Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580

131.215.168.240 and soapboxing
I have removed a series of what is clearly anit-American soapboxing by on several talk pages. Most of it focused on the portrayal of Asians in film and how Americans are racists. It also appears that the IP has engaged in a couple of WP:BLP violations as well, as well as other non-constructive comments. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. In the future, you may want to report them to AIV. TN X Man  14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now he is going off about how I'm racist for reverting his anit-American soapboxing and POV pushing. I must say, I'm somewhat amused. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has requested to be unblocked. The talk page is here, if there is anyone who would care to take a look. TN X Man  14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There really is a long history of disruption from that obviously static IP. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of ongoing childish name-calling, I've reblocked the IP, adjusting the block settings so the editor can no longer edit the talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should contact an administrator from CalTech about these series of edits. I'm sure that these edits are in violation of CalTech's internet usage policies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if his classmates found out what he's been writing, he would become the laughingstock of his school. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Block required
Please see these. Thanks!  Majorly  talk  15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User blocked, see above. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

She Wolf / Shakira / Digital vs Album Charts
Ok so here's the deal. User:Thestreamer keeps adding the French Digital Chart despite She Wolf (album) having already charted on the main French Albums Chart. WP:GOODCHARTS does not specify the digital chart as being appropriate. I tried to bring this up with the user on his discussion page User talk:Thestreamer. Despite this the user continued to revert. See page history.

When i questioned the user's lack of willingness to discuss the issue he/she replied "I'm french, I know what I say about french albums chart". Now im sorry and correct me if im wrong but is this not just a complete disregard for wikipedia rules and concensus? I've never come accross an album page that lists the two charts seperately. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

That's not true, french digital albums chart is not a component of the main french chart, albums chart = just physical, that stupid but tell it to the SNEP (this is the same thing for french singles chart)
 * Example : French Digital albums chart, week 41, Renan Luce was number one (2 050 copies sold) but when you watch the Top 200 french albums chart he's not in the chart. I can not be clearer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If a chart can indicate a No.1 position for the sale of 2,050 copies then that chart is inappropriate for WP - anyone buying 100 copies of a track can materially alter chart positions - as being insufficiently authoritative or independent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is my point exactly. The digital chart is not approved for use on wikipedia but said user above will not conform to consensus. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry but this is not a valid argument, for example in the french singles chart it is also possible by selling 100 copies to be in the top 100, yet it is an official chart! (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GOODCHARTS does not say that any chart not placed there shouldn't be used. In this case, since the album charted at #1 on the digital albums chart, why not mention it in the chart positions section, along with the main chart. Dt128   let's talk  14:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the discussion has been moved to the content notice board: Content noticeboard. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

User:Kevinharte History review.
User talk:Kevinharte shows a clear history of a lack of compliance with Wiki policy. The editor doesn't appear to want to work within the community. Is there a possibility a experienced editor/admin can review and help out. Either we figure out they want to learn or they don't Either way it looks like it's taking up peoples time that could be used elsewhere. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer(Kevin Harte) - I don't agree,I believe I've learned how to use the site relatively well.What facts are you basing this on all of a sudden? The issues you raised were about a year ago and I've had no problems until now.I was trying to save an article from deletion as it was too biased.The user I had a editing debate with seems to think he owns the article (Ireland vs france)--Kevinharte (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits Kevin Harte made, consisting of removing pieces of the article, should have been discussed on the talk page, no question about it. I hope the user has learned that. Having said that, the article is strongly biased and I agree with the user that MickMacKnee acts as if he owns the article and he actively bites those disagreeing with him, as other users have also remarked upon in the last days. Kevin, please use talk pages in the future to discuss removing material, especially if it's sourced.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so, it's WP:BRD. An editor makes a bold edit, which gets reverted, and then is discussed on the talk page. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in making a good faith removal of material from an article, even if it is eventually overturned by collective consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a bigger issue with this Jeppiz than I do with Kevin, who was just basically blanking whole sections of an article, for which I warned him here Jeppiz however has continully made assumptions about me and my motives, and is making snide little comments here there and everywhere, presumably as a replacement for providing a single shred of proof for his many personal opinions on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer(Kevin Harte) thanks Jeppiz. I'll learn how to do that next time I'm going to edit an article.--Kevinharte (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone can take a look at Mick's long history of blocks for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, and his repeated personal abuse of editors disagreeing with him in the last few days. I'm not making "snide" comments about Mick, I'm openly pointing out that he is a disruptive user who appears to be unable to comment on content rather than other editors. Several other users have made the same observations in the last 2-3 days.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone can look at Jeppiz long history of evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness on the Afd, to make his appeal now for people to comment on content appear utterly ridiculous, and only designed to provoke. If anybody thinks that he keeps his comments on content, I seem to recall in about his fifth edit on the Afd he accused me of being a bitter Irishman, and he has continuously positioned this Afd as being about the British Isles in some way or another. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm starting to get upset now by all the personal attacks and the lies now. First, I welcome anyone looking into my history, I don't have a single block in contrast to Mick. What he calls "evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness" is his way of saying that I don't agree with him, and I consider it to be a personal attack. I have not called him "a bitter Irishman", so unless Mick provides a diff backing that up, I take it as a lie and another personal attack. His third comment is also I lie, I've merely pointed out in the debate about the France-Ireland soccer game that it's not the first team there's a controvery when British teams exit a tournament. Could some administrator please look into Mick's behaviour, both he and Wikipedia would benefit from him taking a few days to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Mick's comments were meant in a horrid way, he may well be a bit upset about the footie and just needs treating gently. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite what Jeppiz has claimed numerous times, I am not upset about the football, and I'm not even an Irish fan, which is why none of his supposed conclusions about other things, like who's been doing what in that Afd, should be taken as read. It's a long read, but the evidence is all there in the Afd, and because of it, I have absolutely no problem calling Jeppiz an editor who consistently and purposely evades and ignores others, and is now pretty much intent on provoking me into an easy civility block. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that was just a waste of everyone's time.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Request speedy closure of this AfD.
Mishk'vei ishah is turning into a religious trainwreck and I request that we either close this AfD or get someone to watch over it. ☭  Pick both  man  lol  ☭ 17:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when do we close contentious Afd's? Simply stating "it's a religious trainwreck" (which I don't see) is not reason enough.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some watching might be useful. I see e.g. that one involved user has added a batch of comments together with a reislt premature relist at todays log.. The AfD is from November 18 only. That should be reverted. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I've undone (together with some signature fixing) as not warranted in substance and way too early anyways. Still some new editors will have joined the discussion because of today's relist. I'll inform Newman Luke accordingly. As per above there is no reason to close this now. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Mcjakeqcool - socking
User:86.136.78.170 and User:Mcjakeqcool2 are both editing User talk:Mcjakeqcool claiming that McJ has been unblocked. Obvious sock is obvious, could someone do the honours please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk will need some protection ASAP (talk→  BWilkins  ←track ) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * is that the same IP as before? I wonder if it would be worth sending an email to the institution.--Crossmr (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Username indef blocked, IP blocked for a day. TN X Man  14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user is blocked but still editing??? Check contributions - he's just edited McJ's userpage AGAIN! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can that. He's editing his own userpage with McJakeqcool spam.  Anyone want to protect it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- llywrch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:FREEDOM94
Speaks for itself. Dloh cierekim  20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it? Maybe I don't speak its language :-) --Deskana (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind old news. Already blocked, reverted etc.  Dloh  cierekim  20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * HA. Might say he's been nuked.  Dloh  cierekim  20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IrgoraJew
User:IrgoraJew seems to be a vandalism only account. It also looks to me that it's an anti-semite who initially posed as a Jew in hopes of getting under the radar but who actually has the agenda of making anti-Semitic or pro-racist edits to articles such as Zionist Occupation Government and Stormfront (website). 141.117.225.1 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IrgoraJew has been notified of this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * not quite a vandal-only account--at least his first edit was a useful reversion of vandalism. I do not quite see that he is clearly an anti-Semite, but his edits are remarkably unhelpful--so much so, that I wouldn't realistically say he could have any hope of getting in under the radar.   DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The blanking of Stormfront (website) is convincing enough for me, amongst all the other edits. Indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 00:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on wp:wqa
I have asked for back up of my attempt to avoid an edit war on Wikiquette_alerts, only to have its instigator turn to me with sarcastic and off-topic remarks. Somebody please back me up there. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where Jayjg has been sarcastic. What I do see is you doing a bit of forum shopping. Crafty (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no choice, since there have been no uninvolved reactions on WP:WQA. And I have stated this very clearly here in this post. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this post uses sarcasm a few times. Feel free to disagree, though. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You always have a choice. There is no reason why (with a bit of good will) you couldn't return to the original site of dispute and try to resolve this like a grownup. Crafty (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you did not notify Jayjg that you had brought this matter to ANI. I have done so. Crafty (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to resolve here personally. On the contrary, I was trying to resolve a conflict between two other editors, when one of them turned against me with unrelated remark etc., as I explained on WP:WQA where I am asking you to help. Which is also the reason I didn't inform User:Jayjg of this post, because I am only asking for help on WP:WQA. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no acceptable reason for you not to inform an involved party that you have brought a matter to this noticeboard. You are required to do so. Awfully poor form on your part for not doing so. Crafty (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained to you why I didn't do so in good faith, and I still see no reason. As you may notice, this discussion did not involve any names of editors. I just posted to draw attention. It is not my fault that WP:WQA is not as much visited as WP:ANI. Saying that I am forum-shopping is pointing away from the real problem. If admins would be as active on WP:WQA as here, I wouldn't have had to put a link here. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism
Since another editor is ignoring my revert to the pre-conflict version and my request to stop the edit-war,
 * 1) I will refrain from trying to stop this myself, since I am not an admin to be able to enforce this;
 * 2) I'd like to request somebody to protect the Judaism article, and recommend to use this version, which was the last to precede the confict. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like forum shopping to me. Yes, I'm sure you would like someone to protect it at the right version but that's not generally how it works.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You get me wrong. I have no issue with the content dispute whatsoever. I just tried to prevent an edit-war, unsuccessfuly. Thank you for your good faith in me. Debresser (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Faith has nothing to do with it. Took a look at the history. You've been, at least recently, a very active editor on that page, well before whatever the flare up is today (which you appear to have been a participant in, not a neutral arbiter). You're asking for protection at your prefered version. That's quite clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You really don't have to believe me. Although that might say more about your preconcieved notions of me, than about the objective truth. At least you could have kept it to yourself. This does not do you credit. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're not an involved editor? I'm not too bright and all, but all of that editing you do on that page sure looks like editing. As for forum shopping: You went to WQA, the editor you were in dispute with took issue with your take on the matter (shocking I know. That hardly ever happens) and you immediately came here, before hardly any of the watchers over there had responded, and asked for page protection at your prefered version. So how are you not an involved editor, and how is this not forum shopping, exactly? Remember, if you post here seeking input, you might not get the input you hoped for.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I rest my case, knowing that nothing I say will be able to overcome so much undeserved bad faith. It is enough that I know my own motivations. Debresser (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What case? Again, faith has nothing to do with this. The facts are you've edited the page 29 times this month (i just checked). If there's an edit war, you appear to be one of the edit warriors (though this is debatable). What isn't debatable is that you're a party to a content dispute. "Good faith" is not an enjoinder to ignore the evidence of one's own eyes. And when someone claims they're an uninvolved editor with all that editing being done prepare for skepticism.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with this specific conflict. I never said I didn't edit this article, but in this case, I was and am uninvolved. And I am not prepared for people questioning my word, and will never be. You insulted me. I do not expect you to care about that, though. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected that article and encouraged the editors to resolve their differences constructively. Crum375 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point the insult out? I'm really stupid. The moment you started reverting, coming here and going to WQA you became involved. That's all fine. But unbiased guardian of wikipedia when it comes to this article, you are not. As it stands, the wrong version has prevailed for the moment. Article is protected, so no edit war. You're happy with this outcome, right? If you're not involved, tootle along while the people who are involved sort this out during protection on the talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You insulted me by not believing me when I said I was not involved in this conflict. I do not care which version has been protected, nor will I participate in the discussion. I just am not involved. I made my recommendation which version to protect, and have no problem with the fact that the protecting admin choose to ignore my advise. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you insult my intelligence (and perhaps that of others) when you say you're not involved. I have eyes that see. All those edits, many in the specific area of dispute, make you involved. No crime there. But neutral you aint.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Being truly uninvolved, never having interacted with any of you and never having edited the article, may I offer a friendly piece of advice to both of you? Stop this pointless argument, it's not going to change anything and, quite frankly, nobody else is interested. Having a nice evening!Jeppiz (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You (Bali ultimate) just called me a liar, in other words. I kindly ask you to appologize. Debresser (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've called many people liars in my time. You? I don't recall ever doing so. A diff would be handy for jogging my memory. However, I don't deny that i dispute your characterization of yourself as uninvolved when you're in fact a party to a content dispute. No shame in that. Quite common on this page.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You both agree to disagree. Done. Drop it and move on. Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could somebody please tell me where in Wikipedia I should post to force an appology from Bali ultimate, or alternatively get an independent confirmation of the fact that I have been falsely accused? I understand from two reactions above that WP:ANI is not the right place. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a "forced apology". And Wikipedia, while it does have dispute-resolving procedures, does not hand out "justice". Singularity42 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not looked into the matter so I don't know who is right. What I do know is that WP:ANI is the place to post such a complaint. However, I would strongly recommend you to drop it. I have not read the article Judaism but none of the comments on this page in this discussion is of the kind that anyone could be "forced" to apologize. I suggest you leave the subject for now, as this is not going anyway.Jeppiz (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your reply and advise. Alas. So be it, that a man of honor and a man of God (after all I am a Rabbi in real life), can be called a liar (diretly or indirectly), and the insolent person doing so shall not be called to justice. Wikipedia is almost like real life. :) Debresser (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, insolence. They used to lash people like me for that, understanding that all self-proclaimed men of god are beyond reproach, always. Tis a pity indeed, m'lord. Peccavi.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No one wins the argument by making the WP:LASTWORD. (This is not directed at anyone specifically.) Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Coordinated(?) attacks at User talk:194.144.74.14
A number of IPs, plus new account User:Lrn2troll, have put the same offensive message on User talk:194.144.74.14. The subject line is "Hello, you degenerate imbecile." Is this a known vandal or pattern? The targeted IP has not been active editing in a while, so this feels like somebody's playing with a bot/botnet/proxy/IP abuse and picked what they thought was an off-the-beaten-path target. I'm tempted to protect the page but afraid that will drive them to a new target. Opinions? —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another account,, is now participating in the attacks, which have evolved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I protected it. This smells of either one user using a rash of open proxies, or a 4chan distributed attack.  If it is the former, then they are wiley enough to jump anyways; actually, they are probably checking this noticeboard and will jump anyways.  If it is the latter, then protection will likely stop it for a while.  Either way, lets keep an eye on recent change and see what happens.  -- Jayron  32  03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by Ilovemassachusetts84
User:Ilovemassachusetts84 posted a legal threat at [|this edit]. Eeekster (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly not serious, there is no need to take any action. I would prefer it not be reverted from the talk page, since admins are supposed to review any comments the page creator (or other editors) may have left on the talk page before deciding to speedy delete a page. Prodego  talk  04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter how serious. Legal threats are always treated the same: indef'd until they retract. In any event, user has been indef'd for vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no no no no, no two situations are ever treated exactly the same way, every situation is different. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules, only guidelines by which community consensus is carried out. Therefore, to say that all legal threats are dealt with the same way misses the point of WP:NLT, which is intended to both discourage legal action, and ensure any legal situations are resolved without any further entanglement of Wikipedia. Spurious 'legal threats' such as this one are not to be dealt with as a true legal threat would be. Prodego  talk  04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, then he's a troll who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia, but is instead only interested in stirring up trouble. Either way, the block seems fine to me.  -- Jayron  32  04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment, and all the rest should be evaluated in determining whether to block him. I would not call that a legal threat, as it clearly is not serious. However, it as well as other edits the user made, such as this one, and the long history of warnings, mean that a block for disruption and/or vandalism looks justified to me. However, that comment alone would not justify anything. Prodego talk  04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the editor (or second editor, maybe) who Prodego was originally replying to, I don't mind pointing out that Prodego makes a fair point. Singularity42 (talk)
 * I know this is closed out as resolved, but I'd like to also point out that Prodego is absolutely correct about policies and "enforcement".

Block of I.P. address 96.245.65.13
I saw that parts of the article 2008 Cleveland Browns season was disrupted by the user with the I.P. address 96.245.65.13. I undid all his/her edits and have recently looked at their other edits, and they were unhelpful as well. Even though this user doesn't contribute very much, is it possible to request a block for this user? Minimac94 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and personal attacks by MickMacNee
MickMacNee, an editor with a long history of block for disruptive behaviour, seems to have gone out of line in the last days. I don't mind him being defensive of an article he has written the major part about, and several users in the AfD discussion have been very much engaged in it, including myself. However, I object to the repated personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by the editor. His history is rather long, so I provide just a few selected diffs of uncivil comment and direct personal attacks during the last days [],, ,. In the discussion on this page about a third user, he calls my arguments for not agreeing with him ""evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness". That is rather typical of his attitude in the AfD discussion where he agressively drives that everybody disagreeing with him are wrong. I've tried to point it out to him, but with hindsight (given our infected history) it might have been better not to as I should have predicted how he would respond. However, I'm far from alone in having that opinion. In the last days, several other editors have also commented on his behaviour, , , .Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That block log looks like something out of a Wiki-horror story...why has he not been given long blocks in the past? I would go for a longer-term block. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A users block log is not (generally) an excuse to throw the book at him, this looks a bit silly if you ask me, a bit of a tit for tat heated discussion over a article for deletion discussion that is split down the middle, and nothing will come of it, I can't find a really uncivil comment, perhaps if you guys just edit different articles for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that everybody has different opinions, but I do think that "one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors", "Either your comment was simply ignorant of the facts (like you characterisation of my POV), or you are simply trolling, either way, you are all out of credit here tbh", "I've got no idea what crappy papers you read", "It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't." are not particularly civil. Neither is "I have had it with your crap.". In any case, I won't interact with the user again, I rather leave Wikipedia. As I pointed out, I'm far from alone in having made these observations.Jeppiz (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, I tried your suggestion, in fact I didn't think I'd need to try, I didn't think I'd cross paths with Mick after this bout of abuse. But sure enough I did, and when I reported him for violation of a 1R measure in place on the Northern Ireland article, half of his defence was an assumption of bad faith against me. I guess if someone keeps an eye on him, he can't get too far out of hand. Alastairward (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a rant, he is clearly very upset about the footie, and I am sorry you have been upset Jeppiz, he has gone now, probably off to bed, I'm sure one of the admins will have a strong word in his ear when he shows his face again. I myself have had a run in with him but he has grown on me, what can I say. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing the diffs Alastairward provided, I cannot agree, even though I see that you stood up for him that time as well. This is a user who seems unable to deal with conflicting views and routinely resorts to personal abuse.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing routine about it. Your behaviour and Alistair's are pretty similar, which is why they provoked similar responses eventually. If either of you wish me to lay out the full package of evidence for either of your extraordinarily sustained campaigns of tendentious behaviours, I am only too willing to oblige. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, Alistair and I are not the only editors you've attacked and insulted, there are at least Grsz and Kevin McE  just in the last few days.
 * While I have definitely argued with you, I have not called you one of "the most repugnant editors", called your contributions "crap", called you a "lying hypocritical cunt" or told you to "fuck off" ,.
 * Every time someone brings your behaviour to the attention of administrators, you come up with these vague and unsupported accusations that ones you've argued with have behaved in the same way. It is not a defense (then both should be blocked), and it's not true either, just a dishonest way for you to try to talk you out of it. I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else.Jeppiz (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I think with the many many examples of MM's long-term incivility including this, this, and especially this, MM needs to take a break from Wikipedia. Are there any admins on the Admins' noticeboard? Reywas92 Talk 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved? MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have not made any previous comments about any of the other participating users. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  03:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But you are involved in the current Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. That was simply listing an opinion and I don't care how it ends, likely no consensus. The point is it is obvious you are very disruptive with your incessant personal attacks and cursing. Reywas92 <sup style="color:#45E03A;">Talk  00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but have come across MickMacNee before. It seem to me that MickMacNee's constant challenging of editors who are in favour of deletion, collectively amounts to hounding and/or harassment, and is therefore disruptive. He would do well to allow the AfD process to run its course. If an editor asks a direct question then by all means respond, but keep it WP:CIVIL. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can sympathise somewhat with MickMacNee's defence of the article at all costs in the AfD debate, but it is not the right way to go about it. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but Harassment has a very defined meaning, and it does not apply to replying to too many people in an Afd. Do not even suggest I have done anything so bad as harass others. If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me, or how many times Jeppiz has mentioned my name in various forums and people's talk pages. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee, please do not twist my words. I was not talking about Wikipedia Harassment, but harassment in the general sense of the word. Please let the AfD debate run its course. Should it be deleted you are free to take the issue to WP:DRV. Cease your disruptive behaviour or an admin with less GF and patience that I have will block you. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat my question in case you missed it "I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else."Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no probs with Mick at the Afd-in-question, as he hasn't been causing vandalism there (deleting or changing 'delete' votes). GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's definitely not a vandal, that is why I reported him for disruptive behaviour and not for vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "If you want examples of harassment, examine Alistair's growing list of unrelated interactions with me". I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest. Perhaps Mick you might provide some diffs. If I am genuinely harrassing you, why not report me for it? Alastairward (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very relevant question, and I asked the same question. Then he went very quiet. It seems as if he just throws all accusations back as a routine to defend himself. The difference is that we have a very long list of highly insulting diffs from him ("fuck off", "cunt", "crap" etc.) while he has not provided a single diff of me using anything remotely like that. He said I did, and I certainly never have, and he still has not provided a single diff after 24 hours. In other words, these accusations of his are just yet another examples of his disruptive behaviour. Given his long history of very uncivil behaviour and repeated personal attacks, I'm surprised no action has been taken.Jeppiz (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "He said I did". Where exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a few rows up, .Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No excuse for that sort of language. Significant response would be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realise none of these diffs are current, or have anything to do with Jeppiz's current complaint of my supposed disruption (a.k.a asking him to prove his various claims in an Afd). MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not true either, the diff with you telling me that you've had it with my "crap" is very recent, as is the diff with you commenting on how another editor reads "crappy papers" as well as the diff where you call a third editor one of "the most repugnant editors". All of them are from the last few days.Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside: Without passing any judgment on whether your arguments are right or wrong (you could be right), when I see your user ID, this logo comes to mind: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. We've had an absolute bout of administrators leaving because of people like MMN, it's quite obvious that whilst his intentions may be good he has no intentions to improve upon his frankly appalling behaviour and insults. Just block the guy already and stop sitting around on your damn hands. 78.148.72.124 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at MickMacNee's recent interaction on other editors talk pages. Seems that recently there have not been any uncivil communications. The only problem recently is the AfD debate, but so far he's not challenged any oppose votes since I posted yesterday. MickMacNee should be in no doubt that there are probably a large number of editors who are watching his editing. Further incivility is likely to lead to a lengthy block. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anime/MGM vandal persistently returns...
The vandal from Indonesia who has vandalized several movie studio, anime (especially Digimon-related), video game (specifically Street Fighter ones), and now, even ABS-CBN-related articles (some archived reports on the guy:      ) has persistently returned time and did his misinformation thing without any sources and repeatedly ignored all warnings. Here are the addresses he used for the past two months (bold ones are the ones he used in the past four days):



Here is a partial list of the articles he had vandalized:
 * Digimon Tamers
 * Digimon Frontier
 * Digimon Adventure 02
 * The Filipino Channel
 * Digimon Adventure
 * Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
 * Digimon Data Squad
 * Maalaala Mo Kaya
 * DWWX-TV
 * List of Disney television series
 * Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
 * ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
 * List of MGM Television shows
 * Capcom vs. SNK: Millennium Fight 2000
 * Sony Pictures Television
 * List of MGM Television shows

While I'm more leaning toward rangeblocks against the guy (202.70.50.0/24 is currently blocked, while another range he frequently used, 118.137.0.0/16, is also blocked), Nja247 has also suggested an edit filter. But any more ideas against this vandal? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We could hardblock. ☭  Pick both  man  lol  ☭ 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked (in the past) the 114.59 range on a few occasions for a maximum of 48 hours. Seems to stop the vandal for a while after a rangeblock. I suppose they realise they've been found out, but they are persistent and do eventually return. An edit filter is a good idea, but I too would like ideas from seasoned editors and/or admins who deal with persistent vandals more regularly than myself. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland football league system
This AfD has been open since 6th November, and remains open - yet hasn't been relisted or anything. It also appears to have been removed from the AfD categories...can admin take a quick look please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed as keep, since there was discussion even after the templates got messed up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated! GiantSnowman 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flagrant BLP violation by user:KimDabelsteinPetersen
KDP is currently engaged in an edit war over inclusion of material in the Mojib Latif article that clearly violated WP:BLP. KDP, as WMC before are inserting material sourced to weblogs in a biographical articles. This is not the first time KDP and associated editors have been found to be in violation of WP:BLP on climate related articles. WVBluefield (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified KimDabelsteinPetersen of this discussion; however, I think the best place to disucss this would probably be Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nagara373
This user has been persistently adding unsourced and incorrect information to automotive articles. I felt this was probably deliberate, since a few of the edits were very blatant, and reported it to AIV. However, they decided it wasn't obvious vandalism and pointed me here. Here are a few examples: [ 1], [ 2], [ 3], [ 4]. swa q  15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nagara373 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · [ edit filter log] · block user · [ block log])


 * I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies  16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maya civilization vandalism
There's an odd case of vandalism at Maya civilization, which is only visible when not logged in (see Talk:Maya civilization). I checked article source, some of article history, and the unprotected templates used in the article, and found nothing. I've never seen this kind of vandalism before, and wasn't able to find any appropriate instructions at WP:V or elsewhere. Can't report any users, since it's not clear who to report. So I'm posting about it here, hopefully this is the right place. --Jashiin (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article from a different browser (not logged in) and everything seemed normal. Have you purged your cache? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk  ♦  contribs  16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this, is it worth flagging up at WP:VPT? Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the article's talk page; I used a different browser with clean cache. At the moment, it looks like the vandalism's gone. Must've been some template (or..?) vandalism I overlooked, that was fixed before I posted here. --Jashiin (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also reported it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_on_article_Maya_civilization I checked history. It is weird that I am not seeing it now even though no one has corrected it. This is really weird. Thanks! 117.98.81.127 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates display their contents on pages, and can be changed separately from changes to the page. So vandalism of a template will show up on a page, without showing up in the page's history.  To find/fix the vandalism, you have to figure out which template was vandalized.  In a case like this, where the vandalized template is already fixed, it can be even more tricky, since you would need to check the history of each template on the page, and each template on the templates on the page, and.... etc.  Likely far more effort than it is worth for an already reverted vandalism.  :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, Chimes in SF
As I am no longer completely uninvolved, I'd like to invite review of the contributions of User:Chimes in SF, who is persisting in repeatedly restoring edits to Susan Hutchison without responding to any efforts to address the problems by myself or others. Changes include removing sourced information, adding unsourced (including a WP:BLP vio) & bringing controversies to greater prominence in the article--a problem, I believe, under WP:Undue. This particular article has been embattled since shortly before a very contentious election. More information is visible at BLPN (this has also been listed at COIN). Most notably, it was a recent sock target (see Sockpuppet investigations/Hello4321/Archive). I myself became involved after a previous listing of the article at ANI. I personally believe that a block may be warranted in this situation, as this editor shows no interest whatsoever in engaging other contributors, but only in trying to force through his or her preferred version, regardless of policies and guidelines. Can somebody uninvolved please decide what further steps may be needed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the article edit history, and I fully endorse Mooriddengirl's work on it. Given that there was similar POV edits by at least one other editor, I am not sure whether it would be better to protect the page in the version MRG reverted to, as well as deal with the editor.   DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it has happened again. I think some kind of tool use is required here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I probably count as "involved", I agree completely with Moonriddengirl. I saw a request for eyes on this article on the BLP noticeboard, so placed it on watch. The edits to change the lead are unusual to say the least (I wonder what the subject really gains from it? I digress..), but the addition of unsourced content as well as the removal of solid references is of course worrying. A couple of changes which appeared to be constructive were made by the user, but the intention of these was probably to act as "decoys", deflecting attention from the obvious POV restructuring of the article. Quite a clear-cut case really, but still fascinating to watch over the course of the past.. two weeks? (I think?) SMC (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, I recommend that the Susan Hutchison article be semi-protected for a good long period. This pattern of blanket reversions, sockpuppetry and refusal to discuss has persisted since August. User:Chimes in SF is probably the newest sock after User:OMG oh my gosh was blocked for the same editing problems as the many other socks. This is the third time for this article at ANI here and here. It appears a lengthy semi-protection will be the only method to draw collaborative editors into discussion on the talk page. (I am the first admin who became involved in editing the article, so naturally,I am will not protect it myself.) — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

unresolved Help, please. We need an uninvolved admin to consider the appropriate use of tools here. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}} :I was hesitant to protect on the face of it, but since this is apparently a case of serial block evasion, fully protected for one month. Semi will only help until the next sock is autoconfirmed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for your input. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you and to User:NuclearWarfare both for pitching in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby back in action?
looks very much like a Scibaby sleeper sockpuppet which has recently been reactivated to disrupt climate change-related articles and BLPs. There is an (as yet unresolved) SPI outstanding on this and three other user accounts which appear to be sockpuppets either of Scibaby or another recently blocked sockpuppeteer, - see Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Could someone with more familiarity of Scibaby's MO take a look at Flegelpuss's history to see if my suspicions hold water? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made Flegelpuss aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies in advance if my comments may seem rude, but Shulz on the flimsiest of evidence is trying to ban innocent and productive editors, so our bluntness in our own defense is warranted.  These accusations have made me waste my time to go read up on "scibaby" to see what all that hubub is about.   Apparently scibaby has been a big problem, but there are over a billion global warming skeptics in the world, and indeed in the U.S. there are more skeptics than believers.  Over the last two days it shouldn't be surprising that many people with this widely shared skeptical POV, which is quite different from the dominant editors' believer POV, have started editing articles related to the CRU scandal.  I've been editing articles on Wikipedia for many months, as a perusal of my contributions log will show, and I got interested in editing about the CRU scandal because I've seen a great deal of highly biased editing going on to try to prevent the facts about the CRU scandal from being documented for posterity by Wikipedia.  Since I want to put very well sourced and highly notable facts on Wikipedia that contradict the dominant editors' preconceived opinions, I guess that means I get banned too, because this apparently makes me "quack like a duck"?   Please, let's stop the paranoia -- there are over a hundred million global warming skeptics in the U.S. alone who are not scibaby sockpuppets, and neither am I.Flegelpuss (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Highly publicized and politicized episodes like this tend to attract both a large influx of new editors and a handful of abusive sockpuppets. Perhaps you could help by educating these new editors about Wikipedia's policies and standards, so that they don't run afoul of them. As an aside, if your goal is to "document this episode for posterity", then surely the rational approach is to wait for the dust to settle and for a coherent picture to emerge, rather than fighting about minute-to-minute swings in our coverage while the topic is hot off the presses? MastCell Talk 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Flegelpuss should be banned just for his outright lies about what the majority of Americans believe. As a poli sci grad student- they are FAR past "exagerations" about global warming. Read Fiorina's Culture War? They myth of a polarized America; standard reading for even freshman and encouraged to be read by just about any poli sci professor you'll meet. This isnt Kansas, this is an encyclopedia. Fringe theories are treated as that. Sorry, Flegelpuss, you are in the minority and this is a fringe theory. Even if the fringe theory was held by a majority of people it would still be a fringe because science considers it to be. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq didnt have anything to do with al-Qaeda or 9-11, and evolution really happens (but not in Kansas, inbreding stops it I guess); those are just three more things you can learn from Wikipedia if you have an open mind. Which is why Wikipedia bases itself on published sources that are reliable not what the majority thinks.Camelbinky (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky reveals the real motivation behind this witch hunt.Flegelpuss (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the real motivation is for Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia based on reliable published sources... you caught the conspiracy. Good work. Or were you saying I'm part of the liberal bias inherent in the US university system? I'm a grad student at MU (University of Missouri-Columbia) the dean of the poli sci department (whom technically I "work" for) is a good friend of Karl Rove and a big shot in the Republican Party; so I wouldnt go with that whole "colleges are a liberal bastion" argument against me. Read Fiorina's book and learn what the majority of Americans TRULY think before you talk about "hundreds of millions" of Americans believing things. College textbooks trump Fox News.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of Americans are moderates, in the center, neither left nor right. The polarization process is directed by special interest groups to win votes for one side representing their viewpoint.  It occurs, because both the American educational system and the media is unable to do their job. As Higgins & Sussman write, "The business of news distorts its public and community character and the institutional responsibility of news organizations to inform and educate, free of commercial or government imperatives, and improve the quality of a democratic civil society."  Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, you are painfully unfamiliar with my edits, which were (A) about the CRU e-mail leak, not about the science, and (B) were based on reliable sources such as the BBC and the New York Times. The contents of some of these e-mails have become quite (in)famous and that makes true believers like you uncomfortable, and your natural reaction is to strike back at the bearers of bad news with a witch hunt.  Those who value science, OTOH, should be happy to see how the most important science currently being conducted on our planet is being done, albeit obviously it would have been far preferable to get the information as a matter of course, or at least as a FOI request, instead of having to wait until it was leaked. Flegelpuss (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we avoid discussing what we think about Americans believe, think, and so on, on WP:ANI please?--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was making, which Camelbinky completely missed and took on a wild tangent, was that climate skeptics are not rare, they are extremely common. They look the same to a true believer, because they have very different PsOV.  When a big event like the CRU e-mail leak happens a large number of skeptics can be expected to show up and start editing, apparently with a similar POV to "scibaby".  To suspect that they are scibaby is an understandable psychological bias, but unfortunately it has turned into a paranoid witch-hunt that threatens to have me banned.  Excuse me for defending myself, and the rights of all innocent and productive Wikipedia editors to be free from this kind of attack.Flegelpuss (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a strong consensus that your edits are problematic, Flegelpuss. Have you bothered to take a look at your own contribution history and talk page?  Do you acknowledge that you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia?  BTW, WikiProject Physics accused you of using sockpuppets in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, since the fate of entire companies can depend on whether politicians take draconian measures against the projected climate change sooner or later, I guess it's not too absurd to expect Wikipedia to be hit by a certain degree of astroturfing; e.g. editing paid for by oil companies or more likely by front organisations of such. I am not surprised that people are suspicious in that area and think it's a good thing in principle. Hans Adler 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is in . We now have 2-3 unconnected (or not yet connected) sock farms. Flegelpuss is the sockmaster of User:EggheadNoir, and has abusively used the sock on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident until the sock was blocked (independently of the sock issue) by User:Tom harrison. I'll update the sock block to indef. What do we do with the sock master? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have the two suspected puppets of this been checked? DVdm (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they were not part of the SPI request. I suggest you add them at the article linked above - before the case is archived. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The person behind the Flegelpuss/EggheadNoir accounts used the Flegelpuss account to evade a block on the EggheadNoir account, which suggests prima facie bad faith to me - certainly block evasion at the very least. The sockmaster appears to have used EggheadNoir to make controversial edits to one particular article while using the Flegelpuss account to edit talk pages and other related articles while the other account was blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Socking is a non starter. My preference is to throw the book, but I understand the tradition is to do something less drastic for reasons not totally clear to me.--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Add edit warring to the list, since that's why the EggheadNoir sock was blocked in the first place - repeatedly deleting reliably sourced content that the Scibaby sockpuppet had previously been repeatedly deleting. That's what made me think EggheadNoir/Flegelpuss was also a Scibaby sock, but evidently socks of a feather flock together. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Scibaby has used widely varying IP addresses over time. While there seems to be no positive CU evidence linking the Flegelpuss family and the Scibaby family so far, that does not preclude that such a link is found in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

← I've reviewed and closed Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. There does not appear to be a clear link to Scibaby. On the other hand, there is strong behavioral and technical evidence that has operated a number of socks abusively to evade blocks and press their viewpoint on content disputes. I've blocked the relevant socks, and blocked Flegelpuss for 1 week. I think this probably errs on the side of the benefit-of-the-doubt - there's ample evidence of blatantly abusive and repeated socking - so I would recommend a fairly low threshold to escalate the block if the Flegelpuss account engages in further disruptive editing after the block expires. MastCell Talk 18:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more likely socks coming in, e.g. User:Bigred58 with a classical sleeper sock pattern. Do we need to assign a permanent checkuser to these articles? Can we? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bigred58 is almost certainly another Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, you need to be awfully careful here. Wikipedia clearly has a "House POV" on climate articles--this is in part a natural consequence of the demand for reliable third party sources, which means that Wikipedia will always lag behind breaking news and shifts in scientific paradigms.  (If Wikipedia had existed in 1975, it would have defended global cooling and the ending of the current interglacial period, and anthropogenic global warming would have been fringe.)  However, please take care that you do not abuse editors or the core NPOV policy.  This incident has attracted a lot of attention, and it is not unreasonable that casual and infrequent editors will come over to wikipedia to see what's up.   is completely and unequivocally unrelated to anyone else under recent investigation, and furthermore he has a thoroughly valid point.  WMC has a clear conflict of interest in this matter (among other things, a few of his emails are in the stolen or leaked archive).  I do not understand the removal of Bigred58's posts from the Talk page, and I feel confident that if the checkuser information had suggested that Bigred was associated with, for example, McIntyre, McKittrick or Watts, that you folks would be all over him with COI warnings.  Step back and take in the wider perspective, please. Thatcher 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Has this sockmaster ever made any constructive, non-disruptive edits? Jehochman Talk 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you mean Flegelpuss, the editor's contributions in article space appear to have been rather limited. The contribs list shows edit warring over fringe viewpoints on relativity in September 2009 and, more recently, altering BLPs to add rather tendentious statements about the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IPs of blocked sockpuppet adding material against consensus on the Joker (comics) article
User who has had multiple socks blocked already, now using multiple IPs in the 69.79.46.x range to attempt inserting material against consensus (see Talk:Joker (comics), as well as Sockpuppet investigations/Krlzh/Archive).

A request to semi-protect the page was auto-archived, with a comment by J Greb suggesting that due to other articles also being affected, that perhaps a small range block may be a better solution. Is this the right page to request consideration of a range block, or is there another page for those types of requests? 67.183.232.99 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And now the most recent sock IP involved has again restored the material - despite clear consensus on the talk page, and the talk page archives, and the talk pages of the blocked user that it's original research being sourced with fan-forums. The user is unable to provide reliable sources for the content, which is the reason for overwhelming consensus against the material. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has returned to past practice of vandalizing user pages of those who revert his insertion of the non-consensus material (see example). This is the same behavior as the previously blocked user account, providing still more evidence of the IP sockpuppetry (fairly evident already, but this just adds to the behavioral evidence). 67.183.232.99 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keeping a spoken article that is clearly a joke
There is a number of related discussions on Who is a Jew? about the satirical nature of the spoken version of the article (see here, here, and here). Several users, including myself, believe the reader did a piss take using a Mockney accent. Many of the people who object are themselves British and can tell the reader is faking the accent. It is a terrible blight on the article. However, user:ThuranX constantly reverts the deletion of the file. Their stance is that the audio, joke or not, is better than having nothing at all. I beg to differ. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm British. The file page claims that his accent is a northern accent. I'm also northern, and that is definitely not a northern accent. It does seem like a bit of a joke, really. --Deskana (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also British, and also northern, and the accent is definitely put on. I have a feeling that it is a (rather poor) attempt to do a British-Yiddish accent; if so, it is almost certainly meant in an offensive way. Oh, and I have also made ThuranX aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a native speaker to notice that this accent is fake. Not at all. In case anyone really has doubts about whether this is a joke or not, just listen to the last 30 seconds. It's suspicious that the sockpuppet of a banned user who uploaded this has chosen this particular articles. I didn't have the patience to listen to the entire recording, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some more or less subtle manipulations of the text as well. Hans Adler 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the accent is evidently fake, and gets progressively sillier as the thing goes on. At best it's someone having a joke. We'd be better off without it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jayjg beat me to it by a few seconds, and his edit summary was better than mine was going to be. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the giveaways that the accent is fake is that the speaker uses a long 'A' in "circumstances" - anyone from north of the Watford Gap would use a short 'A'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's either Dick van Dyke attempting to surpass his Mary Poppins accent range, or someone doing a homage to the Four Yorkshiremen sketch. I'm British, and cannot place the accent to any place in the United Kingdom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the file on Commons be deleted? Just curious. 72.94.164.21 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was on enwiki, then I'd delete it. It depends how Commons does stuff, though. --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Originally I thought it wouldn't hurt to keep it, linked from some page of Wikipedia humour perhaps. However, because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, and the potential for this mickey-taking to cause real offence, I now believe that the source audio file should be permanently deleted. 86.133.245.40 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I agree, but the file isn't hosted here but on Commons, so this must be discussed there. They have a slightly different culture, and I believe they are generally a bit more reluctant to delete things than we are.
 * Perhaps an editor with more experience with Commons than I have can start whatever is the appropriate process there? Hans Adler 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't think this file does us any credit, even as a parody for ostensible humorous purposes (the evidence of which is persuasive). My opinion might have been different had it been some other articles, but even so, that was the least of my concerns. Rodhull  andemu  01:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the file repeatedly because no one who has objected so far is a linguist or otherwise specifically qualified to determine the origins of the speaker. I find it dubious that someone would instead create a 20 minute long audio file in a consistent faux accent without laughing or joking at all. However, the audio was a perfect read-through of the article as it was when read and created. As such, it's better than no audio at all. Given that the only reason ever given for removal was blatant IDONTLIKEIT, and that no complaining editor ever offered to actually take the time to do it better, I restored it. That I'm being attacked here for preserving a greater quality, not a lesser, is a travesty of good sense. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not attacked. Infact, your name was only mentioned twice in this thread; once saying that you were "[constantly] reverting the deletion of the file", and another saying that they've informed you about the thread. We just disagree with you, that's all. --Deskana (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You once commented that you had only listened to the first few minutes, but perhaps that has changed? If you haven't done it yet I really suggest that you listen to the last 30 seconds now. It doesn't take a Brit, it doesn't take a native speaker of English, and very likely it doesn't take any familiarity with the English language at all to realise that the pronunciation of the copyright notice isn't meant seriously. The article itself is just a little more subtle. Hans Adler 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it reminds me of the fake English accent that Ross did in Friends to keep his students entertained. --Deskana (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am American, but I think I notice a few inconsistencies in the speaker's accent ... sometimes he says CON-tro-ver-sy and sometimes con-TRO-ver-sy; at one point he says "pee'ul" for people and "exam'l" for example, omitting the /p/, whereas other places he only leaves out /t/ sounds... and in some parts of the recording it is hard not to think he's deliberately exaggerating his accent (see around 4:30, 9:30, 14:45, 16:20, and 20:00-21:13). In any case, for people unfamiliar with British accents it could be hard to understand this even if it is "real" ... so it could be replaced. I've gone ahead and !voted Delete in the discussion, though Id be willing to change my !vote if I can become convinced that I'm wrong about the accent. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't seem to get all the way through to the end of the article. Assuming that the version of the article the speaker was reading is this one, it stops about 2/3 of the way down. Were there more of these? User:Gypsy Eyes only made that one upload.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I wonder if it wouldn't have taken a shorter time to simply record a better version, which would have left us with a spoken article. Unomi (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do it, but I am not sure that a version with traces of a German accent would be a real improvement for this topic. More of a job for a native speaker of English, anyway. Hans Adler 12:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment > delete the file. It doesn't portray us well. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A new version, fine, but the old one doesn't belong on Commons in any case. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation at User:Amsaim
This user page appears to violate copyright by reproducing the lyrics of a 1929 song. I have tried asking the editor to remove the violation, but have been told in response that I had "an aggressive tone" and that the owner of the page would not change it, and get the impression that he or she will only listen to an administrator. Could someone please have a word with this editor and sort this out? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you could provide evidence that the song is under copyright, that would make it easier to follow up on this. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the burden is on the contributor who wants to include the material, but according to, copyright was renewed in 1956. Accordingly, it is under copyright until 2023. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the lyrics and explained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, all. Userpage says one cannot have images that are copyrighted (non-free). It seems obvious to me that a free content encyclopedia could not allow (non-free)text as well. Do we need to add a mention about non-free text to the things one cannot have on a userpage? Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. How's this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary really. It's common sense, WP:BEANSy, and already in already there: "repeatedly inserting copyrighted content on your own user page after being notified that doing so violates our policy is also considered disruptive, and may result in it being protected", "pages that are unambiguous copyright violations can be tagged for speedy deletion". WP:C and WP:COPYVIO do not limit themselves to article space either. 89.101.82.246 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible school security threat
See diff on Godinez Fundamental High School. In my humble opinion this is childish vandalism rather than a credible threat of violence, but am noting it just the same.  Flying Toaster  04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed on what it probably is, although this is something that police might actually investigate if reported, as opposed to the majority of childish threats posted to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Someguy - I'm guessing you say so because the tone is neutral rather than silly? I'm happy to report to local authorities if that's roughly the consensus.  Flying  Toaster  04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that the tone is neutral, but rather that there's a clearly identified target. In such a case, especially when that target is a school, the local police are usually very interested in knowing who made the threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized I'm not all that far from the school at the moment. I would be happy to contact the local authorities myself, if a checkuser could provide the IP beforehand. Acutally, it might be worth it for a checkuser to see if the user is proximal to the school (it may not be as worth a report if the user was editing from Singapore, or something). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - requesting checkuser via SPI here, feel free to comment.  Flying Toaster  04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that most schools themselves are very interested in such postings even if it is not serious, ESPECIALLY if it is from one of their own school computers. Some schools even take disciplinary action even over little things like what we call "vandalism" if done on Wikipedia from their own school computers. Making even a "silly" or "not serious" threat would definitely be dealt with, I'm sure the school would like to be contacted right after the police.Camelbinky (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've emailed Someguy1221 with the user's IP address, which he can give to local authorities for help in dealing with this. For anyone concerned, such releases are permitted under the privacy policy: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected [...] through records in the database via the CheckUser feature [...] may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations [...] Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." As a specific target was identified here, and for the reasons pointed out above by Someguy and Camelbinky, a call to authorities is not unreasonable, especially if there's someone in the area. Someguy, any updates you can provide would be appreciated. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've contacted the local police, as well as the school, and provided the necessary information. They asked me to contact the local FBI field office with the same information, as apparently that's where jurisdiction lies in this case. I'll be doing that when the field office opens tomorrow morning. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this FBI page might be useful for alerting them of the situation. Basket of Puppies 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you were planning a terrorist bombing at your local school, would you post about it on Wikipedia and use your real name as your username? Didn't think so.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that school kids are known to post provocative photos of themselves on websites, which is a stupid enough thing to do, it's reasonable to suppose that they might post their own names in connection with threats of violence also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So what? I'm guessing the feds will have more powers of persuasion to stop people posting nonsense on WP than anyone at WP will. See also the many hoax death threats against us president sent by school children an d investigated by the feds. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also a good civics lesson, as it teaches that crying wolf is not appreciated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine the look on the kids face when his mum calls him downstairs because the FBI want to talk to him :D--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't know why I had to be born in 1995. My generation is toxic, stupid, wreckless, and primal.  Oh, and could someone please videotape that kid's reaction when the FBI comes knocking on his door?  I'll treasure it forever.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why were you born in 1995? Well, you'd have to take that up with your parents. I'm guessing you were conceived during the baseball strike of 1994. And thanks to youtube, if the FBI's visit to that guy's house gets taped, it could be shared with everyone - maybe even included on the "no threats of violence" page, as a "scared straight" kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why me? Why did I have to be born in 1995?  Why do I have to live in this confused, savage generation of braindead idiots who care about nothing other than their own primal, barbaric lusts?  Why do I have to be alive to see people murdering each other for fun and posting it on YouTube?  Why me?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Things could be worse. At least you weren't the one in that youtube video. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The FBI has no been informed. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, is "no" a typo for "now" or "not"? <em style="color:blue">Den <em style="color:red">dodge T\C 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor issues re: Ed Gein article
An editor, Sift&Winnow took exception to the article Ed Gein. During talk page discussions, the commentary became increasingly incivil, until, in response to comments made by Crohnie to both him and another editor, Sift&Winnow made a clear personal attack, saying "I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP." and clearly stating he was in fact being uncivil and personally attacking in the same post, saying "Lastly, except for the well-deserved first sentence of the previous paragraph, I never cast any aspersions on anyone." At that point, I stated the discussion was over until he could comment civilly and without personal attacks. He responded by saying "Ah, a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater!" and made no further comments on the talk page. Instead, he went to the article and began adding fact tags to every line in some sections, including ones that had one source covering the whole paragraph and inserting hidden notes. When I returned to the article and began to work on addressing both the tags and the behavior, Sift&Winnow came back and began editing over me and another editor, although he had not made any more edits to the page in over 45 minutes. For example, I cited a statement to a source, previously used and published by Pocket Books in 1989, on Google Books, wherein the version I was using was published in 1998 by Simon & Shuster. Sift&Winnow came in immediately and changed the publisher, although the publisher in his change was not the same as the citation that was written, nor is there confirmation that the page numbers added were the same, citing "correcting citation, per title page of book and per New York Public Library". This effectively invalidated the citation. Basically, his charging in to make edits when he can plainly see others are addressing his pointy tagging, is thwarting any effort to cite what is asked or fix anything that is rendered incorrect. I would really appreciate someone stepping in to stop this user from thwarting efforts to address these issues. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been working assiduously to improve the Gein article, locating new information supported by reliable sources, verifying existing sources, toning down sensationalistic wording. At every step of the way, Wildhartlivie has been reverting my edits, in what appears to be a case of ownership mentality. He has also accused me of stating many things I never said, which was the source of my intemperate comment. He has now made his personal vendetta against me into a serious problem, preventing the removal of libelous material from the article. This article has serious verification problems, which I have been trying to address in the past few days. Not only are many statements unverified, but many are incorrectly verified - they are unsupported by the citations attached to them. I've worked on providing reliable sources for some of the information, and attached tags as a guide to what still needs to be fixed. I'm glad to hear that others are also interested in improving the reliability of the information in the article. As to the publisher of the book in question, Pocket Books is owned by Simon and Schuster. The title page of the book says Pocket Books, and the verso says "Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster", copyright 1989, printed 1998. Wildhartlivie apparently doesn't understand that when citing a book, one uses the publication data printed on the title page, not the verso, and one uses the copyright date, not the printing date, per all major style manuals. It's the same edition of the same book we're talking about, so there was no invalidation of the citation. I welcome anyone to review the contributions I've made to the article. -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just protected the page from editing, hash it out on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above posting from Sift&Winnow speaks for itself. And "he" is a "she". "Intemperate comment" - as the talk page shows, Crohnie was responding to comments by both Sift&Winnow and another editor in one combined opinion posting. I did not accuse him of stating things he did not say, Crohnie's statement in response to the other editor's demand that people reply "reply in a week" set Sift&Winnow off on a tangent wherein he stated that "I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP." You are seriously misstating the event, Sift&Winnow. And it was not intemperate, it was an admitted personal attack. All of the deflection of the issue does not make it go away. The issue which has been brought to AN/I is the pointy insertion of cite tags at the end of each sentence in some places that are cited to one source and the disruptive manner in which he began editing over the top of other editors to challenge and thwart the effort to add citations. It is in no way an ownership issue, there have been three separate editors speak up to take exception to Sift&Winnow's posts and edits. The only editor who spoke about this on the converse side suddenly faded away once questions were raised about his edits being supported by his IP account. However, this post was not to complain about edit-warring, because technically, that is not what was occurring, and locking this page from any editing prevents any sourcing that needs to be done to occur. Sift&Winnow tagged excessively and challenged nearly every statement, I was attempting to add sourcing when he began to edit over me. Sorry, locking every out of the article was not the correct move as far as I am concerned, Beeblebrox. Talk page discussions have failed because of the gross incivility and personal attacks perpetrated by Sift&Winnow. But thanks, that's how to get the bottom line problem of incivility and attacks off the AN/I page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inadvertent sex change.
 * Talk page discussions failed when Wildhartlivie made this comment: "I am not interested in discussing anything further with you". There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to talk to a brick wall. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I was going to try to discuss things with this but I guess I am not here enough. The complaint is filed, page is protected, complaint is closed.  What happened to giving editors involved a chance to make a comment before making a decision?  This wasn't just an edit war like is stated.  This was about uncivil behavior that I don't see addressed.  Sorry, I'm disappointed that this was handled this way.  Please allow editors to have time to make at least a comment before a rush is made like this.  Sorry to have bothered anyone, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
User:75.65.206.149, known IP sock of indefinitely blocked user Montaj13, introduced copyrighted material from http://www.ultimatedynasty.net/colbys/season2co.html to List of The Colbys episodes here. This editor has been warned about and blocked because of similar copyvios (and other violations) in the past (see CheckUser case(s)). This is getting old.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IP blocked 6 months. MuZemike 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request For A Block Template
I would like a block template on the Valeska Suratt article as there still remains a dispute between myself and Wildhartlivie on the admission of permissible information in the External Links section. My original complaint about this stems from November 10 2009. Two other contributors/?Admin agreed the info was not spam and that it was one link. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you asking that the page be protected from editing? We can't "block" articles; we can only block users, for repeated highly-disruptive behavior. If you are asking that the page be protected, that request can be made at WP:RFPP but I don't believe a content dispute re: external links will result in the page being protected. This is the sort of issue that users are advised to work through on the article's talk page; or lacking that, through dispute resolution mechanisms. Thanks...GJC 02:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this? Beat up on Wildhartlivie night? The link is to a blog site, which is on the spamlist because the site owner was spamming myriad articles with the link. It was removed from the Suratt article on November 8, 2009, stating "this website is on the spamlist, it is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RS/N) & the author of this blog does not meet criteria as a noted authority in WP:ELYES. We come to AN/I fifteen days later, to ask that it be blocked so it cannot be removed? The only thing this link offers is a filmography, which has been noted, more than once, to be available for use on IMDB as well as on the moviefone.com website. There is no rationale for linking to a blog when the information provided is available elsewhere. And for the record, I have not edited that article since November 8, either. Just because the link was placed there again by someone who is not the blog owner does not make it okay for use here. If the editor wants the filmography to be listed in the article, that's great. We don't need a link to a blog to replace article content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is mainly a content dispute of adding a link, shouldn't the discussion be taking place on the article talk page? All I see there at this point is a single post in late October arguing to add it, with no replies from those who have been removing it.  That can easilly be remedied, but the first step should be to discuss it there and to use WP:DR if consensus can't be reached. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should, but if I hadn't been informed that the other editor had posted here, I wouldn't have known about it at all, so I felt a response was in order. My main point is that it was unnecessary to even bring this here, he's complaining about something that was removed over 2 weeks ago. At that time, the point was made that this editor isn't spamming the link, although the link was placed on the spamlist because the owner did so and that in fact, since the content is available elsewhere, that should have been the reason given for removing it.


 * The main point of issue is that the link is to a self-published blog, which is a clear violation of WP:ELNO in that the author of the blog is not a recognized authority on the subject as mentioned in WP:ELYES, and that the content is available from other established sources. It's even more relevant that it has been added to the spambot for automatic removal because of issues with it being spammed in the past. I'm at a loss for why it would even be thought to be necessary given that content is available and usable from a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make something clear, it appears that Wildhartlivie did in fact converse with Koplimek regarding the link in question. The conversation is still on the talk page for all to see. They didn't like the answer so they came here.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  05:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was his talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious vs ZooPro
Today, I have convicted myself of personal attacking, as per this thread. Under these circumstances, I am currently unable to edit, and I am in a possibility of losing trust with Wikipedia. Since ZooPro is angry right now, and that I have the possibility of losing in trust with StephenBuxton, I have decided to post this thread myself instead. Boeing7107isdelicious 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey Dokey... For those of you watching at home, this user has just announced on their talk page that they are semi-retiring and intend to focus their efforts at the Simple English Wikipedia. I don't see any request for any admin action here, so I think we're done. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Peter C Jones
Frmatt (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC) This user appears to regularly vandalise a number of different articles. The user has received several bot-generated warnings (the first is here), and a human-generated warning today. Examples of the vandalising edits include these: and his most recent efforts, and. Any suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've alerted the user to this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies  04:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed this account. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive user #2
In a manner spookily similar to that discussed in this thread, – in his first three edits – made this absurd edit to my talkpage, with a false header and a body copied from my previous edit-summary. Can he be blocked, please? Thanks. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► inspectorate ─╢ 06:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably a block evading sock. Any idea who, to save me trawling through contributions? Ged  UK  11:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the editor chose not to respond to Dædαlus polite question, I've blocked as a harassment-only obvious sockpuppet. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must question these actions guys - in the first place no-one has made the user aware of this discussion (which I now have), and Dædαlus' less that civil question, which was a classic example of WP:BITE, came 12 hours after his last edit...can we not allow him/her to explain his/her actions before blocking him? GiantSnowman 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Can we not allow him/her to explain his/her actions before blocking him?" – could you suggest a hypothetical legitimate explanation for that stupid trolling edit he made to my talkpage? <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► secretariat ─╢ 16:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, it was certainly a very odd edit - but not allowing a new user to explain their actions is extremely unfair. GiantSnowman 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I beg to differ. AGF doesn't extend to blindly insisting that every action, no matter how blatantly troll-like, was done with a pure heart. If we can't come up with a plausible reasonable explanation for it, it's likely that there isn't one. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think he is a sock then why not do a CheckUser? GiantSnowman 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a) I don't have the Checkuser permission, b) I didn't say he was a sock, only he was a troll. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but you could quite easily ask someone to do a CheckUser on your behalf...and if you don't think he is a sock, then why did you link to WP:SOCK in your primary post? Don't get me wrong, I am 99% certain he is not a bona fide editor, and the block should therefore stand, but he not allowing him the chance to defend himself if he is a genuine newbie who made a stupid edit, and not notifying him about this thread, is extremely poor form in my eyes. GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support an unblock to allow the editor to comment, without prejudice to any future action. 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing the editor from commenting and answering my blunt question on his talk page. His talk page access isn't revoked, he can reply there, otherwise, I see no reason to unblock an obvious harassment sock.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  09:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please have a look at this editors contributions and the edit warring report at WP:AN3. I'm brining this to ANI as the editor is continuing to revert new editors (over 14 reverts in around an hour), which restore copyright violations and BLP violations. Due to the general slowness of AN3 I thought I'd bring this ongoing problem here. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 10:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and unblock requested. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 12:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

121.73.7.84 and Colon cleansing
has been very active at the article's talk page. Every thread has been started by this IP and it is mostly a repetition of personal discontent, tirades, and philosophical objections that are violations of WP:talk. Please review this editor's activities related to this subject. It would be tempting to just delete or strike their comments, but a topic ban might be more appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have notified the IP about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You beat me to it. I got pulled away from my PC for a few minutes. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism from suspected sock IP/account on American Idol


Dear admins, Please help User:Jusdafax and I at American Idol dealing with an IP and account that I strongly suspect is the same editor:


 * November 17th: User:PhilKnight blocked the IP.
 * Today, the new account's sole edits have been to insult PhilKnight at American Idol for which I warned him at User_talk:Billywilliam.
 * After, these warnings the previously blocked IP showed up and started making vandalism edits to the article for which I warned the IP on its talk page.

I therefore suspect that the account and IP are the same person viciously insulting PhilKnight while disrupting the page of one of the highest rated programs on television. Please help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Threatened by another editor
Durova 369 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On the Ed Gein talk page, one of my posts was badly misrepresented by Wildhartlivie. I responded with the following:

Again you misquote me. I said no one has produced an authoritative source that uses "3 or more" as the definition of a serial killer. Does the Department of Justice use this definition? Does the American Psychiatric Association? The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law? The FBI? If so, cite them. They're reliable sources. Some random crime writer is not.

Wildhartlivie responded directly to this post with: I'm going to say this once. If you cannot post on this page without attacking or disparaging myself or Crohnie, then I will proceed to open a WP:WQA case against you

Now, I know that complaining about being misquoted isn't an "attack", nor even remotely similar to an attack. Therefore, Wildhartlivie's response can only be taken to mean that any time I counter anything she says, she will wreak revenge on me. This statement of an intent to improperly use WP processes to silence me is a clear threat. Please take appropriate action. -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Well, this is disappointing. I was hoping it would be a death threat or at least something interesting.  This is just lame.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you did not attack Wildhartlivie and no, Wildhartlivie did not threat you either. What do you want administrators to do?Jeppiz (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of a question on Mock the Week, "What is 9?", to which the answer was "At what point does serial killing become a 'spree'"? But seriously, the FBI and criminologists have definitions of "serial killer", and AFAIK, three is the minimum requirement. So sources permitting, this debate is unnecessary. Find them, please. Rodhull  andemu  01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Goto http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#two - last paragraph: "In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted: Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events." 67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sift&Winnow, "I will open a WQA against you" is not a "threat"; it is a statement that if you disparage the users mentioned, they will engage in the appropriate WP:DR mechanism. It is clear from the discussion on that page that the users feel disparaged; though there is no CLEAR violation of WP:NPA,the tone of your talk-page discussion is, IMHO, needlessly confrontational and condescending. Please refrain from talking down to other editors when they disagree with you, and you will not need to fear the "threat" of WP:WQA.Thank you...GJC 02:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wildhartlivie was not responding to the entire talk page, but merely to my comment regarding finding an appropriate source regarding the definition of a serial killer. As my comment was not in any way disparaging, Wildhartlivie's "statement" was completely unwarranted and a blatant threat.  -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She was responding after your comment about finding an appropriate source. Correlation does not imply cause, nor does proximity; just because she responded after your comment does not mean that her response concerned ONLY your most-recent comment. The tone of your comments to the other editors on that talk page, as well as on this AN/I page, is not collegial; whether you meant it that way or not, your tone is condescending. Edit summaries like this one do nothing to assuage concerns re: whether or not your confrontational style of communication is intentional, either.GJC 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although this is marked resolved, it is entirely proper to note that I was not, nor have I been, apprised of a posting here about me. According to the explicit instructions when posting here: You must notify any user that you discuss It is required that the person against whom someone is filing a complaint here be notified.


 * This is part and parcel of why I came here to request assistance from administrators. Crohnie stated quite clearly on the talk page "Please refactor your comment above to remove comments about editors, thank you." And yet, that was posted before Sift&Winnow made the comment in response to Crohnie and myself that included "I am constantly amazed at the amount of functional illiteracy that exists in WP" followed by his specifically stating "Lastly, except for the well-deserved first sentence of the previous paragraph, I never cast any aspersions on anyone." Sorry, folks, if no one considers that an attack, what does it take to make it one? That is why I posted here to request assistance, but in return, all that was done was lock the page down and tell us to "talk". As I said then, and I will repeat it, that has failed. Since no one wanted to help and told us to go away and "talk" about it, and the disparaging tone continued, then yes, I stated unequivocably that I will file a WP:WQA case to avoid being talked down to and treated as if I, and other editors, are somehow deficient in understanding. We were trying to address the slapping of countless fact tags, even for paragraphs that were already clearly stated as being sourced by one source for the entire paragraph. But again, you know, don't notify the editor against whom the post was made here and tell us to go away and fight it out.


 * What is it that Sift&Winnow wants? For me to be blocked and banned for clearly saying a WP:WQA will be filed? That isn’t a threat, but it is a reality if we continue to feel disparaged. The first thing he did when he went back was to claim I was misquoting him ‘’again’’. The first time he claimed he was misquoted was when Crohnie included in ‘’her’’ post a response about a demand for response within a week. No one said Sift&Winnow said that, the post was a general response to both him and the other editor.


 * And for the record, the question about the use of the term "serial killer" was in regard to a statement in the article that said although Gein didn't meet the definition of a serial killer, he is still considered one. In fact, Gein confessed to killing two women on separate occasions, while spending the rest of his time robbing graves to make "girl suits", some of those who opposed the statement have said Gein was found guilty but insane, so his confession means nothing, it may have been made up. That is the whole issue about serial killing, which is basically beside the point now. Wildhartlivie ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stating that I was misquoted is hardly "disparaging." As I have repeatedly stated, my interest is in an accurate article. Given the highly controversial nature of the article, and in some cases, the possibility of libel issues, it is important that every assertion be supported by a reliable source. I have been trying to verify the citations. Many of the ones found at the ends of paragraphs don't support all the facts in the paragraphs, only some. This is not the place for rehashing the same comments over and over. You previously stated "I am not interested in discussing anything further with you". If you are now interested in doing so, the appropriate place is the Ed Gein talk page, not here.  -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is a threat? "I'm going to find you and hurt you" / You're going to suffer because of this etc.  "Please stop $X or else I'll have to it so $noticeboard" isn't a threat of violence, it's just a threat of asking someone else for their opinion.  Do you feel threatened by a WQA?  NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Winnow, this is not a threat in terms of the harassment policy. The harassment policy explicitly excludes this type of situation.  "Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, are not threats."  Administrators are not going to block anybody just for stating an intention to file WQA.  Wildhartlivie can file the request if s/he wants, and if an uninvolved Wikipedian decides it's unactionable the matter will end there.  The threats clause of the harassment policy was written to deal with statements such as I know where you live and I'm coming to get you, which rarely occur but require immediate attention.  Out of respect for the people who do face that type of dilemma, please try dispute resolution (mediation perhaps?) to iron out your disagreements about content.  Durova 369 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to iron out this dispute, but it's impossible to do that when Wildhartlivie says "I am not interested in discussing anything further with you", then continues to repetitiously vent in various and sundry forums. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is nothing that requires administrative intervention in terms of the tools right now, so it would be a good idea to let this thread archive and pursue the matter some other way. There are plenty of types of dispute resolution.  Best wishes.  Durova 369 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not "continue(s) to repetitiously vent in various and sundry forums." In fact, and to the point, I posted a request for assistance here when Sift&Winnow became disruptive to my attempt to work out the myriad fact tags he added to the article, rendering any comments he makes regarding effort to "verify the citations" a singular misrepresentation of what was occurring on that article yesterday. I have not started a post anywhere else. In fact, Sift&Winnow posted here claiming I was threatening him, which he has been told multiple times now is not the case. In fact, he failed to notify me at any time about this page's post, which I had the courtesy to do when I posted my request for assistance. In fact, a totally unrelated editor bothered to tell me I was being discussed here. I have only replied to this thread, which is not by definition "various and sundry forums." In fact, that is a lie. But I put it to the page - how can one in any sort of good faith attempt discussion when this is occurring? He has ignored and refused to remove his self-admitted disparagements on the Gein talk page, although more than one editor has requested that he do so. He is cherry-picking a portion of the post I made about his behavior on the page. What I said was, in essence, he is disrupting efforts to address those tags, he's refused to remove what two people have told him is objectionable commentary. I also said "That renders the efforts moot and at this point, all of your actions and edits are completely pointy. Take a break and allow people to address issues that may or may not be valid. At present, it is impossible to do anything because you are disrupting the efforts to address what might be a problem." Only picking the introductory sentence of the post to dismiss me is disengenous. I'm sorry folks, but that is so much bull. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you just proved my point. Don't you think it's about time to cool off? Durova, what dispute resolution would you suggest at this point? -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am responding categorically to the mistatements and false claims you are making about me, although you do not acknowledge that, nor do you seem inclined to accept that a) a statement about filing a WP:WQA case is not a threat; b) you have baldfaced lied by claiming I continuously "vent in various and sundry forums." I have a right to respond to such claims, especially when they are factually wrong. You don't even seem inclined to admit you failed to notify me, despite my stating it at least three times and kept pushing that something be done. Dispute resolution isn't the forum because the issue is your poor etiquette and deceptive posts here. I do note, however, a pressing need for you to have the last word here, so go at it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

96.5.144.227 - school block requested
Disruptive editing over the last few days with obscene material - IP should be blocked until interest by this person wanes. <font style="color:green;background:white;">Nasnema <font style="color:white;background:green;"> Chat  22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another...aw, you know how it goes...' Half  Shadow  22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:HkFnsNGA
This user is continuing to be disruptive in specific AfD nominations such as the most recent being Louis Lesser. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth manlol   22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user. GiantSnowman 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did the same thing without knowledge of you doing it. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth  manlol   22:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be specific, this user has been trying to use Wikipedia to propagate an elaborate hoax surrounding an individual named Louis Lesser (Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser). Research has shown that the person and his company exist or existed, but nothing supports some of the grandiose claims made (e.g., he was a "mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian [sic]"). Several users, myself included, have poked holes in Mr. Lesser's alleged story, but HkFnsNGA has tried to back up the claims with sources that only tangentially mention the subject. User has also been trying to promote an individual named Eric Diesel (which is a redirect to the Lesser article), including creation of an article called Cal Trans Pet Cemetery, a major POV article whose primary source was a local CBS affiliate's investigative report. The same information was also placed on the main California Department of Transportation article. Not sure what action is requested of admins here, though, other than a block as a vandal/hoax propagator. KuyaBriBri Talk 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking this is an issue for WP:RFCU. KuyaBriBri Talk 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to compare him to. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth manlol   22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I might just have a prospect for that job, User:67.101.114.227. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth  manlol   22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All information I put in abuot Louis Lesser is true. I just spoke to him on the phone.  He is 93 years old.  He is willing to let a high level person at Wikipedia call him.  He just told me he flew Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos to Hawaii, and buried Ferdiand Marcos there.  I have personally seen photos of Lesser with young Buffett.  I just scanned the Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. June 20, 1963 Annual Report into my computer.  If you show me how, I can upload it.  I am also willing to speak on the phone.  I am in San Francisco, and I will bring this stuff to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Either I should go to jail for fraud, or a lot of people owe apologies to me and to Louis Lesser.  Please let me know how best to proceed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't use phone conversations as reliable sources under any circumstance, since there is no way to verify the actual contents of such phone messages. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I supplied hundreds of news articles and no one read any of them. I scanned the Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. June, 1963 Annual Report, and if anyone looks at it, there will probably be a lot of apologies for calling me and Mr. Lesser a fraud. I am a person who reads to disabled seniors. I am not a technoperson. Writing an article should not result in being called a fraud. At first, the person nominating said Mr. Lesser was not partners with JFK in Barrington Plaza. Then after cheking, they said Barrington Plaza was not the largest urban renewal project in western US. Then after checking, they said Louis Lesser was not the Los Angeles City of Hope Man of the Year in 1961. Then they said he was not once one of the wealthiest persons on the planet. After each accusation of fraud and hoax, I answered, as best as I could, and no one EVER apologized for calling me a "hoax", or a "fraud". I supplied hundreds of news articles on the AFD page. No one read them! The SEC itself lists Mr. Lesser as having one company alone worth $1.5 Billion before 1982, when he stopped it. No one bothered to apologize for flat out calling me a liar. Then finally, someone said Ferdinand Marcos was in a mausoleum in Pilippines. That may be true, if they moved the body, but I spoke to Mr. Lesser just abuot half hour ago and he described flying BOTH Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand to Hawaii, while Ferdinand was alive (I was an anit-Marco activist, so I certainly dont find this a flattering fact) and that Marcos died in Hawaii in a hotel Louis Lesser set them up in, and Louis Lesser buried Ferdinand IN HAWAII, and was at the funeral. I believe Louis Lesser, not the editor who says I am a hoax and a liar. Why wont someone tell me how to upload the June 1963 Louis Lesser Enterprises Annual Report, which will end the controversy? And instead of an apology for being called a "liar", "hoax", "fraud", etc., perhaps all of these editors can read the HUNDREDS of links to news articles I put on the AFD page, and we can move on. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy can't even stop himself from being deceitful about things one can easily check - like the number of sources present in that AfD (I did go look to see if he added such; he hasn't). One way or the other, this ends with him blocked indefinitely - so can we just go ahead and do it, please? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gavia immer, here is one list of news articles, each of significance enough for notability . Why did you say it is not on the AFD page?  Why did you call me "deceitful"? You can also do a similar Google news archive search for the many other articles on this great man, Louis Lesser.  Please check and take back calling me "deceitful". HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A google search is not a reference - not one, certainly not "hundreds", and the existence of people named Louis Lesser doesn't make your article less of a fantasy. — Gavia immer (talk)


 * Gavia immer, please apologize for calling me "deceitful". Maybe I did not use the word "reference" correctly, but there are are hundreds of news articles here, and they are not on a name "Louis Lesser".  They are all on just one of Louis Lesser's companies, "Louis Lesser Enterprises", here , and they span decades, with major stories on major developments. Please reconsider your opinion, or at least glance at the story headlines.  HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was accused of being a "fraud", a "hoax", "decitful", and even lying abuot Lesser flying Marcos and his wife to Hawaii, which I based only on his telling me this. But Wikipedia's own article on Ferdinand Marcos verifies Mr. Lesser's story.  I will post this at the AFD page.  From the Wikipedia article itself - "The Marcos family and their associates went into exile in Hawaii, USA and were later indicted for embezzlement in the United States. Marcos died in Honolulu on September 28, 1989, of kidney, heart and lung ailments. He was interred in a private mausoleum at Byodo-In Temple on the island of Oahu" HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The part you quote doesn't contain the words "Louis" and "Lesser". Neither does the rest of the Marcos article. I wonder how you feel this confirms your article is not a hoax.--Atlan (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Time for me to chime in. HkFnsNGA has posted many articles, most recently in re Louis Lesser - and not a single one of them can be used for sources.  So far, I have watched him make quixotic claims and beg for assistance in fixing the article, and what admittedly got my goat was when he insisted that a magazine article (see the AFD) was about Louis Lesser.  In short, it didn't even mention his name.  I call for a ban on this user as I feel he is disrupting the project by simply trying to lead us on and waste our time.  This is something I don't deal well with, admittedly, without becoming quite irate and snappy. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 08:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I say it's a little too soon for a ban; we should probably block him for a while though. --Rockstone (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I misread the "BE BOLD" guideline. I have taken suggestions of all editors on the AFD page, and I deleted the entire article, then am building it back up one sentence at a time, as the other editors asked me to do.  I have no intention of being disruptive, nor of perptrating a "hoax".  All of the information I put in was based on old newspaper articles I was shown, and other photos and documents.  Everything in the article is now from a reliable and verifiable source, and I will continue building the article as other editors asked me to do. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think that there is much need for administrative intervention here. Louis Lesser is not a hoax, and clearly is/was a notable real estate developer.  It looks like a case of someone notable, but now somewhat forgotten, with stories told about him that may not be true or only have a small kernel of verifiable truth, and an overenthusiastic new editor unfamiliar with wikipedia's ways.John Z (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree with that assessment of the situation, as some of the stories were so grandiose that they can't be explained away by ignorance of policy. I do agree no administrator assistance is needed, other than the act of closing the AFD.--Atlan (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say wait on the AFD as usual - it seems that Hk has gone ahead and rewritten the article, removing the unsubstantiated claims. So now he's working toward building this.  I don't see notability at this time, but if he changes mymind, then there you go. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian
I'm in a dispute with user:Collectonian over the width of the episode list for How the Earth Was Made. I believed it is a trivial matter which could be resolved easily but it just opened up a can of worms with this individual who is frothing at the mouth over it now, accusing me of edit warring and making threats. Our dispute is over the table width of the episode list, which I set at 100% so it spans the page, she set it at 70%/65% citing that the infobox pushes the table down and creates too much white space under the section headers. I told her I don't have this problem when I view the page and even showed her an example, but she stated something about following "standard screen size" and "known issues". I asked if she could post a link to what exactly the "standard screen" size is, and if this is an issue on Wikipedia, to point me to the discussion about it. No, I get told "You are the one making a ridiculous edit war instead of bothering yourself to ask why it was done like that in the first place." and that I'm making threats against her - I guess when I say if I get reverted again I will take it to arbitration is considered making a threat nowadays. They also say Making threats doesn't exactly make me inclined to care about your view at all - yeah that's really working to help resolve the problem. This article I might add, was something Collectonian had placed up for deletion originally. Seems they are making a lot of fuss over an article she wanted to get rid of in the first place. Could someone else get involved in this here? If someone else tells me I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong and I'll accept it, but I think this person's argument is completely invalid. Here is a link to our "discussion". I'd also like to point out her first entry of the her discussion page - right at the top in bold letters - which shows her condescending attitude from the get go. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified Collectonian about this discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no major response this over the top response from Cyberia23, who honestly seems to be getting worked up and hysterial over what they themselves claimed was a "trivial" matter. And how exactly is it condescending to tell people that I will remove, without response, rude comments. If it was so trivial, why even edit war over it. And my having put it up for AfD is completely irrelevant. The community agreed it was notable, and I withdrew that AfD. That does not some how mean that I am no never allowed to improve the article. I have had another article that I AfDed once, it was kept, and I instead greatly improved it and its now a GA. It is also not the only one I have turned around and improved and helped with after I'd originally nominated it for AfD. Since I did withdraw the article, I went through and made appropriate MoS fixes per the Television style guides and my own experiences working with media articles. For those wanting to read the original discussion from my talk page, here is the link as I have removed it.. And, as a side note, I filed a request for protection on the page last night, which is still currently open. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm completely missing something (diffs of inappropriate action would be appreciated), this looks like a content dispute and has no place on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about the sum of it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

'''THIS IS NOT RESOLVED! THIS IS NOT A "CONTENT" ISSUE!''' If this doesn't belong here then tell me where it's supposed to go. This is a matter of who is right and who is wrong regarding whether or Wikipedia editing is to cater to specific computer monitor size as Collectonian claims. I provided a link above in my opening statement that went back to our discussion of this matter on Collectonian's talk page which she has now deleted in an obviously suspicious attempt to cover it up. She is now trying to turn the tables on me by playing innocent and making it look like I'm the one throwing this out of proportion. Here is the |original link to the version of her talk page before she deleted the comments to see what I am talking about. Page down to As for the reversion war going on at How the Earth Was Made this is what I am talking about [|edited to cater to 1024 width monitors]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberia23 (talk • contribs)


 * WP:3O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.96.7 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And a big whopping WP:AGF!! Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And could someone get me a pizza? Please? Half  Shadow  18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a note, the RPP was completed and the article protected for 3 days, and Cyberia23 posted to the article talk page and 3O, though neither is particularly nicely worded and ignores my having shown her the "proof" she demanded. Talk:How the Earth Was Made and is continuing to make bad faith remarks on my talk page -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pizza for Halfshadow! Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

←I am attempting to mediate this dispute, which is still ongoing, but essentially revolves around setting an explicit width on a table for aesthetic reasons. There are other minor points of contention, but I am going to hang around there for a while and see if I can deescalate the argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To close out the thread, despite Scjessey's fervent efforts to mediate, Cyberia23 continued with a series of personal attacks and namecalling and has unfortunately been blocked for 24 hours. Thanks to SCJ for valiant attempts. Toddst1 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement about what is meant by "revert"
First off, I am here seeking clarification, rather than for anything to be actually implemented. That's not to say that I'm after a hypothetical opinion or I'm asking just out of interest, but please tell me if I'm in the wrong place.

The background is this:

The article British National Party has been placed under 1RR (this has caused some controversy, but that's another story) by User:Elonka.

I asked another editor to self-revert on an edit which I believe breach that, but the user claimed his edit didn't count. Elonka seemed to back him up on this.

(The material in question has since been further edited by another user, and I now don't have a problem with it, so I'm not actually concerned about getting any action taken with regard to the originating incident).

The issue is that I'm finding it difficult to understand what defintion of the word "revert" Elonka is going by (see discussion at User_talk:Elonka). As far as I do understand it, she seems to think two things:


 * 1) That admins have, in many cases, wide discretion to count or not count something as a revert based on the quality of the edit and/or whether they think the editor is in good faith;


 * 2) That only edits that take things back to a state of affairs identical to one that previously existed will normally count as reverts (possibly with the exception of cases where admins use their discretion to say otherwise). For example, if editor A types "black", then B changes it to "white" then A changes it to "black" then B changes it to "blue", A has reverted, but B has not. In fact, B can go through as many colours as she or he likes, as long as they never duplicate. Elonka distringuishes B's edits as changes rather than reverts.

It may be that I am still not understanding Elonka properly, but I think I am getting close now.

It seems to me that, if Elonka's view is right, then there are all sorts of weird implications. Firstly, it looks like, if I am careful, I can evade 3RR simply by ensuring that none of my edits ever take things back to how they were previously. As long as I can think of new ways of phrasing things, new facts to add etc then, whatever else I might be doing wrong, I am immune from 3RR. Once everyone cottons on to this, then 3RR will be meaningless.

Also, it seems like Elonka thinks that admins should get actively involved in editing disputes by deciding whose edits are best and what will and won't count to their reverting tally. This surely can't be right.

Most importantly, if what counts a revert is a matter for subjective judgement how can I have confidence that the 1RR will be enforced impartially? And editors are bound to try to test the limits surely?

My view is that, with common sense exceptions (eg vandalism, typos) "revert" covers any example of one editor deleting text that was inserted by another editor. Anything else and there doesn't seem to be much point in having RR regimes.

If I'm wrong about this, I'd like at least to be able to clearly understand why and what the actual position is.

Just to point something out with regard to policy, the definition of a revert for WP:3RR is "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". There's another definition here: Help:Reverting "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors". The 3RR policy specifies, however, that it is it's own defintion, not the help one that is to be used. (Why is one defintion for 3RR and one for other purposes I don't know). Surely reversing is reversing, regardless of whether you go back to an eariler version (?).

Lastly, I hope I don't give the impression of just being here to make a point. I think it's importnant and I want to be able to edit with confidence.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty clear example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. See the extensive discussion that I've already had with  at User talk:Elonka. Recommend closing this thread. --Elonka 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I heard, I just didn't agree with what I heard or get the explanations I was after, which is why I have brought it here. --FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Elonka's definition of a "revert" on her talk page is correct, and I'm a little confused why this isn't clear by now; she's spent quite a bit of time stating it fairly plainly. In your black-white-blue-green example above, no one has reverted.  However, there is some common sense involved.  If someone writes "the sky is green", then that might not be a 1RR violation, but if it's blatantly gaming the system, they can easily be blocked for gaming the system, 1RR or no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, I think you have a way too rigid interpretation of the 1RR restriction. It's there to force the editors to work on the article in a cooperative manner. Blocking users because they are partially reverting each other while working in such a cooperative manner is the opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. I believe Elonka rightly took no action enforcing 1RR.--Atlan (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Lordy I agree with Elonka again! A revert is, clearly, a revert. A re-write is just that. And reverting by re-writing is gaming. Seems pretty clear to me. The difficulty arises when Admins have to decide which examples of re-writing are, in fact, gaming reverts. That is not an easy question. Right up there with "what is life?"! Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the other involved party I shall post the 'reverts' ion question so as to give a contecxt to FormerIP's point.
 * First version [] vsersion before former IP adds this
 * []I felt this was not strickley accurate as to what the source said [] so changed it to this wordking.
 * [] At no time did I revert any edits, nor return the page to a previous version. This stems from my refusal to self reveret as told top ay FormerIP[, this carrfied on for some time. With FormerIP basicly refusing to accept I had breached the 1RR rule (despite admiting at first I was the wrong person).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grawp sock messing up AIV
Can someone please deal with this? Why isn't AIV semiprotected? Enviroboy TalkCs 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't help with the first part, but AIV isn't semiprotected because that would prevent anonymous users from reporting vandalism, and we don't want to prevent anyone from reporting vandalism. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, This user is User:ScienceGolfFanatic and not Grawp.  Triplestop  x3  03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP Address Spoofing and Script Edtting?
We have had a rash of odd looking vandalism hits in the Ancient Near East area the last month or sowhich, to me at least, seem to bear all the hallmarks of IP Address Spoofing, and perhaps of editing via scripts. I include some examples, the first ones simple, and the second group more complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/164.116.219.23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.124.106.131 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/134.173.161.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.185.68.230 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.76.160.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.150.49.216 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.90.186.228 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.173.245.248 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.77.129.248 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.35.64.202

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.20.110 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.20.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.23.200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.115.23.180

I would that that someone using an IP Address annonymizer like TOR, combined with an automated editting script, could cause some major damage in a hurry on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. Thoughts? Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * The first examples seem to be just normal vandals. The edits about robots to Babylon and its talk page seem to be someone who is either very confused, or running an AI robot. The former I think. Both pages have been semi-protected, so I guess we'll have to wait and see if it reoccurs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to ask: what would you say are the "hallmarks of IP Address Spoofing"? It isn't really possible to spoof IP addresses, you could connect via a proxy, but the IP address shown in the page history is still the true IP address you are editing under. There was one case, a long time ago, when there was a way to successfully spoof an IP, but that is no longer the case. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it takes a lot of talent to spoof IPs and I doubt anyone would do it just to insert random gibberish.  Triplestop  x3  03:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! I just thought I'd ask as I hadn't seen this kind of odd editting pattern before. Most likely I just didn't notice before. Thanks for your help.Ploversegg (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

Tim Kaine and related legal threat.
Please see this comment and this thread at BLPN: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's pretty bluntly a legal threat, especially the last sentence. I've indef-blocked. Got some project work to do this afternoon, so other admins are free to adjust, etc., if it's felt necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Internet tough guys crack me up.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the editor in question has posted some queries on his talk page - if others could weigh in on the comments there, I'd appreciate it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I left them a message that they are not going to be unblocked until the retract the comment. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa, yet again
I've a real concern with the manner in which is presenting his questions at the ArbCom election candidate statement pages. The posts use leading questions juxtaposed with out-of-context quotes from entirely unrelated discussions. I've certainly no desire to "hide" the ANI matter (it actually demonstrates the real problem) but the recent posts seem to be more for the purpose of causing trouble for people Harry has disagreed with (such as myself) rather than for serious examination of the ArbCom candidates. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified HarryAlffa of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Harry does seem to have some kind of weird crusade going on lately and honestly I'm having a hard time making heads or tails out of it. Obviously his questions he had posed earlier were blatantly problematic, the latest batch are somewhat less odious but still seem to have some kind of agenda behind them.  I'm not sure whether it crosses the line in to disruption and therefore warrants any kind of administrative action, but it does leave me scratching my head. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fyi - on his talk page, after I explained how he'd failed to AGF and broke CIVIL and NPA on the earlier arbcom candidate questions: . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police which uses creative typography to call admins "cunt"s. I am leaning towards excessive disruption and exhaustion of community patience.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He that be undeleted and userfied for use in an upcoming Arb case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. But the fact remains - he has in his user space an essay article which he wrote (largely, with some additions by others), in which he in the original draft and all subsequent drafts uses typography to describe administrators as cunts.
 * "I'm going to use it as Arbcom evidence" is not an automatic overriding exception to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
 * His arbcom case-in-waiting at User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom is further disruption.
 * I am extending the block to indef. The evidence that he is not by and large here to further the creation of the encyclopedia is sufficiently detailed now.
 * If he wants to take the pages and file them as an Arbcom case - if they take it, he can be unblocked to participate in that. If the community or another admin override, fine.  But IMHO the limit was passed a few days ago.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Convenience links to earlier ANI discussions regarding HarryAlffa

 * August 2008 – Solar System
 * June 2009 – WT:Linking
 * August 2009 – First ban proposal
 * August 2009 – Trans-Neptunian object
 * October 2009 – Aurora (astronomy)
 * November 2009 – WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom
 * November 2009 – WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Ruslik0/Questions for the candidate

HarryAlffa is at 521 article space edits (1776 total) and has had three 1-week blocks. That's 1 ANI thread in 65 article space edits and 1 block in 175 article space edits. I am not convinced that the editor's reasons for being here include building an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. It seems to be in everybody's interest that he stops wasting his time here. Hans Adler 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked this editor for 1 month - or roughly until after the ArbCom elections are over and the results announced. This seemed like the most obvious and logical solution to a clear problem. I recommend someone remove his questions and comments from the various ArbCom nomination pages. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got one of the questions, and left one because Fritz had partially answered it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and Georgewilliamherbert extended it to indefinite. I don't particularly disagree with this, but this isn't the first time GWH overstepped. I really wish you'd stop doing that, George. At least discuss it here- or with me on my talk page, first. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  23:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you declared it up there. I still wouldn't mind if you at least paid lip service to "discussion with the originally blocking admin" first. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was doing final review and in process on deciding that when you did.  If I were unblocking I'd have asked first and discussed, but a more extensive block based on more of the history didn't leap out as a "clear first", though I see in retrospect where you're coming from.  I don't recall that "someone blocks for more specific and shorter duration while you're preparing a longer block, what's the etiquette" came up in the now long ago block / unblock admin courtesy discussions.  But I think that I agree that notification and discussion with the first admin, except in cases where it's literally pushing block button and you don't notice at all first, would seem to be the best choice.
 * Without an exclusive or warning "I'm working on this" sort of coordination system we sometimes step on each other a bit, but communicating more proactively is a good thing, and I didn't do the best I could have here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have only answered one small part of the questions. I am happy for the rest of the questions asked by this user, or all of them, including my minor and inconsequential reply, to be removed by an uninvolved user.  As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I don't want to fiddle with the questions being asked of me at an election. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request on election misconduct
This particular incident seems to be wrapped up, but I'd like to encourage those who have issues with editors' conduct surrounding the ongoing ArbCom elections (or any other matters related to the elections) to drop a note at the election talkpage so that those of us trying to keep things running smoothly are aware of them and can respond quickly and consistently. Mahalo, <font face="New York"> Skomorokh,  barbarian  22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive User Number Three
Please see the earlier thread, which links to an even earlier one. The next sockpuppet trolling my talkpage is – note the similar name to Q333, and the fact that their first edit was to leave a stupid message on my talkpage. Could they be blocked, as above? Thanks! <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done both, but please create a page like User talk:TreasuryTag/IPs and link it to your main talk so that IPs/new accounts not named W221 can leave you messages. :-) Regards, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face"> Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, will do. Cheers! <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Pullister
Pullister created its account at 22:29, 24 November 2009 and then launched into the usual POV pushing and edit warring. This is not a new user. This is a user who has been here for a very long time and knows exactly how the place works. Looking at his edit summaries, we see a familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines during his first 24 hours, except that he turns them on their head and doesn't actually adhere to them. I don't know who it is, but I've responded to many of his edits on his talk page with detailed explanations as to why they were reverted. I think it is obvious that this is a SPA used only for edit warring and disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is another blatant Scibaby sock (the third in 24 hours which I alone have blocked). The others were right on the same edits and same article --BozMo talk 09:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logish??
I'm hoping someone can help me out here. A user continues to add information about a language that doesn't show up in WP, and the only google hits come back to a blog ]. I don't want to go and revert the edits (I'm AGFing here), but I'm thinking that this one falls under WP:DUCK. There's also the fact that this user seems to be a vandalism only account, but it all revolves around this "Logish" so I'm hesitant to go straight to AIV and would like further input. Frmatt (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(more) I've issued this user warnings before (see the link above), but those were for obvious things (bad articles, etc...). I'm just trying to AGF here before setting them up for what will probably be an indef-block. Frmatt (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User has been notified. Frmatt (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit can probably be safely reverted; per Lead_section we don't really need to include an obscure language name.  Triplestop  x3  03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the Google cache of Praise Day,, I did want to revert their recent edits, so I've done it. No written language mixes Chinese characters with with such a large mix of other scripts at random. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, quite obviously a case of hoax vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He also had a speedied article on Logish language, which confirmed that it was literally "something made up in school one day". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

80.58.205.98
I'm hoping this will get eyes quicker than AIV (where he has already been reported) but this IP is in the middle of a vandal spree- he's had final warnings but continues to replace the content of a variety of pages with obscene comments. Can someone block him please? <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Help please to fix a redirect typo
Hi, I made a typo when moving an AfD to match the article title, Articles for deletion/Aaron Lawrence ((entrepreneur)) has an extra set of parenthesis. Should be (entrepreneur) not ((entrepreneur)). I don't think it's a high volume issue but it would be nice to fix. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What needs fixing? You moved the page and now there's a redirect.... --MZMcBride (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't transcluding correctly at the main AfD log. It is now. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi

Wdford and colloidal silver, again


Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:


 * Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.


 * I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.
 * I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.
 * I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.
 * The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.
 * There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.
 * Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about trying mediation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, you can not honestly attempt to deny that Lansdown (2006) is talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances.", whereas Fung & Bowden (1996), are talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". You can also not honestly attempt to deny that you wrote this:


 * Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However, per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route.

With the word "however", you are creating a juxtaposition, where in fact none exists. Honestly, you are unable to even read and understand two short article abstracts in medical journals. What makes you think that you could meaningfully contribute to an article, when we already have a medical expert (MastCell) working on it? The only reason MastCell stopped working on the article was that he was driven off by at least one fringe advocate (DHawker), who was finally banned from the article after several months. This is the end of the line, Wdford. If you can't admit that your capabilities aren't up to the task of writing an article based on reliable sources (which, in this case, are articles in medical journals) you need to be banned from working on the topic, so that other editors might create an acceptable article. Zara1709 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended. Lansdown agrees with F&B that it requires large-scale use of silver to cause argyria, and my quote shows that - you have simply left out the second sentence of that quote, which I included and which makes it all quite clear. The Lansdown quote however goes further than F&B, to speak about the toxicity of silver generally, whereas that particular F&B quote was only dealing with argyria. I am happy to remove the word "however", as it does not affect my argument or the intended sense of the paragraph.
 * PS - the Lansdown quote clearly includes ALL silver exposures, exactly as I said. Similarly, that particular line of the F&B quote clearly refers to ALL silver products as potential causes of argyria if used excessively, which is consistent with all other sources on that topic. I understood the two sources perfectly well, and I included them in the article to mean exactly what the original authors meant. My capabilities are seemingly quite sound actually - my only flaw is that I don't agree with your POV.
 * Wdford (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended." Wdford, do you want to push this into a discussion on the meang of the word "however"? Your comment on the article talk page is only correct in one respect: Your version of the article is rubbish. You are still failing to see that we have two sets of reliable sources. One set is about "colloidal silver", and its use as alternative medicine. The other set is about various acknowledged external medical applications of silver. Because we have two different sets of reliable source, Floydian and MastCell were discussing whether it is such a good idea to have one article on these two different types of use - which is an important and necessary discussion. I personally haven't made up my mind in that matter yet, because I know that, as long as Wdford - who isn't actually able to understand this difference as he has illustrated with his comments here - is making edits to the article, we're not going to get that distinction establish there at all. If we want to have an article based on the most reputable sources available (medical journals), Wdford has to be banned from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not failing to see anything. What Zara refuses to acknowledge is that the distinction between drinking colloidal silver and the other medical uses of silver is already made abundantly clear in the article as it stands - using her wording and her sources. We don't need a special article to pound on colloidal silver, as the unproven effectiveness and potential toxicity thereof are accurately stated here already, in dedicated sections. The only remaining problem is to agree on how much weight in the lead section to give the negative coverage of colloidal silver, vis a vis the weight to be given to the many other valuable and effective medical uses of silver. I think the lead is currently appropriate, by including a clear statement that silver is not toxic unless you overdose repeatedly over time (a view backed by reputable medical journals as well as government agencies, as my sources clearly show), but I am open to any other wording that gives the positive uses due weight. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This kind of edit made by Wdford today seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel this is unhelpful? The information is relevant, it's valid and it's factually accurate - and it helps to give the reader a more rounded picture. If it's genuinely problematic I'm happy to reword it, but I am interested to know why it might be considered to be "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the special sort of rounded so beloved of those who support crank theories. We know quite a bit about that on Wikipedia.  But you're in luck, driving off the cranks usually takes many months and the burnout of one or two advocates of the mainstream view.  Since the cranks never give up, you'll ave your preferred version in the end even if you get banned and another person writes it. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK NHS uses silver dressings and silver creams in hospitals very often, especially burns units, to reduce risk of infection. See, for example, Aquacell.  This is evidence based, approved by NIChE, not quackery, etc.  Just thought I'd mention it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The medical use of silver is not a crank theory - try actually reading the many reliable sources included in the article. It would help hugely if those who claim to "know quite a bit" about wikipedia would actually read the material before commenting on it. Colloidal silver is a minor portion of the greater medical silver debate, and while I fully agree that the claims made on behalf of colloidal silver are thusfar unproven (and my edits never tried to hide those facts), at the same time there are many reliable sources that praise the value that silver adds to medical practice in a range of other uses - please see the article for a large sample of such sources. The quality of the article depends on the subject being reported objectively from all sides, in terms of wikipolicy, and an objective review of medical silver clearly shows that silver adds far more good than harm. An objective review of the reliable sources also shows that even the much-maligned colloidal silver products are not harmful unless consumed in quantity over a sustained period. All I want is balance - expose the cranks, but don't over-state the position, and don't try to throw the good out with the bad. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the diff I provided seems to have been some form of copy-paste, almost doubling the length of the article. In the diff I gave, there are TWO sets of references, external links, foreign language categories, etc and other content sections duplicated. Please look at the contents for your diff: * 1 Biological effects of silver * 2 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic o 2.1 Use as disinfectant o 2.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections o 2.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances * 3 Other medical uses o 3.1 Historical applications o 3.2 Current alternative medicine use o 3.3 Government regulation * 4 Literature * 5 References * 6 External links * 7 Biological effects of silver * 8 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic o 8.1 Use as disinfectant o 8.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections o 8.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances * 9 Other medical uses o 9.1 Historical applications o 9.2 Current alternative medicine use o 9.3 Government regulation * 10 Literature * 11 References * 12 External links

There probably was some kind of inadvertent error involved as well. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I see now - I thought you were referring to the two lines of content I added. I don't know what happened here - the edit looked good on the preview before I saved it, but I only checked the section I was actually editing and I didn't notice it was duplicating the entire article. I can't explain how this went wrong. It certainly wasn't deliberate. Apologies for the inconvenience. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go for a full revert of the lead
In the discussion above, both NotAnIP83:149:66:11 and Guy are right. Medical products containing silver are used in the treatment of wounds to prevent infections - but there is also a product called "colloidal silver" which is currently marketed as an alternative medicine, and which has no proven benefits, but may, after prolonged intake, result in making you look like a zombie. And I am only exaggerating a little bit here. Colloidal silver was also used as a conventional medical treatment until sometime in the 1940s or 50s, and some physicians who had to deal with cases of argyria heavily criticized it then. One of them (BRYANT (1940)) writes:


 * Despite the warnings that have appeared occasionally in the literature, many otolaryngologists still deny the danger of the production of generalized argyria from the use of silver-containing intranasal medication. [...] The physician who has seen even a single victim of full-blown argyrosis, with its typical generalized pigmentation of the skin, giving the patient a bronzed blue or slate color which has been described aptly as the appearance of a corpse suddenly come to life, must necessarily have been impressed with the importance of preventing such a condition."

I just thought that I provide you with this quote - for an article in a medical journal this is quite well-written. In any case, if among the medical uses of silver, some are explicitly advised against the article must make a clear distinction between these uses. The question of the article is not: Is silver good or bad for your health? I know that probably many people approach health issues this way, but to me this attitude seems to be profoundly stupid. I mean: Is Vitamin A good for your health? Of course, some intake of Vitamin A is necessary to be healthy, but this doesn't mean that you can't overdose it. The question of the article is: What kinds of medical uses of silver are there?, that is, if we want to keep the current title. Some of these uses are acknowledged from the medical profession, but the use of "colloidal silver" is not approved at all and potentially dangerous. So I am trying to get this distinction into the article and make it "abundantly clear". While I was doing this, I was in an almost constant confrontation with Wdford, who obviously had difficulties with making this distinction (he was using a source that was only dealing with acknowledged medical uses of silver in the section on colloidal silver, e.g.) Currently we are (again) discussion this issue in the lead. I personally think, that this issue is quite simple.

Generally, if you haven an article on a medical product which only has "minimal" side-effects, is there any reason, why would you want to mention that fact in the lead? I haven't done any work on medical articles otherwise, but let's check for example the article on Antibiotic. There is a section on "Side effects" in the article, but side-effects are not mentioned in the introductory paragraph. If, on the other hand, you have an article on alternative medicine product, which is advices against because of a complete lack of effectiveness and potential side-effects which are at least "cosmetically undesirable", you have to mention that in the lead paragraph. Not to mention it would be a violation of "wp:fringe". That said, currently the article Medical uses of silver is dealing with both kinds of medical products. So, unless we want to split the article and create a separate article "Colloidal silver" again, its lead paragraph should mention the acknowledge medical uses of silver and that there is also a 'medical' product called colloidal silver, which has dangerous side-effects. It should give a short explanation of these side-effects and possibly also mention when and why it was used as a medical product (which is a matter of interest, if it is not an acknowledged medical product.) I think that the preceding version of the lead paragraph achieved all this. If you take a look at Wdfords version, however, you will see that he moved the sentence on argyria away from its previos place between the two sentences on "colloidal silver", which doesn't make any sense, since only these colloidal silver preparations are known to cause argyria. He also added a quote: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure..." which is true for the various clinical applications, but likely not true for these "colloidal silver preparations". The abstract of the article quoted is certainly not talking about colloidal silver.

That aside, Wdford didn't even bother with creating proper reference tags. His intermediate didn't address the concerns I have just raised at all. So I think another full revert would certainly be in order. Usually, of course, I wouldn't write such a long justification of a revert, but usually I wouldn't involve the ANI either. If you look at Talk:Medical uses of silver, you will see that this pattern has been going on for weeks now. Wdfords makes some edits to the article, which are highly problematic, I revert them and justify my revert on the talk page. But then, however, Wdford just makes a few more problematic edits at the article. From my previous encounters with him, I would come to the conclusion that he probably is going to keep this up indefinitely. Since I don't want to give up on the article, I need to attract some more attention into the issue, so, if that doesn't resolve it, I can start a RFC/U or an Arbitration Request. Zara1709 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't start an arbitration case. You'll just bring more bureaucrats into the picture who know nothing about the subject. The medical uses of silver is no longer a fringe theory article, and shouldn't be treated as such. A relatively small section of the article should concern colloidal silver, including mentioning its history, and its historical usage. Argyria should then have a proportionate amount of the proportionate amount on colloidal silver. It would also be very helpful if either of you could find an article with a dosage or time frame to come down with Argyria, as every source makes it quite clear that it is a condition that comes from lengthy, heavy, and repeated exposure. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are so completely wrong, Zara. The abstract of the article quoted is most very certainly talking about colloidal silver. Lansdown actually mentions colloidal silver by name. In fact, to quote Lansdown exactly: "Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route. Chronic ingestion or inhalation of silver preparations (especially colloidal silver) can lead to deposition of silver metal/silver sulphide particles in the skin (argyria), eye (argyrosis) and other organs. These are not life-threatening conditions but cosmetically undesirable. " Without a doubt Lansdown was including colloidal silver in that abstract. Your blatant misunderstanding of this abstract is thus clearly not a justification for yet another of your tedious full reverts.
 * None of my edits ever obscured the fact that colloidal silver is “not approved at all and potentially dangerous.” To state that I have “difficulties with making this distinction” is a flat-out lie, and a contravention of WP:NPA. Repeating your lie is not going to change the reality.
 * You claim it is necessary to warn about the risk of argyria, yet you consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight, and the wording you keep reverting to reads as though any contact with colloidal silver could cause argyria. Since Lansdown was clearly including colloidal silver in the general statement that silver has low toxicity, if you absolutely MUST mention argyria in the lead at all then you need to state that the risk is minimal and that the safe daily dose is substantial.
 * Per the FDA in 2009: “However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a chronic oral Reference Dose (RfD) of 5 micrograms (µg) of silver per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (5 µg/kg/day) based on a review of 70 cases of argyria that were associated with oral and other uses of silver compounds. For a 70 kg person (or about 154 pounds body weight), this would be about 350 µg of silver per day.” 1ppm is 1 milligram/litre, so colloidal silver at 10ppm would contain 10mg/l, or 10000µg /l. There are 5ml per teaspoon, so there are 200 teaspoons per litre. 10000 divided by 200 equals 50, so there would be 50µg per teaspoon. This equates to a maximum safe dosage of 350/50 = 7 teaspoons per day of colloidal silver at 10ppm. This also includes a significant safety factor. Assuming 30 days per month, the safe dosage is over a litre per month for a 70kg person, FOR LIFE.
 * Wdford (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that Wdford feels no shame in continuing his Wikistalking of Zara1709 - wait, no I'm not. I'm shocked that no one is going to step up and defend her and the encyclopedic qualitiy of the articles on medical subjects under assault by paid disinformation agents - wait, no I'm not. Carry on! Hipocrite (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This totally unsubstantiated allegation of being a "paid disinformation agent" is a blatant personal attack. It also demonstrates extreme bias, and a refusal to consider the validity of the edits in question. It is clear that Hipocrite is aptly named. Wdford (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I intentionally abstained from strong polemics in my last posting. I was trying to de-escalate this, but you apparently failed to notice. When I am saying that you "obviously had difficulties with making this distinction", I am only describing your behaviour as I am perceiving it. You shouldn't be accusing me of making personal attacks, but try to understand why I might describe your behaviour that way. But, as you illustrated often enough previously, you are unable to accept criticism. In the discussion here, you missed the subtle irony of Hipocrite's comment. And you are still not able to make a proper distinction between the different medical uses of silver, or at least you are unable to balance the weight that has to be given to each one. You write, that I would "consistently resist any effort to indicate that the risk from argyria is actually very slight.." On the article talk page, MastCell explained the medical concept of toxicity quite well a few weeks ago:


 * Perhaps a brief refresher on the concept of toxicity would be useful, at least as the word is generally applied to medical questions. The toxicity of a drug is generally considered together with its effectiveness; the two can't be easily divorced if one is trying to be - what's the phrase you used? - academically honest. For example, cisplatin is a highly toxic drug, but if you have testicular cancer, then it can save your life - so in that circumstance the toxicity would generally be considered acceptable. On the other hand, if a substance is completely lacking any evidence of effectiveness for any condition - as colloidal silver is - then any toxicity is excessive, because there is nothing to counterbalance it on the other side of the risk/benefit equation.

If you look at the quote I have given above from an article from 1940, you would have to admit that the risk of argyria from using colloidal silver is, from a medical perspective, not "very slight". There are other medical uses, for which Lawnsdown 2006 states that the risk expected is minimal. You stated in your edit summaries, that you intended your edits to "balance" the lead paragraph. What kind of balance is that supposed to be? You have just admitted, that even Lawnsdown 2006 mentions colloidal silver and that it has undesirable side-effects, although Lawnsdown's article, as far as it can be concluded from the abstract, it aiming at discussing the acknowledged medical uses of silver. Likely the main reason Lawnsdown is discussing the side-effects of medical products containing silver in the abstract is that he is aware of the promotion of "colloidal silver" as alternative medicine miracle cure. So you have admitted that even the reliable sources that are not dealing with colloidal silver as such are discussing its dangerous side-effects. I mean, the article is from a compilation Biofunctional Textiles and the Skin, Lansdown can't possible have written an article about colloidal silver for such a compilation. We have to balance the different aspects in the article the same way that the reputable sources do it. There are articles in medical journals specifically about colloidal silver, and there are other articles about different medical uses of silver, which, as you yourself have pointed out, also discuss colloidal silver and its "undesirable" side-effects. What does this mean for our discussion of "balance"?

I have previously explained why I don't think that we need to mention in the lead paragraph that "minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure [to silver] by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route." I mean, we are trying to have a concise lead paragraph, aren't we? Also: Pointing out so prominently that some medical products involve only "minimal" risks looks weird. Have your ever seen a packet of pills with a big warning sign: "Only minimal risks expected."? If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that Wdford explicitly added material on the antiseptic and disinfectant properties medical uses of silver, because he was "not allowed to reduce the paragraph on colloidal silver". The material on these uses needed to be expanded a little, but I personally didn't do that previously because I wanted to look for more reliable sources on that first. Wdfords version, as it stands now, is giving undue weight to these uses. I see no reason why we would need to mention that "minimal risk is expected due" to these uses, and Wdford hasn't attempted to give any reason, aside from his unexplained concept of "balance". So I have to remove some sentences again. And I am sorry for bothering the ANI with this issue, but I honestly think that Wdford has a problem with his conduct as an editor, and that someone needs to intervene here. Zara1709 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, despite MastCell's intermediate edits, I came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to fix the problems with Wdford's edits without a full revert. I don't know how long I can put up with this, but I am unwilling to accept that Wdford sabotages of my work at yet a 3rd article. Zara1709 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara can't "fix" my edits, because they aren't broken. If toxicity is important enough to appear in the lead at all, then its important enough to be dealt with fairly and objectively. I will supply even better references to support the EPA safe dosage, and I have no problems with MastCell's various improvements to the wording. Zara has no valid basis to repeatedly revert a lot of valid and referenced material. Wdford (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wdford, I wrote a 6000 byte statement trying to explain the problem with your edits. If you are of the opinion that my concerns are unjustified, you at least have to attempt to make an argument. I'll revert again. If we can't get an administrator over here to deal with the issue, could at least someone lock down the article for a month or so? Zara1709 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My argument is utterly straightforward, and I have made it many times already since I started working on this article, but you choose to pretend otherwise. Here it is yet again:
 * This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects.
 * Silver has many different valuable medical uses, while colloidal silver is only one aspect. This should be reflected by due weight.
 * When it comes to mentioning the toxicity of silver, be it re colloidal silver and other forms, per policy the lead must summarise all aspects objectively and with due weight. To mention argyria three times in the lead, without actually putting argyria in context or clarifying the actual risk, does not constitute due weight.
 * Your arguments for suppressing the fact that silver is minimally toxic do not hold water - a couple of extra lines to clarify the very important safety aspect is well justified in an article of this nature, which some people continue to believe is a "controversial" subject.


 * Instead of repeated mass reverts, why don't you accept that the valid and reliably referenced material is valid and reliably referenced, and work constructively with others to finish it off?


 * If you agree to mention argyria only once in the lead, with a wikilink, and leave the rest of it to the body of the article, then I am happy to streamline the rest of the lead likewise. However, if you insist on padding up the lead of this article with repeated mentions of argyria, then proper context is necessary and appropriate.


 * If you persuade other editors to split off a separate article dedicated to colloidal silver, the EPA safe dosage would still need to be included.


 * As we appear to have reached consensus on everything else, I will request some admins specifically to mediate on these remaining issues.


 * Wdford (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver deserves the main weight
Wdford, your statement: "This article is about ALL the medical uses of silver, not just colloidal silver, and the lead should reflect this broad scope with due weighting to ALL the different aspects." is wrong on a fundamental layer. If you look at the reliable sources that we have present at the article, you would have to admit that they devote quite some weight to the discussion of "colloidal silver". Your attempt to shift the focus of the article away from "colloidal silver" can therefore only be explained as 1) a lack of editorial skill at your part, or as 2) a deliberate attempt of promoting a fringe POV by selectively quoting the sources, or, and that would be even worse, as 3) part of a strategy to harass me. In any case, you need to be banned from the article. Zara1709 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara is very wrong in suggesting that colloidal silver "deserves" most of the weight. Those sources that specifically discuss colloidal silver obviously focus on their chosen topic, but even those sources admit that the risk of argyria is small, and that argyria is not actually harmful. There are also a great many sources that focus on the various other aspects of silver in medical usage, and a number of those sources have been included also - as any objective person could easily check. I am not attempting to shift the focus away from colloidal silver, but I am attempting to give due weight to the many positive uses of silver as well - as I have said repeatedly from the beginning. The accusation of lack of editorial skill is a contravention of WP:NPA. The accusation of selectively quoting sources is not only WP:NPA but its also hypocritical, as Zara has been cherry-picking sentences since inception, while my sources are all reliable, valid and consistent. Finally, the accusation of harrassment remains as baseless as it ever was, and I'm sure any objective admin would agree that my edits have contributed significantly to broadening this article in line with the agreed expansion of scope - in the face of fierce resistence throughout. Wdford (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an administrative note that I've reported at WP:AN3. MastCell Talk 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Zara's statement. The bulk of the article has been rewritten from the very heavily sourced colloidal silver article, and as such can be expected to contain the bulk of those sources, with exception of several introduced when a section was moved from silver. In addition to this, most of the rewriting of the article to its current format has been done by Zara and Wdford (with a handful by Vsmith, Hipocrite, and myself). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

At least the article is full protected now, that could actually give us the time needed to discuss the issues. I mean, currently the lead paragraph says, among other, that the use of colloidal silver as conventional medication was discontinued in the 1940s due to "the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics..", which is misleading. An uninformed reader might conclude that colloidal silver simply was less efficient than antibiotics, whereas in fact colloidal silver never had any confirmed positive effect to begin with. My version was more exact (although I probably didn't find an optimal wording). Wdford then also added another source to the article, before it was locked down. The way that is currently worded, this is a misquotation. The one article quoted, judging from its abstract is only talking about localised corneal argyrosis, i.e. a discolouration of the eye due to accumulated silver. And even if the quotation was correct, someone would still need to copy-edit Wdford's writing a create a proper citation in the references. All Wdford did was cut&paste the URL.

And these are not isolated incidents. Wdford hasn't done a single edit to the article ever, that wasn't problematic in at least some aspects. After November 13, cleaning up after Wdford became to boring for me and I waited, to see if he would make any more edits. In fact he didn't. Then, on November 21, an uninvolved editor commented on the article talk page on the low quality of the lead paragraph. I then decided to fix the problems in the lead paragraph that Wdfords edits from a week before had created, but Wdford changed the lead paragraph again not even six hours later. What am I supposed to make of this? I almost get the impression that Wdford has been making bad edits intentionally, to pull me into an edit war. When I didn't revert him, he didn't continue editing. Under this impression, I think that the various solutions suggested here by various people wouldn't work - the only thing that would work is a ban of Wdford from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara has selectively quoted the article in a rather misleading manner. The actual line in the lead paragraph currently reads: “In the 1940s they were discontinued due to both the development of safe and effective modern antibiotics and concern about argyria and other side effects of silver products.” The actual full quote from the source (Wadhera and Fung) says: “Over the last few decades, there have been several reported problems associated with silver ingestion, including intestinal ulcers and argyria. With the availability of more effective pharmacologic alternatives, physician-directed use of silver-containing products has significantly declined.” I think our sentence is a fair summary of the source – what exactly is the problem?
 * As regards my last edit, which mentions progress with laser treatments for argyria: my edit added the wording “laser therapy has been used to treat it with satisfactory cosmetic results”. I provided two sources – not one as Zara claims - one source which deals with argyria and another which deals with argyrosis. It cannot be a misquotation, as it is not a quotation at all – in line with WP:NPS.
 * As regards the accusation that I make bad edits on purpose to provoke an edit war, I reject that with contempt. I responded to Zara’s edits each time because Zara’s edits repeatedly deleted relevant and verifiable content in order to pursue her POV of biasing the article toward the colloidal silver issue – as is now openly revealed by her sub-titling of this very ANI section “Colloidal silver deserves the main weight”. When she paused with her mass reverts for a week I was happy to let the article cool down, but unfortunately on 21 Nov the reverts resumed. Since Zara ends virtually every post with a call for me to be topic banned, I am starting to wonder about the underlying motives.
 * And finally – interested editors are constructively discussing the issues right now on the talk page, and building a consensus. Why is Zara complaining here instead of constructively participating in that discussion?
 * Wdford (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment II


He's back as IP. 166.205.139.4 GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is back, what are they doing, where are the diffs, and where are they doing it? Frmatt (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's that one guy. (Seriously, though, a link would have been nice.) — Gavia immer (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite likely, more then one person aswell. Whoever it is, he/they are cowards. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, so I don't see that there's a lot I can do here...but I'll keep an eye on this for a little bit and help out where I can. Frmatt (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My edits are quite little: Spelling corrections, grammar, sentence fixings. Anyways, your help would be most appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you touch base with Jehochman and see if the rangeblock applied last time can be expanded/shifted/whatever to meet the new IP? Some people's kids just don't get the message. =/ Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just notified him. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness the anon has chosen to revert my edits, as I'm not a prolific editor. Finding & reversing his reverts is quite easy. By bugging me, he's quite limited to what he can do. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The anon is known for 'bothering' Barack Obama related articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. Jehochman Talk 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another IP (166.205.131.82) by my harrasser, or as I call him the 'Little GD'. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seriously notified the IPs about this discussion. GoodDay, what you did wasn't really notifying them...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My AGF with that anon, eroded immediately in mid-October. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three day range block of 166.205.128.0/20 implemented. Please tell me if this starts up again. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Un-needed, eccentric, and aggresive, "help"
After a long period of having him give comment over my shoulder while I tried to rebuild R1a, an article which had a long history of problems, and which I brought to a stable form, User:Pdeitiker went unilateral almost 2 weeks ago and started to over-write the entire article in order to make a WP:POINT to me personally (ad hominem though not an attack in any simple sense), about how to be encyclopedic in writing style. I should, he says, be pushing myself to get articles to GA standard. If I do not he will take actions. But, not only are his edits very ill-informed and written in poor English according to the other active editor of R1a in recent time User:MarmadukePercy, but also this User's record shows, that his writing style, and his talkpage manner, are not good according to everyone he has contact with. His behavior is also constantly on the limits of Wikipedia policy, both on talkpages and while editing articles. Diffs of just some examples...

That it is to make a point to me personally:
 * The page will not self-improve if you also do not self-improve.
 * Again, this should be your baby, and there are about 6 days left before GA occurs, if by that time we haven't gotten around the basic issues of style and working, then I might replace the sections. However I would hope that you will take the initiative at this point, looking at other GA articles and these edits go about making the repairs yourself. I will focus on the lede, henceforth.
 * Of course the althernative is I could wait this out and plop a new lede and nomenclature section in before review. This should be your baby, your kind of like a food critic that never lites a stove to boil a pot of water.
 * 
 * Andrew, the time for arguing is over. Either the page improves or it does not, Marmadukes criticism aside, this page has existed since 2005, that is 4 years, and it is still start class. WP:BOLD is exactly for these circumstances where things do not move along. I have set a deadline, if you guys want to tag team revert what I do that is fine, I am not starting an edit war. Both of you agree with each other, if you cannot, in agreement find a way to bring that pages quality up to standard, then please step back. Read the class guidelines and work toward bringing the pages quality up. The reason the page is still start class is because of all the unwarranted speculation dressed up as theory.
 * Thank you, since this is the first Y-article to challange at this level, keep in mind that the concepts and structures we use here may be precedences for reorganizing that page. This is mainly for Andrew's benefit, because I will not take part in the process of elevating that page.

Note consistently giving WP:DEADLINEs for action.
 * I am giving you ample opportunity to make the requested corrections in your own words. Since you are here arguing with me then it indicates you desire not to make the change and therefore justifies the reversion. Simply stated you are acting in abstinence to the guidelines.

Pretending his advice, and deadlines, represents the demands of some sort of authority in Wikipedia (various forms) who is watching:
 * you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with Wikipedia
 * 
 * If you do not start following the MOS I will simply revert your edits back to my last edit. Your edits are clearly exemplary of WP:OWN because you do not want review the guidelines before making edits and/or reverting edits and will be a stumbling block for GA review. You must familiarize yourself with WP:MOS in progressing further until you do so further discussion here is futile. Am I making myself clear?
 * If I had split off R1a1a article the article would be done now and in compliance with WP:MOS, you are simply creating the need for more edits and more reorganization because you refuse to read the MOS. Get your act together!
 * There can be no doubt, you clearly have a problem complying with Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot comply with wikipedia guidelines please stop editing.

Accusations of bad faith, instead of properly responding to attempts to communicate about article-related concerns. For example:
 * Again, I do not see it that way, you lace all your comments with ad-hominim attacks. I was simply trying to provide you with a template by which to go forward and you dragged me into this refute that, explain this, why is yours better than mine, and highly nit-picky attitude. (This is about a draft which he supposedly made for discussion, and which he later, after not answering any of the concerns, did post into the main article .)
 * Again this level of critique can be consider an ad-hominim attack and aligns itself with statements you have made which align with WP:OWN.
 * It could almost be interpreted that by excessive points of discussion you might want to obstruct the improvements or replacement of your text, is this your intent?

Showing that the threats of massive unilateral edits is real; in areas where he is either not well-informed about the reasons for previous consensus, and where he knows that he is definitely or probably editing against consensus. Note that the reason for investigating was a call for opinions about a COI accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See his first edit on E1b1b, the deletion of a whole sub-section which in an area he was not familiar with, in context of his first talkpage comment there.


 * Andrew complains about my actions on the E1b1b page but here is what I added to that page, reminding everyone that I am extremely skeptical of the Y-DNA work. I have no vested interest in Y-DNA at all. I was only trying to help him and other editors on the pages out. E1b1b_ancestry.png, E1b1b_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-81.PNG, Y_Hap_EM-123.PNG, E1b1b1a_phylogeny.png, Y_Hap_EM-78.PNG
 * All of these images were made from Wikimaps and scratch. Some of these images, I might add replaced images that were uploaded by Andrew and were deleted from Wikipedia for copyright violations. In addition I found errors in Andrews source of data which I reported back to him. I have always been trying to help Andrew. I helped to rewrite key sections of that page and that appeared to stabilize an edit war between Andrew and 2 other editors. Again Andrew does not see eye-to-eye with me on the cause. My opinion is that instead of adding gobs of data to these articles, he should be working, first, to make the material in the articles available to a general reading audience. If his thoughts and analysis are understood, IMHO, this would go a long way to stopping the perennial edit wars. He does not look at the issue like this.PB666 yap 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Splitting of R1a article, , etc, though not understanding how the information about the two new split subjects should be split. (See, before the split, , my responses to proposal, , after the split ,  and my explanations, , then: .)

Talkpages are a major problem with this editor. There are so many examples there is not point giving diffs, though I can, of:-
 * he frequently leaves comments unsigned
 * he comes back to edit his remarks long after they have been responded to, making it impossible to follow discussion
 * his indenting seems almost random
 * he is prone to writing extremely long responses
 * his responses are so poorly written some times, that their intended meaning can only be guessed at
 * his responses very often do not stick the point, and are not responses as such at all (a characteristic which is particularly frustrating in such long postings)
 * he often seems not to read the responses which come back to him, but to go one writing postings anyway

I have also now had cases where he seems to have deliberately decided to edit my own postings in order to change the overall impression to the casual reader: , 

There are several practical problems.
 * First we have a complete over-write of the article. Here is a diff to my last version before ceasing to edit R1a, showing the style of changes: . The differences are not to do with the science, but by both our accounts to do with style. I believe this is the opposite of improvement.
 * Second I have a sort of variation on the stalker theme here, except that this person believes he is some kind of kung-fu master mentor, putting me through difficult experiences in order to make me strong. PDeitiker is already announcing publicly that he wants me to work on R1b next, according to his model . Needless to say, I can not improve articles while this is happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the content dispute, Pdeitikers removal of entire sections from talkpages and marking the edits minor are completely unacceptable for a start. (See, as noted above) Exxolon (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is only a start. I should perhaps point out that I am not well versed in how many examples I should give here, and I stopped when I started finding it too long. There are many more, but they are so easy to find if you look at his talkpage, mine, and R1a and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, concerning content, I think there is no dispute in any simple sense. The talkpage remarks show User:Pdeitiker constantly asking me to explain the subject matter, and when pressed concerning the knowledge reflected in his own edits, he has constantly pointed out that he is mainly teaching me about encylopedic style, and giving me a template of how to re-write more Y haplogroup articles in the future. He has indeed become quite annoyed about my argumentative nit-picking about things like "wordage" which can be fixed later in his opinion. Here is a draft of a section which he supposedly made so I could raise concerns: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If your objective was to annoy, then you succeeded. What I saw Andrew was when I went about changing what you had done you became increasingly childish, and the more I attempted to change the more WP:OWN became an aspect. But Andrew I am not holding a grudge against you, I understand where you are coming from, the problem is you are going to have to shift your attitude for these pages to improve, because as long as you balk at Wikipedia guidelines and attempts to apply them to articles, you will have very little success at promoting and getting others to help you protect your pages.PB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do these people a favor and show them examples of your behavior over the last week. hmmmmmm. This would be a real nice test of your objectivity, particularly as a NPOV editor.PB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one making an accusation. Why don't you show a diff? I have not even been editing in this period. Concerning being an NPOV editor, the record shows that throughout many discussions, you have always treated me as one until I disapproved of your article split attempt. (Your first comment: "You are however right, I knew this was going to be complicated deal and I was hoping to create the page in a sandbox. However, it was already created.") After I asked "please let's first create a situation where we can understand what we are reading" you immediately posted on my talkpage accusing me of WP:OWN. Since then you have been a textbook disruptive editor, out to make a wp:POINT--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you review 72 carefully you will note that I did not remove an entire section, I moved that section to a new section as there were getting to many offsets. Some, very few passages of mine and Andrews comments were deleted. So to clear up that issue, no entire section was deleted from the talk-page.PB666 yap 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed those sections from the talk page because they were false statements made by Andrew against me repeatedly, when I finally showed him that these were indeed false statements I removed the argument only those specific aspects of the argument that pertained to the false statements.
 * Andrew has:
 * acting more and more inappropriately with me
 * I have tried my best to keep the argument civil
 * he continues to push incivility and inappropriate remarks. Even on the present talk-page, saying I was wrong or did not understand even though I retained his good faith edit of a cladogram that was an improvement of my edit.
 * He has been hesitant to improve the page following guidelines.
 * He keeps claiming an issue regarding section titling was solved when the only person now on wikipedia part of that discussion was him. The other participant noted "In closing, I would like to remind everyone that the hierarchical haplogroup nomenclature, like the field itself, has been changing very rapidly; to illustrate this, take a look at Y haplogroup trees from 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, early 2008, and mid 2008." which is in agreement with my POV that section heads should use the version of clade representation which is least likely to change, least likely to break Page#section wikilinks.
 * he does not want to repair his reference style, which has everything in the reference list truncated to {{ citation |last = Author et al. |....
 * When I converted the WP:MOS undesired bullet list to paragraph form, he reverted it.
 * And BTW Andrew has also forgotten on two occassions to sign his talk page sections
 * He has constantly gotten into edit-wars with other people, particularly on the E1b1b page, the page has not really improved since July when I tried to help him improve the page.
 * Andrew has blamed me for:
 * wanting section headers that would be stable.
 * Not explaining to him things found in WP:MOS (such as frowned upon bullet list and number lists)
 * For changing my position when better evidence has come forth warranting a change of position.
 * For changing the subsection ledes to make them more explanatory. The section lede for being reflective of the articles size and content in the article. PB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Accused me of making false statements when in fact he was making false statements, when I showed him his false statements he did not apologize, and in fact I deleted those false statements as much as I could from the page without rendering on the other issues. PB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the way it has been for the last week or so, I am trying to help prepare this article the best that I can for GA refereePB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you should read his comments about the applicability of WP guidelines throughout the discussion.PB666 yap 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys are going to have fun with this one.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, Since we are digging back into the past, take a look at this page Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA) and this page Haplogroup_E1b1b1a_(Y-DNA). These are the better versions, this is what I had to deal with in Late june. I worked on the first few sections of E1b1b trying to improve readability but gave up because the task was just a nighmare. This is what I was asked to walk into and referee, very little progress has been made on making either page more encyclopedic since I last edited those pages. Compare the E1b1b then with the R1a page now, and you can see at least some influence of what my intentions are. What you really need to ask Andrew is why isn't he working one making his two favorite Y-DNA pages more encyclopedic, more accessible to the casual reader. This is really the very heart of the issue, when I have pushed the encyclopedias agenda, what I have gotten is a very unpleasant response.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 07:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are indeed pushing your interpretation of the encyclopedia's agenda: fighting against Harvard citations, "et al.", bullet points, numbers in fraction form etc, and using any number of indirect ways to make a big WP:point. It is a good definition of why I have come to ANI instead of an arbitrator or the Wikiquette forum, in order to discuss you as a disruptive editor with an on-going issue. There are people who believe that being an extremist for a good cause is not being an extremist. That approach does not work on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly every edit warrior on Wikipedia believes that their POV is the Wikipedia POV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll start" one:  The current state of the article is better than it was a month ago. two:  It is policy that if references are done consistently in one style in an article, we add additional references in the same style, rather than change everything to whichever style we prefer. three:  We do not remove our opponent's comments from a talk page four:   it might be a good idea for both of you to work on something else for a week or two.      DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG I selectively removed the comments from the talk page because they were false statements that were eventually proven to be false that Andrew admitted that he did not remember that he had placed yet another bullet list, the one I corrected to paragraph form. I refactored in what I thought were wiki guidelines, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory material when it is no longer germane to any discussion. That issue was resolved, IMHO, and we no longer needed to deal with who reverted whose correction of a bullet list. It was done in good faith.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, DGG I disagree with you on the references, at least as they were being used. There were so many Harvard references dropped into text of certain pages that the pages almost became a dirty laundry list of Harvard references. It becomes a readability issue when referencing is abused. For articles that require alot of references clearly end notes are preferable. However I have no problem with Harvard reference system either alone or with end notes. The problem I have with the references is the current format used for almost all the Y_DNA pages is not complete reference. They simply place first1= Author1 et al. and don't fill out the author list. You cannot convince me that this is an acceptable alternative referencing system. In the case of some of my complaint, they don't even provide PMID even though PMID is available, try finding some of these papers online with one author's name and no PMID or catalog source. I stand by my critic as an expert on these types of publications, that particular usage of Harvard referencing is unacceptable, anywhere.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the way to deal with references lacking PMIDs is to add them. arguments or reverts over reference format are rarely a good idea. If you do want to make major changes in that, then discuss it on the talk p first and get consensus. Some scientific journals still list first authors only. I agree its not ideal, but it';s not something to fight over.   DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of references, you got to be kidding. Its actually worse that that, I showed Andrew how to capture references with PMID using the diberra template filler, which had been offline for months about the same time I came across the E1b1b page, which is easily converted to the citation style, with a couple of minutes of cutting in pasting in MSWord or Wordpad, you can have at least a four author, et al. reference. He acted as if i had committed high treason for suggesting that change. I went through the process step by step. He got very upset, I told him repeatedly that I was not suggesting he stop using Harvard referencing or the citation style, I was suggesting he improve the references, he got even more upset. Again even though I think the cite journal template is better I went out of my way to show him how to get complete citation template references quickly, and he got very upset. I don't think that is right. The tools are available, the process was explained, its not difficult, there was no reason for him to get angry. I have actually tried to use his references to find papers, and after failing I had to end up using a different search strategy. Referencing should suffice to find an article by modern methods, if it does not suffice then they should be improved. If I was truely interested in Y-DNA I would go about this process, but I am trying to be neutral in the assessment of how these articles improve, and I don't have the time to clean everyones dirty laundry. He needs to know how to improve these problems with these pages by himself, as it looks that no-one else is going to work for higher level improvements. I have done enough by showing him a quick and easy way how.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a timeline of what has happened. Sometime in late October an author by the name of Cardenas2008 created a page called R1a1a. After reviewing the complexities of the R1a page I concluded that a split was probably the best way to quickly improve the understandability. However Cardenas2008 had only copied and pasted the R1a page on R1a1a. As a result I rewrote the R1a1a page so that it reflected the R1a1a aspect of R1a only, and I moved materials off the R1a page. Andrew and MarmadukePercy got very upset.

Andrew, instead of requesting a merger, unilaterally blanked that page, removed my content, and reverted the R1a page. I allowed this to occur under the commitment that he was going to make the R1a page more suitable for a general audience. I had been wanting to go ahead with the improvement of that page for a week or so before, but he had us waiting for some unknown latest paper. Well he finally got the paper (from me) and so I said there is no reason to wait any longer, either you can make the page understandable with this new information, or it needs to be split. He did do that, he worked on rewriting various sections, however these new sections and many aspects were not following the Wikipedia guidelines. Finally he had improved the understandability of the page that a split was no longer necessary, IMO. There were still issues, it was a borderline B-class article and he continued to argue with me about things like what number of Harvard references in one sentence too much, what is the better style for authors in the Citation template, etc. So I simply nominated the article for GA review to see what outsiders might say needed improving.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I requested he change the format on these sections while I worked on the figures and tables for the page. What happened instead was he began throwing up smoke, all kinds of diversionary tactics, all kinds of new remarks for me to respond to, eventually I said enough is enough. It became increasingly difficult for me to help him work toward a better page when I was getting a constant barrage of rhetorical questions which aligned themselves with a WP:OWN attitude. I was up until 4 AM trying to satisfy his critiques of the 'nomenclature' section when what I really wanted was for him to make the improvements. I commented on a bullet list that remained uncoverted, I waited a considerable amount of time for him to convert this to paragraph form, and when he did not I converted it. He promptly reverted my edits. In all of this, none the less, I have continued to try, maybe not succeed, but to push in the direction of trying to bring this article up to GA status, not only for that purpose, but also so these editors will have something to look at when improving the Y-DNA articles. I want this article to be reviewed by outside referees so that we can get some desperately needed outside input as what are the best recommendations for improving the Y-DNA pages, i am less concerned about getting every single factoid correct or writing the most perfect explanation (which is the focus of his complaints). Because it is quite obvious from observing and listening to editors that there is a lack of clarity about guidelines. I would also like to see the comments about what I have added, for my own sake. However, to just dump a dog's breakfast at their feet and say help us fix this would not be fair to them or us either. Andrew continues to use the 'you don't know diddly' issue, however most of the people have commented that what we have done, together, has improved the readability and understandability of the page, which means despite the complaints here, the page is progressing. Not in the way I would like to see it progress, but in a high-testosterone kind-of-way.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew will calm down after the comments come, and we see that we all have defects that need to be fixed. I have no problem with the critique myself, I think we need guidance looking forward because they way the project has been dealing with conflict in the past is not productive, IMHO.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As a user involved in this page over the past few months, I agree with Andrew Lancaster's assessment. Incidentally, Andrew and I haven't always agreed on things, but our dialogue has been civil, and we have worked together successfully. As soon as Pdeitiker appeared, the rules of the game seemed to change. Everything was personal; everything was a deadline; and every change became a slugfest. No matter what his genetics 'expertise' is – and I have reservations about that as he got backwards the most salient point concerning ancient Y-Dna in the Underhill paper – Pdeitiker seems to feel he can do it all. This despite the many comments on his user talk page from other editors complaining about his verbose writing style. My point is this: wikipedia editors have their strengths and weaknesses. The best editors here recognize those, and play to them. I know something about language – though Pdeitiker has insulted me on that score – and presumably he knows something about genetics. The best way for an article like this one to progress is for editors to respect each other's background. I have found this particular user high-handed, arrogant, and unwilling to listen. As Andrew Lancaster says, Pdeitiker seems to regard himself as the 'Bruce Lee' of genetics kung fu masters. He'd do better if he swallowed a dose of humility and came down off his high horse and deigned to work with others.That said, I am anxious for this article to be improved. I would like to go to work on improving its language, but fear that as soon as I do, 'Bruce Lee' will revert me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please improve the language, I am only going to work on the lede, probably tonight, I will improve as far as I can and that will be it. OK, I will not revert your edits, if you want to look at my posting history I seldomly revert, I have never been cited by the 3RR and I generally always give people a chance to defend their reversion before I change them. I threaten to revert more often than I revert and I have kept my word about not splitting the article even though it was a violation of wikipolicy for Andrew to blank R1a1a page after major edits without calling for a merger. There are many areas such as the infobox, such as the bullet list in Eastern European migration section, such as the list of frequencies in the Second second that I have left untouched, there are many areas of the article that can and should be worked on and R1000R1000 and others have been making alot of edits, so why shouldn't you.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other issues, I have found myself immersed (more or less drafted by Andrew and Muntawandi) into wiki-war after wiki-war since July over terribly designed and written articles, and I am frankly tired of this. I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data. The problem is that Andrew brings up the weaknesses of these approached when it is convenient for him but denies these issues when its not convenient. So again I keep his word at a distance. Caveot Emptor.


 * But for Wikipedia the problem is much worse, witness the last 3 months - there is alot, _and I mean alot_ of race-based promotion within HGH and including Y-DNA topics.

Here are some clear examples of riding over wiki-guidelines:
 * Wiki-guidelines say clearly the long bullet lists are unwanted, and yet instead of building clades someone drops a long dirty laundry lists dressed as a cladograms into pages.
 * Even when cladograms are made, such as in the R1b page they are not simplified and broken into understandable pieces instead they become a cobweb of confusion.
 * Why are Y-DNA pages always involved in conflict, because editors are working to their own self-interested goals and not improvement of the encyclopedia.
 * Why have I been asked to intervene in articles so poorly written that it is difficult to understand the core of the debate????PB666 {{sup|yap}} 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would encourage both of you to read wp:TLDR, wp:dispute resolution, and wp:five pillars. And that entire mess was TL, DR.  I tried though.  I did.  I don't really see anything the admins need to do, here, though the TLDR thing might have just meant I missed it.-  Sinneed  03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * YOu didn't this is more of an arbitration issue anyway. I refactored my comments, thanks. PB666 {{sup|yap}} 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The short version is that User:Pdeitiker is editing disruptively in order to make a WP:point. You only need to look at his own explanations of his intentions. This is NOT a content dispute as any glance at the diffs will show. Note that Deitiker gives no diffs above. His vague and confusing remarks are however clearly given in order to imply things. For example consider whether his vague accusations about my behavior match anything: I have not even edited R1a since Deitiker began his long threatened series of non-consensus edits. My bad behavior is just no agreeing with him. Unfortunately it seems that if you want to write disruptively on a scientific article all you need to do is make your talkpage postings long and confused, in order to put admins off.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is clearly another false statement, guys, right here he has made this statement in front of you and now you know what the problem is. Here is R1a page before I began trying to make the page more encyclopedic and this is the page after my last edit, on the lead this evening. This is a combination of both mine and Andrews work, I am not taking credit for it all, The cladograms, however 80%, 80% and 100% my work, the table, Andrews but I reformated, the other two tables are mine entirely. Many many edits in the distribution section culling out alot of unnecessary material. It is generally agreed in the talk pages that the page is much clearer and much easier to read now.
 * The core issue here is that I am pushing the interest and the goals of the encyclopedia and Andrew does not like this, he thinks that he, not wikipedia guides should be the major determinants about what goes on a page and what is improved. Just look at his favorite E1b1b page, read the last sections, those which I have never worked on. Is it encyclopedic, is it appropriate for a general purpose reader? Here within his last statement is the core of our dispute, its not about content, its about making it accessible. As per motive, Andrew told me one time that he does these pages as a reference for his own personal studies, I have no problem with that desire, but the key desire should be to make the pages suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. And I thank Andrew for saying this, because if he hadn't disclosed the above I would have had to go hunt down diffs. You saved me the effort, the bias is quite clear, my improvements were constructive, just too encyclopedic for you. The reason Andrew is here guys is that he tried to elicit negative responses to my changes and everyone agreed so far that the page has improved, both with his and my changes. Without getting a clear green light from the editors of R1a, he got frustrated and came here, that is closer to the truth.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Give diffs for accusations? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not said that I do these pages as a reference for my personal studies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you and I both know there are only 3 editors who've commented on our disagreements, you, me, and User:MarmadukePercy. We form a consensus of 2, and you are the non-consensus writer. Such small numbers of editors is a frequent problem on specialized articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is yet another false statement. Aside from the comments here these are two comments from the talk page comparing the two versions (Which Andrew has primarily reverted to his version, with some improvements)
 * {{Quotation|It could look half as good as either version and still look supremely superior to Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). As far as this and that I favour as much explanation as possible for those learning, including long section titles for those who might be easily overwhelmed and need to keep going back to the top of the page.| DinDraithou (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 * {{Quotation|I have to agree that there aren't any real substantive differences between the two version. Disagreements seem to be about presentation, prose and semantics. This paragraph appears to be more complex than it needs to be. Apart from the aforementioned paragraph, my initial impression is that both versions would be acceptable, especially when compared to typical wikipedia articles.| Wapondaponda (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 * Unsigned remarks and quotes inserted by PB666. I note that both these people studiously avoided expressing any opinion about your first round of recent edits over mine. They just expressed positive remarks that this article, which you keep describing in panicked terms as a load of unencylopedic crap, that has to be changed urgently or else, has been a lot better lately, and is a lot better than other haplogroup articles. They are also explicitly saying that this was already before you started changing it, although you have implied that I should probably be banned from Wikipedia for this work! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Example of your approach to listening to others: You proposed a draft; I commented as requested and you called me argumentative for doing this; then you inserted it with even the most obvious errors that had been pointed out still in place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this level and hostility of tone desires a reply, anymore. It is clear that if you compared the last version of my lede (above) that the previous version that I felt it was a draft in style and layout, I did not treat it as a fixture on the page, and a recommended others to edit this and improve it. Every attempt to work with you became increasingly inappropriate and hostile, for that reason I started ignoring your comments, it was clear that you did not want your wording to change, the attitude was WP:OWN and the reversion essentially proved the point. I don't think I need to make any further comment here, if your desire is to continue the hostile commentaries then we need to move this on to Arbitration as I recommended. Your current version contains a large and reader unfriendly run-on sentence so I wonder why you are pointing out specific errors of mine? What type of adrenalin is bringing out your repeated hostility?PB666 {{sup|yap}} 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Name an example of hostility of tone. You answer every concrete point with these emotional accusation, on the talkpages, and this is your constant pattern since I asked you not to try splitting the article until we had understanding of R1a itself: . So it is much more simple than you make out: you are a disruptive editor, because you constantly fill talk pages with such accusations when people are trying to discuss edits. To treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Concerning arbitration you've raised this many times and I've told you each time to put your money where your mouth is or else stop making these diversionary accusations. I am only asking for what Wikipedia policy normally demands. Answer good faith criticism rationally, and do not make accusations lightly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is one, the most recent example of a great many: Regarding the evidence I put forward concerning the conversation between Andrew and Swin (quoted above) in an effort to create the most stable section names:
 * {{Quotation|Why are you scared of moving this discussion to WP:HGH? If as you claim no one is reading it, then we'll see right?|--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}}
 * This is pure and outright bullying, schoolyard level. Andrew is trying to drive this discussion off the page, because all of the evidence points to him having a problem with the wiki guidelines for stable section naming.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to add, why am I keeping the discussion in R1a talk page here are the traffic statistics for R1a and here are the traffic statistics for [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History], I previous brought my reasons to Andrew with statistics, and even so he continues to bully on the issue. To the best of my ability I have corrected page or answer his critiques with reasonable explanations, this response is very typical of his recent behavior.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's put this side subject (which is about a policy which affect many articles) aside. Please see my response here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles is among the worst and most awesomely misinformative of all articles, in case anyone here is looking for one to smash up in their fury. Sorry for the interruption. DinDraithou (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an interruption - you prove my point, but the only article I want to 'smash up' on is the mtDNA Eve page, that is improve.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pdeitiker is a knowledgeable editor and many of his edits have definitely helped to improve wikipedia. However Pdeitiker uses an unconventional idiosyncratic editing style. This approach typically involves quite a bit of verbosity and an abundance of technical detail. It is possible that the use of technical detail may be to intimidate other users who may be less knowledgeable about the subject matter. A similar but unrelated dispute took place on several threads in Talk:Mitochondrial Eve, such as this section and this section.
 * The nature of the problem is not blatantly obvious since many of the articles are quite technical. I believe that Pdeitiker can be an even more effective contributor if he addresses the concerns that numerous editors have expressed about his editing. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very well aware of this, the problem with the mtDNA page is that - when I came across the pages a couple of months ago, it was a disaster, many blatantly false statements and complete misrepresentation of the literature. It has lost its featured article status and probably would not have even qualified as a GA, certainly not from WP:HGH point of view. I asked people who were editing that page to go about repairing the damage, the answer was don't talk to us 'fix it yourself'. I am perhaps not the best person for the task because I have been following the up and down roller coaster of mtDNA since 1994, and I am all-too-aware about the problems in the popular literature, and the level of debate in the primary literature, particularly recently with regard to mutation rates and clock consistency. I have now added to that page the essense of what should be considered, a key point of the remake of the page were recent literature that reflected on topics misrepresented in the previous page (e.g. what are the limits of the TMRCA, what is the relationship of population size, and was or was not there a population bottleneck). It is going to be an extremely difficult task for me to bring out the quality of that page, particularly since there are 100s of papers that reflect on the topic, many of them recent. As I have finished the draft of that page one author within the field read the page and sent me more references, so I need to encorperate these other lines of thought. The issue for mtDNA and the TMRCA is a complicated issue, the primary reason is that as one approached the extant population by traversing higher branch points, the mutation rates go insane. At some point in the near future I want to bring this article up for GA review, due to its high importance, which means exactly-I need to get rid of the technical lingo without getting the page back to a ill-written 'popular science topic' page. Any specific aspect of the page you think can be improved I would be happy to have a critique of the technical lingo, this page really needs it.These new additions reflect also on the popular media, for example the Current "PBS NOVA: Becoming Human" series which talks about the evolution of humans in 'Oasis' in Southern Africa. PB666 {{sup|yap}} 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the Y-chromosomal Adam pages, there are similar problems. This one should be easier for me since I have a more distal perspective.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think these replies show the problem well, and my reason for posting here. In other words:
 * On current trends more articles and their talk pages are headed towards the condition of Mitochondrial Eve, which is not good. Only a few Wikipedians so far have come into close contact with Pdeitiker and all apparently come to the same conclusions. But for the time being he feels quite justified in continuing as he has been doing. He has come to describe himself increasingly aggressively as representing the true aims of Wikipedia, improving the style and wording of these articles, and accusing others of using too much jargon and poor style. He also accuses others of unacceptable behavior on talkpages, in long postings that fill those talkpages. He reacts to words like "this is wrong" with accusations of personal attack and WP:OWN. But admins should look at what he has achieved at Mitochondrial Eve, and its talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pdeitiker's verbosity and confused style, as in above response, might put people off, but is essentially his own personal talking to himself and trying to understand a subject and work out what he thinks, even when he is writing directly into the text of articles (or slightly less problematic, filling articles with invisible reminder notes). It is essentially textbook WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that my accusation that OR underlies what PD666 generally describes as his "pushing the encyclopedias agenda" (see above). I will try to keep it short by saying that he admits that his opinions about what is good and bad in the literature is guiding this pushing. Remarks indicating this can be found peppered throughout all his talkpages discussions, but for example see above:
 * "I have a 25 year perspective on the failures of Molecular Anthropology, and at the top of the list of marginal science are the Y-chromosomal studies. However Y-chromosomal studies are troubled, if you catch Andrew with the right timing he will say pretty much the same thing, the molecular clock is still greatly questioned, estimates range from 25 kya to 140 kya, and even if it worked NRY sequencing is rarely done, and comparative genetics is even more rarely done. And the STR dating that is used may be off by a factor of 3 fold. OK, so I have good reason to keep Andrews comments at a distance, why waste good thinking on bad data." (PB666 on this page above)
 * So, I know it is confusing, but OR is playing a role in all this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed how often content disputes involve subjects related to human genetics? This simply can't solely be due to its young, cutting-edge nature. (And I assume the vast majority of Wikipedians know better than to argue that one ethnic group is superior to any other.) For the record, I honestly expect half of the expert conclusions presently advocated will be found to be as plausible as Aether within the next 20 years. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right Llywrch, and I have bent over backwards to present all points of view on mtEve, even adding authors work, by their own request, that I have disagreements with. Andrew calls this OR, but what it actually is presenting the breath of confidence that many studies have pointed. And you are right, there are many, many battles in the human genetics area, and Andrew has been a major participant in those battles, particularly with regard to geneologies. Also correct that Wikipedia should not be the place to treat every speculation as a theory, and every theory as worthy.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't directed at only one specific person. And remember, it takes two to have a content dispute. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As Andrew has stated we are not having a content dispute, the dispute is how best bring forward wikipedia standards. I think A key problem, which aligns with what you said, regarding the R1a page (again a page I have only trying to help promote by the WP standards) is that originally there were four sections listed as different theories. Each promoted by their own sets of authors. Some of these had data that supported their points of view and some did not. In those original version support was given as per the popularity of the author and not the quality of the work or support. This is a problem with a great many pages in the HGH project. A person finds a paper with an author that supports their point of view, they then create a section in an article glorifying that persons point of view. And the next person comes along and does the same thing. I have been trying to reduce this 'glorification of pundits POVs' in these authors as a key step in ending the edit-warring and a key step in page improvements. Many folks who create these passages have no problem with an endless dirty laundry list of quotations, even though it denigrates the pages they have edited. This is why you have editors coming around asking for help cleaning up their pages. My point is, to Andrew, I cannot engage every battle, as some point those engaged in the battle need to put WP guides first other wise the pages will not improve, and the edit-warring will get worse because everyone wants their particular 'pundit-piece' highlighted relative to everyone elses.PB666 {{sup|yap}} 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The pattern described here by Llywrch is indeed real, and I think both PB666 and I would recognize it. However, I would say it is more general, and concerns many technical areas which arouse interest amongst non-specialists (Egyptians, Climate change etc). The problem happens at the interface so to speak. But, I think a very central part of it is that admins are scared off and do not have the time to investigate what are essentially the same types of editing problems that are found all over wikipedia. Actions named above in this case are simple violations of wiki policy of varying levels of importance, but amounting to a strong pattern (deleting or misleadingly refactoring talkpage entries of others, nominating an article in a dispute for GA review and announcing it as a way to make a point, studiously interpreting all disagreement as a personal attack, refusing to sign talkpage postings, demanding that other editors accept OR, stalking an editor and assigning him jobs with threats if he does not obey, etc). Let's be honest. These would be more swiftly dealt with one way or another if edit warriors in this field were not so good at writing scary walls of words. Just my two cents anyway. I guess it takes two sides for poorly functioning dispute resolutions also? Concerning your speculations about the future, yes, many of the positions pushed by edit warriors in this field will be like aether one day. That's why it would be preferable to identify them better. I do understand this is normally quite difficult. This case is different. Pdeitiker is not a myth pusher, and hopefully he won't accuse me of being one. He is useful editor. He makes nice graphics and tables. He is good when a really bad article needs pulling apart. He is probably just someone who needs admins to explain the rules. Right now he has lots of experience editing obscure articles without contention and he feels that he can now start a program of changing all kinds of articles. This should be a simpler case than most which come up concerning genetics articles. Someone explain the rules at the very least? Let me explain it another way. Here is the article I have been working on, which PB666 has said is so "disturbingly" un-encyclopedic that I should be banned, and here is an article he got to have his run at: Mitochondrial Eve. I think some perspective would do a great deal. A quick peek at the facts and a few words might be enough. Stranger things have happened.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wall of words, like the above? WP:TLDR. Show me where I said you should be banned. What I did was compare your actions to two individuals that were banned, and indicated that you were acting like them. Aside from that you have made 2 major reversions, first on the R1a1a page and then on my correction of your bullet list that were not reflective of Wikipedias process of concensus building. First R1a1a blanking should have been preceded by a Merger request, particularly since the person who was working on the page and the person who created and filled the page were different editors. The second reversion you made went against the Wikipedia guideline "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.", I asked you to at least correct the part that was reverted and you began arguing about how your ideas about the article were more important that WP:Guidelines. As I was trying to get you to comply you began accusing me of making false accusations and then making false accusations. It is as simple as that. I should note that I did not revert your edits, instead I worked with what you wrote working with the WP guidelines for editors. PB666 {{sup|yap}} 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Insulting behavior of Andrew_Lancaster continues
See Again, I am trying to help the improvement of the article, many critiques are being retorted with a bad faith criticism. Andrew has now ventured out and begun trying to create edit wars regarding other pages, and even criticize me for leaving a broad range of critiques on the articles GA1 review page, which I proposed. I do not think that Andrew_Lancaster is working to back off his insulting behaviors. He has even accused me of attempting to 'game' the GA process. I assure everyone here that I am reviewing the article in good faith, inserting critiques that I think are weaknesses, and I am not trying to undermine the article or Wikipedia. And would like everyone to note that I engaged the GA process to draft comments and critiques into an area where this type of edit warring greatly preceded me. I feel as if I am being attacked for trying to make these pages more encyclopedic, attacks which suggest that some individuals would prefer to block making these pages more encyclopedic.PB666 yap 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the comments that I left on the R1a's talk page:Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)/Comments. Am I trying to game the GA process? Or find ways to improve the page?PB666 yap 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Off2riorob after multiple extensions of good faith

 * Off2riorob has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing. His most recent block was of a duration of 3 weeks. He has made promises to stop, and was warned that he would face an extended block if he edit-warred again after violating this promise.


 * He was twice given extensions of good faith, after he promised not to engage in disruptive editing again - and he has reneged on those comments.


 * Off2riorob is again engaging in disruptive editing 21:37, 23 November 2009, and 22:09, 23 November 2009.

I think that enough extensions of good faith have been given at this point in time. Some other form of action is appropriate instead. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are the diffs of disruptive behavior? I looked at the two diffs provided above and I support the removal of that content 100% based on well establisehd policy. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced, just as off2rio stated. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob
 * 1) 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive.
 * 2) 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block".

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:
 * Prior disruption and blocks
 * 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
 * 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive.
 * 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
 * 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
 * 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
 * 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
 * 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.


 * Comments by admin Chillum
 * 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin : "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob:.


 * 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.


 * 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.


 * Comments by admin Moreschi
 * 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

As this user has engaged in disruption at an article I worked on improving quality to WP:GA, I would appreciate other administrators taking a look into this matter. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I see that Off2riorob was also given a notice re edit-warring on yet another article . Cirt (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment re Off2riorb's "good faith" (by nonadmin who has been recently sanctioned at ANI) - While it is clear Off2riorb's passionate involvement may get the better of them, I do not think "good faith" should ever be doubted. That is certainly not an excuse for not following through on promises, but I have never seen any action (however wrongheaded, though I am apparently 'one to talk' on that score) that did not clearly seem motivated by an attempt to conform what was happening to the ideals of Wikipedia: i.e. Good hearted, sometimes wrongheaded, loves Wikipedia. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is his actions after being given extensions of good faith in instances where he could have rightly received more strenuous blocks instead, not his motivations for those inappropriate actions. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Popping in for clarification: back in April when I made the request that Rob's block be shortened, trust in his promise to avoid edit warring in future was the act of good faith. Rob's subsequent good faith (or lack of it) isn't at issue here, only whether he resumed edit warring.  Durova 369 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with Off2riorob's conduct in the past and conduct at other articles I can attest to his behavior and edit waring over at Karl Rove. He has been making a ton of very illogical changes and inputting his POV into the article. He has been actively hostile and unwilling to determine the consensus of other users. I think this quote of his below sums it up the best:
 * Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here..

I'm not making that quote up. He did actually say this in his edit summary after I reverted an edit of his that blanked a section of the page. To understand whats currently going on at Karl Rove you have to know that another disruptive user Malke 2010 who had been blocked previously for edit waring at Karl Rove had recently said the following on the talk page after a discussion was in progress on a recent series of edits by the two:
 * Yes, Off2riorob, you can go to the noticeboards, but the admins know all about Jusdafax, et al. Off2riorob, please take my advice. These old boys are arguing with you so that you waste your time defending your position instead of editing the page! It's a distraction game. If they make you look at the noticeboards, then you aren't editing the Rove page. Editors do not need to get permission from Jusdafax/Chhe/Soxwon/editor du jour to make changes to the page. Wikipedia is for everyone. We don't genuflect to anybody here. If you have something you want changed, Off2riorob, then go ahead and change it. You are wasting your precious time trying to obtain consensus from people who are determined never to give it to you. It's a game they play. Go round in circles until the new editor gives up and leaves. Well, I for one am not going anywhere and I hope you won't go anywhere either. If they revert your entries, report them for edit warring. Just don't take the bait. Make a statement on the talk page about what you plan to change, and then change it. Wikipedia is fun, it's for everyone. Edit away!

They didn't like how the discussion was heading so Malke 2010 put Off2riorob up to making the changes again anyway...which curiously enough he did. I reverted it. He then blanked the section again. And then Soxwon reverted it. The truth is that Malke 2010 has been just as disruptive as Off2riorob. These two disruptive users have somehow managed to find each other and are know colluding to input their opinions into more specifically politically related articles and removing factual information that they deem unflattering. I think both of them should be blocked, but you'll have to read the archives in the talk page to form your own opinion since this business has been going on for a long time.Chhe (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think s/he is a good faith editor, but the emotional involvement is a real issue. S/he just issued a general accusation on the talk page of British National Party that s/he would not be forced off the page by "IRA editors".  So far despite requests no withdrawal or apology but that might just be time difference.  The edit history on that page is very similar to that reported above.   Someone needs to mentor this editor, or at least give them some advise.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the recent edits, I agree with Snowed. The intention may be good, but if it leads to this kind of behaviour it becomes disruptive no matter how good the intentions are. Calling other users "IRA editors" (WP:NPA, refusing to remove it when called upon, and blanking long sections under discussion with the motivation "Give over, I don't need any consensus to remove this content, it is cited to primary sources and is clearly being given undue weight here" (WP:OWN) are all troubling tendencies. The user has repeatedly evaded long blocks or even indefinite blocks by promising not to repeat this kind of behaviour, yet we see the same thing repeated over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me chime in and also urge a substantial, no-nonsense block for the disruptive Off2riorob. I will add to the evidence his uncivil comment yesterday on the Rove talk page, made to me: ...If you dispute my comments here I will move my issues to the relative noticeboards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This statement demonstrates palpable contempt for the core structure of Wikipedia, in my view, in that it openly proclaims cooperation with others is not his concern, and that should I disagree on the talk page I will be taken to "the relative noticeboards", a comment clearly designed to intimidate and chill disagreement.  Since Off2riorob has a long pattern of this type of behavior, with lengthy blocks and various broken promises to behave, I submit that this disruptive editor is overdue for, as mentioned in the comment(s) above, a long or indefinite block. <font color="0000FF">Jus  da <font color="#C1118C">fax  02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My interaction with the editor was feeling that (s)he was attempting to WP:OWN the Alan Grayson article. 1 2.Scientus (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, that's the term I was looking for with the Karl Rove article. Thanks. <font color="0000FF">Jus da <font color="#C1118C">fax  03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite extensive warning and civil requests this editor continues to make very uncivil accusations and act in a very poor way. Calling others "IRA editors" and continually attacking others rather than addressing the genuine concerns of other edits needs to stop. This editor seems to feel they are here to fix the deficiencies of other editors. If this disruption continues a block may be the only remedy and it seems from the above that this has been long term problem. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  06:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the diffs in question and I support the content's removal 100%. It is clearly undue weight and primary sourced just as off2rio suggested. As far as the content dispute those involved still need to use dispute resolution, but why are paragraphs and paragraphs of Bill Moyers opinions sourced to Bill Moyers appropriate for Karl Rove's article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. We are talking about a long-term pattern of disruptive edits, and not just at the Karl Rove page but several others mentioned above. Please look at the bigger picture here. <font color="0000FF">Jus da <font color="#C1118C">fax  06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI isn't for "long term patterns" of anything. There was no edit warring on Off2rio's part. And not only is he in compliance with all our policies, but his edit is absolutely correct. I'm happy to post the mass of undue weighted he said she said, he said, she said, he said, she said, that was removed, because I don't think any reasonable editor could argue that such a mass of tabloid commentary belongs in an encyclopedia article. I think what's clear from this discussion is that Off2Rio needs to be on his best behavior and on his toes, because right or wrong people are going to come after him trying to get him blocked. This certainly isn't the first time we've seen ANI boards used to smear and go after editors whose viewpoints aren't "appreciated". His removal was proper, and it's unfortunate that it was reverted, but he hasn't made content changes since. The discussion on the talk page is ongoing (and clearly supports the content's being gutted down to a sentence or two). I don't see the problem. Couldn't the discussion have continued with the mass of undueweighted content removed or posted to the talk page for discussion? I see people remove content all the time, and it seems it's only when an editor's view aren't popular that we see them dragged to ANI for this kind of witch hunt. I suggest slapping a trout on the editor who initiated this thread and all those dredging up past mistakes trying to impugn an editor for making perfectly reasonable changes to article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record CoM, I think you are right about the content issue on the Rove reported here, although being right on a content issue does not remove to discuss matters on the talk page. I am concerned about actions on another article and the IRA accusation which is unacceptable.  Ideally this editor needs some advise and help to become productive.  Endorsing edit waring and deeply negative comments will not help them.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually aware that Off2rio is not a perfect editor, few of us are, but there are two diffs put forth at the top of this thread and they look entirely appropriate and certainly don't amount to edit warring. This is a content dispute. The polciies and guidelines, as well as the discussion on the talk page clearly supports Off2rio's position, so perhaps he should be encouraged to be more patient. But the problematic editing in this case seems to be from those creating and formenting an ANI report that's being used to dredge up a bunch of old issues. There just isn't edit warring that I can see in this case, and if there was the 3rr board would have been the appropriate venue. I also find Cirt's canvassing of every editor that's ever had a disagreement with Off2rio very problematic (most of them don't appear to have any involvment in this issue whatsoever). This thread should be closed post haste before things turn any uglier, and Cirt and the others pursuing off2rio should be cautioned to behave in a collegial and collaborative manner in the future and to refrain from the pursuit of confrontations with those with whom we disagree. We need to be civil to one another, and this is no way to resolve a dispute or differences of opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My only real dealing with this editor is the issue outlined above. The main thing the struck me was that he responded to the block politely and with reason. While this editor does have a spotted history of disruptive editing, attempts to reason with this user can be productive(at least for a little while). <font color='#686813'>Chillum 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, has a pattern of disruptive editing, saying he will stop, being extended good faith for these types of statements, and then violating his pronouncements about said behavior. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, please provide diffs of the problematic editing. I see two edits, a removal of content and a single reversion back to that version. The edits are explained in the edit summaries and supported by policy. When I looked at your edit history, I found canvassing of numerous editors who've had disagreements with Off2rio in the past, but who don't appear to have any involvement in this dispute. I reiterate my suggestion that you abide by the spirit of our civility policy and show more consideration and collegiality to your fellow editors in future. This report does not put you in a good light. If you want to suggest better editing approaches to Off2rio, please do so in cordial and considerate fashion rather than seeking out confrontation and trying to dredge up old conflicts. The title of this thread is also highly confrontational and provactive. A more appropriate title might have been "Are these edit summaries appropriate?", but you probably should have tried to communicate your concerns directly with your fellow editor first. Take care. Happy Thanksgiving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight, I apologize if my edits are seen by you as canvassing, my intention was to notify editors that had previously warned or blocked the user in question. When the recent reverts and disruptive editing by Off2riorob are taken into account with his own self-professed statements in the past about doing this again in the future, we see the problem. Please also see this comment by . Cirt (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to go out, I see very little of substance for me to reply to here and ChildofMidnight has defended my case pretty damn well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a good faith user who's a little overenthusiastic and a bit too sure of their own judgment. I agree that some of the diffs provided show editing in compliance with policy.  I think what's needed is a little more willingness to listen to others and accept consensus. Perhaps Off2riorob would agree to seek a mentor?—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentoring option has already been tried. Please see . Cirt (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When I was asked to look into the above issue as an uninvolved admin I did see disruptive editing that warranted a block. Reading this section I think that uninvolved admins, including myself, feel that no action is needed at this particular time. <font color='#B74516'>Chillum  20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At least in the case of the Alan Grayson article, I can vouch for Rob's equanimity. Scientus, who has here slandered Rob, has engaged in a disruptive edit war in the Grayson article, blatantly pushing his own POV while accusing anyone who disagrees with him to be 'pov pushers'. Trilemma (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Cirt, but I don't think your two examples (21:37, 23 November 2009, 22:09, 23 November 2009) provide any evidence of disruptive editing. Any link that contains the substring "blog" is deeply suspect here, for good reason. - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After further study today, I am strongly moved to add that Off2riorob's extensive work on Bob Marley is quite praiseworthy, and his push to make the article a GA gives me pause. Indeed, were it not for his lamentable tone and approach in many articles on political figures, his major Wikipedia interest, I'd get on with him just fine. However, Cirt's bringing this here reveals a pattern far beyond the Rove editing, and that pattern continues to the present.  As noted above, my experience with Off2riorob on Rove was not pleasant, as his phrasing comes off to me as arrogant and pushy less-than-cordial (he often defines edits as "worthless"), and is documented on my talk page as well as the Rove talk page.  My concern: This could well intimidate editors who might be on the shy side.  Since others here have noted problems with Off2riorob, I used Soxred's tool  to look at his namespace edits.  How about 236 edits to Gordon Brown with comments in the talk page like "I am bored with this foolishness" (just one of many examples there) - Peter Mandelson "Give over, this is an encyclopedia not a comic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" and his comments at Harriet Harman, Tim Guest, Tony Blair where he got a two week block, and the British National Party approach if not match Tendentious editing.


 * I submit that were a RfC template, regarding Off2riorob's being brought to this noticeboard, to be put up on the many articles/talk pages Off2riorob participates in, there would be an additional number of editors here with stories of their unpleasant interactions with him. Cirt points out mentoring has not worked. After study, I see this is a tough case with more facets - good and bad - than I had realized.  But while some of his article work ameliorates my hard-line taken above, I continue to regard this as a matter that requires administrator action. <font color="0000FF">Jus  da <font color="#C1118C">fax  19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice for Wikipedia talk:About
Requesting that an editnotice phrased similarly to the existing box with warning exclamation point be added for Wikipedia talk:About due to its long history of unconstructive edits from anon IPs or very newbie editors; (mostly misdirected posting of random encyclopediform content, which by far drowns out legit posts). --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absent some strong evidence that people read and follow edit notices I'd just as soon semi-protect it. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested that once before, but it was denied. In full disclosure, About is currently semi-protected, and protecting both a page and its talk is discouraged by the page protection guidelines, but I think a case can be made for applying WP:IAR here. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure where it is stated, but there is some general suggestion not to use too many page specific edit notices. Here's what I suggest.  We semi the talk page but add a sub-page where IP's can post.  In order to do that, we can leave a link at the top of the page which opens the new page in a preloader a la WP:REFUND.  If you look at the blue link you can see it opens the new page with Requests for undeletion/Intro as a set of instructions.  So long as people watchlist the IP page, we can have some not-as-bad outcome. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution to me. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know on my talk page what you want the pseudo-edit notice to say and what you want the name of the sub-page to be called and I'll drum it up for you (or you can if you want). Protonk (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be done. Please tweak the link and explanation as needed. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Hipocrite and WP:NPA
Comment - I added the closure box at the suggestion of User:Ikip, which you can see below. Hipocrite is on Wikibreak until December 1. If you feel a need to comment further, then reopen the discussion, but say what practical step you want us to take. Comments left so far indicate that blocking him for NPA would not enjoy wide support. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following personal attacks from user:Hipocrite certainly cannot be ignored:

"I'm not saying 'can't we all just get along.' Honestly, I wish you, and a host of other people who are interested in using this project to push their views would just shove off. I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick. That might make them dicks also - but it certainly doesn't make you not a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)"

Wikipedia shouldn’t tolerate such blatant and unprovoked incivility between editors. Granted, this stemmed from a less than cordial message I left previously, but I apologized for that. WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Hipocrite was a new user, he would be blocked immediatly for such attacks, statements like this should not be tolerated being said by anyone.
 * If no one does anything, which will probably be the case, I would say start a R F C 2, Requests for comment/Hipocrite was in 2006. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say you are mighty thin-skinned for what you dish out. Hipocrite called nobody a dick, he gave out good advice - "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", or, in this case, bad behavior by others is no justification for joining in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "for what I dish out" and what exactly do I dish out? I may be less that cordial and jolly with editors with a long proven track record for edit warring and incivility, but I think had I stooped to this level I would have been banned permanently. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming from a random editor, I'd say that you were asking for it. You can't report someone for voicing their opinion back, especially an opinion that's barely harsh at all.  He didn't attack you personally, and there are far worse things to report people for. Gpia7r (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you really claiming that this was not a personal attack on me and if it was that I was aking for it? WVBluefield (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Hipocrite of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I probably shouldn't have called him a dick so bluntly, but, let's be honest, he was being a dick. He should probably stop being a dick. I should also probably stop being a dick. In fact, a general reduction of dickish behavior would likley be a good thing. I suggest that people start with themselves, as opposed to someone else. Thanks for the feedback, I guess. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - I don't know why this was being brought here, as I decided I wanted nothing more to do with WVB after his parthian shot ("did I hit a nerve?"), thus resolving our interactions - there will be none. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who may not know it, Hipocrite is merely demonstrating the views articulated in WP:DICK. My advice to all involved is to just drop the whole thing and take the advice being discussed.  No biggie in the long run, eh?  --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think over the past couple of days it has been strongly reenforced to me that wikipedia editors can justify any behavior, no matter how many rules, no matter how bad the behavior.
 * RE: "He didn't attack you personally"
 * "I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick."
 * And then of course, Mr. Schulz, blames the person reporting this. Ikip (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this "Mr. Schulz"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To your last dying day! When you're a Jet, If the spit hits the fan, You got brothers around, You're a family man! Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite has acknowledged that the comment was inappropriate (albeit not in the most helpful manner since he reiterated the attack), so let's not escalate the feuding. We should all try to be as collegial and considerate as possible this holiday season. If someone gets out of line, just ask them to please focus on content and sourcing rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncivil behavior should not be tolerated. I'm disappointed with those who don't take wp:civil to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Child of Midnight's suggestion, I have left the mild/friendly civility and assume good faith messages accordingly. Hopefully that will be sufficient.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just noticed the edit summary of "GTFO" and again here, which is abbreviated form of "get the fuck off," to be a bit needlessly hostile of a reaction to an editor's civil attempt at discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he responds to the warnings with a disgusting assumption of bad faith as if there is some conspiracy against him. Given the other anti-ARS posts, this seems like additional mocking of that group of editors.  Use of "shit" seems a bit much.  And he is being warned for it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop with the passive aggressive warnings (which I'm sure you'll mention when this editor gets in a minor dust up with you and your pals "Hipocrite, was has been warned many times, tktktk") and the schooling behavior when one of your mates comes running to An/i. This situation was already long dead and buried, but you've elected to run around trying to stir up trouble. Prepare to be called on that when you do.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment is unhelpful. We do support not incivility on this project.  Period.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone close this with the top/bottom tags? Bigtimepeace already wisely closed this "resolved". Hipo has left on wikivacation. Nothing is going to come of this discussion. The community has been put on notice about the personal attacks. As i mentioned above, RFC is always an option if this continues. Ikip (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)
came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? Glass  Cobra  14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as . —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo."  As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami.  Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But he is a Piccolo Jr. The characters from the "Dragon Ball" series have to call him that name. He should be called Piccolo Jr. forever. Piccolo Jr. is not his full name or nickname. The only nicknames he has are Ma Junior and the Namekian. He doesn't have a last name. He never had a last name. He's just Piccolo Jr. the fifth and final nephew of Kami, the fifth and final son of King Piccolo, and the fourth and final brother of Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine. He's not King Piccolo reincarnated, because first, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. Kami is his uncle. King Piccolo is his father. And Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine are his brothers. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr. are two different characters. So please, I want his biography changed back to way it was I had written it. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you see the type of rants we've had to put up with. He/she just keeps going on and on repeating the same points over and over and over again, despite multiple editors points out that the points are completely wrong. Its as if that by restating the points, he thinks that they will somehow become the truth. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 72.22: Could you provide reliable, independent sources of information which can be verified backing your contention? If so, then discuss them on the article's talk page, reach a concensus, and then have the article changed. If not, then the information in the article should clearly stand as it is. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources. I just know the truth about Piccolo Jr. and his family. And I'm a boy by the way. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No sources, no Wikipedia. "I just know" = original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia.  For example, I just know that my wife is the sexiest woman on the planet - still, no entry on Wikipedia for her.  I just know that the kid who works at my local variety store is stealing beef jerky, but no article about it.  I just know that Dirt 2 is the most awesome game like, anywhere, but it's not anywhere in the article. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want him to called Piccolo Jr. forever and have those stuff about him and his family be true. It's not that hard. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been goin' on for almost, if not more than a week. Those of us who were on the article page have been trying to explain it to him. But I guess in his deluded world, his word is more important than the original author. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I'm just throwing it out there but he also vandilised the page. However, he reverted his own edits. but reverted his own edits. Click here for the history. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a Piccolo Jr. That's his correct name. Stop calling him that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a deluded world. I don't hate Akira Toriyama. I like him. I'm not saying his series "Dragon Ball" sucks. I still like the series and that's it. Me editing articles is not vandilising it, just fixing it up. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding false information is vandilism. If you like and respect Akira Toriyama, then you would respect his story. Facial structure and voice actors have nothing to do with it. If you continue to act this way, you will be block. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But he's a Piccolo Jr. for crying out loud. He's not a reincarnation. I didn't add false information. Eh, Eh. Weighted Namekian shoes he wears. Not brown light-weight footwear or shoes. Weighted Namekian shoes. They're weighted. Weighted Namekian shoes that he never wants to take off. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where are you gettin' this information? Do you have proof? I highly doubt it. Which Dragon Ball series are you watching? Because you're obviously not watching the same one I've been. Piccolo's King Piccolo's reincarnation. He doesn't have weighted shoes. The only thing weighted are his cape and turban, as shown in episode 3 of DBZ. You have no proof. All you're doing is spouting out nonsense, and I'm seriously annoyed of it. We've been trying to explain to you all of this for over a week. And we've made no progress. You keep making these statements as if you've never seen the series, but you claim you have. I honestly don't believe you. I just think you're nothing but a fanboy who believes their fanfic ideas are canon. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not King Piccolo reincarnated. First, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's fucking stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that forever. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. King Piccolo even says this line before he dies. "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." Stop calling him that fucking fake and stop saying weighted shoes. They're called weighted Namekian shoes. His weighted Namekian shoes are weighted. He just never wants to take them off forever. He’s keeping it a secret that they’re not weighted and never wants to take them off during a fight and have his bare feet shown, because it would embarrass him if he took them off. His name's FUCKING PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? Any sort of proof? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

King Piccolo says the "Good luck my son. Get revenge on my demise. Destroy all of my enemies." line in the FUNimation Dub of "Dragon Ball" and I just know that the others are true. Can you leave me alone on this now, please? --71.239.23.70 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation's dub isn't accurately translated half the time. No, I will not leave this alone. You have no way to prove any of this. You know why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE! You can't just say something and have nothing to back it up. In the Japanese dub, Piccolo refers to himself plenty of times as King Piccolo early on. When he was born, he retained all his memories as King Piccolo, though he still refered to him as a different person. Akira Toriyama's artwork has improved during the course of his manga, which is why they don't look like eachother, not to mention the fact that he wanted his audience to know the difference. Also, Piccolo doesn't age due to King Piccolo wishing for eternal youth. And though they're voiced by two different people in the Japanese version, in the FUNimation dub, he's only voiced by one. Though FUNimations dub is entertaining, it's not 100% credible considering it's translation is not 100% like some of their other shows. You've failed at proving your ridiculous accusations and lost. This discussion ends here. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, besides the fact that you have no reliable source, I'll take a different tack: My name is Brad. My dad's name is Brad.  My grampy's name is Brad.  Does that make me "Brad Jr"?  Nope.  What name does the character go by??  Piccolo or Piccolo Jr?  What does he call himself?  What do others call him?  Who the hell cares about his paternity, really.  Millions of people in the world today are effectively something "Jr" ... but that's not our name! (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

STOP CALLING HIM THAT FUCKING FAKE NAME! IT'S PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! PICCOLO JR.! --71.239.23.70 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's enough of that, thanks. Half  Shadow  21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you guys are simply being trolled, especially after that last post. Can we please just WP:RBI?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wondered what took you guys so long. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Would anyone have an objection if I blocked the IP user for this ridiculous behavior? I think anyone who has read further than the "W" in "Wikipedia" would understand that behavior like this is totally beyond the pale, especially on a noticeboard watched by a good portion of the admin corps. Leaving this individual unblocked, while it fulfills WP:DNFT admirably, also sends the message that foot-stamping, high-pitched whining, and cursing are somehow acceptable. Well, they're not. Yeah, I know--"preventative not punitive"--but this is a recent edit which could be repeated; and also, it's preventing other users from thinking they can have this kind of tantrum with impunity. (Edited to add: Nevermind--I'm just gonna be WP:BOLD. Blocked for 31 hours. Any admin who disagrees, feel free to undo the block...)GJC 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good block. My only question is why you didn't block for a longer period of time (which I would have done after just seeing the above mess), given the user's history of immaturity, but oh well. MuZemike 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's something on the IP talk page that purports to be an unblock request. Along with not using the unblock template, which means I only saw it because the talk page was on my watchlist automatically after the block, the user claims that -I- "made" him "lose his temper"--which is kinda rich, since I arrived well after his head asploded. Oh--and he still claims that his is the "right" interpretation of the work, and thus of the character's name. There may be more letters in "tendentious" then there have so far been years in this editor's life, but it certainly an accurate descriptor of his editing style. I think we may be dealing with something on the order of Time Cube, Jr. here. (MuZeMike--the ONLY reason I didn't block for longer is that it's an IP, IP's release and renew, other users caught in block, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Believe me, this behavior deserves a WAY longer block, but policy stopped me.)GJC 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that his imformation isn't right. Plus he couldn't provide any proof, which I knew he couldn't. He wanted the article to be called Piccolo Jr. when in the series, he was never called Piccolo Jr. The only reference to that is in FUNimations release, when the Saga was called the "Piccolo Jr. Saga". In the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball, for some reason, they refer to him as Junior (in the Japanese version, he was refered to as Ma Junior because that was the name he entered as in the tournament. Ironically, he was called Ma Junior in the 'Majin Buu Saga' in the FUNimation dub of Dragon Ball Z, which was dubbed before the 'Piccolo Jr. Saga'). In the end, in personal oppinion, he was nothing more than a troll and a vandal. --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no need to convince us, or offer proof for exactly HOW wrong he is; forgive me for the inevitable twinge of rudeness in what I am about to say, but we honestly don't care if he's right or wrong. We care very much indeed, however, about whether he can provide "proof" (aka verifiable sources, written by independent media in an editorially-monitored publication. He could call the character "Dale Earnhardt Jr.", for all of me, just as long as he can present a citation for that info from an independently published, editorially-monitored source by an author knowlegeable in his or her field. Anime dubs are not reliable sources; fan-written blogs or forum posts are not reliable sources; most especially, an editor's rock-solid, bone-deep conviction that They Know What Is Correct Information And Everyone Who Says Different Is Totally Wrong, is not a reliable source. That last, in fact, is pretty much the dictionary definition of original research, and we put about as much value on original research as a fruit-fly puts on a cheesesteak. Ultimately, if reliable sources can't be found for a piece of information, then it probably doesn't belong in the article at all--in other words, unless there's a reliable source showing the existence of the character-name controversy, it shouldn't be mentioned at all, and the character should be called whatever he's commonly known as in-universe. GJC  06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. How're you doing today? I'd like to apologize to all of you, even you Ryu from Monday. I'm alright now. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, with the caveat of Don't Do That Again, Please. As I said above, it doesn't matter who is "RIGHT"; it matters who can offer independently-published sources to prove what they're saying. So eat some turkey, stay chill, find something else to think about. Or hell, spend the time obsessively searching for that gold-standard reference which irrefutably proves your point--whichever makes you happier, as long as it doesn't involve screaming obscenities in capital letters. Because if you do THAT, then that's where we're gonna use our collective Serious Voice. Deal?GJC 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Signing without a signature
Is it ok to post a comment at a talk page or at AN/I and then simply date it but not actually sign it with their name (preferably containing a link to their userpage and/or talkpage)? I've seen someone doing this and it seems counterproductive to read comments and not know who is making them but I don't want to bother them if it's acceptable. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Signature is the relevant policy. Sadly, it appears to only say that people "should" sign, but not that signatures are required. more.  Do you think they are doing it maliciously or do you think they just forgot (if they forgot, there's a uw- template for that)?   7  09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'd find a community consensus to change that to must. Its been my experience that people who don't use signatures end up being admonished for it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * People should sign their posts with username as well as date. Sometimes, however, failing to do so is just a mistake. If you accidentally sign with five tildes instead of four, the timestamp appears without the username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just tell them to sign, if a user is new it usually takes a few weeks to grab the consept of signing. Who's the user? Secret account 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a perennial problem that occasionally involves stubborn editors who refuse to abide by SIG, why not make it mandatory? Is there any good reason to not do so? Deliberate failure to do so is usually part of disruptive behavior and should not be tolerated. It should be a default requirement that a sig contain username, time, and a proper link to their user page, at the very least.

I'm also wondering if complicated sigs shouldn't be forbidden, as we could cut our server park in half/third(?) by requiring basic, simple sigs. Those servers aren't cheap! Just take a look at how many bytes are used just on complicated sigs on any talk page. They often use more bytes than the message itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm disinclined to support making it mandatory if it will only be made so in order to "deal with" otherwise disruptive users. As for your second suggestions, see WP:PEREN.  Also, in my opinion the overwhelming majority of signature disputes are tempests in a teacup.  We expend a preposterous amount of effort on enforcing SIG already.  Let's not expand that. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific instance I noticed involves an editor who appears to be well-established and problem-free. I didn't know about the five tildes thing... all his other signatures seem normal so the instance I noticed last night was probably just a typo. As a general rule, I would support mandating a signature containing, at minimum, name plus a link to user and/or user talk page. This should be SOP. Without it, it's impossible to communicate directly with someone making a comment. It's important that everyone be able to communicate with each other and know who is speaking. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hardly mandatory for discourse. For instance, I could not sign my posts here and so long as I respected threading, you or (critically) a third party could understand that there was a back and forth (that's without signbot).  I'll grant that it is pretty annoying and that editors who don't sign commonly fall into two camps: those how don't yet understand the norms and conventions and those who refuse to agree to them or are incapable of agreeing to them.  We want a mechanism for dealing with the latter camp without bothering the former too much.  In my experience we occasionally treat signature issues with problematic editors as a means to convict them of income tax evasion, rather than deal with the underlying problem. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Except no one would know who made those posts without going to the history. If several people weren't signing their posts it would be a serious pain to piece together. For civil discourse, I think its absolutely necessary. For newbies, we obviously wouldn't ban them at the first indiscretion, we would treat it like any other editing issue. Give them some good faith reminders, etc. but if they've been reminded 5 times to place a signature and still won't do it, we need to look at why, same as with the second group.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but the worry is that when wikipedians get together and determine rule ABC is mandatory, enforcement of rule ABC tends toward the draconian. More worrying is that we have a tendency to lose  perspective when dealing with mandatory.  Having a sig is important.  Having a sig that follows SIG is likewise important.  A violation of either of those guidelines merits a response but doesn't merit our standard response, which is a 20 page long AN/I thread about how valuable sigs are with about a dozen comments that everyone should go back to editing articles (and that's the best case, we can also have superfluous and drawn out SIG RfCs).  I'm merely saying that our traditional stance toward sig contributes to that hysteria. Protonk (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can rely on the specific page guidelines to override the soft "should" in the signature policy. For example, this page says "Sign your post with "~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically." at the top. I think we could safely argue that signatures are mandatory on such critical pages which already include specific instructions, without going to the lengths of enforcing it on every other page. 7 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one wondering if it would be too WP:POINTy if we all started signing our replies in this thread with five tildes ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? I know plenty of people who dismiss comments because they were made by a specific individual.  You're responding to the comment, and who made it shouldn't matter.  --Kbdank71 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The should is a problem for me, because if someone wants to be difficult about it, they're going to argue that should doesn't mean must and therefore they don't have to sign their posts which leads to a confusing discussion. the instructions say it, we have a template for it, people have been blocked for it in the past, there is no reason it shouldn't say must.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It should be mandatory. That would eliminate the need for long discussions. Just like any other policy, it will be easy to point to it and explain that that's how things are done here. If someone doesn't want to be collaborative, wants to avoid the scrutiny of others, and/or be disruptive, then they aren't needed here. It's really very simple. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. The way I see it, it's kinda like when you bring up a specific person at AN/I. You're required to notify them that they're being discussed there. That doesn't mean we block people who forget to do so or missed reading that rule, we just mention it to them and ask them to remember next time. It shouldn't be a blockable offense unless someone is doing it repeatedly to be deliberately disruptive. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right. It would be the refusal to abide by policy that becomes the most aggravating disruption. Rules are of course made to avoid various forms of disruption, some of them minor, but still to keep things running smoothly and so we can have confidence in each other, as required by AGF. If someone violates that trust right up front by refusing to act in good faith, then they reveal that they aren't suited to this environment. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of edit request,
To the template sockblock. Since only admins can edit that page, well, just please check the talk. But, in case you just want to know, continue reading: I want to remove the 'sock' categories from the template, as, more often then not, the userpage of the user is tagged with the correct sock template. Having the user talk page in the same category is redundant and makes counting the socks in the category difficult.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  09:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this as it was not replied to, and it is something that requires admin intervention. I need a reply to this thread.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  23:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you try adding an editprotected request on the talk page? Protonk (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I completely forgot about that...  Can't believe I didn't read the header.  Well, let's see what happens now.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If nobody else objects to the removal of the category addition in a few days, I'll go ahead and remove it. Just ping me, Daedalus, after a few days if nobody else objects. MuZemike 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I agree w/ your reasoning but I didn't want to break the template.  Usually the edit protected queue finds a template competent person in short order. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List of marjas
There are two users (or possibly the same one) that keep removing on person on the list although he meets the appropiate criteria to be a marja. Both have breached the three revert rule, and have no intention of even establishing a concensus, although being invited to. One is User:Linux4ns and the other is an anonymous user with the ip address (173.34.93.7). Thank you.--عيسى (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Linux4ns and the IP have been made aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Echoing GiantSnowman, I've notified Linux4ns. Basket of Puppies 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yousef Sanei is definitely a marja. But it turns out, he's a man so nice we've written about him twice. We also have the vastly inferior Grand Ayatullah Saanei article, sourced only to the ayatollah's own website. Its been marked proposed "merge" for yonks. I propose some bold admin redirect the "Ayutollah (sic) Saanei" article to Yousef Sanei and protect the redirect.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree, the article was a self-published shed. Rodhull  andemu  19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The person they seem to have the problem with is actually Reza Hosseini Nassab. Although not very well know, he does meet the criteria of publishing a resala.--عيسى (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your information Giant Linux4ns (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I did in editing those pages simply reflect my ideas. I did not vandalize in the articles. I just changed them in a way to exclude misleading information. That is my idea and I will continue to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. Sometimes I forget to login and that's why my IP might be shown, but I do not think that would be a major issue. The discussion pages are full of my opinions and reasoning; and I try to specify the reason for changing each and every article.

Thanks for discussing this. Linux4ns (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For the sake of NPOV, your ideas are not relevent. Also, you must establish a concensus before editing. Until you can provide viable evidence to show Mr Nassab is not a marja, He will continue to remain on the list.--عيسى (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Brother, we raised many serious questions in his Persian discussion page, all have not yet been answered properly. I just didn't have time to translate them for English discussion pages. I will do so in near future so that we can have you elaborate on those matters. --Linux4ns (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, take you time to translate them. However, can you please not remove Mr Nassab until we have reached a consensus. I am suspicious about his credentials also but until we have solid evidence to show he isn't, we cannot remove him.--عيسى (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * *blink* What?  That seems quite contrary to WP:BLP.  Until proven that he is, he should be removed. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not really the place. But i took at look and couldn't find a reliable source (don't speak farsi and my arabic is piss poor, so grain of salt) that identifies Nassab as a marja. So his removal seems perfectly reasonable to remove first, add back in when/if acceptable sourcing is found. That's the way we should do things.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: He self idenfities as a grand ayatollah on his website. This would mean he was a marja. Is there some doubt as to this credential? Both the users in the dispute appear to speak farsi, so what's the problem here?
 * Well basically a Grand Ayatullah is a marja-i taqlid (source of emulation). Marja-i Taqlids always publish a risala which is basically a manual with their edicts on certain topics. Mr Nassab does claim to be a marja and has published a risala. Thus he meets the specified criteria.--عيسى (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's no question as to his credentials, then of course he should be on the list. Seems little reason for doubt here -- so I'm with you. This should simply get back to that talk page now, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True! I have continued this on the talk page, please follow and fairly decide whether his name should be on he list or removed until the issues are rectified. Thanks! Linux4ns (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Nassab (according to his [scientific certificate]) Is holding the highest scientific certificate and professorship document, issued by the Management Centre of Qum Seminary. He is a Mujtahid who has Resalah in English, Aranic and Farsi. He has followers who ask him to give his Fatwa to follow him. Those Fatwas are mentioned in his page of [Esteftaat] in his website. I think that he meets the specified criteria.Eihsan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please continue on his talk page! Linux4ns (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes this should continue on the talk page. The problem was you keep removing him without establishing a concensus. I initially asked you to discuss first and reach and concensus. When you carried on removing him without one, I felt I had no choice but to raise this issue here. Hopefully this can be settled now :-)--عيسى (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion page! Linux4ns (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear friend! The other users asked you several times not to remove without reasonable and correct evidences. But you are keeping removing []. please respect the other users of Wikipedia and study the answer on the discussion page! Eihsan (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also asked you, my friend, not to insert false and disputed information until one side is justified. But you also keep ignoring the facts and reasonings and keep inserting false info everywhere! See your own history page to realize that you are no different, but keep misleading people by inserting disputed info again and again, and ignore the reasoning. Also I advise you to respect the Wikipedia users and try not to fool people by a large number of fake references instead of answering the question. Linux4ns (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the answer on the discussion page, and do not insult the other users. The users posted several Islamic, Academic and independent sources including the sources related to Wikipedia, and you call them Fake References. It is a shame. Insulting people and users of Wikipedia and websites which are related to Wikipedia is against the policy of Wikipedia. Academycanada (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Freshly blocked IP 70.121.37.111
I just blocked this IP. A very savy, and "wiki-wise" IP. I cited WP:DICK. It seemed most apt. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:PROVEIT. "Disruptive editing: trolling, insulting, racist ranting"? Diffs? I'd undo this block this minute if I were an admin. The IP correctly cited policy in their defense of the first block and was actually quite civil about it... but was completely ignored. You gave no reason for a change to infed other than you disagreed, and you backed it up with an unrelated "talk" you had with Jimbo? You blocked him over one statement he made 2 weeks ago?!?!? No. No. No. No. You don't even know it was the same user on the same IP. You can't add an indef to a block because you feel like it or are generally insulted by past actions. IP has behaved since. Your talk with Jimbo was at the same time as the post you blocked over, so why did you not do it then? Some social networking use? Yes, and it stopped. Edit warring? IP never violated 3RR except on own talk page with is considered an exemption so long as it's not copyvio or blp/harassment-reated issues. The IP even correctly pointed out a 3RR violation by User:Eeekster. You cannot block for past actions, not after 2 weeks and when there's no proof without a CU. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An un-involved admin came in and put that isp tag on the user's page and still a block was done without a CU of any kind? Doesn't this very specifically demonstrate that at this time you had zero proof that it was the same person at the keyboard behind this IP who made the 1 edit 2 weeks ago that was dug up as zombie ex post facto evidence? So one admin offers an indirect reminder that it wasn't necessarily the same person who made the racist comment 2 weeks ago, an uninvolved admin came in and said the 48hr looked heavy-handed but wasn't going to make a fuss about it, and the person with whom the "social networking communication" was done even came to the IP's talk page to their defense saying it was not harassment. Still, after all of that, just tossing an indef on top for fun? Suspicious. Your incivility parting statement of WP:DICK to define the IP was completely inappropriate, especially considering you had never spoken directly to this user before. Again, I'd revert the block in 2 seconds if I were an admin. Need more opinions. I have a likely theory about this all, but since it's all circumstantial evidence I won't discuss it right now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the block to one week and notified HamsterSandwich. It may be that it's a static IP, but we have no pattern of evidence for that yet, and as such, an indef block is the wrong way to go. GJC 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me of this discussion Datheise, this is absolutely unacceptable and the radical moves by Hamster Sandwich was completely unnecessary. I mean come on, an indefinite block on an IP? That's something I've never heard of before in all my years on here. And while yes, it's clear the IP address is very knowledgeable on Wikipedia I still think the block was unwarranted and drastic. Not to mention User:ESanchez013 had the audacity to accuse User:Tinton5 of meat puppetry and reported him to AIAV, how ridiculous is that? I even left a message on how disturbed I was. -- A3RO (mailbox)  04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also disturbed at Hamster Sandwich's incivility when he blatantly called her(the IP) a dick and in defiantly blocked the user page so that only admins can edit it. That was also a radical move. I'm with Datheisen on this, but would also suggest desysop for Hamster Sandwich considoring you had 2 highly respectful admins, Xeno and Gladys, both tell you that you were wrong and it was a bad block. Someguy1221, the original blocker, also ignored this. -- A3RO (mailbox)  04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's still sticking out at me as an extremely flagrant abuse of administrator tools to harass a specific user and would have to be up there on a list of worst things tools could do to someone. Blanking or deleting someone's content? That can all be undone. Openly calling someone... that, with no ability to fix it? What's worse? I'd have removed it immediately if I could have and it even took me a minute to figure out whey the damn edit tab wasn't available. If that were on any standard Wikipedia page in direct statement about a user and the harasser protected the page to sysop edit only, there'd be hell to pay. Hamster Sandwich has been editing the past 2 days but hasn't been responding to comments or questions.
 * I'll put up an actual ANI on the (real) ANI (non-talk) page tomorrow if the user still doesn't feel like talking it over. Fixing the side of it for the IP is good, but that only covers half the theoretical issue (at best). Side note-- if you do a full Wikipedia search for this IP you get some interesting results on some talk pages. I don't know why, but it was interesting to see. Well, I'd say 24hr more for Hamster Sandwich to comment is fair (72 hours total) before that's also noted in the case and it's submitted as a whole. Also, in case wondering, the only reason I ever caught this I think was because Huggle caught the 3RR and thus threw it to the top of the "suspicious edits" list... but on a user talk page and ...their own talk page? It took a good deal of actual research after that. Since I can't remember 100% certainly, I admit you could jab at me for selective pestering, though it'd be a waste of time to do so. My thanks to other editors for noting my comments and looking into it. Only pitfall of random unusual behavior patrolling is not being able to offer any kind of more immediate response. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch some of that', apparently "official" debate is taking place on an uninvolved admin's talk page so there is some statement from the original blocking admin.

(←) Considering that A3RO got rummed up a couple of weeks back and covered himself with something less than glory, perhaps we might take his calls for a desysopping of the Rodent Baguette with a grain or two of salt? Crafty (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope; still stand by what I say. Considering what he posted on Jimbo's talk page leads me to believe HE THINKS he is in a position of authority here.-- A3RO (mailbox)  19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved here from WT:Administrators' noticeboard. I am also marking this resolved, as productive discussions have occurred at other venues with respect to the block and length. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So we're just going to let the possible violation of admin tools as mentioned by a number of editors previously slide through the cracks and go 100% ignored? The act of the block, its rationale and length are only a part of what makes this an incident... most of the talk above is about misuse of tools and the need for further investigation. A few of the acts are of the general variety that would get a normal user in a lot of trouble, so why are we just ignoring that it all happened in this case? Calling this "resolved" when 15 minutes earlier another editor posted a concern and had been slammed by another user before that. I don't want punishment or vengeance on the other things here, but I really don't understand why we're ignoring it. My opinions are expressed above and were basically ignored. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not been ignored. It has been noticed by many other editors at this point, and will go into the file.  If the newbie admin in question begins to screw up more in this direction, then this will go towards establishing a pattern of problematic behavior.  But everyone, even admins, gets to screw up once in a while.  Lets hope it doesn't become a pattern, while I agree this was a bad block, I don't think any admin needs a instant desysop over something of this nature.  -- Jayron  32  04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) what Jayron32 said. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well. Since other admins have consensus about that I won't post separately regarding the insult to user followed by the page protection to avoid removing it. Just never again, I really hope. I removed my comment at the "resolved" mark above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please block User:75.157.25.224
Please block User:75.157.25.224. Nagara373 (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pray why? Crafty (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because he's messing around with things. However, it looks like newbie mistakes, and Niagara should talk to the user first before bringing it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with the dates
On the page for Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008, when one clicks the date to arrange the state polls chronologically they instead are thrown scatter shot. Aug '07, Dec 07 then March 08 etc. Can that malfunction be corrected? Of course they are originally in an Newest-to-oldest order, but if you want to see it the other way or click it the top, it won't go back. It worked fine the other week. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The template Date exists, but I don't know if it allows for auto-sorting, and given that date ranges are used, it won't work anyway. I don't know of any other solution off-hand. Commons has commons:Template:Date that accepts separate parameters for year month and date, so it may be portable if there is no existing solution here. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dts is the answer for sortable dates, I think. BencherliteTalk 10:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Need help blocking ducks on AIDS denialism


Chris's editing history consists solely of making fringey edits to AIDS denialism. After being warned of his impending 3RR violation, Highenergypulses was registered and made essentially the same edits. I'd have blocked them both myself, but I'm probably too involved on that page to make anything but the least controversial of blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've protected it for 3 days, you might want to raise an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel an SPI is necessary for blatant socking, which is the case here.--Atlan (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quack, quack. Sock blocked indef, sockmaster for 3 days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

History purge needed at A.F.R.I.K.A.
Can I get an admin to perform a history purge for this article? The article was created with multiple copyvios by an indef blocked user, who has since returned using sock puppets to remove the copyvio-histpurge and restore some of the removed content. Normally I'd just leave the tag in place and let someone do it in their own time, but under the circumstances I'd rather see it done sooner rather than later. PC78 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, but someone might want to check that I've deleted the revisions I ought to have deleted and not deleted revisions that I ought not to have deleted, as that copyvio-histpurge tag was a new one for me. Still learning after 2 years with the mop... BencherliteTalk 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look, all good as far as I'm concerned. MLauba (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?
Is claiming a 3rd party will take legal action against WP a legal threat? Specifically, this edit. I42 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a legal threat by the IP, unless the IP represents Kandy Rain. --Atlan (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a legal threat per above. That said, asserting that an article is defamatory, and then asserting that one of the subjects (mentioned in the article) has asserted that he/she will take legal action if a certain change is not made to the article is inflammatory and likely to be perceived as a legal threat (see WP:Harassment). If there are factual inaccuracies, those particular assertions can be disputed in good faith, and chances are changes will be made appropriately. Alternatively, whomever may contact OTRS personally. In some cases, considering legal issues is appropriate in a proper legal discussion that is strictly academic - this is not one of them. The method employed here of asserting others (or not others) legal threats in order to impose changes is not appropriate. The pattern of conduct here has escalated to the point that it is disruptive enough to the point that I'd probably endorse a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've warned rather than blocked (on both their talk page and the article talk page), though I agree they are being disruptive and have no argument if someone else wants to take further action. EyeSerene talk 13:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki stalking & harassment

 * Wiki stalking. Datheisen try to stalking my edits. and keep revert it without any justificated reason. I don't think archived talk page is bad thing.
 * My edits -> reverted by disruptive vandaism editor Datheisen -> It reverted again by other user
 * Archieved talk page -> reverted by disruptive vandaism editor Datheisen Can you give warning to him? This user CERTAINLY stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? I need some advice. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that all of the above is factually incorrect, I'm writing up my own summary as we speak. Just give me a bit, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrongly accused me as a vandal. personal attack and threaten. write personal attack message to me. I NEVER personal attack to him. But, He accuse me this message is personal attack to him. And he said, "Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers~ " he keep wronlgy accuse me as a vandalism. and disruption and harassment to my edits. stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or vandalize my talk page is User:Datheisen. Please reconsider this user. and please warn him.--660gd4qo (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This user try to wrongly accusing me as vandal, stalking, personal Attack to me.
 * Datheisen : This is the only warning you will receive'. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit
 * >> Wrongly accuse me, and he said "i did a personal attack to him" Check link. I said to him "Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting." Was it Really personal Attack to him?


 * Datheisen : "Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers~"
 * >> Bullying


 * Datheisen : comedic rubbish
 * >> He delete my warning message and said "comedic rubbish".


 * Datheisen : I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head.
 * >> Bullying
 * --660gd4qo (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have to spend my evening writing on instead of actual Wikipedia things? Sigh. This is my first and only statement on the matter unless clarification is requested by an admin on my talk page. Accusing editor isn't worth more of my time-- I said that a week ago after and can't believe they felt a need to go through this. Again. Can I just be left alone? Good grief. Nothing has ever been personal, and it's not about the content of anything. To me this is 100% about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or responding to vandalism on my talk page.I don't at all care about the articles on things that don't interest, or the involved editors, etc.. I've never once spoken with any of the other editors, not do I have any direct content contributions. I came in to watch as part of a 3O request for the POV dispute, originally, and this has been the result. Any editor is free to look at my edit history as proof of my trackrecord and that I don't have anything to hide on this. I know I haven't grossly violated policy in any way.

Part 1: "Archive" dispute-- For one, user had just solicited an admin for assistance instead of coming here as I have repeatedly suggested every time they have a substantial problem with my edits. Since the user comes to the talk page of every admin ever discussing his/her actions, at least it'll hopefully actually stop with the suggestion to com here. The user gives a very unusual definition of "stalking" along with ignoring the actual occurrence. This last spat a bit ago started here with essentially the blanking of an article talk page with no edit summary. I reverted it, as it's obviously not appropriate. It was re-blanked under the logic: ''rv vandalism. no dispute still going on.'' ...Which is 1) not a reason to remove content from an article talk page. Ever, and 2) still just really not appropriate. Third switches, edit summary to me ''rv vandalism. this is not blanking. this is archiving. currently, this section dispute is end.'' There were no links to the archive anywhere on the page, so I'm not sure how I was supposed to know this was an archiving action. ...And still, usually not good practice to remove the most recent discussions. I have no idea how stalking can be observations from a bold, red, large number appearing on my watchlist with no edit summary of archiving.

Part 2: Regarding diffs. Situation was, again, large red number on my watchlist. I admit to previous issues with this page, but I am not a contributor to it. I reverted a set of 3 edits that seemed no different to me than a previous pattern of edits from this same user that resulted in an admin censure and a 1-day block last week. About my sole revert here I will entirely admit missing that the reverted version had a blog in it. I freely admitted this on my talk page and welcomed that it be changed back without further complaint.

Part 3: The past with that article and this user. I will admit to being involved in a one-off revert war about a week ago in trying to pause a POV dispute. This user was eventually given a block for incivility and RR violation in this incident. I reported the 3RR violation here at the time. User seemed to not understand the meaning of "3RR" and my posting and later follow-up edits were changed and chopped to bits by the user, making most of my statements impossible to read. Still, for going to 5RR user received a 1-day block and I assume that would be the end of it

Part 4: Extreme talk page harassment. See this edit all the way through this. Somehow I'm accused of edit warring for reverting 1 single edit, openly admitting I made a mistake when choosing the revert, and then leaving the article alone. My "personal threats" are my asking the user to stop disrupting my talk page and suggested they report civility matters. The irony of being called uncivil when the accuser is the only blanketing my talk page continuously? Priceless. The so-called personal attacks and threats were all requests by me to please leave my talk page, or at least make a cohesive complaint instead of spamming the page to death. Seriously. I just want to be left alone. I have no idea why the user is so easily upset. Compare their actions to mine, in that I don't spend hours throwing spam around complaining about their edits

Part 5: Response to accusations:
 * Regarding my edit here: Wrongly accuse me, and he said "i did a personal attack to him" Check link[111]. I said to him "Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting." Was it Really personal Attack to him?
 * This was a Huggle template posting. It's pre-set. The edit even clearly says it's from Huggle (HG). Why a level 4 warning? Since this is following heavy vandalism a week earlier, I had every intention on reporting it if further edits were made, and I openly stated a week ago that any further harassment and I wouldn't put up with it.

How is that bullying? This is my talk page being abused and attacks directed at me.
 * Calling this bullying: Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment.
 * He delete my warning message and said "comedic rubbish". Yup. I did. For one, I'm allowed to remove it since it's my talk page. Never mind that the user instantly clears any warnings from their own talk page. To me it was "comedic rubbish", for reasons that should be clear given my explanation of this all. General note though-- if you look through my edit summaries I usually try to say something humorous so I can relax a bit. I also considered the warning rubbish since I hadn't committed the infraction mentioned. Last week I gave the user a break and walked away. Actually, I literally said I was walking away since it wasn't worth my time. This was on a pretty low-end AGF that someone wouldn't come and harass me to such a degree another time. I was wrong.
 * To my saying I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head: This was to another user in a different talk section. It's also 100% true. We were having a discussion about puppets and tagteaming against another user and it was interrupted by a gigantic time sink... I consider trying to stop harassment on my talk page a waste of time. If that's a fringe view of the policy... well I don't know what to say. Also, the irony of claiming this was me bullying the user when it was my talk page spammed... also priceless.

Was everything I said in the best possible interests? No. 100% civility is almost impossible in these instances. I'd say I'll agree to stay away from any pages this editor changes, but how can I just ignore massive blankingss and content removal when they pop up on my watchlist or the top end of "most suspicious" on Huggle? I cannot in good conciencie just ignore violations like that. They can always be reverted which is the "normal" solution, but this is what happens. Why should I be punished in any way for being bullied on my own talk page? Good lord. What a waste of my evening. Can I request a block from my userspace? I don't need this when there are 50+ CSD tag reviews I want to check and a heavy day for XfDs that I'd rather dig into. Be prepared for a ton of responding edits from the user that will only attack what I did and make no attempt to explain what they might have done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, You NEVER discuss/dispute at article talk page. Even not talking before reverting. You never join in discussion at article. It was not your business. You just keep reverting my edits without any consensus. btw, he keep wrongly accuse me, and saying My archievements was "blanking". I archived it at here, and linking it at here.
 * And, If you check old archieve, Datheisen NEVER discuss/dispute at talk page. He just keep reverting without consensus.
 * His patern is simple


 * 1) Stalking me
 * 2) Reverting my edits
 * 3) Wrongly accuse me as "vanadalism", "blanking"
 * 4) Bullying - certainly not good faith editor


 * Can you give warning to him? This user try to stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? disruption and harassment to my edits. stalk and revert my other edits in uninvolved places or vandalize my talk page is User:Datheisen. --660gd4qo (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why it's blanking-- You need to link the archive on the talk page if you archive something. Otherwise it's the same as is deleting it since no one know where to find it. Why it's not stalking-- why wouldn't I "disrupt" all your edits? You just don't get it. It's not about the content or the articles or you. It's about policy. Rather, how you seem to misinterpret it all and/or ignore it often. I'd contest even a level3+ warning since I know I've done nothing above a warning. You need to stop complaining about what I did and instead explain what you did. Also suggest you read the definitions of "stalking" and "bullying" as admins suggested you do last time. You may want to look over more policy definitions and decide if if removing this notice would be better. Given the amount of time already wasted on this by us both and time that admins will have to completely waste. Defend what you did, not constantly attack the other. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You keep nonsense. Already linked the archive on the talk page. See btw, all of your comments are nonsense.WP:uncivil,WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive --660gd4qo (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although this is already marked as "resolved", it keeps being discussed. So, hopefully this clears it up:
 * The talkpage appears to have been appropriately archived, although I question why all of it was archived - some discussions are current.
 * This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit is a template message. It's neither "bullying" nor a "threat" per se.
 * Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting. was not a personal attack
 * Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers not bullying - it's someone following process.
 * comedic rubbish Not great communication style, but he's allowed to remove things from his talkpage in whatever manner he likes
 * I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head. What's wrong with this? not bullying or even uncivil.
 * I would remind both users of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If someone undoes your edit, you do not simply redo it without discussion.
 * From what I see, a lot of this is based on a little bit of overly-aggressive archiving, and with a little WP:AGF, is that really worth a fight?? (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my 2 cents, from what I have read and seen thus far... seriously, 66 needs to disengage/detach himself/herself from the situation now, he/she is taking it too personally and this is already affecting his/her own judgment to properly assess the situation. Other than that, no harm done. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
User:Buck9997 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Buck9998 and User:Buck9999. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indee, this looks like a bad trend. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also User:Buck9996. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. The Buck9997 account hasn't edited in a couple months.  Buck9996 has only edited user: and user talk: pages.  Hardly seems worth it.  Or is this ?   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After 9999 and 9998 was blocked indefinitely, the user created 9997 and 9996. Joe Chill (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened
Votes_for_deletion/HYP_(universities). I have no clue why this was done -- the original discussion seems never to have been closed, but the issues seem to have been settled by a consensus-accepted redirect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's User:Pickbothmanlol. He did a non-admin reopen of a very old VFD for no explainable reason.  He was recently unblocked by another admin as a sign of good faith; he has a long history of disruption and socking, but had pledged to behave.  I have no idea why Pickbothman he chose to do this, but it may be a good idea to ask him to come account for his actions.  -- Jayron  32  04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a record of making dodgy nominations for deletion. I don't think he's acting in bad faith, I think he just has no idea what he's doing. Offers of assistance have gone unheeded. Crafty (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This user will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Since being unblocked just a couple of days ago, he's gone on a nomination spree at AfD (and nominated a couple of pages at MfD as well). Pickbothmanlol, as Crafty wrote above, doesn't seem to know what he's doing in a lot of cases. Many of the AfDs he's started are actually candidates for speedy deletion, and others are articles that should be – and are – speedily kept. Yesterday, he nominated a userspace draft by a new user for deletion at MfD; the MfD was soon closed as "keep" due to the invalid, bitey nomination. At AfD, he has (at least twice) nominated articles for deletion on the grounds that they were previously speedily deleted and then re-created. That is not, of course, a good reason for deletion at AfD in most every case. In one of these AfDs, the speedily deleted version of the article had been blanked by its creator and deleted per CSD G7; it's plain that a re-creation of said article would be perfectly valid. In another AfD, he asserted that the article was a re-creation of a speedily deleted article; in fact, it had been deleted after an expired PROD, and the new version was speedily kept. Pickbothmanlol needs to slow down and read up on deletion policy before nominating pages for deletion at this rapid pace.
 * Other bizarre behavior: Pickbothmanlol nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to decline to support that same candidate in the discussion section just minutes later. The RfA was closed per WP:NOTNOW. Pickbothmanlol has also made several requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU in the last couple of days without naming a reason for wanting his username changed. He sought usurpation of several accounts which had edited Wikipedia, and requested a change to a potentially offensive username, before settling on seeking usurpation of User:Blush, who has no edits. I would say the RfA was disruptive; the activity at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU hasn't been disruptive, but it's been bizarre (and it's kept clerks busy!). I would say this re-opening of a five-year-old deletion discussion is both bizarre and disruptive.
 * Bottom line: I think admins should take a close look at this user's behavior, because it's not likely to change on its own. 71.255.89.120 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wasn't logged in... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pure lulz account to me. 50% of all (non-deleted) edits in project space, 11% in article space, 0% in article talk space. Article space edits mostly vandalism reverts, AfD notices, creation of Total Drama Wiki – read it before the AfD finishes.

Some example diffs from before he was first indef blocked: user page, first WQA report 1 hour after account creation

Exploits since he got a second chance include Adding satirical "VfD" template on a prodded article, resulting in an AfD, and the game he played with Zink Dawg.

Overall I am getting the impression that this user has a clue but no interest in working constructively with this account. Hans Adler 07:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the satirical "VfD" template here, as I hadn't noticed that before. Another bizarre/disruptive edit followed...replacing a PROD with an AfD nomination but citing the rationale of the PROD as the reason for nominating. Ugh.
 * Anyway, I'll nominate User:Pickbothmanlol/VfD for deletion at MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the indefblock for now; I think this is a case for WP:COMPETENCE if ever I saw one. I've also notified the unblocking admin as they may have an additional perspective to bring. EyeSerene talk 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EyeSerene, thank you for reinstating the block; I think WP:COMPETENCE is definitely the problem here. I just hope Pickbothmanlol doesn't go back to his socking ways. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I rarely ever participate in an ANI discussion but in this case Pickbothmanlol, has been on a nominating spree at both WP:AFD and WP:MFD and most of the articles nominated were created by new inexperienced users. He has also been doing some pretty weird things to stop these articles from being kept like re-adding CSD tags despite the fact it was declined, removing rescue tags and leaving bizarre edit summaries on these afds. Earlier this week he also nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents which ignited a controversy here and ultimately lead to the material being re-userfied. His edits have been questionable at best. - <font style="color:#EC5800">Marcusmax ( speak ) 14:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, in case he tries to get a different account unblocked, this diff lists all the names he's admitted to editing under. It's pretty extensive... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
We really could use more eyes on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which is currently linked from WP:ITN. A number of editors are running amok with systematic BLP violations, original research, blatant POV-pushing, disruption, edit-warring, tag-teaming and so on. This has already been raised at the BLP noticeboard and fringe theories noticeboard, but the number of uncontrolled problem editors is growing. If this is a test of Wikipedia's ability to uphold its content policies and prevent it being used to attack living people, we're failing badly. Admin attention is needed urgently. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Climategate (disambiguation) is just a short article, there is nothing to disambiguate. I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Climategate (disambiguation) is not a valid search term; I would say delete it. GiantSnowman 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman! No surprise you oppose global warming!!!! (Just joking. Are jokes allowed?  I couldn't resist.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I used to be even Gianter. I am husband to a melted wife, father to a melted son....GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please delete it. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's merely a duplicate of the existing Climategate redirect into which someone has copied-and-pasted a sourceless version of the first line of the CRU hacking incident article. I've asked for it to be speedied as an R3 speedy deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's been speedied already. Good work! Now can we please have more eyes on the problem article? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The redirect is repeatedly being resurrected by one of the editors who's been persistently causing problems on the article:. I've requested speedy deletion again - please salt it this time. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally the redirect Warmergate has been created as well. Which appears to be a reinvention of climategate and which only appears in blogs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's being talked about above. Climategate has never been deleted, and shouldn't be. Someone apparently created Climategate (disambiguation) and added redirect to link to it from the incident article. The disambiguation is being deleted as a "Recently created, implausible redirect", which seems unlikely, but without seeing the contents I can't say whether it should be deleted anyway (it probably should be unless there's another meaning to the term). --NE2 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The supposed DAB article was no DAB as there was nothing to DAB about. It was either pointless or a POV fork in the making (it basically repeated the initial sentences of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The term didn't exist until a few days ago and the contents of the article were simply the first line of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, stripped of all the sources. The page linked through to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident without disambiguating anything. The editor who created it (twice!) appears to have no idea of what a disambiguation actually is. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the incorrect deletion reasons are needlessly confusing, as is the talk of a redirect being deleted above. --NE2 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that WP is not a crystal ball however "salting" the page is ridiculous. "Climategate" is a neologism soon to be another Lewinskygate. However a good example of such uses is moneybomb coined in 2007 to describe a grassroots fundraising effort over a brief fixed time period. This word was created in the MSM and is now part of the vernacular. If some one is willing to fix the disambiguation page that would be great.


 * Also if anyone wants to look at the talk page or Revision history  you will find ChrisO is on the boarder of vandalism, and appears to be trying to take over the article with his blatant POV-pushing, disruptive edits, and reference deleting.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the confusing statements above, nobody's talking about the Climategate redirect, only the page Climategate (disambiguation). --NE2 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JezzyBear
Brand new account JezzyBear has restored the contributions of indef blocked user // et al at Kim Ok-bin, A.F.R.I.K.A. and Han Hyo-joo, as well as removing deletion tags over on Commons of images uploaded by (see commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems). I'll gladly file another SPI if it's felt that's what's best, but this one quacks like a duck so I'm hoping it can be dealt with more swiftly here. PC78 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:InkHeart (again)
While and most socks are AFAIK indef blocked,  is currently part way through a temporary block. Should the block for that account not be extended to indef as well? PC78 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indef, based on the checkuser at InkHeart's SPI case. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:GaGaOohLaLa
This account was just created yesterday and it's very interesting that he already knows how to mark an article for deletion. He has been running around to many articles and marking them for deletion with no explanations. I think he could possibly be a sockpuppet but I'll just Assume Good Faith for now. Please let me know your thoughts. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a long-time lurker, and the instructions are quite clear on how to nominate an article at WP:AFD, it's not too hard. "He has been running around to many articles and marking them for deletion with no explanations" - er, why not check the nominations page? And a sockpuppet of whom? Your allegations are based on no evidence and I suggest you read WP:NOOB. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All right so you have had some experience. I just said you MIGHT be a sockpuppet I NEVER said you were. And there are sockpupeteers who create sockpuppets to cause disruption like this. Oh and you never told me WHY you wanted them to be deleted. I suggest you watch your mouth GaGaOohLaLa. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? You've clearly violated WP:NOOB and WP:AGF and other users have decreed that my edits were not distruptive. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I have no violated WP:NOOB. A critism of sockpuppetry does not mean a violation of WP:NOOB. I suggest you read it again. And I have assumed good faith thank you very much. Seeing as your new read the rules again. I never said your edits were disruptive just the fact that mass AFDing could be percieved as disruptive. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it is somewhat unusual of for a new user to immediately begin nominating articles for deletion, it has not been disruptive. It is not unheard of for new users to have been a keen observer of WP procedures before registering an account. It could also be someone who was active as an IP, but decided to register an account in order to create the deletion discussion pages. Therefore, as per WP:AGF, there's nothing here that would require an administrator's attention. Singularity42 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Singularity42, that is a lot of afds. I think something may be up. <font color='#CF3B17'>Chillum  21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a second look, all of the AfDs seem to be related to each other and have some merit. It seems this users only fault was not knowing you can group many related articles into one AfD. These AfDs seem helpful, though they could use some consolidation. <font color='#CF3B17'>Chillum  21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Chillum, it's one multi-nomination AFD. See Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road characters. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, my mistake. <font color='#D23A17'>Chillum  21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Yes, but he has still failed to offer an explanation for these AFDs, unless I'm mistaken. Marking many articles for AFDs one right after the other can be perceived as disruptive because when I looked at the articles they were verifiable reliable articles. And to Chilium I don't see how it's helpful. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BlackAce, the AfD does have an explanation for the nominations, that being notability. <font color='#D23A17'>Chillum  21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care if you delete or not, but I just reported this because of the concerns listed above. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that BlackAce48 likes Waterloo Road, hence the "issue". GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what exactly makes you think of this? No I don't, but you marking them all for deletion seems out of the ordinary. You have no evidence to base your opinions on. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the nominations, then explain why on the nomination page. <font color='#D33917'>Chillum  21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing disruptive here. I think when a new editor's first thing is to make mass AfDs, a second look is sometimes warranted, which BlackAce48 did and is fine. But the second look reveals that everything is okay here. There are two grouped AfDs. The first is for a TV's shows characters, and GaGaOohLaLa explained why he made a mass nomination. The other is for a band's members, and GaGaOohLaLa explains that it is due to lack of notability. It's pretty explainable. Let's all assume good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Singularity42, some much appreciated WP:COMMONSENSE. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You will remain Civil or you will be blocked. I suggest you watch your mouth and refrain from that kind of behavior. You may be new but that gives you no excuse for this kind of behavior. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What "behaviour"? Where have I broken WP:CIVIL, by complementing another user? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no just complimenting him, but it could also be taken as an insult which I did. Please stop. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I just reported it because it is unusual for a first time editor to make mass AFDs, which in some cases is disruptive. Probably not in this situation though. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A WP:SORRY would be nice? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll only apologize if you do it first. That edit where you said "Some Appreciated WP:COMMONSENSE" was completely uncalled for. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop it both of you. You don't need to apologize you just need to not snipe at each other. If you wish to discuss who will apologize first then do it on one of your talk pages as it does not need admin attention. <font color='#D53817'>Chillum  22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please mark this as resolved? We've confirmed the editor was not being disruptive and nothing else needs to be done. I've said what I had to say, and there is no need for further comment. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Anarchism

 * Situation resolved consensually without the need for input from apathetic archist administrators. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh,  barbarian  01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

, one of the most contentious and contended articles in the site's history, has been placid the past year or two, but a slow-burning edit war is in process at the moment. This talkpage thread has relevance. Uninvolved admin eyes solicited. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh,  barbarian  04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you or somebody familiar with the article list the involved users with any relevant diffs for each, and state which policies you think they are violating. Then it will be possible to understand what corrective actions might be needed.  Can you also notify any of those editors about this thread? Jehochman Talk 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It ain't rocket science, J. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh,  barbarian  04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * seems to be edit warring to add content that is opposed by multiple other editors. Is that the limit of your concerns, or are there others?

Could you notify Eduen of this thread, please. Jehochman Talk 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eduen should be well and truly aware of this thread by now.--The Shower Singer (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Though the others involved in this edit war should also be notified. Just to be fair.--Eduen (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider me notified.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony is rich in reading a report titled "Edit war at Anarchism" on ANI. There ought to be a rule... Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That thought crossed my mind when I saw this topic pop up on recent changes.. Seriously though there are several editors there that would appreciate some insight from one of the veteran editors wandering the hallways.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the article I'm leaving this one alone. Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchism is not chaos or disorganization, thank you very much. Zazaban (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why can't the anarchists manage to put theory into practice and edit the anarchism pages in a cooperative fashion? Why does it always devolve into edit-warring that requires the authorities to stop? --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You set up an oppressive, hierarchical system of byzantine bureaucracy full of maladjusted autists with OCD and Napoleon complexes and then mock its victims? SmashTheState (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, it's fine. As mentioned above, it's been all fine for two years, and quite a bit of quality stuff has been done. Explain, how does it always devolve into edit-warring? Or are you just assuming this? Zazaban (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I like Eduen's contributions very much, but I don't like his abrasive debate style and I feel it's doing a great deal of harm. Things could have calmed down months ago with most of the contributions stable and in place if he hadn't been so hostile. Zazaban (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Five-year-old deletion discussion reopened
Votes_for_deletion/HYP_(universities). I have no clue why this was done -- the original discussion seems never to have been closed, but the issues seem to have been settled by a consensus-accepted redirect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's User:Pickbothmanlol. He did a non-admin reopen of a very old VFD for no explainable reason.  He was recently unblocked by another admin as a sign of good faith; he has a long history of disruption and socking, but had pledged to behave.  I have no idea why Pickbothman he chose to do this, but it may be a good idea to ask him to come account for his actions.  -- Jayron  32  04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a record of making dodgy nominations for deletion. I don't think he's acting in bad faith, I think he just has no idea what he's doing. Offers of assistance have gone unheeded. Crafty (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This user will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Since being unblocked just a couple of days ago, he's gone on a nomination spree at AfD (and nominated a couple of pages at MfD as well). Pickbothmanlol, as Crafty wrote above, doesn't seem to know what he's doing in a lot of cases. Many of the AfDs he's started are actually candidates for speedy deletion, and others are articles that should be – and are – speedily kept. Yesterday, he nominated a userspace draft by a new user for deletion at MfD; the MfD was soon closed as "keep" due to the invalid, bitey nomination. At AfD, he has (at least twice) nominated articles for deletion on the grounds that they were previously speedily deleted and then re-created. That is not, of course, a good reason for deletion at AfD in most every case. In one of these AfDs, the speedily deleted version of the article had been blanked by its creator and deleted per CSD G7; it's plain that a re-creation of said article would be perfectly valid. In another AfD, he asserted that the article was a re-creation of a speedily deleted article; in fact, it had been deleted after an expired PROD, and the new version was speedily kept. Pickbothmanlol needs to slow down and read up on deletion policy before nominating pages for deletion at this rapid pace.
 * Other bizarre behavior: Pickbothmanlol nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to decline to support that same candidate in the discussion section just minutes later. The RfA was closed per WP:NOTNOW. Pickbothmanlol has also made several requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU in the last couple of days without naming a reason for wanting his username changed. He sought usurpation of several accounts which had edited Wikipedia, and requested a change to a potentially offensive username, before settling on seeking usurpation of User:Blush, who has no edits. I would say the RfA was disruptive; the activity at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU hasn't been disruptive, but it's been bizarre (and it's kept clerks busy!). I would say this re-opening of a five-year-old deletion discussion is both bizarre and disruptive.
 * Bottom line: I think admins should take a close look at this user's behavior, because it's not likely to change on its own. 71.255.89.120 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wasn't logged in... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pure lulz account to me. 50% of all (non-deleted) edits in project space, 11% in article space, 0% in article talk space. Article space edits mostly vandalism reverts, AfD notices, creation of Total Drama Wiki – read it before the AfD finishes.

Some example diffs from before he was first indef blocked: user page, first WQA report 1 hour after account creation

Exploits since he got a second chance include Adding satirical "VfD" template on a prodded article, resulting in an AfD, and the game he played with Zink Dawg.

Overall I am getting the impression that this user has a clue but no interest in working constructively with this account. Hans Adler 07:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the satirical "VfD" template here, as I hadn't noticed that before. Another bizarre/disruptive edit followed...replacing a PROD with an AfD nomination but citing the rationale of the PROD as the reason for nominating. Ugh.
 * Anyway, I'll nominate User:Pickbothmanlol/VfD for deletion at MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the indefblock for now; I think this is a case for WP:COMPETENCE if ever I saw one. I've also notified the unblocking admin as they may have an additional perspective to bring. EyeSerene talk 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EyeSerene, thank you for reinstating the block; I think WP:COMPETENCE is definitely the problem here. I just hope Pickbothmanlol doesn't go back to his socking ways. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I rarely ever participate in an ANI discussion but in this case Pickbothmanlol, has been on a nominating spree at both WP:AFD and WP:MFD and most of the articles nominated were created by new inexperienced users. He has also been doing some pretty weird things to stop these articles from being kept like re-adding CSD tags despite the fact it was declined, removing rescue tags and leaving bizarre edit summaries on these afds. Earlier this week he also nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KPS4Parents which ignited a controversy here and ultimately lead to the material being re-userfied. His edits have been questionable at best. - <font style="color:#EC5800">Marcusmax ( speak ) 14:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, in case he tries to get a different account unblocked, this diff lists all the names he's admitted to editing under. It's pretty extensive... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
We really could use more eyes on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which is currently linked from WP:ITN. A number of editors are running amok with systematic BLP violations, original research, blatant POV-pushing, disruption, edit-warring, tag-teaming and so on. This has already been raised at the BLP noticeboard and fringe theories noticeboard, but the number of uncontrolled problem editors is growing. If this is a test of Wikipedia's ability to uphold its content policies and prevent it being used to attack living people, we're failing badly. Admin attention is needed urgently. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Climategate (disambiguation) is just a short article, there is nothing to disambiguate. I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Climategate (disambiguation) is not a valid search term; I would say delete it. GiantSnowman 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman! No surprise you oppose global warming!!!! (Just joking. Are jokes allowed?  I couldn't resist.) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I used to be even Gianter. I am husband to a melted wife, father to a melted son....GiantSnowman 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please delete it. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's merely a duplicate of the existing Climategate redirect into which someone has copied-and-pasted a sourceless version of the first line of the CRU hacking incident article. I've asked for it to be speedied as an R3 speedy deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's been speedied already. Good work! Now can we please have more eyes on the problem article? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The redirect is repeatedly being resurrected by one of the editors who's been persistently causing problems on the article:. I've requested speedy deletion again - please salt it this time. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally the redirect Warmergate has been created as well. Which appears to be a reinvention of climategate and which only appears in blogs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's being talked about above. Climategate has never been deleted, and shouldn't be. Someone apparently created Climategate (disambiguation) and added redirect to link to it from the incident article. The disambiguation is being deleted as a "Recently created, implausible redirect", which seems unlikely, but without seeing the contents I can't say whether it should be deleted anyway (it probably should be unless there's another meaning to the term). --NE2 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The supposed DAB article was no DAB as there was nothing to DAB about. It was either pointless or a POV fork in the making (it basically repeated the initial sentences of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The term didn't exist until a few days ago and the contents of the article were simply the first line of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, stripped of all the sources. The page linked through to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident without disambiguating anything. The editor who created it (twice!) appears to have no idea of what a disambiguation actually is. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the incorrect deletion reasons are needlessly confusing, as is the talk of a redirect being deleted above. --NE2 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that WP is not a crystal ball however "salting" the page is ridiculous. "Climategate" is a neologism soon to be another Lewinskygate. However a good example of such uses is moneybomb coined in 2007 to describe a grassroots fundraising effort over a brief fixed time period. This word was created in the MSM and is now part of the vernacular. If some one is willing to fix the disambiguation page that would be great.


 * Also if anyone wants to look at the talk page or Revision history  you will find ChrisO is on the boarder of vandalism, and appears to be trying to take over the article with his blatant POV-pushing, disruptive edits, and reference deleting.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the confusing statements above, nobody's talking about the Climategate redirect, only the page Climategate (disambiguation). --NE2 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:JezzyBear
Brand new account JezzyBear has restored the contributions of indef blocked user // et al at Kim Ok-bin, A.F.R.I.K.A. and Han Hyo-joo, as well as removing deletion tags over on Commons of images uploaded by (see commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems). I'll gladly file another SPI if it's felt that's what's best, but this one quacks like a duck so I'm hoping it can be dealt with more swiftly here. PC78 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:InkHeart (again)
While and most socks are AFAIK indef blocked,  is currently part way through a temporary block. Should the block for that account not be extended to indef as well? PC78 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indef, based on the checkuser at InkHeart's SPI case. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  20:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:GaGaOohLaLa
This account was just created yesterday and it's very interesting that he already knows how to mark an article for deletion. He has been running around to many articles and marking them for deletion with no explanations. I think he could possibly be a sockpuppet but I'll just Assume Good Faith for now. Please let me know your thoughts. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a long-time lurker, and the instructions are quite clear on how to nominate an article at WP:AFD, it's not too hard. "He has been running around to many articles and marking them for deletion with no explanations" - er, why not check the nominations page? And a sockpuppet of whom? Your allegations are based on no evidence and I suggest you read WP:NOOB. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All right so you have had some experience. I just said you MIGHT be a sockpuppet I NEVER said you were. And there are sockpupeteers who create sockpuppets to cause disruption like this. Oh and you never told me WHY you wanted them to be deleted. I suggest you watch your mouth GaGaOohLaLa. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? You've clearly violated WP:NOOB and WP:AGF and other users have decreed that my edits were not distruptive. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No I have no violated WP:NOOB. A critism of sockpuppetry does not mean a violation of WP:NOOB. I suggest you read it again. And I have assumed good faith thank you very much. Seeing as your new read the rules again. I never said your edits were disruptive just the fact that mass AFDing could be percieved as disruptive. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it is somewhat unusual of for a new user to immediately begin nominating articles for deletion, it has not been disruptive. It is not unheard of for new users to have been a keen observer of WP procedures before registering an account. It could also be someone who was active as an IP, but decided to register an account in order to create the deletion discussion pages. Therefore, as per WP:AGF, there's nothing here that would require an administrator's attention. Singularity42 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Singularity42, that is a lot of afds. I think something may be up. <font color='#CF3B17'>Chillum  21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a second look, all of the AfDs seem to be related to each other and have some merit. It seems this users only fault was not knowing you can group many related articles into one AfD. These AfDs seem helpful, though they could use some consolidation. <font color='#CF3B17'>Chillum  21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Chillum, it's one multi-nomination AFD. See Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road characters. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, my mistake. <font color='#D23A17'>Chillum  21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Yes, but he has still failed to offer an explanation for these AFDs, unless I'm mistaken. Marking many articles for AFDs one right after the other can be perceived as disruptive because when I looked at the articles they were verifiable reliable articles. And to Chilium I don't see how it's helpful. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * BlackAce, the AfD does have an explanation for the nominations, that being notability. <font color='#D23A17'>Chillum  21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care if you delete or not, but I just reported this because of the concerns listed above. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that BlackAce48 likes Waterloo Road, hence the "issue". GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what exactly makes you think of this? No I don't, but you marking them all for deletion seems out of the ordinary. You have no evidence to base your opinions on. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the nominations, then explain why on the nomination page. <font color='#D33917'>Chillum  21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing disruptive here. I think when a new editor's first thing is to make mass AfDs, a second look is sometimes warranted, which BlackAce48 did and is fine. But the second look reveals that everything is okay here. There are two grouped AfDs. The first is for a TV's shows characters, and GaGaOohLaLa explained why he made a mass nomination. The other is for a band's members, and GaGaOohLaLa explains that it is due to lack of notability. It's pretty explainable. Let's all assume good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Singularity42, some much appreciated WP:COMMONSENSE. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You will remain Civil or you will be blocked. I suggest you watch your mouth and refrain from that kind of behavior. You may be new but that gives you no excuse for this kind of behavior. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What "behaviour"? Where have I broken WP:CIVIL, by complementing another user? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no just complimenting him, but it could also be taken as an insult which I did. Please stop. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I just reported it because it is unusual for a first time editor to make mass AFDs, which in some cases is disruptive. Probably not in this situation though. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A WP:SORRY would be nice? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll only apologize if you do it first. That edit where you said "Some Appreciated WP:COMMONSENSE" was completely uncalled for. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop it both of you. You don't need to apologize you just need to not snipe at each other. If you wish to discuss who will apologize first then do it on one of your talk pages as it does not need admin attention. <font color='#D53817'>Chillum  22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please mark this as resolved? We've confirmed the editor was not being disruptive and nothing else needs to be done. I've said what I had to say, and there is no need for further comment. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regularly rude comments from administrator User:Jéské_Couriano
Jeremy (User:Jéské_Couriano) is often rude and inappropriately sarcastic with editors. In particular, he leaves comments using jargon from the role-playing game Shadowrun known as Shadowspeak; this game appears to be unfamiliar to many users. Indeed, his statements are frequently unintelligble and he has to translate them into Standard English. Furthermore, some of this game's words have perjorative meanings; for example, he often calls people "chummer," which is a derogatory expression for homosexuals. His statement that it means "friend" in this role-playing game seems irrelevant, as most of us do not play this game and would have no way of knowing this.

Independently, while raising this issue on his talk page, I met with the same type of hostility and disregard that seem to so often characterize his interactions with editors on Wikipedia.

I have no interest in punitive measures being taken against him. I would simply like for his peers to let him know this kind of rudeness and style of interaction is unacceptable by a Wikipedia administrator. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This IP editor has blown this issue out of all proportion. Jeremy's use of the term "chummer" is entirely harmless and well established. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that any fair reading of the exchange on Jeremy's talk-page will show that he has been particularly patient and civil in the face of fairly determined hectoring by the anon. Crafty (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: the IP's first contribution was to raise this issue with Jeremy, which seems odd to me; why complain about an editor's behaviour having (seemingly) had no previous experience of it... Perhaps he is a sock? Forgive me if I'm just being a tad paranoid or whatever...GiantSnowman 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary, you said it sounded "fishy". Ironically, "chum" is an old-fashioned word for "friend", but it's also the term used for shark bait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'd love to take credit it for that pun, but I'm afraid it was just a massive coincidence! GiantSnowman 00:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Jeremy's use of the term "chummer" is intended to be harmless and with no attached allusions, but given that the gamespeak is is likely to be unfamiliar to a significant fraction of the readers, and can be used as a slur, I would hope he would limit it to pages related to Shadowrun etc. Alternatively he can wikilink it and other Shadowrun jargon to an appropriate user subpage, so that the context and intended meaning is clear. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest closing this thread with a friendly note to Jéské that one can never be careful enough with wording and that slightly more "neutral" phrasing could save our time from reading this section. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a member of "anon," so that is not relevant. That Jeremy is often rude and needs a reminder that politeness works better here stands on its own.  And yes, I am not logged in.  I am on an extended wikibreak after getting frustrated by the never ending difficultly of having rational discourse with people here.  I grew tired of how angry so many people on Wikipedia are and why they feel justified directing their anger at complete strangers.  Why am I not logged in?  Because an editor or admin should be just as polite to an IP editor as anyone else.  This is the IP address I currently have; it will doubtless change in a week or two, as that's how my ISP works.  75.100.83.178 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation, makes sense. GiantSnowman 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's suddenly so important that the complaint couldn't be filed under his regular ID? Unless there's a ("good") reason he doesn't want it known. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about me. Why did I contact Jeremy?   Because I grew tired of seeing an admin be rude and combative and no one commented about it.  What's happening to Wikipedia that this is tolerated now?  I edit anonymously these days, on the rare occasions when I edit.  I haven't logged in to my account since the summer, and I have no intention of doing so today. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you wonder why IP's are regarded with suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, having followed the issue since it arose on Jéské's talk page, I do not believe that this is an issue at all. It may be true that "chummer" can be a bit derogatory nowadays, but when I first had contact with Jéské I did not even know what that it was. I just assumed it was him calling me, and other editors, chum, in the same friendly way that I often end my messages with "mate". For a person unknown with either Jéské or the game universe, they may perhaps find it insulting; the anonymous IP posting about this issue above and on Jéské's talk page certainly seems to think so. However I question why the IP continues to find it insulting when it has been explained to him/her numerous times now that it is not meant in a derogatory context. Surely that reassurance should have been the end of it, and I find it quite perplexing that they continue to raise issue with it when they know very well that it is not directed with any malevolence or ill-will. This IP says he is being "rude and combative", but I can't help but feel that is only because Jéské was not acceeding to their request. For future instances where an IP or other editor is not familiar with this quirk of his perhaps an additional note at the top of Jéské's talk page to accompany the four already up there would quell any ill-will or resentment before it gets a chance to grow out of proportion as is the case here? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the editors participating here refuse to accept comments from an IP editor, so be it. The issue is not me or the use of the word "chummer" per se; rather, it is how rude and dismissive Jeremy was in justifying it, e.g., pointing me to an explanation on an archive of his talk page, as if anyone would be familiar with that.  I think many here are missing the point.  Jeremy is rude.  That is independent of my interaction with him.  Rather, that is what prompted me to finally contact him today.  Administrators should be held to high standards, and blatant sarcasm and rudeness would seem antithetical to the position.  It is not new to me that Jeremy uses this word or that he bites.  I may be on a wikibreak but I am not in a wikivacuum.  75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your complaint, that editors refuse to accept comments from an IP editor, is a red herring. Your behavior raises suspicions, complaining about a term that has already been explained, coupled with you admitting to being a registered user who is hiding behind a dynamic IP address in Wisconsin. If you act dishonestly, your good faith quota tends to diminish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my complaint is about inappropriate behavior on the part of a particular administrator, as described above. I feel that the rest of your comment diverts from the purpose of my posting here.  This is not about me.  I am not hiding.  I am on a self-imposed wikibreak and will continue with it for now.  I have submitted nothing rude or offensive or untrue, as far as I'm aware.  This is what determines my credibility.  Jeremy's record speaks for itself and IMHO reflects upon him poorly.  This is disturbing to me, given he's an admin.  75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Urban Dictionary, "chummer" primarily means "friend". The third definition refers to it as a euphemism for a homosexual. I take "chummer" to be a variant on "chum" which is a term for "friend" that goes back several generations. Taking offense to that strikes me as fishing for something to complain about - all the while hiding behind an IP address. You say it's not about you, but in fact it is about you - you have made it be about it you, through your fishy behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not relying on the Urban Dictionary to provide a meaning for this word. I have already explained above, twice, that it is his overall rudeness, not this word per se.  I'm not sure what you find "fishy" about me, but I see no point in pursuing this line of discussion with you.  Cheers. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is his overall rudeness that is of issue, please provide some diffs as evidence. GiantSnowman 01:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I've explained it thrice thus far - once when I started, again not a month ago (IIRC; it's still on my talk page), and again to this IP user. He refused to accept any part of my explanation, and I've run out of patience with him since he refuses to listen to anything I say (I asked him to come here specifically so that I would be able to calm down a bit before responding to him, which I can't do if he's posting to my TP because the "New messages" bar tends to make my adrenaline surge). - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 01:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that we need to hear the other side of this IP drive-by shooting. I have one bit of advice regarding "new messages". When I see that I have new messages, I don't pounce on them right away, but instead I continue to walk through my watch list, and eventually I'll run into my talk page. That way, I have a degree of control over it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that for me is that for all I know the "New message" is a 4chan attack (which is why the bar provokes me). I'm a very common Grawp target, and as such I tend to be very vigilant on my talk page (My userpage is fully-protected). - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, we have a solution for everything. And the solution there is to provide a separate "talk page" in which malcontents can leave messages which you can read or ignore as you will, and leave your real talk page semi'd so that only established users can update it and trigger the infamous orange "you've got mail" bar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried that. Proved too difficult due to my watchlist size and so I abandoned it. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I used to do the old FASA pen-and-paper RPG back in the olden days, and the way "chummer" was used was at worst a very mild pejorative, like "buddy" or "pal" would be used in some 40's hard-boiled detective noir. So while it screams "nerd!" to be using it outside of its game context, it is not the vile smear that the anon agitator makes it out to be. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In British English, calling someone a |"chummer" is a rude way of referring to him as a homosexual. It's not as bad as calling someone a "wanker," which is truly obscene, or a "dirty bugger," which is quite vile.  But again, it was Jeremy's responses to my comments that led me here. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And according to the official Shadowrun slang list, it just means buddy or pal. As someone who has been playing Shadowrun for 20 years, I can tell you it's not a derogatory term. <font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail <font color="Blue">talk  01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)From what I can tell we have an established editor in IP cloaking mode who has decided to take up the cause of anons who s/he believes are the subject of less than chivalrous treatment at the hands of pseudonoymous editors. The whole "(bum)-chummer" thing with Jeremy is a stalking horse to prosecute this quest.

Not good sez Crafty. IP Quixote should make his/er agenda clear. As noted above, cite diffs and make your case in a straight forward manner. Else desist and do something constructive. Crafty (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My agenda, as stated above: "I have no interest in punitive measures being taken against him. I would simply like for his peers to let him know this kind of rudeness and style of interaction is unacceptable by a Wikipedia administrator." 75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I got steadily ruder, 75., is because you didn't accept any explanation I gave. I told you to come here because, to be blunt, you were starting to become a pest and only serving to rile me. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr IP - you may well want to notifty his peers about his 'naughty' behaviour, but you have yet to provide any diffs as evidence for it...GiantSnowman 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Jeske sent him here to see if he would "Plaxico" himself, and so far he's doing a pretty good job of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I sent him here to keep from getting angry enough to lash out at him. But, seriously, chummers, it ain't wiz to create dzoo-noo-qua outta mere rats; all it does is crease any chance that someone will take your words as the chiptruth, and makes you come across as a bakebrain. So, if you care to maintain some credibility, it's highly recommended you drop manufactured issues before you find your position in a body bank. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, after that I can see why the IP was irritated, as I would be too, IF I had vaguest idea what you were talking about. :) The point being, if someone calls you what he thinks might be "a name", and has to go do research to confirm if he really was insulted, then he needs to find better things to do in Wisconsin, like go pick some cranberries or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilinked all the slang articles above (most of them I wouldn't use on WP very frequently, if at all, so you're excused). I actually never speak like that - the occasional "chummer" here, a "frag" there... - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shame this has just fallen into mockery. Once upon a time, without a doubt, an admin writing, "it's highly recommended you drop manufactured issues before you find your position in a body bank (morgue)" would have not only been de-admin'ed, he would have been indefinitely banned.  There is indeed a reason why so many of us have left. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)But you haven't left. You're merely hiding behind an IP address in some Wisconsin cheese factory. You brought this on yourself. When you're disingenuous, you invite disingenuousness back. You reap what you sow. You get what you pay for. What goes around comes around. Stop me before I have to go to a pair of Bartlett's and find some more cliches. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't issuing any threats, and as I indicated I don't use most the slang words in that paragraph myself specifically because of their connotations. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now he's complaining about what you said to me. I took your comments as satirical, tossing out slang from that video game or whatever it is. Some folks take everything literally, and always have their antennae up for perceived insults. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Chummer" isn't used to call someone homosexual in a derogatory manner, it's used by a gay man to call a special someone his special gay pal, kinda like calling your partner "lover." This is not an insult even if this is the meaning intended, though maybe a case of mistaken identity.


 * Still, if Jéské had started out with a polite response explaining himself instead of "Do your damn research before you blast me for using a term." probably this whole thread would not be here. That's what politeness does: it removes the opportunity for offense.


 * Wikipedia administrators could work that way and diminish AN/I and Wall Street Journal articles greatly. Is there anything professional about, "Do your damn research" that says to everyone at Wikipedia and the Wall Street Journal, "wikipedia professionalism designed for the atmosphere of an encyclopedia that wants to excel, retain experts and experienced editors and gain new editors?" No, it just says the usual: hotheads in action providing more reasons for people to leave wikipedia in droves. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, an IP address which has never edited before shows up to raise vexatious allegations against a long-experienced admin, with no supporting evidence of wrongdoing. Where have I ever seen this before?  Oh, yeah, here.  I'm just saying, there's something rotten in Denmark... -- Jayron  32  02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Sufficient grounds for Check User? Crafty (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like. Although the older IP is New Zealand and this one is Wisconsin, although that doesn't prove anything. If he knows how to IP-hop, he could be anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, sorry. I am not a sock.  I have one account on Wikipedia that I haven't used in many months.  Any editing I do these days is via IP.  Feel free to delve deeper if you're so inclined.  As for evidence, read my interactions (linked at the start of this thread) with Jeremy, as well as his comments here.  As far as I'm concerned, his behavior is out of line with what's expected for an administrator.  And unless Wikipedia policy has changed since the last time I needed to consult it in depth, treating an anonymous IP editor this way is certainly frowned upon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.83.178 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Something has gone very wrong with this discussion. Someone decides not to use their user account any more, but rather to edit through their IP. Is there a problem with that? No? Their IP is dynamic and they therefore have no control over when an edit will appear to be their first? Problem? No? With their "first" edit, they complain about the behaviour of an admin. Problem? No? What exactly is the problem with this IP then? And how will matching these IPs to a previous user name help solve it? Hesperian 03:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there's a good chance he's had some previous encounter with this particular admin and doesn't want us to know the particulars of it. Something doesn't feel right, and every time he opens his mouth he adds more suspicion to his behavior. And his yelping about how IP's are treated is a diversionary tactic. He should either be totally open or he should close this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Using multiple IPs or usernames to avoid scrutiny is against the rules at WP:SOCK. Using multiple IPs is OK, but this user has given us absolutely no background on his prior interactions with Jeremy, so it is clear they are trying to mask their prior identity, the exact definition of avoiding scrutiny.  No one aside from the checkusers has the ability to investigate the history of this interaction, so it is clear, unless the OP wishes to name their prior account and/or give diffs which show a history of their interactions with Jeremy, that there is no way to scrutinize the particulars of this complaint.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Urallgay
I am not sure if this is serious, but Urallgay seems to be threatening suicide on his talk page. Someone might want to have a word with him. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not sure if "Urallgay" is serious? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, yes, the name is ridiculous, and he seems like a goofball, but I am not taking chances. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI. Crafty (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to threats of harm if anyone thinks this is serious. --NE2 02:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. A8  UDI  02:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another issue is the username, for which the account should be blocked. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can't stand all the "gay" nonsense here on wikipedia... particularly with vandalism.. ugh, seriously makes me feel like I'm in middle school again. A8  UDI  03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for WP:U violation. Crum375 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Khalsa Army
Hi I need your help please I created a article called Sikh Khalsa Army back in 3rd of February 2007. (You can check the article history to confirm this):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_Army&offset=20071025060419&action=history

The information I added here in the tables is wrong in 3rd of February 2007. I know this because I checked with MY reference books again and it was WRONG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Khalsa_Army&oldid=105304366

These tables that I added with the WRONG information are still being used in the article NOW in 2009. I tried to remove the wrong information I added BUT User:Cosmos416 reput the WRONG information back.

Please can you help me remove the Wrong information I added back in 3rd of February 2007. Any information I added in the tables and other information is wrong. Even the article name I gave is wrong, the actual name of the army was the "Army of Lahore" or the "Army of Punjab".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_Khalsa_Army&oldid=105304366

Ive removed all MY wrong information added to the article back in Feb 2007 from the current article. Please can you prevent silly users User:Cosmos416 from revert or reputting my wrong infromation back into the wikipedia artcie.

Best regards,

--Sikh historian (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is already going on at WP:AN. Please do not shop around at different noticeboards looking for differing opinions.  Anyone who wants to comment on this issue should do so at the first discussion.  -- Jayron  32  03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Njk requesting unblock
User talk:Njk is requesting an unblock. His account has been blocked for over 1 year, he was a formerly productive account which descended into an incomprehnsible pattern of vandalism and disruption and was indeffed for it. He has come back claiming to be reformed, and asking for an unblock. Since the blocking admin, User:DeadEyeArrow, is no longer active (he has not edited since December 2008), I am bringing this here for an opinion on a second chance. It appears he has followed Standard offer to a "T", and given that, perhaps an unblock is in order. What thinks everyone? -- Jayron  32  03:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We should take him at his word. Prior to his run in with The Man, he was a productive editor. His comments on his talkpage seem frank and on the level. I say let him have another chance. Crafty (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and unblocked. Seems a reasonable fellow (at least now). --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

140.180.5.146


Anonymous editor repeatedly adding his personal criticisms to The Young Turks (talk show), linking to the show itself as a primary source (violating WP:SYN/WP:OR). I'm at my 3 revert maximum, and though I've explained the situation to him, he appears to wish to persist beyond reason. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I semi protected the article to prevent the ip from breaching 3RR. Spartaz Humbug! 04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:H Debussy-Jones
This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Wikipedia before. The talk page is collecting quite a bit of polite requests from myself, Jeni, AVraham, Bwilkins, Wildhartlivie, etc to stop making odd edits contravening WP:LAYOUT and other Wikipedia norms. The polite advice is not being taken, the talk gets archived immediately, and the stubborn behavior continues. The "new" user does not appear to recognize or accept that their changes are real problems and annoyances for people with non-standard browsers and ADA devices. There is nothing blockable here at the current time. As a warning, administrators will be acting on this in the future. Perhaps something more stern than polite requests from users might head that off. Miami33139 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

H Debussy-Jones has been notified of this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My thanks to Singularity 42 and JamieS93 for notifying me about this thread. The status of my account has been looked into by ArbCom member John Vandenberg, who reported his findings here. Since he looked "quickly", if another CheckUser feels the need to investigate, I'm more than happy for that to happen.  As I said before, for reasons of my own, all I ask is that the name of my previous account not be publicly revealed, unless the CheckUser feels it is necessary to do so. I'm not sure there's anything else to address in Miami's post, since it all appears to be about a (potential) content dispute about style, and was posted before I'd even had a chance to read and respond to his last note on my talk page.  I'm left with the feeling that the purpose of his note isn't actually to get administrator action, but to act as a cudgel to coerce me into accepting his pronouncements without discussion. I'm always more than happy to discuss my edits with other editors, but perhaps others will understand why I blanche at doing so under duress. Sach (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what relevance a checkuser has to the original post. Are you getting polite requests from different users about your format-related edits causing problems for other user's browsers? If so, have you responded to their requests? -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm odd, but when Miami says This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Wikipedia before and The "new" user, I took that as casting doubt about the legitimacy of my account, hence my response. Regarding the posts on my talk page, all have been politely acknowledged, most have been answered with an explanation (with no return response from the inquirer), some have been met with requests for additional information, and the latest from Miami was posted just before he opened this thread on AN/I (as his very next post, in fact) before I had a chance to respond. Incidentally, Miami's post here is more informative than anything he posted on my talk page -- this is the first, for instance, that I've heard of "ADA devices" being part of his problem. As for "non-standard browsers", I edit with IE, but periodically check my changes under Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera to make sure there are no problems, so I'm not sure what "non-standard" browser he might be referring to.  I would have asked him that question, except that he seemed to prefer to open this thread rather than discuss things with me. If I'm wrong about that, and he would like to discuss these topics with me, I'd be very glad of the opportunity to clear up any difficulties.  Since I don't have an "ADA device", I invite him to send me some screenshots of the problems he's having with my edits via e-mail, so I can understand what he's experiencing and work with him to avoid any problems. Sach (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Llywrych, there is no relevance to a CU. it has been brought up before and the previous account was blocked (temporarily, this is not a banned user) for stubborn MOS changes. The fake naivety in that discussion and continued peculiar MOS changes is what made me think I should raise a red flag here, so that I can say "I told you so." if this is a future issue. Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up that previous AN/I thread. Obviously, I don't agree with your characterization of it, but I do think it's instructive.  What it shows is that when someone points out to me a definitive policy, I quickly accept it , and then immediately go about reverting those of my errant edits which haven't already been fixed, ( and ). Again, I reiterate my suggestion that you e-mail me some screenshots of the problems you see so that I can better understand your objections. Sach (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sach, do you take screenshots of a braille device? Do you take screenshots of a narrator? Do you understand that forcing images to 250 pixels causes mobile devices to waste CPU shrinking them to a 240 pixel screen? Instead of asking for how to conform your edits to these devices, how about you just follow the MOS, stop inserting whitespace, stop moving hatnotes under the infobox, stop changing section headings, stop forcing image sizes, and the other odd things you stubbornly insist on doing and have insisted on doing for years. The MOS, which you've been pointed to, explains some of the reasons for doing things the way it does, and it is usually only for a very good reason it should be ignored. You ignore it on purpose and this is harmful to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Miami, there is no need for such a tone, please dial it back a notch. I'm glad that you've (finally) explained what an "ADA device" is, since I couldn't find anything that explained it, and didn't know you were referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act. So, in what way does adding an extra line of space to set off navboxes from "External links" sections so that they are easier to read effect such devices?  Not having one, I don't understand. As for image sizes, something north of 90% of the articles on Wikipedia have forced image sizes (since almost all infoboxes used forced sizes), so I think your complaint has much more to do with the way a Wikipedia page is rendered for mobile devices, and not with the layout of the page itself.  My edits in that respect are all aimed at making an article clear and visually attractive, and are not forbidden under MOS.  These are not "odd" edits, they are not outside of policy, and they are all done to make Wikipedia look better and make it easier for the user to take in the information. Sach (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your complaint about placement of hatnotes, I believe I understand the nature of your complaint now. In the future, it might be better when informing other editors of problems to actually point to something that will explain the difficulty, rather than simply making demands.  As I've noted above, if I understand the problem and can see the relevant policy, I'm happy to comply, but I (and many other people) don't respond well to the Argument from authority. Sach (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone through my contributions and reverted those instances where I had moved hatnotes under infoboxes & lede images. My changes were visually preferable (since the hatnote still rendered at the top of the page, but the infobox or image moved up so space wasn't wasted), but I understand how screen readers might be thrown by it. Sach (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I share Miami33139's concerns that this is a return of a former user, notably User:Ed Fitzgerald, whom we had exactly the same problems with before, tenuous editing, inserting pointless spacing, moving templates around to suit his personal preference, renaming references to notes. Now, coming back as a new user isn't a problem as far as I know, but coming back to edit in the same disruptive way, that is where the problems are. Jeni ( talk ) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read how this thread has progressed & the earlier thread Miami referenced, I have to say that how H Debussy-Jones, aka "Sach", is handling this disturbs me. The issue appears to be about how H Debussy-Jones is making edits which other editors find problematic; this editor responds with ... well, discussing everything except for the actual matter. I would expect a suitable response to be something along the lines of "They aren't disruptive, & this is why" or "I understand their concerns & I am trying to work on addressing them" Instead, what I see are a lot of words which fail to convey whether H Debussy-Jones agrees with the complaint, disagrees with it, or even understands what the issue is. (And what is with this "Sach" thing? If you want to be known as "Sach", change your username. Having one username & signing with another only confuses people.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

New user blocked
User:Black Kite has blocked a new user User talk:Boneyarddog citing (Disruptive editing: New account reverting on 1RR article; blocked as an obvious sock; may be unblocked with suitable evidence that it isn't CU will likely be useless, so not used.) This editor has made two edits one a revert and the other an explanation of their edit. Now there is no evidence that this is a disruptive editor or that it is a sock, so how can an admin just indef block a new account without any valid reason. BigDunc 13:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I can't see any evidence of you taking this to Black Kite first, nor of Black Kite being informed about this thread after. Have I missed a couple of diffs? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified both BlackKite and Boneyarddog about this discussion. GiantSnowman 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that Boneyarddog comments on their talk page. If the editor does comment, the comment can be copied over to this page. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused. I saw no evidence of this user using the revert button, but he/she only seemed to be making a change. That change was followed by an explanation on the talk page. Also what is the deal with the one revert rule anyway. I see it as counter productive to the project and only contributes to biting new users. That would be the first thing I would get rid of. If we let the 1RR thing go too far, I see major problems in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not need to have a rollback button to revert. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "obvious sock" part is what people should be focusing on, not the 1RR. The explanation is that Black Kite probably knows something is up. Like Redvers said, the best way for this to have been handled is for BigDunc to make some inquiries directly to the admin, not posting it here. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, trying to discuss it directly with the user or admin is the first step towards resolving any issue. Only if that fails should it be brought here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) BK already accused me of being the sock master and then apologised saying it wasn't phrased correctly, I accepted the apology and then without a shred of evidence regarding socking or any disruption indef blocks the new user. If disruption is reverting and giving your rational for reverting on the talk page the their will be no editors left here as we will be all blocked and BK can switch the lights off on the way out. BigDunc  15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's the sock-master suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knows? The point is that when an account's first edit is to jump directly into the middle of an edit war, it's a sock.  Of who it doesn't really matter.  Take your pick.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A look at the article history will probably tell you enough. Revert war on 1RR article followed by brand new account popping up and reverting three minutes after account creatiion? Riiiight. As I said on the talkpage, AGF is not a suicide pact. Frankly 1RR probably is counter productive if it is going to result in socking, although it has had good results in other areas. I reverted the sock (purely because it was clearly a throwaway account to game 1RR, not because of the content), though I later expressed doubts about some of the content being edit-warred over. I am not going to edit the article further though, as it could be tenuously argued (and no doubt it would be, knowing this area) that I had inappropriately used my admin tools. I have already been accused on the talkpage of blocking the account purely because I am British, which I answered as it deserved. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd feel more safe, if we knew who was behind the sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Safe from what? This is as obvious of a sock as yer gonna get. Not all socks have "master" accounts; some people just jump from throwaway to throwaway. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it was a 'blocked' account trying to evade its block. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At best, it's a meatpuppet. As Tanthalas says, it's pretty routine.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ecx2There is no evidence of any wrong doing at all from the new account but fuck it blocked them in any way they might do something eventually so block it now. BigDunc  15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with Black Kite - as seems evident - create an appropriate RfC or come up with something better than this. Marking resolved; there is no admin action necessary here. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppose it was a stupid place to resolve an issue were a new user was blocked for NO reason great work Tan your a credit to wikipedia. BigDunc  15:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is far from resolved! The editor has not even had an oppertunity to say anything. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed the resolved tag for that? We're going to be waiting around a long time here, then - the editor has been blocked indefinitely. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they can comment under their usual username instead. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Mjroot offered to post their comments here. Now were is the evidence that the editor is a sock! If there was an admin with a set of balls they would lift the block and the editor could comment it they wanted. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So no evidence = indef block, plenty of evidence = nothing. Call editors "terrorist fanboys" and you get blocked for 3 hours, type the word "bum in an article you get blocked and when their is plenty of evidence of sock abuse there's nothing to be done? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Seems to me Black Kite did the right thing here. Sound reasoning led to appropriate action being taken. Crafty (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of WP:1RR, but I saw no evidence in the article, that the article is under a 1RR rule as it is. The only mention is on the talk page. The talk page says that an editor is able to make 1 revert a day. Since the new user only made one edit, he/she did not violate the 1RR rule, according to what is written on the talk page instructions. This was a horrible block.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that Domer48 is so excited about this topic. Is it possible that this user account was his creation? It looks that way to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very strong accusation. Do you have proof, or are you trolling?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just find it suspicious that this user pops up (having made no previous edits or subsequent edits) just after Domer has started reverting in this article and in the same language as Domer, argues the same thing. It is also suspicious that Domer and Big Dunc, who is also reverting on that page, have suddenly jumped to this user's defence. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but to me this looks like Domer created this account to revert more once. If this is not the case then I apologise to them, but that's how it appears to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have genuine concerns about sockpuppetry, the honourable thing to do is initiate a Sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I could spend all my time doing that or I could try to continue editing the article. I was asked for my opinion, I gave it and said why I gave it. It's up to admins to do blocking policy, something I have no interest in doing. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Yet when it comes to admins, I always find it very alarming when admins who are involved in editing an article, are the ones who do the blocking. A user who is an admin should be able to distinguish between being an editor of an article and being an admin. I don't think that this was done in this case. No other accounts were given blocks for editing or reverting on the same article, including his own. Why was this one? If Black Kite had an issue with the new user, then he should have asked for help, rather than block a user he does not agree with. I know that this is a seperate issue, but this has become a problem all across wikipedia, admins abusing their tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, a bigger problem, which I find even more alarming, is users spouting off on WP:ANI without either reading the thread properly or bothering to check their facts, thus making themselves look ridiculous. I was not "involved in editing the article" (never edited it before), I didn't "block a user I don't agree with", (I merely blocked and reverted the sock because it was a sock). That was the complete extent of it. I did later post on the talk page about a completely different section of the article from the one the sock edited, but I haven't touched the article apart from that single revert. Feel free to refactor your posting at any point. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 07:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on not editing the article. You seem involved now though. But what you are saying is that you just randomly came across an edit by a new user who did not violate the '1RR, but decided on your own, that this must be an obvious sock, without knowing anything about the article or whose Sock that this new user may be. That actually sounds worse. Please tell us your method for determining this? Was it a gut feeling or do you have actual evidence that we cannot see? I have heard alot of accusations about this account being a Sock, but does anyone want to back it up with an actual checkuser?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think domer is the master for this account. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the edit war or identity of the probable sockmaster, but Black Kite's block was objectively reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI, even for an involved administrator. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No way was it reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI. Stop with the excuses please! The editor still has the right to respond. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets have a go at the duck test and see how it goes. Black Kite ignores Jdorney's personal attack on me, despite being warned about this type of conduct by three admin's,, they ignore Jdorney's canvassing of editors who share their POV,     onto this article despite told to stop. Black Kite ignores Jdorney when they continue to canvess despite being told not to      , and then blocks an new editor you reverted and explained why they did on the talk page, Jdorney's desputed edit. Now when we know Black Kite ignores Jdorney's edit warring already, coupled with their latest disruption being ignored, do I here a quack? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I don't know why Domer finds it necessary to defend Boneyarddog so fiercely, but it must have something to do with the revert in question being against "opponent" Jdorney. Anyway, Boneyarddog seems nothing more than a throwaway sock, considering the lack of effort in getting himself unblocked. Block endorsed as far as I'm concerned. Too much time and energy is spent on this.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you get a grip of yourself. No eviednce has been provided to support the block! If you suspect that there is sock abuse you file a report. The logic here is, no point filing a report because there is no proof, so I'll block regardless! So shove your insinuation as to my motivation and while were at it, Black Kite supports Jdorney's edit if that is the way you want to look at it. How do we know Boneyarddog is male? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  11:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is citing WP:DUCK not enough? Socks are blocked on that basis all the time, without filing a report. Fine if you disagree with the block in this case, but consensus here seems to be the block was sound. My "insinuation" makes more sense to me than "You block because you're British", which was your argument on Black Kite's talk page. I don't care whether Boneyarddog is male of female, btw.--Atlan (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has requested an unblock. BigDunc 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Boneyarddog creates an account, and as his first edit jumps into the middle of an edit war, with a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. This is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Or at a stretch meatpuppetry. The editor in question has been notified of this thread, and can discuss it on his talk page.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 13:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please! You describe this edit as evidence of a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. If this is clear and obvious sockpuppetry file a report. On the other hand, for an editor with very very limited intelligence and intellect it migh have been a difficult edit. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. I wonder why you'd be so sure about that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you can wonder all you like! Now the editor has placed an unblock request, I wonder how long they will be left waiting? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not long. Obvious meatpuppet. All new accounts who jump straight into revert wars with their first edit should be blocked, and this is no exception. Moreschi (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File a report then! What happened to assume good faith? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, when it comes to you and your circle of Irish patriots, good faith expired a very long time ago. Moreschi (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we can see were your coming from! That explains your declining this new editor. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I have no particular wish for yet more far-out nationalists - of any stripe - to be running around on the loose. We have quite enough of those already. Moreschi (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi could you tell us who this circle of Irish patriots are, because it might explain our block loggs! Considering the number of them that have to be overturned. By the way, your comments are considered a personal attack on wiki. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So you are not, then, an Irish patriot? You are, perhaps, an Inuit with a deep interest in Irish history? Moreschi (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it, how is this different than the hundreds of socks we block each day? <font color='#4B7411'>Chillum 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi are you going to say who these editors are that you hold in contempt or are you going spout more inane crap? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So, first you remind me to "assume good faith" and link to the personal attacks policy, and then you tell I am "spouting inane crap". Coherence, much? As far as the Irish patriots are concerned: yourself, BigDunc, VK, and Sarah777 would appear to be the worst re policy-compliance and neutrality, although I have no intent of ever doing any serious work in this area and as a result am not familiar with all the editors involved. "Hold in contempt", by the way, is entirely inaccurate: you are entitled to your political viewpoints and certainly, in an atmosphere of intellectual pluralism, they warrant respect. Unfortunately, here your politics need to kept fairly separate from your editing, which you signally fail to do. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Moreschi; I am scrupulous about defending WP:NPOV. You're continued defence of Anglo-American pov as "neutral is becoming tiresome. Nor am I a patriot. A retraction is awaited. Sarah777 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If Boneyarddog is unblocked? bar him from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing nothing here but lots of heat and very little light; AGF is neither a suicide pact or a guideline that forces us to pretend we're naive. Good block. Domer, please take it down a notch or two; although admins generally have a high tolerance for being abused, we do expect you to try to engage politely. In both endlessly arguing against this obvious block, and the increasingly strident and hectoring tone of your posts, you're not doing yourself any favours. EyeSerene talk 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If more people are looking at this thread: can someone deal with this as appropriate? Moreschi (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's unacceptable; Dunc blocked for two weeks. This is not normally an area I get involved in, but personally I'm totally fed up of seeing argumentative, endlessly tendentious editors on this board, who are apparently prepared to dispute the time of day if it comes from the wrong person. If anyone thinks I've been lenient and wants to increase, feel free. EyeSerene talk 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's worth noting that Dunc's response to the block was to inform the world that I am a "lying fantasist": Chillum reverted and locked the page down. Moreschi (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, much of this has nothing to do with ANI. Please take personal disputes to your respective talk pages and stop filling up this already overburdened noticeboard with squabbling. <font color='#527112'>Chillum 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth closing again? There seems to be a consensus that BlackKite's original block was appropriate, and flaring tempers are only going to lead to more inappropriate reactions and avoidable blocks if it's allowed to drag on. EyeSerene talk 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi opens this tread here get Dunc blocked, and then closes it again having got a result. Chillum this has everything to do with ANI. Moreschi has expressed contempt for a group of editors here, they decline an unblock request from an editor they despise, and they attack with off the wall accusations and have an editor blocked when they respond and you say this is not the place to discuss it? Please! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene this will not be brushed under the carpet! BlackKite was wrong with the block, could he possibly share the same extreme views as Moreschi? Why will no Admin file a report if they consider it to be a sock? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)All of that has nothing to do with this thread. There is a more relevant thread down below that you have already joined. Lets keep this in one place, this page is long enough. I am marking this thread as resolved. <font color='#5C6D12'>Chillum  15:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum how can this be resolved! An editor was indef blocked with no evidence! Are Admins apt to cover up mistakes! Do we or do we not have a process for dealing with socks! -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Listen Domer, dozens of admins have seen this thread and nobody is doing anything. This thread is not even discussing the original topic anymore but has instead fallen into personal squabbling. Let it go. <font color='#5F6C12'>Chillum  15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chillum, rather than making statements of the obvious ("nobody is doing anything") could you explain how this is therefore resolved? What you are saying is someone was blocked/banned without any evidence whatsoever (or than, it seems to me, some Admin wanted to censor him) and that because he remains blocked the matter is "resolved"? Could you expand on your thinking here because the rationality of your statements is not obvious on first reading? Or second reading. I gave up after the fifth attempt. Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's resolved, because consensus is not to lift the block, hence "nobody is doing anything". It's patently obvious to everyone else. I'll archive this now (at risk of being accused of censoring), so we can end this discussion which has long outlived its usefulness.--Atlan (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent socking at articles linked to the Climate Research Unit hack (and climate articles in general)
The climate articles (in the widest sense) have been the target of several sock masters, the most persistent of which is User: Scibaby (see Long-term abuse/Scibaby) with over 460 confirmed socks (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby) and 130 suspected ones (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby) so far. Currently, there are several new Scibaby socks per week. Recent investigations at Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive have uncovered two more sock masters (User: Flegelpuss and User: Tinpac, also see Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) "working" in this area. After the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident hit the blogs, we now have a steady stream of "new" editors, many of which show surprising knowledge of Wikilingo, policies, acronyms, and syntax, and nearly all of which have similar positions. WP:SPI and Checkusers have been valuable, but seem to be overloaded, and by the time a result comes back much of the damage has been done. Also, as long as it is more work to prepare an SPI report than to create a fresh sock, we are burning out well-meaning contributors - both via WP:BURO and by repeatedly frustrating their good faith attempts at communication with socks that have anything but. A few more eyes would be welcome, as would be suggestions. Possible measures could include a fast-lane to a dedicated CU, or semi-protection for all the articles and talk pages for a few weeks to at least force the sockmasters to at least age their socks. None of this is perfect, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps spreading a false message on the blogospere about another incident with far more serious accusations and then creating a wiki article about that will divert the traffic for a while. We can let the socks edit such an article as much as they please. So, William please post something really damning on RealClimate :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The socking is getting out of hand. Can we please have a CU on Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why isn't Raul working on this? This is supposed to be his full time Wiki-job. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Raul is an American, he's probably enjoying a holiday off-wiki. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has anything to do with Thanksgiving. Please see Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia
Several IPs replaced content on this article with "Nobody cares about Ausfailia". Example here. They are:
 * 211.30.137.7
 * 66.254.201.33 (blocked)
 * 24.1.91.41
 * 76.107.97.198
 * 68.99.180.40
 * 70.187.134.226
 * 76.107.97.198
 * 24.98.14.167
 * 64.113.250.159
 * 71.137.158.57 (blocked)
 * 204.191.141.104 (blocked)
 * 91.186.75.70
 * 75.143.65.80

See page history for the article.

24.167.247.252 removed some content instead of putting "Nobody cares about Ausfailia".

Those IPs kept vandalizing the page. What now? Merlion 444  08:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Warn 'em and report 'em to WP:AIV? Crafty (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's today's featured article, so I guess it warrants mention here on ANI. The article should be semi-protected, in my opinion.--Atlan (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hurry!!! Semi-protect it!!! I agree with you, Atlan. Merlion  444  09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for 3 days due to elevated vandalism, especially in the last 2 hrs. Feel free to change the protection level. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it was unprotected, and I've just protected it again for a day. I've watchlisted too, just in case. Ged  UK  11:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw
. There's really multiple issues surrounding this user that I really couldn't find a specific place to put this in. But anyways Gintong has a long problem of incivility and has been sufficiently warned for inflammatory edit summaries and overall poor behavior. See his/her talk page (this is the one reasons why I didn't go to Wikiquette alerts because he/she has already been warned and I believe some administrator action is needed). His/her most recent edit summaries like this and this are some examples of the edit summaries and these cases treating Wikipedia from what it seems like a battleground, taking ownership of articles, and not assuming good faith. Other summaries can be found through their contributions list. This kind of behavior can drive editors away from the project. He's/she's is being quite a disruptive editor.

Not only this, but he/she is also admittedly broke consensus, see the very first sentence. He/she keeps reverting to his/her preferred version and he/she seems intent on doing so per ownership of articles and personal feelings. However, when multiple different editors reverted him, he then suddenly claims that he has achieved consensus through these links claim #1 and claim #2. None of these claims support that a consensus was reached to keep their version. I know this is a dispute but, again there are multiple issues.

He/she is also one revert away from 3RR on the article Philippines.
 * revert #1
 * revert #2
 * revert #3

<b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 11:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirmation that Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw has been notified. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That first revert was on the 25th, so it doesn't count for a WP:3RR violation. There is a clear problem with his claiming consensus and not giving evidence of where this was obtained, though, so I'll keep an eye on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, messed up on my dates. I'm a date behind. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

74.73.120.243
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I'm pretty sure it's inactionable at AIV but I don't know what to make of it myself. This IP suddenly turned up out of the blue and vandalised my talk page (adding some link to random sections). The IP has made no other edits before or since, but I find it difficult to believe that, if someone were going to vandalise a page, they would, of all pages pick that one. Can anybody shed any light on this? <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed odd that a random visitor would hop in, do what's not terribly serious vandalism and just disappear. The web address inserted is far from "typical" vandalism, so it almost makes me think it was deliberately meant for you as a joke, or was a total fluke. It does happen sometimes. Unfortunately, I think you're going to have to write this off as strange/inexplicable unless it happens again. You could try to come up with a list of persons you'd care to ask about it offline if you want to see where the IP address is from, but that's the only info available. I don't see any edit warring or reverts of any sort in your edit history the past many days so that makes it all the more strange since drive-by retaliation vandalism is a common type. As a fellow rollbacker who fears little stuff like this even maybe sliding into a mess for unknown reasons, I understand your concern, but I'm not sure what more can be done here. As for your question, AN/I is where "most" stuff winds up... AIV is really only intended for articles and things in the mainspace I believe. There's WP:WQA but the "feel" it is meant for starting-class dispute resolution and not a need to have something sorted out ASAP to stop it from continuing or becoming worse. Could also request semi-protection of your userspace if it comes up again, which would keep the IP user at bay if you get the same visitor. Best of luck! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't belong at either WQA or here. Step 1 whenever faced with something "odd" (which is what this is) is to try and discuss it with the other editor.  A template is not a discussion.  If it was a random drive-by, or a one-off incident, discussion won't continue, nor will the issues.  If the attempt to discuss becomes heated, then it's time for WQA.  If the edits escalate to actual vandalism/wikistalking, then ANI is the place to come, coupled with possible page protection.  It's possible that it's simply someone who forgot to login with whom you've had an incident - that will become obvious soon enough usually.  Let's not forget that direct communication always comes first. (<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am normally fairly lenient re incivility, but...
This is really a little OTT. In response to the WP:ANI thread above, whereby I declined the unblock request citing the obvious fact that the blocked editor is clearly a meatpuppet of one or other of the Irish patriots (a fairly rational analysis, I would have thought), I get that little piece of bile on my talkpage. Please deal with as appropriate. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Foul language is easily dealt with. Merely alter the post, replace the colorful words (which is what I do at my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now blocked 2 weeks by . All dealt with, thanks. Moreschi (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better, Moreschi gets asked a reasonable question and Moreschi in reply launches into a personal attack. Because the editor responds in kind they get blocked. Moreschi on this tread offers editors the same contemptious remarks with accusation accusations and then EyeSerene has the brass neck to tell me  to take it down a notch or two after they block Dunc! Moreschi then has the gall to post this? They get the editor they attacked blocked with this biased and one sided notice. They must be please with the result of the situation they created. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is both Dunc's and your continually combative attitudes that made this situation spiral out of control. You really can't see how Dunc brought the block onto himself after that comment? I guess being too busy blaming everyone else blinds you to the obvious.--Atlan (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Were are the personal attacks which prompted this response. How many accusations does it take? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

''This is quite obviously someone you or Domer either roped in via some forum, or, equally possibly, you are acquainted with IRL. Kindly make your little tricks a tad less obvious next time, this is a really a blatant insult to everyone's intelligence.

Domer, when it comes to you and your circle of Irish patriots, good faith expired a very long time ago. Moreschi (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no particular wish for yet more far-out nationalists - of any stripe - to be running around on the loose. We have quite enough of those already. Moreschi (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? So you are not, then, an Irish patriot? You are, perhaps, an Inuit with a deep interest in Irish history? Moreschi (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should make it more clear that the above is a quote. At first glance it looks like Moreschi is posting in all bold. On that note, the all bold is a bit annoying, perhaps italics? <font color='#5E6C12'>Chillum  15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the nationalist comment is borderline, but I can't believe you of all people would consider being called an "Irish patriot" a personal attack. At any rate, thinking you are being attacked does not entitle you to a personal attack of your own, which seems to be your argument here.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I would venture to say what he seems to be complaining about is the context the comment was made in rather than the comment. I really don't see why this is worth the long, drawn out discussion, though. It's not the worst that's been seen, not even close. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Domer, surely you can see why "far-out nationalists" would merit a warning, whereas "fucking fool so go ahead and block me too this place is a fucking joke with admins like you" would merit a block? It is a matter of degree. <font color='#616B12'>Chillum  16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreschi's signature has been transfered here as though he has posted the comment when he hasn't, this it not correct and it is excessive to draw attention to his comments by unnecessarily bolding his comments. edit conflict, good I see the bolding has been corrected but the signature still requires dealing with. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum why am I not surprised with you addressing your comments to me and not Moreschi! I agree with Dunc's comments, do you agree with Moreschi accusations? Lets start with This is quite obviously someone you or Domer either roped in via some forum, or, equally possibly, you are acquainted with IRL. Do you share this view? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Domer, before lobbing accusations at me please get your facts straight. I have talked to Moreschi about this. I am not about to go stating who I think is right and who I think is wrong in matters of debate, but I will point out when someone is acting disruptively. <font color='#666813'>Chillum  16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Moreschi's comments provocative, arrogant and aggresive. An admin should know better. Loosmark (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommend the ..roped in... & the ..acquinted with IRL comments be re-tracted. BigDunc's colorful language, should also be retracted. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this degenerating into heat like the section related to this above. Domer48, tone down just a hair and try for less bold, please. Everyone, at the least, keep reasonable. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Domer48, the manner of your comments are needlessly exhausting community patience and resources. There are better ways to communicate the same point without being so inflammatory. Light, not heat please - that would go a long way in part resolving the way others are tempted to respond to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A request: Howabout BigDunc get unblocked, then he & Moreschi can apologies to each other & chalk it to being just a heated moment. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer48, you have raised this issues on 2 threads on this page and 2 user talk pages. Please stop forum hopping and keep this discussion in one place, here(or even better just let it go). <font color='#696813'>Chillum  16:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be great once the parties were prepared to do so. I am currently trying to get BigDunc to agree to the simple matter of not engaging in further personal attacks, then we can work on perhaps getting them to shake hands and make up. <font color='#6C6613'>Chillum  16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see BigDunc unblocked until he has cooled down, otherwise the same thing will happen again. Give it at least 24 hours before considering unblocking, he should have cooled by then. Jeni ( talk ) 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree that block durations are never written in stone and that once the underlying issue not longer requires prevention then the block is no longer needed. I am in e-mail communication with BigDunc right now and I think we are making progress. <font color='#6F6513'>Chillum  16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, progress is indeed being made. <font color='#706413'>Chillum  16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I will not be considering BigDunc's unblock request(if he chooses to make one) as I have been adjusting his block settings and think someone who has not been involved with his blocking review it. I am sure someone here will notice if he does post one. I do recommend that one makes sure the preventative nature of the block is no longer needed before removing it though, tempers can take time to settle. <font color='#726313'>Chillum  16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

...As far as the Irish patriots are concerned: yourself [Domer48], BigDunc, VK, and Sarah777 would appear to be the worst re policy-compliance and neutrality... Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) A slap on the wrist for bad faith accusations with not blot on their record, and Big Dun blocked! Now is it the case that any new editor suspected of being Irish can be indef blocked after there first edit? We now know what Moreschi's view of the above editors are, a "circle of Irish patriots" who are not entitled "good faith" as it "expired a very long time ago." How many Admin's have this opinion? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer its time to take a dog for a walk. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And while you are at it, you can drop the stick. We are currently trying to work towards getting BigDunc unblocked and this situation deescalated. You seem to be seeking further escalation and we don't want it to get worse, we want it to get better. <font color='#766213'>Chillum  17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I broadly support unblocking sooner rather then later but Jeni is right that we need everyones tempers to cool first. Personally I would support an unblock in the morning (GMT) if not before now that Dunc has promised to disengage from Moreschi. Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the initial block, just wanted to say that I concur that this comment was block-worthy. As for length, considering the previous block log of, 2 weeks may have been a tad long, but was within the realm of administrator discretion. As a followup to this though, BigDunc should also be placed under formal probation via Requests for arbitration/The Troubles case, as probation covers incivility, and would provide further authority for a block or ban if BigDunc continued with such language in the future. I have some familiarity with the necessary paperwork for probation, so if no one else wants to do it, I can take care of it. --Elonka 17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of BigDunc being given back his talk page rights has indicated to me that he is not yet calm. He has removed his unblock request and I think this is a good idea for now. Let him come back when he is calmer and repost his unblock request should he desire. I think the best thing we can do now is just wait for a while. <font color='#835C14'>Chillum  17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is on a WikiBreak. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I refrained from posting earlier; with Domer clearly upset with my block of BigDunc, I hoped my disengagement might help to de-escalate this pointless dispute. I also regret that the block was necessary, though of course only BigDunc can take responsibility for his words. My original request to Domer (before, not after, I blocked BigDunc) was in the hopes that we could head off exactly this situation, but unfortunately events overtook me and I had to take other action. I appreciate that Domer and BigDunc were annoyed by the block of what virtually everyone is certain was an obvious sock account, and also by the speculation as to who the sockmaster might be. I understand why that speculation took the direction it did, in the face of such vehement protests that were out of all proportion to BlackKite's action. However, I also understand why Domer and BigDunc found the speculation offensive, and think it would have been wiser if Moreschi had kept it to himself... but we are where we are and regardless of provocation we still choose how to react. Impulse control and being big enough to know when to shrug offenses off and walk away are things we ask of all editors. Re BigDunc's block, I have no problem with them being unblocked early if other admins find their assurances credible, and agree that probation would probably be a helpful move.  EyeSerene talk 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the long history of sock-puppetry around The Troubles by certain editors (most now indef blocked), it really isn't a controversial decision that Black Kite took in identifying and blocking the edit-warring new account. It clearly was not a good faith edit from a new good faith editor.
 * A corollary to this history of sockpuppetry, though, is that accusing experienced editors of operating sockpuppets is insensitive a likely to cause offence. BigDunc and Domer, for their faults, are not sockpuppeteers. If they were, they would have been caught long before now and anyone familiar with their editing would know they would not even consider such a thing. So I perfectly understand that the casual way Moreschi accused BigDunc of being involved with that account invoked anger. It shouldn't have happened. Hopefully Moreschi will now realize that admins should be more thoughtful about making such accusations in future. That said, one can express one's disapproval without resorting to an abusive tirade, something BigDunc should certainly know by now. Therefore I suggest BigDunc take however long it takes to compose himself, request an unblock indicating he is composed and we can all move on, older and (hopefully) wiser. Should Moreschi and BigDunc choose to exchange expressions of regret or apology then that is up to them, but it certainly shouldn't be a condition.  I also really don't think Dunc needs to be under sanctions as a result of this outburst. We all say things we shouldn't in the heat of anger, lets not make it more than it was. But he should be aware that sanctions will probably be a consequence if there are repeats of this sorry, and needless, type of exchange. Does this sound like a resolution?  Rockpock  e  t  19:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a resolution to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed (deferring to your greater familiarity with the editors re probation)  EyeSerene talk 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppeteers they are not, and I didn't accuse them of being so. Meatpuppetry, on the other hand, is perfectly plausible. Well, perhaps meatpuppetry isn't quite the right word. We have here a sort of tag-team who will back each other up on ANI, do reverts for each other, engage in each other's discussions. Evidently there's a degree of off-wiki collaboration involved, although nothing, I suspect, as organized as the recent EE mailing list scandal. Despite local variants in ideology there are all, more or less, Irish patriots, and have, ahem, strong views on the various relevant subjects. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they are all well aware of their biases. The problem comes when such strong views are applied to contentious articles: WP:TIGERS says we have to be careful here: that Troubles pages should not be written by ANI-drama-fuelled-debate between extreme Irish nationalists and their British counterparts.


 * So what's a result? An obvious sock/meat account gets blocked and instantly Dunc takes it to ANI, and Domer follows up with some very strongly-worded posts and wild accusations, defending the indefensible. The first thing that comes to mind is that this is some friend of theirs who's just been blocked. Little else would seem to explain their outrage. Such was a rational chain of logic and hardly proof that I am a "fucking fantasist", as Dunc so eloquently put it in his email to me. Am I the only one who finds this outrage a little put on? I find it hard to explain why Dunc and Domer would go to such lengths for a one-edit account who they never interacted with. Rationally speaking the account was never going to be unblocked, nor BlackKite desysopped etc...so why the fuss on ANI? Why such outrage? Because they know more than they're letting on?


 * I suspect so. This is probably, of course, be some returning banned user just trolling, or, more likely, it may be a rather clueless "lurker" who decided to plunge in at an inopportune moment, and certainly Dunc and Domer aren't stupid enough to actually solicit a revert from anyone at that point. But that is beside the point: the point is that the appearance of such accounts - and the hysterical defence of them on ANI - points to a degree of collusion. Sockpuppetry, no: meatpuppetry, not necessarily, but certainly collusion. A degree of imaginative realism is needed here. Do we really think we've seen the last of this? Just as several years ago various Yahoo groups were being used by our Hindutva friends to solicit support, just as we've seen the recent expose of the anti-Russian EE mailing list, so there is likely to be a Putinista-l mailing list and, quite plausibly, a fenian-l. We cannot read their traffic but we should certainly take their existence for granted. And perhaps be a little less credulous. Moreschi (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes when different people are independently acting towards the same goal the illusion of conspiracy can appear where there is none. <font color='#B94416'>Chillum  20:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the recent experiences with the EE mailing list, and the Hindutva problems of a couple years back, would rather tell against that. Different people, certainly, but "independently acting"? I find it a shade hard to believe at this stage. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm minded to agree with Chillum. I do feel we should be more careful about distinguishing between the appearance of meatpuppetry (which I agree is certainly an issue) and accusing editors of engaging in it. This is something I have discussed with BigDunc in the past, and encouraged him to be careful of that appearance and dissociate himself from Domer. Its actually a wider problem in The Troubles. Editors from either side are unbelievably quick to jump to the defense of a like minded editor, almost irrespective of the context (often with the opening, "I don't condone X's actions but..."). They are also unbelievably quick to criticize an editor that they differ in POV with. It gives the impression of organized factions, when I don't really think that is the case at all (though I could be wrong, of course). Its quite easy to spot those editors who edit in this area that have no real POV in the subject, because they are the only ones willing to defend and criticize editors from both sides, depending only the edit in question (and consequently, they tend to be the target of abuse from all sides!). Its a real bugbear of mine, actually: if editors from both sides were treat their friends by the same standards as they treat those who differ in opinion from them, we would have a lot less of these problems turn into faction disputes. Rockpock  e  t  21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Hindutva groups to CAMERA to the EE mailing list to the Judaism group, I've seen an awful lot of off-wiki collusion in my time and investigated some of it. If we aren't dealing with organised factions here, I'll be very, very surprised, because all the signs are there, and this little kerfuffle was just another give-away. No doubt someone, somewhere will leak the logs eventually, and we'll all pretend to be surprised, but really, by now, we shouldn't be. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We clearly have a small group of Irish nationalist editors who operate at or past the expected bounds of civil behavior here. That said - as Chillium and Rockpocket said, there's a huge difference between them stepping up and blindly supporting trolls or low-clue new users who are ideologically aligned with them, and them organizing a campaign to create new socks or meatpuppets offline on a hypothetical fenian-l.
 * Pressure groups that want to have long term effect adopt wider and lower profile approaches than this, and fly under the radar for longer. If this is a conspiracy, it's a remarkably inept one.  There's no real evidence of it, and it strains credulity for me to assume that it's what's really going on.
 * The behavior of blindly supporting anyone who agrees with you, no matter how problematic their edits are, is in no way constructive behavior here, and as a pattern (which, I agree with) forms a basis for user conduct review and sanction for disruptive conduct. Responsible behavior would be if Dunc, Domer, Sara walked up to new Irish-related editors who are causing problems and made friends with them and helped them learn how Wikipedia works, not defending them blindly but working to constructively bring more independent people into the Wikipedia community.
 * What has happened in a number of cases now was not responsible. Failing to acknowledge problems or bad acts by people on your side of a debate does nothing to help Wikipedia improve and solve problems.
 * Moreschi, I know this is frustrating, but here you seem to have assumed bad faith. ABF is drama inducing.  You've been around long enough to know that.  It didn't help.  Please don't do it again.  I support Chillium's comments on your talk page.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's inept. I remember when we were forwarded the CAMERA mails. That was so poorly organized we would have had no trouble dealing with it even if the project had successfully got off the ground in secrecy. Forgive my rudeness, but there's a reason these people (from both factions) are editing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. As I state above: we've all seen enough collusion to know the signs by now, and they are screaming in our faces. This account, for instance, if it is not a banned user jumping back in, is a hapless lurker on "fenian-l" who didn't quite realize what he was doing.


 * This is not ABF (and anyone can apply AGF to Domer and Dunc these days, I don't know). This is rational analysis based on years of experience. Wachet auf, people. Apply a little realism. Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, Vintagekits (now indef blocked) was caught recruiting meatpuppets back in the day for the purpose of furthering the Republican agenda (see Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits). That was pretty inept too. There was, however, no suggestion Domer or BigDunc were involved. Having significantly interacted with these two editors for a number of years now (perhaps more than any other admins - and I'll include Sarah in this too, since her name has been mentioned in the same context), I simply don't feel that the pay off from this would be sufficient to offset the risk. I know I'm probably not their favorite person because I do have issues with the partisanship in much of their editing, but am also willing to stick my neck out and say that they are simply not the sort of people to engage in that sort of coordinated deceit. I know that sounds naive, and obviously I could be completely misled, but that is my opinion for what its worth.  Rockpock  e  t  22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreschi, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're too close to this one.
 * I've been around about as long as you have, I've chased down far more than my fair share of persistent abusers and sockpuppeteers, and I think it's obvious that I'm pushing as hard as anyone on trying to improve the civility problem around here.
 * I have seen enough collusion to know the signs, and stomped on plenty of it in my time. In this particular case - in my opinions - naive blind support for like minded editors explains the behavior seen adequately, without requiring any collusion behind the scenes.
 * I can't rule out collusion - that's almost impossible to disprove - but I see no reason to assume it at this time.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Too close" is perhaps a little off. My direct interaction with Domer and Dunc has been quite limited, and my administrative involvement in this area extends to banning Astrotrain, who was, from memory, someone from the other side of this dispute. I've never edited any of the articles and my views on Irish history, as far as they go, are pretty bland and inoffensive.


 * The extra factor, I think, is the long, long history of the Domer/Dunc tag-team (or "collaborative effort", if you prefer). They've acted in concert too frequently and too often for the coordination to be worked entirely through the wiki, otherwise, like Icarus, we are flying in the face of common sense. This series of threads is just another example. And I'd be very surprised if this coordination extended to just the two of them: the temptations of bringing in the others would be enormous. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go again... Can someone please explain to this United Kingdom editor that as soon as Irish nationalist orientated editors start talking about a "British editor conspiracy" that said pro Republican editors are warned and blocked for bad faith allegations, but when a Irish Nationalist editor gets upset for being claimed as soliciting comment or making sock edits (with no more evidence than the accusations of British conspiracy get) then the Republican editor gets blocked. For fucking bad fucking language for fucks sake - and nothing about the fucking bad faith casually thrown at them either. This situation reminds me of the Jewish proverb - "When the rock falls upon the jug, it is bad for the jug - but when the jug falls upon the rock it is bad for the jug. It is always bad for the jug!" No wonder I try to keep out of this fucking shambles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, there may not be a britishbounders@anti-irish-l list yet, but I'm sure there will be. It's a much more common problem than often assumed, as we really should have learnt by now. Moreschi (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And really, LHVU, your picture of an oppressed Irish minority just doesn't stack up. Remember how long it took to ban VK, for all his meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, edit-warring, mentorships, personal attacks, dozens of blocks, you name it? For how long have Domer and Dunc got away with flagrant tag-teaming? Or how Sarah777 is allowed to get away with not-so-subtle attacks like this and nobody bats an eyelid? Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Get away with" writing an essay opposing your view? Who the heck do you think you are? If you can write an essay attacking non-Anglo-American nationalists in such agressive terms why the hack should I not be allowed respond? I may have used parody to illustrate my point - the effectiveness of my rebuttal of your nonsense is what really annoys you, isn't it? Sarah777 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link btw, I'd compleatly forgotten where that essay was! I must dust it off, update it and give it more prominence. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your wider point, LHVU, but to be fair, I don't recall anyone, Irish nationalist or otherwise, having being blocked for talking about a "British editor conspiracy". Rockpock  e  t  23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If an Irish editor takes me to task for doing something on the basis that I'm British, I simply (and politely) tell them that they're talking bollocks.  Usually works, as long it is clear that you have a history of being fair in this area, which I hope I do.  Most Irish editors are pretty good with things as long as you have that.  Clearly there's nothing we can do about the likes of Sarah777 in these cases, but then no-one takes her claims of Anglo-admin bias seriously anyway.  I have had no problems with dealing with the other regular Irish editors apart from the occasional spat (eh, Domer?). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to archive. Same old rubbish from the same tag team of nationalist editors who the community is generally fed up with it, and with a the same few people defending it. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay, contributions to less than half a dozen noticeboard discussions involving Irish article related issues and now I am one of the "same few people" defending it? I note also that "the community" is "generally fed up" with it, so I guess there is little point in discussing this with the usual closed minds too often found around here. That makes me sad to be proud to be British. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Imperialists, ex- or not, always find it easiest to dismiss the concerns of the ruled, formerly- or not, and not take them seriously. The more difficult path is to take to heart the traditional Native American maxim, "Don't judge a person until you've walked a mile in his moccasins". For example, try reading Invisible Man, or at least the plot summary in the article. A dismissive attitude is always more likely to increase, rather than assuage, the defensive attitude of those felt put upon. And the downward cycle continues. Sswonk (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nationalisms of any flavor are cancerous when unchecked on a project like this. We must allow people to challenge our systemic biases without the kind of disruption it seems to be causing. We must stretch our assumption of good faith to the limit when working with editors from other POVs. But we must also be ruthless in showing those who are chronically unable to follow our norms the door. It's a tricky balance and we don't always get it right. --John (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock attacking me and Mick
This is the third time in less than a week that I've been called a "cunt" on Wikipedia for my views on the game between France and Ireland. . This is not just a common vandal, it's someone who has been watching the debate and know that I've had an argument with MickMacNee, as the user name, created for this sole purpose, is Mick's name backwards and the talk page is copy-pasted from Mick's. I don't suspect Mick for a minute, but this vandal is trying to attack Mick at least as much as me by trying to make it seem as if Mick are behind this. I expect an indefinite block, of course, but would also suggest a check on this one-purpose sock to the user behind it could be blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked EeNcaMciM, rolled back his edit to your page, and deleted his fake user talk page under WP:CSD. Sorry about the experience. <font color='#A94B15'>Chillum  19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made Mick aware about this discussion to get his two cents. Oh, and I also made the fake user aware, before I knew he'd been blocked...GiantSnowman 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He copied my talk page? I feel violated. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the price of fame - being mocked by trolls that have all the subtlety of The Three Stooges. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re -  it's clearly a poor attempt to spell MickMacNee backwards. I feel that this username is not completely in accordance with WP:U. Anyone else with similar thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

*knuck* *knuck* *knuck* <font color='#DC3518'>Chillum  22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the username, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just be careful not to delete it from right to left, or you'll zap the wrong user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He he he. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to suggest to trolls in the future not to target opponents in a dispute? It just might make them friends. (Or maybe we ought to encourage this?) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anietor blacklisted from Twinkle
A notification that I have blacklisted Anietor from Twinkle for repeatedly rolling back good faith edits as vandalism.

This problem first came to my attention after PMAnderson made an edit to Catholic Church that Anietor didn't like, and Anietor responded with a Twinkle vandalism warning.. I reacted to that with a warning to Anietor that I would blacklist him/her from Twinkle if I saw them abuse it again.

Yesterday Anietor used Twinkle to roll back as vandalism another good faith edit to the same article, and again left a vandalism warning.

I think it is fairly clear that Twinkle is being misused here, and to further an edit war.

The reason I am dropping a notification here is because the last person I blacklisted from Twinkle has been carrying on like a pork chop ever since, and I figured this time around I would lodge a clear and rational explanation before the accusations of admin abuse start flying.

Hesperian 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * has been notified by about this discussion by . GiantSnowman 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly look at those diffs and think they were vandalism-- meaning disruptive to the Encyclopedia? No. Really, no. I'd say give the editor a change to explain this first. Actually, see what's happened to the "vandal" since; Are they still editing and things were somewhat cleared up, or did they disappear in anger/fear? That'd be one way to judge in an IAR (but still logical) way... seeing how something directly impacted the community. One mistake, possible, but the second one I'm most curious about... and even with those explanations/excused there's the whole matter of a warning being ignored and no effort made to request an opinion from the "vandal". I've accidentally hit vandalism rollback a few times instead of AGF... it had me rushing to the article to rollback my post, remove it from the user's talk page and write a personal apology in its place. That might be a very extreme reaction, but it cuts down misunderstandings a lot... unfortunately this looks like a case where a course of action like mine would have been perfect, and I hope the user hasn't been intimidated at all or scared away. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you don't think changing "help families" to "help and/or abuse families" is disruptive? Bringing up the recent revelations about the Church in Ireland may well be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but as it was done, it was very inappropriate, and I don't find the vandalism warning excessive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a good faith (though flawed) attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Certainly there are no grounds to declare it a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", which is what vandalism is. Hesperian 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was clearly vandalism and I can't in good faith see how it could be interperted any other way. Jtrainor (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ian Spackman's edit was clearly intended to be disruptive to make a point - he even said in his edit summary that he expected it to be reverted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not my place to judge what to call what the edits to say "vandal or no", I was stating that I generally didn't see them to be appropriate... It wasn't a social commentary; it was sad attempt at satire. Mea culpa. The rest sounds right. My instinct was inappropriate edits and it might look that way to many, there are multiple interpretations and I'd like to hear from the editor in question out of fairness. 'Tis all. ...Sorry for looking oddly ignorant. Just... wanted more information in the matter. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get back on the subject, please. I do not think Anietor should be blacklisted from Twinkle based on this evidence, and the fact that I would have reverted that edit as vandalism, no question, and I don't believe I'm known anywhere as a mad deletionist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed Anietor from the blacklist for now, since there is a pretty clear, though not overwhelming, opinion here that the edits could be considered in good faith to be vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As Datheisen points out, without a dialogue with the editor one cannot know for certain, but I think Anietor came to a reasonable conclusion as to the nature of the edit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:VAND:
 * "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."
 * "For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism"
 * "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them."

The edits in question were detrimental to the article, but were categorically not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination - or more importantly, by any stretch of the policy. It is disappointing and worrying that the editors above have such a fundamental misunderstanding of a widely-known and widely-understood policy, but especially so of User:SarekOfVulcan as an administrator. This may be a more common misconception than realised, but it is still a misconception.

Repeatedly and inappropriately templating regular users' good-faith edits is not good practise, whether or not Twinkle is used. The blacklisting from Twinkle is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop this happening again in the future, so the reversal is not a problem - but the templating really ought not happen again. Knepflerle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Anietor only templated Ian Spackman once, not repeatedly. And I still stand by my opinion that changing "help families" to "help and/or abuse families" is not "controversial personal opinion", but rather an attempt to disrupt the article. However, your point that I should re-read WP:VAND carefully is taken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "repeatedly" referred to different editors: [Ian Spackman Pmanderson (1), Pmanderson (2), Pmanderson (3), Pmanderson (4), Haldraper... That should be clearer now. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on Kosovo by User:sulmues
This user has been of late quite disruptive on that article. He has made a highly controversial move regarding that article's infobox (note the lack of an edit summary) while falsely claiming consensus, all the while shouting at people not to change it. The claim of consensus is patently false, as this and  discussion demonstrate. A number of users have objected to change and the way it was made, by slapping "Republic of Kosovo" and the flag on top of the infobox, a clear endorsement of the seccessionist POV     , and many more. When his change was independently reverted by two users, sulmues responded with edit-warring  , making two reverts in two days, thus breaking the 1RR restriction the article is under. When confronted by me on the talkpage, he responded with insults and personal attacks. On a battleground article such as this, such behavior is all the more unacceptable. I note this user has been topic-banned from this article before, and given his recent behavior, a new topic-ban would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have completely lost all good faith in Sulmues and am quite convinced the user is here only to disrupt and push his or her POV. An indefinite topic ban should be the next step. -- Cin é ma C 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 96 hours, topic-banned 6 months. Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

School Role Accounts?
I noticed
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeA
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeB
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeC
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeD
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeE
 * Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeF

I'm not sure what to do with these. They appear to be some kind of school role accounts. The edits seem constructive, but accounts like this probably run afoul of our shared account guidelines and policies. I have left a message on the talk page of the first account asking for the teacher to contact me. Gigs (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the edits are constructive, but they're probably role accounts. It may be helpful to point the teacher(s?) responsible to School and university projects too.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I left that link on the talk page of the first one. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned that these "students" haven't shown forms of vandalism. Doesn't mean that I won't be keeping an eye of them. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth manlol   22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see you have WP:AGF memorized. Killiondude (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF, like any other policy, has to be read and applied with a bit of common sense. We all know that edits from schools are very often vandalism so I completely agree with Pickbothmanlol. RaseaC (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Like most experienced editors, I am aware of vandalism and its sources. Nevertheless, announcing that bad behavior is expected from students is an excellent way to invite it. Acting as though good behavior is expected and is the norm sometimes encourages it. WP:AGF applies to individual Wikipedia users, and can be lost only by individual Wikipedia users' behavior. Policy does not permit creating exceptions to WP:AGF for categories of users. It is not Wikipedia's policy to Assume bad faith#From IPs, Assume bad faith#From students , Assume bad faith#From liberals , or Assume bad faith#From other suspect groups . There is a word for that kind of attitude: prejudice. —Finell 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Wikipedia. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is using the accounts - the teacher only, or 60 students? Cirt (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a fair bit of discussion, including confirming (as best I understand it) that the request was bona fide, how they would be used and supervized, the class purpose, how it would be organized, and "no testing by making bad edits". The requestor gave a full summary of how they would be using it, who controls the accounts and the logon/logoffs, and the approach they'd aim to follow. However Fred Bauder's more up to date with the specifics if that matters. FT2 (Talk 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best to add a note explaining this on the user page.  Triplestop  x3  03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still believe they should be banned for violation of the "Role Account" section of WP:SOCK. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Pickboth  manlol   00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's reasonable to assume the admin who created these accounts knew what he was doing at the time, I do not. Half  Shadow  01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know who said admin is? Can we contact him/her? -- Rockstone  talk to me!   01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Half Shadow  01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or cast your eyes up 5 or 6 posts to where Fred tells us that he created the accounts. Really, if you can't be bothered reading the thread then don't bother commenting either. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it make sense to violate wikipedia policy for a group of potential new editors? The lesson plan should be how to properly and correctly use wikipedia and that should include following wikipedia policies. Multiple users on a single account would get the account blocked. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, you're right. So instead of users called Gfs6gradeA through F, they could have Gfs6grade_Student01 through 60, as I think you'll agree that using their actual names in their ID's would not be appropriate. That would also give each student a lesson in how to create an account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus, if each student has an individual account, they will have individual contributions - and the teacher will be better able to determine the progress & merits of the edits for class. GiantSnowman 20:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Starting them off on a lesson about how to use wikipedia, by breaking a wikipedia rule, is kind of similar to the old joke about teaching someone Christianity by first having them steal a Gideon Bible from a hotel room. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that taking Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms isn't theft, the Bibles are free and replaceable. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So is wikipedia. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but don't enforce the rules for the sake of enforcing the rules either. An admin is making a good faith effort to teach people how to use the Wiki properly.  I assume he has highlighted to the class that the usernames are out of the ordinary and if they ever want to use it outside of the classroom they should make their own.  I also assume that he is overseeing their edits and as has been stated here already, there has been no disruption.  The admin can track (or at least narrow down) the culprits if they do something bad, so what more is nessesary?  I'm sure slapping a sockpuppet tag on their userpages would be a WONDERFUL *sarcasm* way of showing how kind and helpful the admins of wikipedia are to new users. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. They're sixth graders? Anyone who's spent time in the American public educational system is already well-used to the enforcement of "rules for the sake of rules"; it's we who dwell in AN/I (and people who live in countries where education is less about standardized testing and more about what you need to know to live) who are more likely to be sensitive about this issue. Anyway, once they hit the workforce they'll discover that blindly following rules gets you promoted, while following common sense gets you the stink-face from the boss...might as well get their cynicism good and started now. ( Note: I am not entirely sure how much of the preceding should be taken as sarcastic, and how much at face value. )GJC 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. They're sixth graders? Anyone who's spent time in the American public educational system is already well-used to the enforcement of "rules for the sake of rules"; it's we who dwell in AN/I (and people who live in countries where education is less about standardized testing and more about what you need to know to live) who are more likely to be sensitive about this issue. Anyway, once they hit the workforce they'll discover that blindly following rules gets you promoted, while following common sense gets you the stink-face from the boss...might as well get their cynicism good and started now. ( Note: I am not entirely sure how much of the preceding should be taken as sarcastic, and how much at face value. )GJC 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC parole
I was put under ARBMAC parole three months ago, and recently contacted the admin who imposed it, User:Nishkid64, asking him if he would be willing to repeal it. He replied that he was too busy with RL concerns and advised me to post to WP:ANI, stating he was perfectly content to have any admin make a decision on the matter. --Athenean (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the rationale to repeal it? Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A substantial amount of time has passed and my editing behavior has changed considerably during this period. I have not edit-warred, made extensive (and successful) use of the talk page to resolve content disputes, and I have not once violated the terms of my parole.  I invite any and all interested administrators to review my contribs log from this period and make a decision.  --Athenean (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. The timing on this, with the holiday starting in the US, is not great, but your request seems reasonable.  Hopefully someone in the next day or two can review and follow up appropriately.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of a US holiday to a project edited world wide George? Your comment is not only US centric but implies a lack of regard for the contributions of non-US editors. Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) If I may interject here, I assumed good faith and don't think George's comments mean anything of the sort. He seemed to be merely pointing out the obvious. This request was posted on the English Wikipedia, and it is the beginning of a four-day weekend for many WP editors, so the requesting editor might not get the quick response he's hoping for. I saw no offense intended. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There we are again. Its the beginning of a 4 day weekend for American editors. Wikipedia is not just America you know. Spartaz Humbug! 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, that why I said nothing about America. I said it's the beginning of a four-day weekend for many people who edit on the English Wikipedia, which is true. I've noticed slower reactions at ANI and AIV today, because there just aren't as many editors spending time on the wiki today. It's not a comment on America or American editors to point that out, and I don't think there was any offense intended. Dayewalker (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure. Spartaz Humbug! 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, it's also Eid-ul-Adha. Predominantly Islamic countries are all on holiday. This would affect anyone of that faith who edits the English Wikipedia - I'm in the UK, and have three staff from a team of 14 off Friday and Monday, celebrating with family (roast lamb is the traditional festive dish). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes I know, I live in Qatar but GWHs comment was specifically about the US and this is not a US led project, its a collaborative one involving people from all round the world. Spartaz Humbug! 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Athenean, I have looked through your last 1000 contributions or so and can't see any obviously contentious edits - although i would personally try to avoid edit summaries that include "You have to be kidding me" although I agree a 100+ year old book could be stretching it as an RS. However, I can't see where Nishkid has agreed that another admin could review this for them. YOu made the request to have the restriction lifted on the 23 November and Nishkid has made only one edit since them - and that is unrelated to your request. Please clarify this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rows over Thanksgiving apart, Athenean has done quite well recently and I don't have a big problem with the request. Should be fine. Moreschi (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that mean the restrictions are lifted? I want to be 100% clear on this, just in case there is a misunderstanding later on.  I want to have something I can point to.  I can forward the e-mail I received from Nishkid64 telling me to post to ANI if anybody wants.  --Athenean (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. By and large, though, in the interests of general peace, it would be good if you could voluntarily stick to 1RR per day, and only go over that in the face of really blatant trolling (the type I would be interested in hearing about). Certainly, however, I think you've earned a lifting of the formal restriction. Best, Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Will do.  Thanks a lot, I greatly appreciate it. --Athenean (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)