves a mention. But it's been a continual fight to try and keep these theories in perspective, and it's far in breach of WP:UNDUE and yet we cannot seem to explain this clearly enough. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's this about black holes??? Is that for real? --Dragon695 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? That's the best response we can get at AN/I? read all that material. I did. (Well, msot of it. after a while, it's repetititve.) ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody who has responded is an admin. The admin's are terribly overburdened, and the best us non-admins could do here would be to try to explain to the user what the problem is -- which has already been tried extensively and failed.
 * If you can get an admin's attention, that would be great, but "That's the best response we can get at ANI/I?" is not likely to endear you to them ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is James Tankersley Jr. I am a US Army Officer veteran, a computer programmer with some college physics back ground, and founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org. The safety opposition are not fringe, supporters to one degree or another include the following scientists:


 * Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler, Max Planck Institute, University of Tübingen
 * Teresa E Tutt, Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University
 * Dr. Paul J. Werbos, National Science Foundation
 * Nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter L. Wagner
 * James Blodgett, Master's degree in statistics and leader the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction.
 * Many others, including some wish to remain anonymous.

I have been contributing to the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article and for several months without incident, including content related to legal action against CERN in US Federal Courts. I respect and follow Wikipedia rules and admin instructions to the best of my ability, and my only goal is to prevent unreasonable censorship of the Large Hadron Collider safety issue.

There is an effort to censor the views of recognized experts on Hawking Radiation. Credible scientists including Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler who warn of potential danger from operation of the Large Hadron Collider have been censored from the article in violation of virtually every aspect of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peer reviewed published references that meet WP:VERIFY and challenge Hawking Radiation are being censored by members with apparent WP:COIN concerns. The validity of Hawking Radiation is a primary safety argument and a significant component of legal challenges to CERN currently before US Federal Courts in Hawaii. Wikipedia admin and CERN employee Khukri (talk) recused himself of admin duties when I asked him to intervene against rule violations by user Phenylalanine (talk) during the period of July 4th through July 9th 2008.

Details of activities in apparent violation of WP:NPOV by editors with potential WP:COIN concerns are detailed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. Thank you, --Jtankers (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see an argument from special knowledge above. I see an attack on Khukri for doing the right thing. I see forum shopping. I do not see Jtankers acting ina responsible manner. The assertions of censorship aren't borne out by the talk page, where his sources are ripped apart by numerous editors who oppose his edits. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Editor Phenylalanine (talk) removed the content without discussion multiple times and editor Wwheaton (talk) argued for keeping the references. What actions were not responsible?  I am not getting help and assistance, just attacks.  There is a clear conflict of interest, the issue is before US Federal Courts and CERN editors outnumber the opposition.  Shouldn't we error on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of possible censorship?  --Jtankers (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Here we err on the side of Wikipedia policy; one policy is WP:NPOV, which specifically charges us to avoid undue weight given to fringe claims. You shouldn't need to have this explained any further. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. &mdash; Scientizzle 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to violate Wikipedia policy. There are no fringe claims that I am aware of, I believe that the article violates WP:NPOV by excluding references to published peer reviewed papers that directly challenge safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) used by CERN related to operational safety and to argue for dismissal of the lawsuit currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii.  I wish to pursue formal dispute resolution, I am not sure exactly how this is done, but in the mean time I plan to limit my efforts primarily to the discussion page.  (fyi: Of a quarter million AOL voters, 61% do not feel that the risks have been reasonably addressed, not fringe theories and not fringe concerns). --Jtankers (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While it may or may not be undue to dispute the existence of Hawking radation on the article Hawking radiation, peer-reviewed papers that dispute it do not belong in an article on something else! And that's because, NPOV concerns aside, a tangent on a merely related topic constitutes original synthesis if it is placed there to draw a conclusion unsupported by those high quality sources. That is to say, there is a difference between Hawking radation doesn't exist and Hawking radation doesn't exist; the LHC will kill us all! Aside from the one blog, none of the sources I've seen from you even mention the LHC. So until you find a high quality source to demonstrate that this belief is significant, it is adequately covered by the statement already present and a link to the article on the topic. You can carry your Hawking-radiation-doesn't-exist argument to that page if you wish. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider currently contains the statement:


 * "One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all".
 * It seems reasonable to me that Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler's work would be a reasonable reference to support that statement. He argues that mini black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider might become charged, grow exponentially and destroy the planet.  His theory Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk has been published on the web for several weeks and Dr. Rossler had an appointment to meet with CERN scientists July 4th to discuss safety issues Grösstes Verbrechen der Menschheit, Chaos, conspiracy, black holes.  CERN's [Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions] also addresses charged micro black hole, a concept that does not appear to have existed before Dr. Rossler published his work, and it appears to be in direct response to Dr. Rossler's theory.  It seems reasonable to me that this reference should be included, as both his report and CERN's reports are almost equally new and both published similarly on the web and both in the process of peer review.


 * Variations of the following references have been in the article previously. Hawking Radiation is a significant safety factor, if it is found to not be valid, delay of the Large Hadron Collider would be much more likely.  Both of the references speak at least to some degree about the "probability" that Hawking Radiation might be found to be invalid.


 * Do black holes radiate?, Dr. Helfer Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008, Published 12 May 2003 by Reports on Progress in Physics The possibility that non-radiating `mini' black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe".


 * Universality of the Hawking effect, William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold, published 24 January 2005 by The American Physical Society "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give nontrivial information about Planckian physics."


 * An AOL poll is hardly a meritable source for your arguments, I'd wager that a sizable minority, if not majority, still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Bush is doing a great job, that global warming's a myth from the liberals, and that the earth was created in 7 days. Big deal. Uninformed people given questions that push that the world could end immediately, and would that be bad? will answer that the end of everythign would be bad. Duh. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org" should probably not use conflict of interest as an argument against another editor. The rest of it looks like a content dispute, as has been mentioned.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I was afraid that this would be labelled as a content dispute & the involved parties told to go away. (I stumbled across this thread late last night, & so was unable to offer any comments.) Looking at the discussion on Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, it's obvious that this is a far-to-familiar one person vs. a group of editors; the problem is not the content, but interpersonal dynamics. Can one person veto the assumption of a consensus? I don't know the answer, but I can think of reasons to say "yes" -- & "no".


 * More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I's more than a content dispute, it's more of the Civil POV Push we have seen increasingly on WP as the Pushers of all sorts of POVs get smart about how to abuse Wikipedia. He's a POV pusher, and end is near kinds guy who won't stop till forced to. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone should feel they need to "go away" at this point, and I'm sorry if my post gave that impression. Either there is enough material to justify a WP:RFC/U or continued attempts to resolve this are needed. I just don't think AN/I is the right place for it just yet.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear it is a content dispute, but it's more along the lines of a number of editors trying to explain what is acceptable entries to a couple of editors with an agenda. But even though there is a COI with JTankers and even more so with another editor, they are very relevant to these issues currently ongoing and I feel can/should be able to contribute. However trying to explain what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is falling on deaf ears. Maybe RFC/U would be the place to take this, but I have a horrible feeling another group of editors explaining a position would be ignored as well. However Jtankers has said he will no longer edit the article until he "wins" dispute resolution, how one wins a resolution I don't know. I brought this to ANI to avoid the request for mediation channel as it's lengthy and some form of resolution is needed rapidly. It's been through asking for third opinion, spammed across various noticeboard assitance, but still goes on.


 * I'm asking if someone could take this on and act as an unofficial arbiter, taking an impartial view pointing out to all issues, take some time to look through the LHC article talk page and it's archives, and look through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat aware of the topic in question and uninvolved in the on-wiki frufru over this. I will start taking a look as an uninvolved administrator. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Clubjuggle/User:Shem incident
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Extended Discussion
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.' ''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

When WP:COI and WP:PRIVACY collide
I have stumbled across an editor with a potentially substantial conflict of interest, but I cannot publicly reveal the details without violating WP:PRIVACY. Is there a procedure for handling this type of situation? Thanks, --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose the editor is likely to bow out of problematic discussions if you express a concern about the WP:COI? If so, you could always contact the editor via e-mail and say, "Hey, I have a feeling you're so-and-so, do you really think you should be editing Controversies regarding So-and-so?"  But I suppose that's likely to accomplish nothing, eh? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern, in addition to the fact that I agree the email is not likely to help, is that doing so would constitute off-wiki harassment. I do not necessarily wish the person to stop editing the article in question, but do believe they should disclose their conflict of interest as suggested at WP:COI. If I can be assured that it is not, I will engage the editor directly. I do not wish to end up on the wrong side of a block. Thanks, --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have some kind of history with this person, I'd suggest that an e-mail expressing your concern, combined with an assurance that you have no intention of revealing his identity to others, is probably fine. I don't see any way that it could be construed as harassment, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure such an email would not be well-received by the person in question. Other options? I'll probably ask this at WP:COIN too. --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:PRIVACY is a policy, and specifically prohibits outing real life identities. WP:COI is a guideline, and it doesn't prohibit pseudonymous editing by people with an undeclared conflict of interest in any event.  I think all you can do is monitor the individual's editing for compliance with content policies and use those, rather than WP:COI, to prevent abuse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * COI is really only advice to people who are editing with a conflict of interest -- it shouldn't really be something we take into consideration when dealing with someone's edits. Rather, we should employ NPOV -- COI is advice on how to edit according to NPOV and on when to avoid editing.  If the edits conform to NPOV, all fine and dandy; if they do not, hit him with NPOV, not with COI.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam has it exactly right. COI is a guideline intended to help editors avoid situations where they would find it difficult to edit in accord with policy. It is not a stick with which to beat other editors, or attempt to force them from article pages. Edits are governed by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, and WP:COI is irrelevant to that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) We should be very careful in any situation where we're tempted to say that foo is a 'policy', and it must therefore always trump bar, which is a mere 'guideline'. As Sarcasticidealist touches on, a number of pages related to these sorts of issues actually are policies&mdash;WP:NPOV is likely to be on point here, and WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR often arise in COI situations as well.  The question is whether or not the editor with a (possible) COI is editing in such a way as to bias the articles on which he is working.  Issues with undue weight or improper synthesis can often creep in undetected where an editor is intimately familiar with a subject (and thus may provide superficially suitable and plausible references) but is writing from a strongly biased perspective.
 * On the other hand, the privacy policy is not to be taken lightly. Off the top of my head, I have great difficulty thinking of any circumstance where revealing an editor's real-life – or putative real-life – identity on-wiki would be an acceptable course of action.  I'm very nearly certain that there's no situation where it would be the best course of action.  If the editor in question has enabled email, then a polite request that they identify any conflicts of interest is reasonable.  If you are aware of a likely conflict of interest and are prepared to keep at least a passing eye on the work of that editor, it may be best to leave well enough alone if his contributions are reasonable and in line with our content policies and guidelines.
 * If an editor with a (likely) clear conflict of interest persists in editing in a way that is contrary to the goals and policies of this project, you're in a bit of a pickle. If that editor does not respond to polite requests or (failing that) warnings, more drastic steps may be required.  Obviously you can't bring the details of the matter to this noticeboard, though admins here will sometimes step in when POV-pushing is clear enough even in the absence of a known COI.  Perhaps an email to an active Arbitrator – with a request that your message be forwarded to the ArbCom mailing list – would also work.  Individuals with access to that list are experienced members of the community, and are entrusted to handle confidential information.  Seeking their advice before doing anything drastic can't hurt, and would help you to stay on firm ethical and policy ground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * just my two secents here. It seems to be that if a user is actively vioatling the rules and procedures of wikipedia and will not stop as a reuslt of a COI, it is not necessary to reveal their identity and vioalte wp:privacy. If they are causing trouble they can be treated just like any other editor and made usbject to preventative sanctions such as warnings of blocks without their identitys being outed. We deal with users with a conflict of interest all the times and I think thaw we have done so in the past without actually revealing thier real-life names and occupaitons without their permission. If that does not owrk, then I would reocmmend following Tenof All Tradess idea of emailing an Arbirator. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've emailed the editor in question. We'll see how it goes. Thanks, --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING email
I've received an email (sent via Wikipedia's "email this user" function) from another editor (one with whom I'm currently in a content dispute) which informs me that they are "quite good at this kind of research" and that after some "research" they've connected some real-life personal information to my Wikipedia account. They state that they've contacted me so that they don't "escalate beyond what is necessary."

I'm immediately retiring this account in response, but who handles potential WP:OUTING-related emails sent via Wikipedia's email interface nowadays, and how can they be contacted? Shem(talk) 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With the absence of on-wiki evidence, there is not much us admins can do. I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee immediately; their email address is . <small style="background:#fff;border:#ccc 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 06:30, July 10, 2008
 * There's no record of emails sent via Wikipedia's interface? In that case, thanks for the email address, East718. Shem(talk) 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, but it can only be accessed by developers, who won't do so without very good cause. Historically, to my knowledge, they have only ever accepted requests which come from the Arbitration Committee, and limit disclosure to the material they access to that Committee only. Daniel (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the editor e-mailed him as a result of advice on ANI (above) from several editors. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) It appears sent an e-mail at 06:20, prompting this thread four minutes later. D.M.N. (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the thread above, it appears that Clubjuggle’s announced intent was to send an email that asked Shem either to disclose their conflict of interest or stop editing the articles in question. If that is really all that happened, I do not see an “outing” issue that ArbCom would take action on. Also, I have notified Clubjuggle of this discussion. — Satori Son 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Clubjuggle was actually quite concerned about not outing the account in question. He seemed to agonize over what was the best thing to do.  Heh, so now we know the account is Shem (thanks to Shem), but we still do not know Shem's real-life identity so IMO this is still not WP:OUTING. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. It wasn't even a "disclose or stop editing." I simply laid out my concern that his conflict of interest may skew his opinion of the subject, and asked him to "carefully consider that (COI redacted) probably creates a conflict of interest as defined at Conflict of interest." I then suggested that "In light of this, a disclosure of your interest, as suggested at Conflict of interest is probably prudent, and would lead, ultimately, to a more honest debate. In other words, all I asked him to do was to take a step back and consider whether his edits came from a truly neutral perspective.


 * All of this was prefaced by a statement that "[n]o matter what your response is, you have my absolute pledge that I will not, at any time, make any post that would violate either the letter or the spirit of WP:PRIVACY," and closed with a statement that "I wish to again emphasize that no matter what your answer, I have absolutely no intentions of making my concerns public on Wikipedia," so how that constitutes a "veiled threat" escapes me.


 * I suspect that my email has been shared with ArbCom already and I am willing to answer any questions that ArbCom may have privately (off-wiki) via email, including but not limited to providing full copies of email correspondence. --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I doubt you will even hear from ArbCom on this. Assuming the contents of that private email are as you summarized, I see no policy violation whatsoever. — Satori Son 16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted ArbCom, so these'll be my final words on the matter: Clubjuggle's COI allegation is false (some here seem to've taken its accuracy as a given), and I find his use of "research methods" against me (while in the midst of a good-faith content dispute) chilling to say the least. Jayjg and Sam Korn both have it right: this isn't how COI should be used. The Arbitration Committee'll probably shake their heads in disbelief once they see Clubjuggle's "research" and compare it with his claim of "serious substantial conflict of interest," but the chilling effect has already occurred and I don't wish Clubjuggle to (in his own words) "escalate beyond what is necessary."

Seeing some here cheer his "research" while not knowing a thing of its validity has been discouraging. Farewell. Shem(talk) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's "cheering" his research? A number of us have said that hypothetically if he had concerns about someone's potential COI, there would not be a big problem in contacting them via e-mail and asking them about it.
 * All you really needed to do was say, "Um, that's bullshit" and ignore his e-mail. If he then tried to "out" you -- which I tend to doubt, given his hesitancy to even e-mail you about it -- well, since you said he had the wrong personal info, it wouldn't matter anyway, would it?  In that hypothetical, your identity would still be protected and CJ would be in big trouble.
 * I'm just having trouble understanding what the problem is if somebody contacted you privately with an incorrect guess about your identity. If there were an accompanying threat, sure, that would be a problem -- but since all he said (as far as we know) is that he was concerned about COI, what's the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the “research” wasn’t really all that difficult. You disclosed your real name on your userpage early on, and at one point stated “I don't really care who knows my name, given the information's so easy to find regardless.”  If you want to exercise your right to vanish, then please do, but spare us the lectures. (And, yes, you did have a significant conflict of interest.) — Satori Son 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading back, this does not seem to be the first time this user has found themselves the target of something offline. (Admins who can read deleted revisions, look back around 2006 at his userpage.) We should not be encouraging harassment of any form, even if it's apparently justified by some alleged (never stated) conflict of interest. If Clubjuggle had have had real concerns the option was always to email the Arbitration Committee with relevant information if the alleged CoI was major and resulting in major promotion or obstruction by the user. In short, this was handled badly. Orderinchaos 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but I just don’t see any harassment. Politely emailing someone and privately asking that they consider disclosing a significant conflict of interest is not harassment; it’s discreet communication. Clubjuggle never gave us any information at all, so the only reason that we are even here again is because the vanished user disclosed the situation.
 * And what exactly is the complaint: that the alleged identity and clearly stated COI were incorrect, or that Clubjuggle was threatening to “out” them? If it’s the first, Jaysweet is right: just respond to the private email and tell them they are flat wrong. If it’s the second, then for there to be a problem we must assume Clubjuggle is lying when they say the email clearly stated “I wish to again emphasize that no matter what your answer, I have absolutely no intentions of making my concerns public on Wikipedia.”
 * I’m just having a real problem seeing what Clubjuggle did wrong here. They came to this noticeboard first and expressed their concerns (without disclosing even the username, much less private info), then took the advice of several admins. Are we not even allowed to talk about a COI with the person who has it? Even if it’s privately via email? That just doesn’t make sense to me. I'm trying to keep an open mind, so if there’s more to this story I’m missing, please let me know. — Satori Son 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we do not know what was in the email, or whether it was as it was purported to be. We're working a lot on trust here, and for a user to take a step such as Shem has suggests something rather more extreme in nature. Orderinchaos 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then one could expect arbcom to weigh in. If good faith is to be extended here, Clubjuggle should have it.  Arkon (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Arkon. I have difficulty believing that Clubjuggle is blatantly lying, especially since they know full well that their email has been forwarded to ArbCom. — Satori Son 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone involved in the Obama discussion (sometimes tangling with Shem), I know Shem was quite obstructive and POV-driven, as was obvious from his Talk:Barack Obama statements in the past week or so. One way of distinguishing POV-driven editors from editors trying to produce a neutral article is to see what happens when you present them with evidence against their position: the conscientious ones either change their minds or provide understandable reasons why they shouldn't. Clubjuggle (I'll call him "CJ" here; I should add that we're not friends and I only know him from what I've observed) had taken pains to respond to one of Shem's concerns about use of the word "criticism" in a passage about Tony Rezko, and after CJ presented a large amount of evidence to Shem and the rest of us, Shem refused to respond to it, even when repeatedly asked to respond to it. Then he began throwing around comments ranging from impolite to extremely uncivil, and repeating them when asked to stop. (Would anybody still want diffs for this, now that it's resolved?) It seems to me this worked out well. If Shem didn't have a conflict, he would have had no problem in brushing off Clubjuggle's communication, and if CJ had done anything close to harassment, the evidence against CJ would have been in the email and easily handled. Shem's actions speak a lot louder than his words. So do CJ's in asking for advice and limiting his actions. So phrases like "we should not be encouraging harassment" have an odd ring to them, Orderinchaos, especially when CJ went to you just days ago bringing to your attention Shem's repeated abusive comments to Clubjuggle and others, which can be just as distressing as harassment. I didn't see you responding to that. When you say the "alleged (never stated) conflict of interest", you seem to use CJ's discretion against him, and your phrase "If Clubjuggle had any real concerns" is a strange way of phrasing the situation when Shem has quickly left the scene, strongly indicating there was something real here. Satori Son apparently independently verified a COI, going by that editor's comment above. Anyone can look at Talk:Barack Obama to get a crystal clear picture of CJ's constant restraint and even temper in the face of obstruction and nasty behavior. That's a tough job he's been doing, and I haven't seen any other admin doing more for that page. He's been showing me, mostly by example, how best to respond to abuse. I suggest others watch and learn from his example. And that talk page and related pages could still use more eyes of administrators who should leave warnings on the pages of continually uncivil editors. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here, Clubjuggle has done nothing wrong that I can see in this instance. The COI seems to be pretty clear to, and not exactly the result of some extreme background digging, its pretty easy to find out what it is actually. Arkon (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Arkon. There was some serious COI involved here and Clubjuggle handled it exactly the way it should have been.  He went out of his way to keep things quiet and it was only the user themselves who made a big deal of the situation.  CJ has done nothing wrong and has done his best to try to mediate a peaceful solution in a debate that is anything but peaceful!  Brothejr (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion, except to say I applaud ClubJuggle's effort to respect Shem's privacy and I am saddened that Shem will no longer be contributing (despite what Noroton said above, Shem was a solid Wikipedia contributor). Also, I cannot resist pointing out the irony of this . -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, Shem took quite a turn recently toward strong POV pushing. You could also find complimentary comments from me on his talk page (if it were still available to see) and possibly vice versa. Until recently, I was pretty impressed with him. But a little sleuthing shows he had a definite COI. Note that Arkon, Brothejr, Shem and I are all participants on the Talk:Barack Obama page and even though we disagree on much else, we all agree on Clubjuggle's conduct. At this rate, the only marching of Clubjuggle over to Arbcom that's going to occur is to march him over there and install him as a committee member. Noroton (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggle, will you post the email sans personal information, so I/we can read the exact words you said in the context you said them? I'm interested to see if this user is being dramatic of if your wording was bad. From what I know of you from your recent posts I'd say it's fine, but still if you remove the info and post it, it can only clarify this situation. Beam 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)I'll be happy to provide full, unredacted copies of all emails I sent and replies I received to Arbcom if they request them. Since I would have to redact enough of the emails to create context questions for readers, I believe nothing is gained by posting here, and would prefer to leave judgment of my actions and motives to those in a position to review all the facts. I invite anyone else to review my overall conduct on the site and draw your own conclusions from that.


 * As to not immediately taking the matter to ArbCom, my understanding of ArbCom as a "last resort" led me to first attempt to resolve the issue directly led me to first attempt to answer my concerns by approaching the editor directly and give him a chance to respond to the concerns as well as any possible misunderstanings I may have had. I suspect that had I gone directly to ArbCom, the editor would have complained that I did not first work with him to address the concerns. --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen this email and Clubjuggle has given me permission to comment on what he said. I strongly feel that his representation of the email is accurate. He was indeed cautious about appearing to threaten Shem. A slightly infelicitous choice of wording, however, may well have given Shem the impression that Clubjuggle was attempting intimidation. In the section above, he is advised to either email Shem directly or to email an arbitrator -- he mentions this in his email and says "Since we are both adults, I wanted to first approach you directly rather than escalate beyond what is necessary." Reading this, it is clear to me that Clubjuggle was attempting to keep things informal. I can sort of understand why Shem found it intimidating, but the overall thrust of the email was very clearly not intended to be such and I really feel that he should not have done so. Barring that unfortunate piece of wording, Clubjuggle did, I feel, handle this situation impressively. He was right to bring up the concern and he did so in a sensitive fashion. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Well, that's one way to get rid of an outspoken adversary, isn't it - or am I wrong that it had to do with Shem's positions on this article? I'm left with a very sour taste over this, and sad for the project. Shem had his contentious moments, for sure, and I do not at all endorse every edit he made or comment he left but those sorts of things should be dealt with in the proper way if they are policy violations. Digging into someone's account history and researching them on the net is I suppose common enough around here, since we're all curious about who people are. But taking it to the next step is another matter, in my book, and I am disappointed and disturbed that this has happened. Not because a voice that agreed with me on some issues is gone, but because the project needs the energy and talents of a wide range of opinion, and I do not think Shem violated any trust here or was any more partisan than lots of other editors are, on both sides, especially in the range of articles we're talking about. Conflict of interest? See Sam Korn's point above. Is Shem actually David Plouffe or Axelrad or Obama himself? Did he not in fact agree to add critical material to this article, but not in what he thought was a biased way? Are there not editors who have pushed hard to have as much negative material in the article as possible - have they been researched too to find out who they actually are or was this retaliation from a personal dispute? I'm hopeful that we can reach a reasonable solution to the problems this article has faced lately, and I'll continue to do what I can to make that happen, but I think tactics like this, no matter how subtly done, are despicable and have no place here. To be clear: if an editor claims, for example, to be a "member of Daily Kos", they are certainly giving the impression that they are on the liberal, left-wing side of the spectrum. If in fact they are not, and are using that as a cover to hide behind as they edit with a deliberate conservative, right-wing agenda, one might say that they are being deceptive, and uncovering that deception would be beneficial because pretending to be someone who you are actually the opposite of to gain advantage is wrong. (Of course the opposite is also true if they say they are members of Town Hall or something like that.) But there's been no suggestion of that here, and the only reason I can think of for looking into his background or supposed COI is to try to eliminate a vocal participant in discussion - and I object to that, and ask if that's been done about contentious editors with the opposite position here. Sorry, but this feels like McCarthyism to me. (Clubjuggle has announced that he's no longer mediating there, and is now participating only as an editor - which of course is his right and I for one thanked him for trying to negotiate on that talk page - but that doesn't change anything, and in fact he has a point of view on the matter at hand since he proposed one of the options under discussion there, so removing himself as informal mediator is a good idea.)  Tvoz / talk 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come now...Has this happened to someone else on the other side? Specifically?  No.  But if you think rummaging through peoples IPs, browser information etc., as a checkuser request will and has done, is somehow less offensive than a polite email, asking an editor to expose a potential (and I use that word lightly, as it seems to be an -actual- one) COI, I am not sure what to say.  Shem has retired, evidently he didn't wish to make his COI known, both are his choice.  Arkon (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think Checkuser is done when sockpuppetry is suspected - someone gaming the system to influence the outcome of a discussion by votestacking, etc - not to uncover COIs - and us regular folk can't and shouldn't be able to do it, nor can even admins. Was Shem gaming the system? Other than his personality which you can feel free not to like, I ask again, did he not agree to include negative material but just object to how it was being characterized? Does that reflect some kind of pro-Obama COI at worke? There are editors who proclaim their political points of view on their user pages - are they to be banned from editing articles if they do so in a fair way? Digging into history and googling, as I said, is something that's done a lot, but I think taking it on oneself to then use it, even privately, especially when in the midst of a contentious situation, is not right, and COI is not such a clear-cut matter. In fact I think Clubjuggle knew that, which is why he posted here first, and maybe took the wrong advice - mine would have been to leave it alone if no evidence appeared that the user was lying about himself. As for why Shem chose to leave, I can't say, but I do think that especially in these political articles we have to tread more lightly regarding personal positions and interests unless we decide that no one with any interest in an election's outcome can edit a candidate's bio. And that, of course, is absurd. Tvoz / talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Checking myself, it looks like Shem probably had a fairly minor conflict of interest that necessitated no more than a user page disclosure.  Not that an astute editor wouldn't likely have figured it out simply from his existing userpage and Shem's edits... but more disclosure is better than less when it comes to editing with a COI.  If I've read the evidence correctly, the COI probably isn't even enough to confine Shem to the talk page, simply to make sure other editors know who they are working with so that his bias is clear.  Realistically, a large fraction of edits to the relevant articles will be by those with a similar degree of conflict of interest from both sides - just the IP users and new users we'll already know to be suspicious of.  GRBerry 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone was unclear about Shem's point of view, any more than we are unclear about some other editors on the page - and his edits did not prevent negative material from coming into the article, he just had an opinion about how it should be stated. But this appears to be a one-sided investigation, and I object to it going on at all. Tvoz / talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) "But there's been no suggestion of that here, and the only reason I can think of for looking into his background or supposed COI is to try to eliminate a vocal participant in discussion - and I object to that, and ask if that's been done about contentious editors with the opposite position here." Remember I'm also the one who brought the suspected sockpuppet report against User:WorkerBee74, who is pretty much at the extreme opposite position from User:Shem. --Clubjuggle <font color="#0047AB">T /<font color="#0047AB"> C 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, CJ, you did, and it was good work on your part - I apologize, I should have acknowledged that. But WorkerBee was so over the top, so ideological, so disruptive and refusing to compromise that his actions and edits deserved that attention. And it was, after all, a sockpuppet situation that you uncovered where WorkerBee was votestacking in addition to his unacceptable attitude and editing style and content. You were right there, but COI is not that, and Shem's COI if you'd even call it that is not at all in that class. Plus, I don't see any evidence of trying to find out who Worker Bee really is, just exposing him on Wikipedia, in Wikipedia terms, for WIkipedia offenses. Googling and COI accusations, even privately, is not the same. Tvoz / talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, sockpuppet allegations against WB74 were never proven. Tvoz makes several statements here which assume that WB74 was proven to be using puppets. If that was the case, he'd be indefinitely blocked. I trust that in the future after reading this, Tvoz will not be so careless with the facts. Curious bystander (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, suspicions were confirmed that WB74 was doing IP edits to double-vote and generate a false appearance on consensus. But like a lot of other incidents on the Obama-related pages, this particular one didn't lead to a block.  Only a small portion of the bad behavior lead to a block on these pages.  Nevertheless, WB74 has nothing to do with Shem.  Seeing this as a contest where one side "wins"  by getting another side's editor blocked is supremely unhelpful.  Bad behavior by anyone ought to be dealt with for what it is, not held up as a scorecard.  Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, Wikidemo, and I wasn't doing that - CJ raised the subject of his involvement in the WorkerBee case.  And Curious bystander, I was not being careless with the facts. Tvoz / talk 06:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * to be hoenst, i cant imagine why Clubjuggle is being hjumped on here. He or she has behaved with more kindness and circumstepect behavior than most other people on Wikipedia in a similar situation to htis. He has been walking practically on weggshells trying to avoid even the sligthtest appearance of impropriety, getting multiple advice from admins and phrasing everything he says or do to go as far from violating any of the numerous policies of Wikipedia as much as he could. To say that despite all this he should be treated with suspicios or accused of being part of some conspiracy to bully away political opportunities is beyond WP:ABF. Smith Jones (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree 100% with Smith Jones here. Clubjuggle's approach was utterly discreet and circumspect, and his actions appear to have been carried out with great respect for privacy, a minimum of drama, and the utmost good faith.  I strongly suspect that the only reason we're having this discussion now is that Shem had a previous bad experience with stalking or harrassment – of which there is no reason to suggest Clubjuggle had any prior knowledge – and so chose to interpret CJ's email in the worst possible way.  Even then, Shem's own kneejerk response to CJ's message has been far more effective in igniting interest in his identity than anything CJ did. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One other relevant note that explains Shem's overreaction - for so it appears to me - is that he apparently was truly harassed once before due to Wikipedia editing - and thus would be very sensitive that Shem's identity was still readily identifiable. (WP:OUTING, despite Shem's claim to have been outed, refers to revelation of an identity on Wikipedia, which is one thing that hasn't happened here - Shem's private data is not revealed here by anyone.)  The evidence for that, however, is in deleted edits that Clubjuggle couldn't see, so could have had no way of knowing about - and since Clubjuggle was very careful not to identify the editor he was concerned about, nobody else could look and advise him.  In other words, Clubjuggle's concern to not out anybody, plus prior and unknowable history, led an editor with a conflict of interest to overreact to learning that they had not successfully hidden their identity when they they tried to do so.  An unfortunate situation all around, but I really don't see any way that Clubjuggle could have handled his concern any better.  GRBerry 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there anybody here who considers themselves a friend of Shem, who could maybe talk him out of retiring? I think this is wholly unnecessary.  As many people have pointed out, those of us without access to deleted contribs still have no idea who Shem is IRL, and CJ has been very careful not to disclose this or give hints.  (and BTW, the less-adult part of my personality is going absolutely bonkers for not being let in on this secret, heh)  If Shem is really this worried about outing due to prior harassment, I am guessing both CJ and the community would be okay with him just saying, "I'm not going to disclose this, please keep it a secret."  Many people who are "in the know" have said it appears to be a fairly minor COI anyway, so I don't see any reason we can't just move on, if Shem is willing to do so. --Jaysweet (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaysweet, with purely evil intent on my mind, I invite you to go over Shem's contributions on Talk:Barack Obama from the past week, and I also invite you to dive into the cauldron yourself. Participate on that page and experience the joys of making a suggestion for how Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright should be treated (if at all) in the article. Watch as your ideas and your motives are scoffed at, laughed at and condemned. See how, when you bring up evidence it is ignored, when you bring up policies and guidelines, they are twisted in ways you never thought possible and when you try to reason something out you're misinterpreted in ways you never thought possible. In seven weeks or so I've seed about 10 AN/I sections formed from disputes at the Obama article. Experience the next 10 from inside. Then ask for Shem to return. This is also a standing offer for the other administrators who have commented on anything to do with the Obama page: participate in it yourselves and see what that's like. Then come crawling back here with the same wild, haunted look in your eyes that everybody else from that article seems to get and plead with administrators to do something. Noroton (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow - as a long-time, regular, active editor on that page, that's sure not the way I've seen the last few months. Seems to me the overwhelming bulk of the problem came from a few editors, most not on Shem's side of the disputes, who either dominated the discussion by inundating the talk page with reams of words repeated ad nauseam and countless polls and new sections to say the same thing again and again making the talkpage almost impossible to work on or keep up with - or outright disruption, nasty sarcasm and unhelpful bullshit by a few. Tvoz / talk 06:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, I haven't found anything in your comments that's inconsistent with the idea that if only all those people who disagree with you would just go away everything would be all right. It's not possible or desirable for that to happen, so why don't you accept it and make efforts to come to consensus? Nor have I seen evidence in your comments that (a) people who disagree with you are sometimes right, so it's worth discussing your differences to find out where you might be wrong, (b) bias is a problem worth serious consideration in an inherently contentious, partisan subject -- and not just the bias of those you disagree with but your own bias and the bias that might be on the page right now, (c) you've ever felt the need to calm down someone on your own side in order to prevent the discussion from sliding into a rut of hard words and closed minds. It really shouldn't be any surprise to you that if people on your side scoff at the other side and refuse to take even well-reasoned arguments seriously -- and plenty of proof exists for that -- then there will be an inevitable response from the side that now appears to be in the minority. Some will get angrier and act out, some will walk away, and some, like me, will try again and again to present arguments that might open up your mind. It's a little too late for you to say, the overwhelming bulk of the problem came from a few editors, most not on Shem's side of the disputes when there's been plenty of evidence that's appeared on this AN/I page about Shem, Scjessey and LotLE. I've worked to try to counter the bad behavior on both sides. Clubjuggle has done that. I've even prompted blocks for some people on my side. What have you done but complain -- bitterly -- about the people who are making that effort? Noroton (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The parallels to the John Howard article situation are incredible. :/ Orderinchaos 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think From what we can actually see, User:Clubjuggle appeared to handle the situation civilly, and fairly.
 * Having said that, now my personal opinion (as "just-another-editor") is that there indeed is a COI concern here. While I did look to see (out of the same curiosity that Jaysweet speaks of), a couple of simple searches without that information (on, then off Wikipedia) led me on an interesting trail, which led me to the information anyway. (And no, I'm not specifying, for much of the same reasons that others have not.) So I'm not incredibly impressed by the GoodBye yelps for "privacy" from someone who regularly signs their "real" name nearly everywhere online. - jc37 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think CJ has done anything wrong here. Shem released the information that is actually still viewable to any editor who cares to look and it is unredactable. So I don't see how this can reasonably go anywhere near outing or harassment. Once you publish information on Wikipedia, you can't put it back in the bottle. Sarah 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it’s only viewable to around 1,500 of us, but your point stands. If you ever post your real name and biographical details on your userpage, it’s out there forever.
 * And jc37 is right as well: before I even looked through the userpage history I was able to figure out and confirm the COI with some quick online research. Once you attach your real name to your account, if you want to go anon you’re pretty much forced to abandon that username and start over (which is likely what will happen here).
 * I feel bad for Shem over the previous real-name harassment (which I did not know about), but I think it’s pretty clear that Clubjuggle acted appropriately in this case and I recommend marking this thread resolved. — Satori Son 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about deleted revisions of his user page. People have to be careful what information they reveal and they have to take responsibility for what they publish themselves. Sarah 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry... clueless about that. I'll shut-up now as GRBerry wisely suggests below. — Satori Son 16:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm about 75% sure I know, as well, but I will not comment beyond that.
 * @Noroton: No thank you, I am not touching the Barack Obama page with a ten-foot pole. I have it on my watchlist in case I spot anything too egregious... but there is no way I am attempting to mediate a content dispute on that page.  Maybe if I quit my job, sold my house, gave away all my animals, and got divorced, I might have the time to dive into that mess.  But no thank you, no sir, I'll just stick over here with less controversial pages, like Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think further commentary here is more likely to be harmful than helpful. Let's not turn this thread into an accidental revelation of data the users involved are trying to keep hidden. Can someone who hasn't posted archive this? GRBerry 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Smith Jones (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.' ''
 * }
 * }

Using own blog as a source: Russ Nelson making a point in article about his friend
I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help on this, but... Russ Nelson is disrupting the article about his job friend Eric Raymond to make a point.

Among a series of minor corrective edits I've made to the article, I have changed a passage about Mr. Raymond being an "initiated witch and coven leader", because its only source was a blog post by Eric himself, where he claims to be an "initiated witch and coven leader".

After that, instead of saying "Eric is a witch leader", the article said "Eric claims to be a witch leader", because this is the best we can have from a self-published source (his blog).

During the discussion (and revert war) that started about the many minnor edits I have made, Russ Nelson vandalized the article text to say "Eric claims to " in almost every passage, even for totally verifiable facts. When asked to stop, Russ Nelson confirmed he was just making a point.

I have tried to explain him the differences, but he keeps reverting to the blog-based version.

I don't think I can explain him things more clearly, and I'm also not sure if he's really interested. Help is welcome. --Damiens .rf 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * claims is a word to avoid usually. You could say 'says that he is' or something?  You could ask this editor nicely on their page to stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT(which is a low-grade, first warning), and if they've breached 3RR report them on the appropriate noticeboard, but other than that, which you really would be best to share on the editor concerned's talk page.  Also, refering to another's edits as 'don't be so childish' and 'vandalism' won't help the situation, even if it were the case. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, we accept self-sourced non-controversial biographical details without the need to qualify them. Is there any particular reason why this particular claim is controversial? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mugs2109
I am having some problems with edit conflicts involving user:Mugs2109. I have done the usual thing of placing messages on his/her talk page, , , ,   but instead of responding in the traditional way, this user has either not responded or posted my text from their page back to mine.  With the first posting of my text back to my talk page Mugs2109 include a section heading:
 * == Talk that this User put at another user's page instead of at the discussion(s) for the specific pages Mugs2109 (talk) ==

So I thought maybe there was a misunderstanding but instead of replying to my next posting which was by way of an explanation my reply was simply copied back onto my talk page by user:Mugs2109.

This lack of traditional bilateral communication is a problem because Mugs2109 and I are editing several pages in common and we are starting to edit war. (See Area bombing directive‎, Dehousing‎, Shuttle bombing, Butt Report, Singleton Report (a redirect)). I would like the situation defused, but to date Mugs2109 has been very sparing on the talk that (s)he is willing to engage both on user talk pages and on the article talk pages. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look and make some suggestions (to both of us if necessary) on how best to defuse the situation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if an admin would look at the editing history of Mugs2109 over the hours since I last post to this section and see if in their opinion Mugs2109's edits are disruptive. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody out there? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So far this looks like more or less a content dispute with an editor who doesn't want to talk much. I've left a friendly note. Please feel free to update here or on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is content disputes, but without discussion it is very difficult to resolve such disputes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughable, yet egregious.
I replaced a warning on one IP's talk page which had been removed by a different IP today, and issued a warning to IP #2 about removing stuff that's not theirs. Here's what I found on my watchlist a few hours later... apparently someone's unhappy. (I know--I should be kind, after all. Obviously this person's had a rough day...maybe they missed their naptime, or the straw got stuck in their juice-box or they got a time-out or something.) Seriously, though...this is all because I refactored some useless forum-chat off Talk:Teletubbies a couple of months ago, and somehow the IP just KNOWS that EVERYONE knows I was talking about HIM. Please do whatever needs doing...this place is wearing me out, really.Gladys J Cortez 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That person needs a new keyboard, their b, e, and p keys seem to be sticky. [[Image:Sifflote.png|smiley face]] <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have given him or her a level three no personal attacks warning. Probably that won't stop 'em, but at least we can say he or she has been warned. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an EUI is in order? — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At 11:00 in the morning?! (his/her time according to whois) Suppose that's the fairest explanation, thought. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  07:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User has removed both the offending remarks and all warnings from his talk page . <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From ONE of his/her/its talk page, at least. Scientizzle cleared another one; I can't say for sure that there aren't more, as who knows how many IP's this charmer has access to? (And no, I don't think it was WP:EUI; I think it's some kid who has a grasp of reality so tenuous that he/she thinks people will connect him/her to each and every IP he/she uses, and possibly their real-life identity to boot. Spare me the paranoia, the narcissism, and the drama; isn't there some awful navel-gazing music they could be listening to instead?)Gladys J Cortez 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can this guy do this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxSem&action=history68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. He's an administrator therefore he can protect pages if necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he has the ability but is it appropiate if he's an administator to protect his talkpage so Anon IPs cannot message him when he may well be taking actions that affect them? Exxolon (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the IP's block log he was block evading. Dunno whether that is true though. has been informed of this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just dropped a note on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ow, yeah. This gentleman was active at Julian Baggini making questionable edits for some time, causing a complaint to the Foundation (OTRS ticket #2008060110003568). No surprise he was blocked. Was the semi-protection too much? I prefer to participate in a meaningful discussion - not when a blocked user evades his block by changing his IP and then throws templates at me. I don't participate in RC patrolling these days, so my contact with anons is pretty limited and previous anon edit on my talk prior to its protection was in early May. Max S em(Han shot first!) 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Month-long semi of a talk page in response to two edits from a single IP? Sounds a bit excessive... – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I started reverting all protection attempts on my talk page, I had it indefinitely protected because of SIHULM-related vandalism (including a death threat) from two or three throwaway IPs. Nowadays I have two talk pages - my main one (which is always unprotected) and a "discussions" one (which is semi-protected and allows me to respond to peoples' queries without being edit-conflicted by vandalism). -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaka12o
This user is persistently edit warring on Club America. They are not providing edit summaries, have ignored warnings posted to their talk page, have ignored the discussion on the article talk page and persistently revert changes made per consensus at WP:FOOTY. They also removed the tag indicating that the article was semi-protected. <font style="color:#AAD0FF;background:#fff;">Paul  <font style="color:#fff;background:#AAD0FF;"> Bradbury 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist label
Editor User:Ghirlandajo falsely labeled me or my work as Pan-Turkist [], []. I object to being false labeled as nationalist of any color, including Pan-Turkist, i.e. a "political movement aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state". Nowhere in my contributions is even a remote relationship to any political movememts or unification of any states. My interests are entirely in the ancient and Early Middle Age history, and general science of Turkology, and being labeled with a political term is a personal insult for me. Will you please help Ghirlandajo to retrieve this insult? Barefact (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you need help. The original incident happened on a public message board, and you've already brought your problems there to another noticeboard (this one) (twice). The only thing I can suggest that you haven't done is post at User Talk:Ghirlandajo.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

IP editor disrupting to make a WP:POINT
User:77.248.185.98 is continually attempting to insert "This man looks like saddam hussein, omg!!! " into the the Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria page. When other editors have tried to discuss the matter with him, he refers to them as vandals and claims that talk page comments cannot be removed except for profanity.

Editors have tried to talk politely to him, but every single one of his edits have been to place this entry on talk pages, and then fight off anyone who tries to discuss anything with him. He's obviously gaming the system, and disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Lil' help? Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours after arguing on his talk page.  Horologium  (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Complicated legal threat situation
I'm an involved user in this situation, so I will take absolutely no admin action here, but I'm not sure if any admin action is needed or not. User:Guido den Broeder posted on the 3rd July on the talk page of User:Oscar, an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia and the mentor of Guido den Broeder over there (it's an arbcom appointed mentorship, but is not recognized or accepted as such by Guido den Broeder). Guido was blocked by Oscar on the Dutch Wikipedia, and posted here: "Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Wikipedia ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans." (Translation: "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Wikipedia immediately. Consider this your final chance.") Another user interpreted this as a physical threat, which seems unrealistic to me. However, some four hours after this message, Guido den Broeder has been indefinitely blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia by decision of the Dutch Arbcom for making serious legal threats. Quote: "Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar." (Translation: "After starting this case, Guido den Broeder has in a mail of July 3rd to user:Oscar and a carbon copy to the arbcom announced to take legal action against Oscar.) The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin.

I know that normally actions and blocks on other Wikipedias are not transferred to this one, but since the user has brought this problem to the English Wikipedia as well (and to meta[]), and has made a post which, in light of what followed, can hardly be interpreted aas anything but a veiled legal threat, should he be warned and/or blocked here as well until this is resolved? Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. Good analysis of the case. The threat was made here, and in any case, even if it wasn't, these two users, with recognisably the same user identities as on nl-wiki, would pose the same problem if they had to interact here on en-wiki while at the same time engaged in real-life legal issues, so yes, the spirit of NLT would demand that we block him even if he hadn't spoken about it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found WP:NLT' reasoning rather tenuous. I do wish we'd treat it simply as an extension of being civil and polite, and that we'd ask that users make no threats at all, rather than giving tenuous legal reasoning. &mdash; Werdna &bull; talk 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to using English Wikipedia to further conflict on another wiki and make legal threats, Guido was blocked several times for different kinds of misconduct here, so I don't think that unblocking him will make any sense, even if he retracts the legal threat. As such, I propose to impose community ban on . Max S em(Han shot first!) 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I saw, Dutch wikipedia editors followed him here. Possibly both sides are "using English Wikipedia to further conflict on another wiki". I said this last time, and will say it again. In the era of SUL (single-user login) we need to think more about cross-wiki issues. Traditionally, sanctions and remedies on other wikis were not applied here, and I think that should continue. I also think the tradition of giving people a second chance on other wikis is sometimes good, but also shouldn't be abused. The language issues are a problem as well. I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban, leave blocked until legal issues sorted. I haven't looked recently, but I don't think his problematic editing conduct warrants a ban. Legal threats are not allowed, though, and those issues need to be resolved before any unblocking. Unfortunately, we can't judge the legal threats aspect of things properly here, as there is off-wiki stuff (Godwin and Dutch Wikipedia). If Guido withdraws the legal threats he can be unblocked - but we need a way of making certain that the legal threats have genuinely been withdrawn, I don't think just a post to his talk page would be enough. On the other hand, (for example) a lack of response from Mike Godwin (has he responded to confirm anything, or has someone just sent him an e-mail hoping for a reply?) or a lack of response from the Dutch Wikipedia, might leave Guido in a particularly nasty kind of limbo, even if he has withdrawn his legal threats. Anyway, as I was saying, if the legal stuff gets sorted, I'd be happy to mentor Guido on chess articles. From what I can see, the most problematic of his editing is on medical articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth, who basically said what I was going to say, but better. Having dealt with a few disputes that have spilled over from other wikimedia projects, I find the best thign to do is to deal with each in isolation. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Block him indefinitely, tell him to convey his legal requests to info-en@wikimedia.org, he's welcome to be unblocked when he removes his threat. Simple. As well, the lack of response from Mike is not a big deal, he does not deal with every single legal threat we get, the majority of them are dealt with on OTRS before they ever get serious enough to go to him. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was making was that the comment "The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin" is pointless and shouldn't be taken to mean anything unless someone hears from Mike Godwin. We shouldn't take the word of others that a particular situation is urgent or serious enough to require Mike Godwin's attention. The only person who can decide that is Mike Godwin himself. We should be wary of people using the phrase "we've contacted Mike Godwin" as a way to bolster their argument. We should also avoid getting into a situation where people say "we haven't heard back from Mike Godwin yet, don't do anything". Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment Guido made contains the kind of "intimidation" contemplated by the legal threats policy, although I don't see that it affects the free editing of articles. If Guido agrees to stay away from Oscar here, I think unblocking would be OK, but the precipitating comment doesn't reassure me that he'd do so.--chaser - t 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with him before, but I cannot see how one can threaten legal action on one wiki and remain an editor in good standing on another. It is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether it has happened here or elsewhere, and it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. JFW | T@lk  19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What? How is that "unacceptable behavior"?
 * Making threats of legal action against Wikipedia is clearly unacceptable behavior. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I note he had signed himself up to the Harmonious editing club which seeks make WP "a more inviting and friendly place for our contributors.... by resolving disputes, answering user's questions, helping editors with their contributions and participating in requests for input". As the Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club is not to exceed 1RR, previous blocks for 3RR & current WP:NLT seem inappropriate. I'm guessing issue for the club to decide on membership ? David Ruben Talk 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * David, Harmonious editing club is completely irrelevant here. The last time I looked it was more like a voluntary pledge than something where people were elected to membership. It's just like anything else on Wikipedia - you can sign up to practically anything around here - it is your actions, not what you are signed up to that counts. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a complicated situation indeed. This guy started with putting in his name as a respected scientist everywhere, and ended as an ME-patient complaining about his disrespect. In both cases rather uncalled-for from a distance, but you could comply with his conduct. Only after threatening his mentor with legal file his behaviour was regarded as unacceptable. His mentor felt privately threatened as well. Now if he would withdraw his legal accusations, and make public excuses towards his mentor, would that be enough to undo his block? What would the English community do in such a situation?

1. Continue the indefinite block

...

2. Undo the indefinite block


 * 1) First choice (conditional on legal threats being withdrawn on both projects, or a clear statement that no legal threats were made). Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Under conditions, give this member a new chance


 * 1) Second choice, with a probable restriction on medical articles (conditional on legal threats being withdrawn on both projects, or a clear statement that no legal threats were made). I've offered before to mentor on chess articles, and that offer stands. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

- Art Unbound (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) member of the Dutch Arbcom
 * Could someone who can read Dutch confirm this, please? Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you meant if you wanted a confirmation that Art Unbound is a member of the Dutch Arbcom, he is mentioned on the members list for the Dutch Wiki: nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Leden. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Dutch for Arbitration Committee is fairly obvious, and I could have found the link from his user page or the interwikis at our ARBCOM, but thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Keep Dutch and English Wikipedia actions separate


 * 1) Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Sort out a proper process to deal with cross-wiki issues in the age of single-user login


 * 1) Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more options that should be explored. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the intervention. My only motivation was sincere concern about this case. - Art Unbound (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested fix
Someone who knows how please remove "big boobs" from the Mandy Moore article.24.10.111.154 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This has already been seen to by someone on RC Patrol. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours to due to vandalism after a final warning. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the photo is realistic, that's some serious POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gabriel Murpy" Article
-- belongs in WP:DRV The article "Gabriel Murphy" has been nominated for deletion on 3 occassions. The links and results are listed below:


 * 1st Nomination on September 25, 2007 - Result was keep


 * 2nd Nomination on February 12, 2008 - Result was delete


 * 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 - Result was delete, though I believe the closing administrator errored in the closure of this AfD, as there were as many keeps as deletes.

Every time the article is nominated for deletion, it is revised and improved- hence the time delay between the three nominations. The latest version of the article that caused the 3rd nomination was actually completely re-written in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators during the deletion review process. The "Gabriel Murphy" article went through [Deletion Review on June 28] and it was voted 3-0 to move into mainspace. Just 1 day after it was moved into the mainspace, on July 5, the same user (Wolfkeeper) who had nominated the article for deletion the first time re-nominated it for speedy deletion. If you review the [| 3rd nomination] deletion log, you will see about an equal number of keeps versus deletes. The main argument put forth by the deletes was non-notability. Per Wikipedia, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I think anyone objectively reading the article will find:
 * 1. Significant Coverage - there are 30+ references to news stores about the subject;
 * 2. Reliable Sources - the sources include Cornell University, [The Kansas City Business Journal], The Kansas City Star, and [The Web Hosting Industry Review], which is the largest trade magazine within the web hosting sector.
 * 3. Independent of the Subject - all of the sources above have no ties to the subject, none of the references are blogs or other sources that have anything to do with the subject.

I strongly beleive the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 should have resulted in a neutral closure, or even perhaps keep as there were equal votes to keep and delete, and my understanding of consensus policy is that if no concensus is reached, the article remains and is not deleted. Additionally, consensus says that "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons". I think if you review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 log, you will see sound arguments put forth to keep. While a few editors who voted delete argue that it is a resume, most of the arguments are that:
 * 1. The sources are not reliable;
 * 2. That the Kansas City Business Journal is not reliable (though it "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website).
 * 3. It is an advertisement (no one would specifically point-out what part of it is an advertisement);
 * 4. It is an orphan article so it is not notable;
 * 5. It does not have many page views so it is not notable.

What I am asking for is first, for an administrator to review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 dialogue to determine if the closing administrator did error in closing it with the concensus to delete. If this was an error, then I ask that the article be restored and no other action would be required. Otherwise, I am asking forthe community to review the latest version of the article via Google cache (since it was wrongfully deleted today) and vote keep and protect as it will undoubatly be re-nominated for deletion by Wolfkeeper again when it is restored. Alternatively, I would ask to have the article userfied yet again so I may improve it based on logical feedback from the community. I think this article clearly meets the notability threashold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you. LakeBoater (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * #You already posted a link to a deletion review, so why not start one for this deletion? If as you say the closing admin incorrectly assessed the consensus, the deletion will be overturned. I see that this has been cross-posted to DRV.
 * Asking people to vote in a specific way is generally frowned upon (see WP:CANVASS for more on this). Luckily, in this case you're not referring to a specific vote, but it's somethign to bear in mind.
 * Hope this helps.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As SheffieldSteel hinted, ANI is not the place for deletion reviews and hopefully someone uninvolved will mark this thread as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * O shtrr. Yhis belongs in WP:Deletion Review. Adminstirators do not usually bypass wikeipdia procedures for no reason and there is not much any admin can do re: this topic. In deletion review, the closing admin for your article wil have his or hjer judgment reviwed by other users tod etermine whether or not it was correct co close it and if consensus was appropriately determined or wehther or not this issue should be overturned and the deletion be revoked. Smith Jones (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks so much for everyone's feedback on this. I assumed it belonged in DR but thought it might be relevant here if the closing admin had wrongfully closed and deleted the article based on the AdF discussion. I hope some of you might consider speaking out at the Deletion Review for this article as everyone seems very helpful and knowledgable. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welome. glad We could be of help. Smith Jones (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)