Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609

User Blackjack
User:BlackJack has issue several complaints against a number of users for editing his material. He has gathered around him a handful of supporters on the Wikicricket project who assisted him in reverting an indefinite block against himself. Anyone editing his work is accused of being a sockpuppet despite several IP sources being used. His own site is protected so redress has to be acted out in public. His general tone is abusive as an examination of his posts will show - He makes no response to reason and mercilessly uses his own ebook as a source despite the fact that reputable commentators have pointed out the unsubstantiated and weak nature of the text therein.(He makes use of scorecards which is fine though he claims to have researched them himself when in fact such pre 1800 lists exist in standard text books and publications). He has claimed copyright or licence or whatever that is over some of the content which I think would last 50 seconds in court. In addition he has made posts on Entries directing readers to his authorised version. He has abusively used a string of sockpuppets and was banned for doing so. I believe he is bad for wikipedia and has held part of the cricket section open to derision. I am using this user name in order to access the site.08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinersArms (talk • contribs)
 * Because you've created this account entirely for this report, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what article[s] these issues have come up upon. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference see Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. I have no idea about the current edits in this issue (largely because the OP didn't exactly explain which ones were at issue--SURPISINGLY a lot of sports articles get vandalized). Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And for further reference, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. This appears to be an argument about a user self-referencing his own website.  This could be cleared up quickly if BlackJack could explain how he is to be considered a reliable source and everyone could go back to editing cricket articles again. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WT:RS is bouncing it back to WT:CRIC. I think WT:RS would be a better venue because a) Blackjack and his supporters (myself included) won't be there so it will be a more neutral ground, and b) it is the place where our reliable sources policy lives. --SGGH ping! 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing disruption on article on probation
I posted a large thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=355730664#SPA_only_performing_same_edits_as_another_user. here] about a behavioral pattern.

I am in this section only gonna focus on the recent continuing disruption of the Asmahan article that is on probation.

I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that  that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say,  Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. This is the same old behavior that Arab Cowboy and NT did repeatedly which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SD has for the last 9 months made every effort to be the sole editor of Asmahan and other pages in the Asmahan arbitration case. Other editors are either banned from contributing or are completely disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being. I, personally, have no time for more endless arguments on the talk pages, however, I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration.SD is subject to a topic ban specifically related to Asmahan due to his extremely disruptive behavior, while I am not under any restriction. While I am busy to be a regular contributor, I cannot allow SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; you're saying you will not allow any edits to the article that are not approved by every editor subject to the arbitration case? Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is saying that he will revert any edit not accepted by user Arab Cowboy. Nefer Tweety is an account which is exclusively used to perform the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy. AC is temporally banned from the article for sockpuppeting and NT is continuing to perform ACs edits as shown above and also: On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before . Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary. NT has been blocked before for performing ACs edits. And he is continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nefer Tweety: Consensus is not decided by a fixed group of editors for each article. If there is consensus that edits should be made, from whichever users responded to the discussion, you should not revert them; if you do, it's you who'll be the subject of an arbitration enforcement action, not Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness, attempt to get some strong consensus that these edits should be made; if you can do that, this entire situation becomes clear-cut. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Traian basescu and the IP underneath attacking the Traian Băsescu article
is violating wikipedia rules in countless ways. The account appears to be a reincarnation of this IP, which I had just warned regarding edits on the Traian Băsescu (edits such as these). I also reverted the edits for BLP and simple vandalism concerns, but the IP reinserted them and added other such stuff (100% of the edits so far relate to this). The "Traian basescu" account (which, btw, violates our user name polices) surfaced the moment I warned the IP, and the similarity in editing can be seen for instance here and here. Once I and another user reverted these edits, the IP resurfaced yet again, and continued to edit exactly the same nonsense. This guy, it appears, will only be stopped by a block and a semi-protect of the article. Dahn (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking per WP:USERNAME and the above. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Thesevenseas blocked as unattended bot making mass template changes
has been making mass code insertions (at a rate of 3 - 4 per minute) to templates. While I cannot speak for all of the templates that were changed, at least the signing functionality of the uw- series of warnings appear to have been broken by the inserted code (see here and here and especially here for examples). Since Thesevenseas has continued to make the template code additions despite multiple messages, and as some of the changes are clearly inappropriate (such as adding the code to this redirect), I have blocked the account for twelve hours as being an un-attended bot. Any other admin should feel free to reverse the block once the issue has been resolved. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (posting the following here for him as he is unable to do so at the moment. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
 * My sincere apologies, I was using a script rather than a bot. I did check everything very very carefully and I am extremely willing to repair any problems.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   279° 28' 30" NET   18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thesevenseas, why did you not respond to the messages on your talk page? - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thesevenseas did not post that message here. I copied it from his talk page as I felt it was applicable here. He is currently blocked and can not post anywhere other than his talk page. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nihonjoe, I was aware of that and cross posted to Thesevenseas' talk page, but wanted to try and keep ANI in the picture (as you can see I gave up immediately ;D) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have offered to unblock, contingent on his agreeing to revert the changes, then discuss and test the code additions prior to their insertion into hundreds of templates. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unblock him, the preventative aspect of the block is no more. He acknowledged that he was using a script and should get some additional trouting for it, he has been here long enough to known better, but the block serves no function anymore. Amalthea  19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said on Thesevenseas' talk page, I agree an unblock would be warranted here, as the original reason for the block no longer stands (since Thesevenseas wasn't using a bot). - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as Kralizec seems to be happy with any other admin reversing the block, I have done so. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI I've reverted these mass edits... In my opinion the templates are not so precious as to demand subst'ing. It's better that an appropriate warning get to an editor rather than worrying about if it was subst'ed properly. That being said, if a discussion finds consensus that these edits are helpful, by all means reinstate them. – xeno talk 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27
This user, User:AlasdairGreen27 intentionally missinformed me that another editor, User:Nuujinn was the mediator on the discussion taking place on Talk:Draža Mihailović here. Since a request for mediation has been made for the discussion [], and I insisted that the main participant in the discussion, User:DIREKTOR signed the agreement for mediation, an attempt has been made so I would beleve that a third editor User:Nuujinn was the mediator. Since User:AlasdairGreen27 has been presented in the discussion as a "veteran wikipedian", and I was already accused of not knowing the procedures for requesting mediation, or other bureaucratic WP issues, it is hard for me to beleve in WP:AGF in this case. Now, they are all covering up for each other and I am being quite ganged up. I had been discussing the issue seriously, since for me, as a Portuguese/Serb of Jewish ancestry, "nazification" is a very sensitive issue, but this users have done all they could so they would prevent any serious analisis of the sources (their interpretation abuse by another user has been discussed), and they are now preventing the case for comming to a mediation. They all know eachother and are acting united against me. Could somebody please see what is going on here, and stop this constant manuipulative and obstructive behaviour? It is all clear at the bottom of the discussion page: Talk:Draža Mihailović. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a mistake to me. Weren't you just here yesterday trying to get sanctions on another editor in the same dispute? Yeah. AniMate 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Seems like a mistake to me that also looks like a purposly written excuse so they look innocent if this happend (see the time of that post, and the time I confronted them). It looks like you are also trying to find excuses for their behaviour... We are talking about senior wikipedians, and they all knew quite well the mediation has not been atributed. Aren´t you the one that atributed awards to User:DIREKTOR? Yes. Also, yesterday you were all but objective. You started analising my English, as if that was in discussion... Am I forbitten to report if I can´t writte in perfect English? I don´t think so. Also, the other admin that gave his opinion yesterday, User:Polargeo is also the one that gives awards to Direktor ... Also defended him, and said that I had bad intention (???). Why am I not suprised? Unfortunatelly for me, I am in disagreement with DIREKTOR, so I have to listen to all kind of obscenities and take all kind of dirty games from him and his group, because it looks like they have people defending them, and leaving this cases in the garbage... Maybe it would be better to have some other Admins analising this case that don´t have connection with this people (DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27). Thank you for your opinion anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well User:Nuujinn does not appear to be in "DIREKTOR's group." Nuujinn and User:AlasdairGreen27 have never edited the same article. The only article talk page they have in common is Talk:Draža Mihailović. Similarly User:DIREKTOR and Nuujinn only have one article talk page and no articles in common. Yet you've accused AG27 of lying and Nuujinn of having a previous relationship with them when none appears to exist. You've attributed what looks to be a simple misunderstanding into something sinister. Assume good faith, because there's nothing actionable here. However, your repeated frivolous reports here that reek of bad faith may be an issue to look into. AniMate 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming WP:AGF for 2 months now. Their behaviour is still very wrong, but you instead choose to discredit my reports. And you also insist in excusing an intentional missleading of an attribution of a madiator (they falsifiyed a mediator, and when caught, they said it was accidental!). That looks bad faith to me. I am asking you please to stop discrediting my reports and to stop intimidating me about making further reports if necessary. If you find unusufull to read them, let other Admins analise it, but please stop defending and excusing people you know. FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.:You are saying that AG27 didn´t lied to me when said that Nuujinn was the mediator? Well, you are wrong, yes he was. And they all have been very much in touch for days now (direktor and AG27 for months...), so am I liying? And naming intentionally someone "mediatior" to mislead is quite sinister... but you prefer to call it "simple missunderstanding" and say that me reporting it is sinister. Stop taking constantly their side, try at least to be neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stop taking constantly their side, and start taking my side." There, fixed that for you. Anyway, diffs or it didn't happen. I feel strongly about baseless accusations of lying. Show us diffs that prove they are indeed lying and have been in touch for months and people might take this report more seriously.--Atlan (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh its just nonsense! Al mistakenly thought Nuujin was a mediator and told FkpCascais that he was one, Nuujin corrected him immediately, and FkpCascais started accusing everyone they're "lying" to him and such. The reason why FkpCascais is feeling helpless and "ganged-up" is that he insists on removing four university publications and the sourced information they support based only on his opinions as to what is The Truth!TM. Naturally everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that, and here comes Fkp with nonsense reports trying to get everyone blocked without any basis so that he can have his way. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions for me about this, please let me know, but I don't want to throw unnecessary bits on the camel. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Atlan, your comment is close to vandalism.
 * @direktor, stop missleading about my requests. They have been many times well explained to everyone (including you), so I can only conclude you are doing it on purpose and acting in bad faith. Here are they as explained to you in the discussion: here or directly to you here, besides continuosly repeting it on several other ocasions. This intentional missunderstanding of yours is also making the discussion there completelly useless (you are doing this for 2 months now), and since you are also boycoting the mediation request, it is really you that is acting in bad faith and doing everything possible to obstruct further discussion. Also, you can´t behave civily and stop insulting me neither here, at ANI!. You are also liying when saying that "everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that", meaning the Admin No such user, who was quite critical at your position, as he told you |on your talk page, knows nothing about WP??? Direktor, could you please accept mediation request so all this silly accusations of yours get really under some neutral scrutinium, and see if you are that right as you say, and get over with this. FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, for the record. I'm afraid that this dispute becomes quite unsolvable with current actors (chiefly Direktor vs. FkpCascais), with both sides entrenched and unlikely to move from constant assumptions of bad faith. It is true that I criticized Director's stance in the whole issue, and I also think that he was overly abrasive throughout the whole affair, often on the verge of WP:NPA. On the other hand, I haven't seen any serious sources presented for the opposite side's statement (User:Jean-Jacques Georges had some quite useful comments, but he, like myself, doesn't seem to be keen to dive himself in the current mudslide on the talk pages of Draža Mihailović and Chetniks). FkpCascais, I also think this is a blatant forum-shopping and blatant assumption of bad faith from your side ("your comment is close to vandalism" included: all Atlan did was calling a spade a spade). While I sympathize with you in the sense think that you have received rather harsh treatment (chiefly by Direktor), you would do much better to find and present the sources which better explain the nuances Mihailović's [lack of] collaboration, than to engage in this mud-slinging game. Myself, sorry, I'm too busy in real life at the moment, and even if I weren't, I'm not particularly interested in solving this rather immature conflict. This is just a website, you know. No such user (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thank you very much for some kind words. It is nice to have at least for once the recognition that I had been badly treated there. I would like to point some things:
 * Regardless of what the discussion content is, or who is defending what, or even who is right (abstraction), from what I understand uncivility shouldn´t be tolerated in any case.
 * I completely disagree that I have "entrenched" myself. I have been the only one that has been constantly cooperative and discussing from the beginning to now. If anyone, it was me that wasted more than the half of all kilobites found on the discussion, but I simply came across some unbelivebily obstructing contra-arguments that made extremely hard (well, imposible) to reach any kind of consensus.
 * Regarding the discussion itself, there has been some huge missunderstanding about the points I am defending there. I am not neither a D.Mihailovic neither a Chetnik simpatizer. I get involved in the article in the moment I saw direktors exageration and missinterpretation of the sources he has been using. If a source says "an effort of collaboration has been done, but it has been rejected" you just can´t use the source for a claim like: "Mr.X, a WWII Axis collaborator,...". It is not me that has to bring sources that say DM didn´t collaborated because that is not what I defend. I defend the correct use of the sources, maynly because I am a Law enthusiast, and not a Chetnik or Mihailovic one. With the already existing sources, I had enough for already 2 months of debate, and I don´t want, neither have time, to bring more sources, so we start analising them now until August. I really hope this gets clear to all parties involved. I also beleve that one of the main reasons for a missunderstanding between me and direktor is the fact that I have been looking to this case in a practical, judicial, and interpretational manner, while he has been giving far more weight to his emotional and historical perspective.
 * Regarding Atlan, he has been quite offensive towards me here in already two occasions. Giving the fact that I don´t know him from nowhere, and that I don´t understand the reason of his interventions here, I don´t see any reason to come into any kind of dialogue with him. But, I will report him in case it becomes necessary.
 * Regarding my reports here, I apologise for not having any experience in making them the most practical but, since I consider myself a devoted wikipedian, that fact wan´t make me stop making further reports to admins whenever I feel the WP:PG are not being followed (I will obviously study them better).
 * About the people that I had reported, I just want to make clear that I had never asked any kind of blocking for them, as I am many times acused of. My main intention here was maynly to prevent further behaviour of this kind. I am far more intrested in getting things going, rather than punishing people. But, if that is impossible for me to do without some intervention, I wan´t be discouraged to ask for help here.
 * Hoping my comment was helpfull in clarifiying any doubts, I would like to express my gratitude one more time to User:No such user that accepted my invitation to spare part of his time and give his opinion on this subject. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD BE EXTREMELLY PLEASED IF SOME ADMIN COULD CLARIFY IT TO ME.

I would also want to point some strange things that happend: At the beggining of all this, and after having us both (direktor and me) been blocked for having broked the 3r rule on the article, we both receved an advice from the blocking Admin User:TomStar81 not to edit the article "until we agree to edit civily", my talk page message equal to both of us. The article was blocked (February 18) for one month, and after the protection was removed (March 18), initially we both refrained from editing the article. Since I was the only one that continued in persuing discussion on the |talk page, (direktor ignored it completelly, he was abscent from February 24 to March 27, more then a month) I was mistakenly thinking that discussion was what TomStar81 said (he explained later to me that was only advice, not demand). After exactly one week since the article was deblocked, direktor reverted again the article restoring his version (exactly the same reverting for which he has been blocked), but this time reverting not me, but another two users. Since I had wrongly understood that neither one of us should edit the article until we don´t reach agrement on the discussion, even worste, insisting in the same previous revert, I re-reverted direktor remembering him about the discussion. Since I had said some things that I shouldn´t to direktor in another talk page, he made here on ANI a emotional report on me that resulted in me being blocked for one week! . During that period, User:User:Jean-Jacques Georges suported my version of the article, and edited the article remembering direktor that he should also discuss at the talk page (since he had completely ignored my on the talk page, for more than a month). Direktor promptly reverted him (see edir summary, brutal!) and made him one quite agressive post at the talk page Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive_2, in wich, beside other things, he purposly missinforms Jean-Jacques Georges about the reasons for my block (I was still one weak blocked then) and intentionally itimidated him on his insistance on supporting my edits, that were wrongly presented as "little more than POV vandalism". User:Jean-Jacques Georges, after seing that direktor acts with total impunity, reverting as he wishes and whatever he wants against everybody, he obviously has understood that the issue there (on the article) was not being taken seriously. Since then, Direktor has been "policeing" the article reverting all edits that not his ones. Direktor made a total of 7 reverts since the page was "opened" on March 18, and a total of 20 since February 13 [. Both [[User:AlasdairGreen27]] and User:Brutaldeluxe also reverted just recently other users so direktor´s version is "in place". I am just wandering, I was blocked for a week for reverting once, as explained |on my talk page, but he reverts everybody all the time with complete impunity!?!? As I know, discussion is a way to prevent edit-warring (where I was giving at that time all my efforts, and was being respectfull and never more edited the article), but in this case, nobody asked direktor to discuss, but the edit-warring was rather stoped by blocking me for one entire week for having reverted ONCE, obviously disencouraging me to edit further the article. Other very important question for me, am I allowed to edit the article? (for instance, other thins not in question on the discussion)? I do fear to do it so I don´t get blocked for entire week without even knowing it, as happend (and it was all but vandalism)... I will be enormously thankfull to any admin that spares me his time to explain this rather unusual and unfair situation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

70.116.134.247
I have tried to advise, trying to get their content dispute on-track; however, after a final warning, they persist with Ad hominem arguments; diff. I would think, at this stage, a short block is appropriate, for their non-civil behaviour and comments about another editor.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Although a short-term block could be considered for that last diff, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. At least the user has engaged in conversation on the talk page, I'd say first wait and see what their next move is, if they persist in being disruptive then a block will be necessary. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais
User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU after another bout of incivility during which he and an IP sock of a banned user "brainstormed" on how to get me blocked from editing enWiki. The user at that time characterized me as a "propagandist" and my behavior as "abnormal" further insulting my mental health by calling me a "very ill and frustrated person". 

This trend continued. He was soon back in full form and, regardless of the warning, continued to insult others as well as myself: He was blocked for a week after this by Black Kite, apologizing in his attempt to get unblocked, and claiming this is the last we've seen of this behavior. This, I must stress, is the brief account. To be frank, I am honestly sickened by this constant abuse being leveled at others and me during the course of ordinary discussion. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * he stated that I "shit out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". (This was due to my sincere attempt to point out aspects of WP:V to the fellow, while he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal".)
 * he continued to insinuate that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" on several occasions
 * he insulted my origins by calling me an "imbecile" and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...".
 * pretty soon I was being called "simple" and unfit to edit articles due to my Croatian ethnicity ("Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history"). Further insinuating that I supporting Nazism in the article by "nazifying" people.  User:FkpCascais had voiced prejudice against Croats on previous occasions as well, demanding, among others things, that all publications by a Standford U professor be disregarded as the author might be of Croatian ancestry.
 * User:AlasdairGreen27 and I were called "terrorists" as part of a tirade during which he insulted and ridiculed both users.
 * In accordance with his previously stated intent ("The most important is to gather all the problems he already had and present it to some admin"), he filed two reports against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself, attempting to get us both blocked and out of the way with obviously falsified and distorted claims (virtually no diffs, just cleverly written emotional text). |
 * Finally, the user has just recently insulted my intelligence yet again by insinuating that my "IQ is minor" and that I "simply don't understand when something is repeated many times to you".


 * This is just a response to a ANI report that I have made related to this same discussion. just earlier.
 * @direktor: You can´t have me blocked for something I have said to you in quite some time now, and for what I have already been blocked. You can´t repeat reports!. Regarding your Croat ethnicity, I am just saying that you (an assumed Titoist and a Croatian) may not be the most NPOV person to find yourself owner of the trouth regarding a monarchic Serbian movement (quite logic, since they fought both, Tito and Croatia, and your repeated accusations towards me that I am a "Serbian nationalist" are much more offensive, since I am only partially Serbian, and much less can I be considered "Serbian nationalist"). I have Croatian wikipedians that in case of need may confirm my excellent relationship and total abscence of any nationalistic feelings not only against Croatia, but any nationality. I am quite a "non-national" or "world" person. Hey, I have Croatian friends, an ex-girlfriend and a house in Croatia (well not me, the house is of my family, we all use it, on the Adriatic coast).
 * I didn´t called no one terrorist. You insulted me on that ocasion insinuating that I am "paranoid" and that I have "the powers against me", to what I have said to you something like, well, it looks more like some minor annoying terrorist organisation that has been bothering me." If you insultuously troll editors on some serious discussion, this sort of unswer is the least that you can expect.
 * I have been lately very patient and polite with you.
 * You haven´t been with me: As clearly even possible to be seen here on ANI but anyone can also go to the discussion talk page and see what is really going on (who is trolling, and who is being serious).
 * Resumingly, you are being "sickened" that I had insisted over 2 months, against all your obstructing behaviour, and get you to sign today a mediation request, so this dispute can finally be analised by someone neutral. I am really happy to get this going forward so we can reach an end to this. I had already asked you never to comment on my talk page any more, and I also really expect not to have any more contact with you after this gets over.
 * Ah! And just to demonstrate the kind of manipulation I have been taking from you: You claim I had insulted your IQ, well this is what I have said: so by that, everybody can see that I just said exactly the oposite: "I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you." saying that I find you intelligent, and that was impossible, and bad faith, that you intentionally missunderstand something whan repeated to you over and over again. I also don´t beleve that you didn´t understood this (I even explained it to you), so again, your manipulation, and much, much bad faith. I really wished I had your ability to distorce the ANI reports as you do, and do it with impunity. (you even just called my ridiculously inexperinced and badly written on hurry report on you, an "cleverly written emotional text", I feel flatered!)
 * Btw, many of your diffs have nothing to do with what you are saying...
 * Oh, and about "simple", I just now understood what is about... It was when I´ve said to User:BoDu to "be kind with you because it seems that you don´t have too many kilobites to spend." But, how can you feel offended by this? when it was just after you had insulted the other editor that, because he disagreed with you, had you saying to him:" that you want be responding to him any more because it was a "waste of type and kilobites". It is really you that should have been reported here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.:I apologise for my enormous comment, but some things just had to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really need a new thread about this every day? Couldn't this just have been added to the other one which is still on this page? Anyway, mediation will have to resolve whatever content dispute you are in. However, it's quite clear FkpCascais can be quite insulting in his comments, as shown by those diffs. It seems FkpCascais acknowledges this, but finds this sort of communication justified in dealing with opposition, or doesn't understand how he is being insulting. In fact, he happily continues calling DIREKTOR a troll in his response here, again without any diffs to back up this serious allegation. I asked for diffs in the previous thread, a question which FkpCascais qualifies as borderline vandalism. I feel that if FkpCascais continues to sour discussions with his continued insults and assumptions of bad faith, he should just be taken out of the equation. Saves the mediators a headache as well, so we all win (except maybe Tylenol).--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You forgot one big lost. Article itself. I think that that is the most important part in your equation. I hope that this massive content dispute will be fixed in the mediation. -- Tadijaspeaks 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will kindly ask you to remove your comment Atlan. We don´t know eachother from nowhere, you are not an Admin, I have never been incorect with you (yes, your assumption on your comment was close to vandalism). You are being highly provocative towards me, and your comments are all but not fair. All this without any reason. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One comment: User:FkpCascais' preemptive "counter-reports", which obviously do not carry weight, should not be a reason for this serious report to be ignored. It is an old and generally known tactic: User:FkpCascais called us "terrorists" so I sternly warned him that he may get reported for this kind of behavior if it continues. As a response, he tried to get both User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself blocked with two very offensive (and annoying) false reports.


 * Posting massive replies and "counter-reports" are two basic methods for avoiding sanctions when reported on WP:ANI. I'm hoping they will not work here. My post is completely supported by diffs, its a simple account of offenses - please do not ignore. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tadija, I mentioned I have no comment on the content dispute, as that is all way over my head. If you feel articles will suffer with the loss of FkpCascais, then I'll just have to take your word for it. However, and that was my main point, if all your one's comments are accompanied by assumptions of bad faith and plain insults, you one shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism here on ANI and even a block. I'm aware tempers might flare and discussions can get heated, especially in this contentious area, but that's no excuse to call other editors terrorists and implying their IQ is low, among other things. Futhermore, FkpCascais still fails to supply any diffs proving his allegations of lies and trolling and instead goes on counter striking any opposition he meets. I can't be particularly bothered by calling my comments vandalism when they clearly are not, but it does illustrate the problem with the way FkpCascais deals with other editors.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Atlan, are you sure what are you doing here? You have just told User:Tadija that he "might be on criticism here, or even a block"... because he said that he hopes the dispute gets solved??? I am sorry to tell you this, but from what I see, you are only making things worste for people you suposedly defend... I think direktor has been able to handle himself quite well in this conflictous situation. I even respect him a lot and I could easily call him a "specialist", or an "expert" on this kind of disputes, so I really beleve that is kind of offensive from your part towards him to beleve that he couldn´t survive this reports without your precious help. Anyway, you really should spare yourself from further embaracement and remove the unfortunate comments that you have made. I don´t see even one correct neither objective sentence in them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And also Atlan, regarding the IQ issue, what I said is the oposite, something like,"I don´t beleve that you are a low IQ that doesn´t understand when something is being repeated over and over again". I am already repeating this... FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all I told Tadija is that I'll take their word for it if they say you are a valuable content contributor. The rest of my comment was about you, as is rather obvious because it's your edits under scrutiny here. I've altered my post to make that more clear.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the IQ remark: That one's equally bad. You basically say: "I don't think you have a low IQ, but it appears you have one anyway." Maybe not as clear an insult as "you are stupid", but an insult nonetheless, even if you didn't mean it that way. What it basically comes down to, is that you should be more careful in what you say to others.--Atlan (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, what I really mean could be resumed to something like, "I know you are smart, and this missunderstanding has another reason behind, that clearly is not your lack of capability in understanding it." I do recognise that I can be arrogant, but I didn´t insulted nobody, obviously because I have been very carefull, and measured all the words I have said. You must have in account that the majority of the diffs direktor provided are previous to a block that I already and rightfully had because of it. I can´t be punished twice for the same crime... The only ones that direktor has in this report that could be analised are the ones he calls: "simple", "terrorist" and this "IQ missunderstanding". (you can check and see that in all of the cases direktor made quite a missinterpretation and exageration in order to make it look like something that really isn´t). I could only be acused perhaps on arrogance here, but if you rally want to see, you should check the reasons why I have said it, so you could really confirm that they were really soft responces to much worste expressions that were directed towards me. Anyway, I do acknolledge that a really cleaver person would avoid answering to such provocations, but you must understand that after 2 months of this constant game, it is really hard for me not to come from time to time with some of this answers. I am guilty of arrogance, but you can also see that I am not pretentious, and that I fully acknolledge that on that subject, I am miles behind direktor, and he could really teach me about it. Anyway (I don´t have to, but I´ll do it anyway), I do recognise some reason on your critics about my attitude, and I promise you that I am going to be way less arrogant in future and even more carefull. I sincerely thank you for you having started to have consideration my arguments as well, and the explications I adressed to you, and I send you regards. FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're forgetting the "Nazification" crack. How many insults of yours do you think I need to list before an admin should block you? If not 4, maybe 6? 7? 10? You were warned, disregarded that warning and got blocked, and then once again continued the exact same behavior. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, 1 should be enough, but it has to be a real one... Since the block you got me, I did continued with exact same behaviour, I have been extremely patieny with you. Regarding "nazification", thank you for reminding me, I really think that you should treat this issues much more carefully. You have been giving yourself too much freedom on your description of certain historically sensitive issues. I have already told you that you shouldn´t behave so pretentiously about freely making characterizations without any support, just based on your assumptions. You continuously act as you know more than all the experts on the subject. Unfortunatelly, WP is an encyclopedia where some assumptions can´t be described as so because some anonim person calling himself DIREKTOR say so. I will really have to advise you for your own good to lower your level of pretention and open yourself for receving further knolledge. Each day is a new lesson, and fortunatelly for the ones that want, life is good! Cheer up, and if I were you, I would start preparing myself for the mediation, because I am sure the mediators want be so patient with your unpresicions and weird argumentations as I have been. Good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, only one more important thing. It has been very painfull to see the way you treat other users that disagree with you. WWII is over for a long time now, you know... FkpCascais (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Amir.Hossein.7055
appears to be evading his Commons indef. block for uploading images without permission here on Wikipedia. Can someone look into this? Thanks. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please notify them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ for 1 year for uploading copyright violations. Any admin is free to unblock without consultation if they feel it would be appropriate to do so. NW ( Talk ) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your notification of this user for their 1 year block has been altered by User:Helloworldhelloiran to read that Helloworldhelloiran has blocked AH for 1 day. Weakopedia (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the contribution histories it may be that AH has taken the new username Helloworldhelloiran and continued to edit around their block. Weakopedia (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Wiki talkpage policy I have undone the changes to the block notice. Weakopedia (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have indef-blocked for disruption and apparent forgery attempts. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint
I have a complaint about Wikipedia. Over the past few years, I have been coming on here to edit. I admit, I have had many accounts on here, but they were not intended for harm. The reason I would have many accounts is when I would get harassed on one and the person that was harassing me wouldn’t stop and administrators wouldn’t do anything after I reported it, I felt, in order to get away from the harasser, I would have to make a new account. Recently, I have had many in a short period of time because of one particular user that harasses me. I am not giving out names in order to protect MYSELF, because I know already that the administration/users on here will take that user’s side, as they have in the past. I have been accused of sock puppetry on here because of the many accounts I created, but, if any administrator would realize, especially after I pointed it out, that when I make a new account I “get rid of” the old account, since I don’t make any new edits from the previous account. I was not aware until recently about putting the “Retired” sign on any account you get rid of, and I did that, yet I was blocked.

My edits are not vandalism and I don’t harass other users, yet I get blocked and a full blown sock puppet investigation is done on ME, however, when a user in the past made a side account to harass me, I reported it, however, no sock puppet investigation was done on the basis that the user was making “good” edits from their main account. I made good edits and haven’t vandalized articles from the accounts I have had. Also, this user I am mentioning that had a side account to harass me, accused me of harassing him just because I edited a FEW articles that he edited. We know each other in real life and used to be friends and had common interests, and from what I am aware, as I quote directly from Wikipedia “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT.”

From my experiences, this seems to be a lie, since any time I make an edit, I am blocked for it. I admit, if I knew you could only have one account and if you get issues with it then that’s it you can’t have any more I wouldn’t have made any more accounts once an issue arised that seemed to have nothing done about it even though I report it and give evidence, and the user that is causing the issue won’t stop, even after I try to talk to them. It seems that the user that I am not mentioning their username that harasses me is in favor of the administrators, since HE was told to make another account because “I was harassing him.”

Funny. When I made a new account in order to GET AWAY from him, he found out about it and mentioned it to another editor in a discussion. I never even edited any of “his” articles, yet I was blocked. (I also understood that nobody “owns” an article, anyone can edit an article, which also seems to be a lie from my experiences. For example, I edited an article recently and got rude messages from another editor saying how I was “messing” up the article for other users just because I fixed some spacing and wording. I never went and put every word together without spaces or put in huge spaces, and I never screwed up words as to screw up grammar, spelling, or anything.

All I did was remove personal opinions- according to Wikipedia, the articles are supposed to have a NEUTRAL point of view- and personal opinions I mean such as “It Is unclear where the house is, some may guess it is in the woods.”)

Now I have been taught in the past that a sentence like that is a personal opinion. If the rules changed, I wasn’t told. Either the rules changed or I’m just not welcome, and I believe the second, that I’m not welcome, from the experiences I have had on here. Even after I put the “retired” sign on my accounts, I was blocked. Anyway, you don’t have to worry about me coming back on here to edit, I QUIT, I don’t care if they go to articles I edited in the past and say that the sky is made of cheese, IF I go on Wikipedia some day and look up the article and see that something like that is there, I won’t be fixing it, since I’ll I probably be blocked again. Thank you for showing how much of a lie you are Wikipedia, you say how anyone can edit Wikipedia, yet if that’s true, then why am I being blocked even though my edits aren’t “bad”?I explain things to the best of my ability when I am accused of sock puppetry, yet I’m blocked. When Wikipedia users decide a user is not welcome, they make sure that person knows it. Wikipedia is pretty biased and racist in my opinion, and that is thanks to the experiences I have had on here. Thank you Wikipedia, for showing me that you are nothing but a useless, racist, biased piece of shit, and that is thanks to the users on here that have made my experiences on there HELL. 142.177.43.94 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of usability of the board, I've collapsed your note, which is still readable to anybody who would like to peruse it. If you feel you were unfairly blocked under your first account, you should go back and appeal that block. See Guide to appealing blocks. Once you have no taint of block evasion, then you can consider a clean start if you like. Meanwhile, it's pretty difficult to assess the legitimacy of your complaints without details. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If your experiences here are hellish, why keep coming back? Masochist? Anywho, we need to know details if you want some sort of investigation. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware "sock-puppeteer" was a racial/ethnic group. - Vianello (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Rainbow socks... Nice! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see where accusing us (Wikipedia) of "racism" really fits (or works out in his benefit).  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From my experience, anyone shouting racism is most likely a troll and should be treated as one. The likelihood of someone knowing your ethnicity on the Internet is lower than the likelihood of seeing a live ivory-billed woodpecker. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Todd
Hi all, we've had an edit war going on for over a month in the Corporation article, and it has gotten to the point where no progress is going to be made without admin intervention. I'd appreciate if you could have a look.

The user in question, has engaged in ongoing edit warring, personal attacks  , and sockpuppetry.

Based on his last edits, ProfessorTodd expects an admin to resolve the situation in his favour, so it seems that we're past the point of where we can productively discuss the problem on the article's talk page. --Jonovision (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a long line of absurd behavior from a very opinionated editor. The irony is that in all that I've looked at on the talk page and recent reverts, I'm still unclear about what this user objects to. The description (that's sourced) that keeps being removed seems fair. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the use of IPs from exactly the same geographical region that only edit on this page, and always appear to support the user account, is quite a coincidence. It's an almost comical situation. I RVed to a previous version, that had almost no real substantive edits. As someone familiar with corporate law, I'm underwhelmed at any questions of a problem on that page, generally. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this clearly seems to be a problematic situation and a recurring issue. Blocked for one month as this is a repeat of previous problems.  If the editor uses any sock accounts or ipsocks during this block, this should be extended to indefinite.  Toddst1 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Predictably he is now emailing OTRS and no doubt in time will go to unblock-en-l. Somebody he has not previously encountered needs to sit down and explain it to him. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible G4
Can an administrator look at the deleted history of Sebastian_Cole to check if the new version falls afoul of WP:G4? 86.41.91.196 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I'd say it probably does. For record:


 * 2 December 2008 Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "Sebastian Cole" ‎ (Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cole)
 * is the log entry. The article is a stub, the subject is marginally notable and apparently requested deletion last time around. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not "substantially identical"; it looks like entirely fresh text. But the deleted version is largely superior to the old one (only the 2003 award wasn't mentioned there) and contained additional biographical information. The references that support (or don't) the article are much the same. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Finlay. 86.41.91.196 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. It contains little more that asserts notability and given that the subject requested deletion of this marginally-sourced BLP last time, I think it needs to be recreated in userspace and taken to DRV if it is to be restored. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unencyclopedic language by User:UplinkAnsh
On 11 April at the Pakistan Air Force article I reverted an edit because of the nationalistic and unencyclopedic use of the word "crushed":
 * "During the war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to go to the Middle East in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived, Egypt's and syria's militaries had already been crushed by the IDF." (Link to diff)

In this context the abbreviation "IDF" stands for "Israeli Defence Forces". The text was added by an anonymous editor with IP address Special:Contributions/93.172.4.107, which according to www.infosniper.net geo-locates to "Tel-Aviv (05), Israel". I noted this in my edit summary.

My reversion was undone by UplinkAnsh on the same day. He stated the following in his edit summary: "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter." (Link to diff)

I am already in a dispute with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article regarding his unencyclopedic and unverifiable edits. PNS Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine which sank during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.
 * "At the same time Indian destroyer INS Rajput started moving out of port on a mission to Bangladesh.[11][12] What followed was a deadly game where both sides were on tenterhooks."

Diffs of my edits to remove such text followed by reversions by UplinkAnsh: I have attempted discussion with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article and have found it to be a waste of time. He repeatedly reverts my edits and, although offering to discuss the matter, constantly ignores the points put forward by myself and the references. I believe some sort of action should be taken against UplinkAnsh for his continued unencyclopedic edits. Thanks.--79.76.228.29 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff of edits on 20 March 2010
 * Diff of my edits on 3 April and UplinkAnsh's reversion on 6 April
 * I have notified UplinkAnsh of this discussion, as you should have done... Regardless, I find that UA has indeed edited to an anti-Pakistan/pro-India POV in the given diffs, and that the blind revert to the PAF article - which reintroduced a spelling mistake and an obvious POV term from a likely biased ip editor - is particularly problematic. While I am certain that there will be counter claims of bias by (the presumed id of the ip that filed this report) this appears to be an instance where there should be a warning on further conduct, unless there is a good explanation given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * UplinkAnsh is also involved in an edit war at Bangladesh Liberation War. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out netural editors here that Hj108 has been consistently trying to get me banned by rather than working towards betterment of articles by providing refrences and solving disputes on talk page. He has been consistently complaining on almost every noticeboard that his own views(which are unrefrenced) which he claims to be the official Pakistani version are not being added to PNS Ghazi article.

I would like to trace the details of conflict
 * 1) 18 March: I started to add refrenced data from reliable sites. I found sites based in US, Russia and India. However Pakistani media or offical Pakistani Navy site did not mention the incident and I found no refrences. I invited Hj108 to add more Pakistani sources and discuss on talk page. However Hj108(79.76.228.29) replied only a couple of times not getting into serious discusion and maintained that his views based on a UK based self published site pakdef.infoshould form the bulk of articles text.

Rather than adding more reliable sources all he consistently blanked all all sources which I cited. Following are some of his edits/reverts in which he had blanked comlplete sections of articles along with citiations
 * 1st revert : 03:24, 19 March 2010
 * 2nd revert : 20:17, 20 March 2010
 * 3rd revert : 03:52, 4 April 2010

He then started to complain across various noticeboards.

Following are the list of his complains on various noticeboards and reviews by netural editors Complain on Content noticeboard
 * 1st complain:Complain on Wikiquette
 * Result: Diff of edits done by netural editor
 * The editor also asked us to solve the dispute on talk page but Hj108 rather than entering a discussion again complained on Neutral point of view Noticeboard.
 * 2nd complaint:Complain on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
 * Result: He recognised that Hj108's views were completely borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE. He also found history section on offical Pakistani Navy site which only mentioned that the submarine was sunk in 1971 with no details, and another netural site based in UK which contained details regarding the article. Hj108 who now had started discussing on talkpage and Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, started calling all cited sources as unreliable and still maintained that pakdef.info contained the only correct and offical Pakistani version.
 * 3rd and 4th complaint:He has presently complained on Complain on Administrators' noticeboard and

Following his persistence of adding large amount of data form pakdef.info I verified it's reliablity at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please note the the mission statement of this self published site states:


 * Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
 * We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
 * PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Editors at Reliable Sources noticeboard also agreed that this site was self published.

Clearly this site which Hj108 whole heartedly believes indoes not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. Hardly the qualities WP requires of RS.

So, from my end I have only added refrences from reliable sources to help improve the article PNS Ghazi. If offical Pakistani Navy site and Pakistani news articles do not give details of the sinking of the submarine and only mention that it sunk in 1971, it does not mean we have to add original research of Hj108 and self published site as offical Pakistani version to achieve neturality. I have consistently told Hj108(79.76.228.29) in each of my edit on talkpage he is free to add refrences from reliable Pakistani sources and make edits to the article but his original research does not matter much on wikipedia.

I however accept the edit on PAF article was a mistake. I was working late that night, going through articles history and rather thought the word "crushed" had just been added. I undid the latest revision and went to sleep not checking the results. However my intention for the edit can be seen by the edit summary in which I stated "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter".

Regarding Bangladesh Liberation War the unsourced POV edits of BangladeshPride which added unnecessary verbiage in form of repetition to stress on certain points have been reverted by editors Drmies and Sentinel R as well. I am following wiki policy of assuming first 2 edits to be good faith and now have issued him warning regarding his edits. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An ip from Tel Aviv changing wording to that of the Egyptian/Syrian forces were "crushed" by the Israeli Defense Force is unlikely to be introducing bias? Uh-huh!? I would also comment that in regards to some of the references provided by you for the sinking of the Pakistani submarine by Indian forces do not actually make that claim - but offer some officers opinions about the possibility of there being a result of depth charging (and the reference regarding the disposition of the Pakistan Navy is a mirror of WP). I mostly see each editor removing the others references in preference to their own, which mirrors a nationalist pov. The fact that the Pakistani sources appear to be a self published site does not mean that the Indian ones are either particularly reliable or otherwise free from bias (and they do appear to be circular also, in that they use each other to back up their claims). However, ultimately, this board is not for dispute resolution but for admin response to possible policy and guideline violations. I think both principle editors in this case need to look very closely at their own editing and try and determine whether they are contributing in an effort to improve the encyclopedia, or to promote a viewpoint which favours one side of a nationalistic subject to the detriment of the other. If it is the latter, then it needs to be recognised that the other viewpoint must be represented (as far as reliable sources allow) for there to be an neutral pov - otherwise an enforced withdrawal of editing privileges is a possibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well said LHvU. it appears though HJ108 is forum shopping and hoping to find somebody who is sympathetic.  even though WP:RSN thread seems to point out that Pakdef.info is a self published site and not RS he has shown no intent of removing that info and the article on Ghazi continues to present that as the official Pakistani version.  one common problem in these situations is when people from a particular side of debate start believing that their version should get 'equal weight' rather than proportional weight in conformity with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.  giving fringe theories equal weight in the article does not make an article Neutral.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nick bttm
continues to upload copyrighted material comprising both unsourced/unlicensed images with false claims of self-creation and text (such as creating The Marine 2 (film) and uploading File:Marine2 dvdcoverart small 1.jpg earlier today). Copyright problems extend back to 2008 judging from his talk page (reporting here per WP:COPYVIO). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A short-term block might help the user become familiar with our policies while they take a break from uploading images. They appear to have been sufficiently warned but haven't taken it on board. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked 2 weeks for creating copyvios. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has broken AfD
Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination)

One of the editors keen to see this article kept, left a strange 'note' for the closing admin, to the effect that "the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast" (what automatic statistics), so the admin will have to count votes manually. This is not the problem. The problem is that when I went to add a comment about it not being a vote, the edit box came up totally blank and free of content, and when I tried previewing an edit, nothing showed up. This is a new one on me, and is not repeated editing in other places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's working for me, are you sure it wasn't just a fluke? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's bizarre. It's not just you, I cant edit it either.  I tried to make a test edit (adding "this is a test edit" and a sig), and it didnt show up in the page and it doesnt show up in my contributions either.  It probably isnt a "sneaky template" problem, since if it were, it'd at least show me editing the misplaced template.  It happens both with and without WikEd installed.  I'm stumped.  —  Soap  —  21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant edit any other AfDs either.  — Soap  —  21:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to and then deactivated wikied and it seems to work now... James  (T |C ) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can edit that and other AfDs (OS X, Safari 4). Not sure what the issue is for you chaps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even though I also disabled WikEd and still found myself unable to edit AfD's, it seems to work now. So either it was a very temporary glitch of some kind or it really was WikEd and I just had a cache problem for a minute. Im 99% sure it's WikEd that's causing this, but Im not sure exactly how.  —  Soap  —  21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can edit this and other AfDs in SeaMonkey without any problem. Is everybody back to editing AfDs all right now? Bishonen | talk 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Soap's right, it is WikEd. Turn it off and presto! editing is back.  Turn it back on, and editing is gone. At least I now know what it is....WikEd is doing something strange to the editbox layout as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Soap has reported it and I've reported it - WikEd bugs usually get fixed fairly quick, so I guess that's all that's required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was part of the new "streamlined AfD discussions" feature. jæs (talk)  23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted wikEd back to the previous version and will try to locate that bug, please push Shift-Reload to update. Sorry for that, Cacycle (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:A Sniper
This user is constantly reverting my merge tags here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=356621562&oldid=356620162, and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=historysubmit&diff=356621461&oldid=356620250

There is currently a discussion to merge or delete the article, Ashkenazi Intelligence, which can be seen here, Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence.

A Sniper is the most vocal proponent for keeping the article, so I wanted him to give answers to the questions I was raising regarding the article. This can be seen in my talk section, User talk:ScienceApe, and his User talk:A Sniper. However he seemed uninterested in answering my questions. I asked him if he was interested in improving the article or just making sure it wasn't deleted, and he admitted that he just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted. I then decided to open up a more serious merger proposal at the respective talk pages, and tag the articles with a notification of merger. However he keeps removing the tags since he is only concerned with preserving the article in question, to which he admitted to. He made it clear to me on my talk that he will continue to remove the tags if I re-add them, so I need some kind of intervention here to prevent him from doing this. ScienceApe (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, one need only check out that two other users (David Kane and Maunus) have already rejected the merge ploy, coupled with ScienceApe's belligerent and frustrated messages at my talk page (attacking me for being a single user account), and the matter becomes more clear. For the record, the last merge attempt was something like four weeks ago, and it is getting old. I have also advised ScienceApe to focus on edits and not another editor, and I have certainly not broken 3RR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to expand the discussion. Slrubenstien brought up great points, and he even asked me to make a new section so people can focus on the points he raised, and the discussion stagnated. There needs to be more discussion. I made no personal attacks at all. You told me you are only concerned with making sure no one deletes the article and I said that you have this one single purpose. You aren't interested in improving the article. I asked you to work with me, you aren't working with me. Nothing is getting done, that's the problem. You keep defeating merger or deletion proposals, but the article is never improved. I want to change that. You are using very condescending language, "With all due respect" or "Best" while your comments are anything but respectful. You are stifling my ability to improve the article. You haven't broken 3RR because I haven't edit warred with you. After you removed my tags, and told me that you would continue to remove them, I just went here, than waste time with a revert war. ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor Maunus has just explained in detail why he has gone from your way of thinking to actually improving the article via edits and the addition of content. A Sniper (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper made a personal attack against me here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAshkenazi_intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=356683761&oldid=356681404 I really don't appreciate being attacked while I'm trying to discuss matters with other users. ScienceApe (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to know how to react to such a frivolous waste of time. This entire admin board filing is based on nothing - it is entirely OK to be bold and revert, as long as there is no violation of 3RR nor an edit war, so what exactly your problem with me is remains a mystery. Your issue seems to be that I refused to engage...and now you call my mentioning of this baseless action as an 'attack'.  Other editors had every right to know that you have gone to this noticeboard essentially because I reverted your merge tag and refused to answer your irrelevant questions. A Sniper (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By calling my merger request a "frivolous waste of time", you are attacking me. The admin board filing is based on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScienceApe&action=historysubmit&diff=356620942&oldid=356617224 I told you not to revert my tags, or I would contact an admin, and you called my bluff. As I said before, there was no violation of 3RR, because I didn't undo your removal of my tags and get into an edit war with you. The comment wasn't appropriate to the discussion, and has no place on an article talk page. Talk pages are not a forum, they are for improving the article. Your comment was an attack because you said "Fail." at the end of your comment. ScienceApe (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil editor(s)
Hello, please forgive me if my English is off,

I am reporting rude and unconstructive behavior by a Mike Allen. I said on the Saw VII discussion page I wanted a source for an edit that was made (and removed) repeatedly by another user. I wanted a source because I try to help the article. Mike Allen immediately uses profanity and rude/dismissive behavior. I remind him as nicely as I can of Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:CIVIL, but he does not listen. He deleted my topic, in the edit summary said I was a "troll" and he would report me and with no reason why.

I brought the topic back because no one else answered, and I wanted another opinion. He removed it again and posted on my talk page saying I am a bad editor, which I felt was a personal insult.

Also, Mike Allen has got User:Chzz to threaten to block me for personal attacks, when I'm the one who has been sworn at repeatedly.

Could a word please be had with him, I don't understand what I'm doing wrong?

For instances, please see and 

Thank you 110%, POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There should have never been a request for a source in the first place. The entry was clearly vandalism and, even if his balls really did itch that day, it damn sure isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't be in the article. Just let it go man. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the jargon? I already made clear on the Saw VII talk page that I do not care about the edit. My complaint is at the continued hypocrisy and harassment on my talk page. POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 04:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What jargon? The thing about the directors balls itching was clearly vandalism. Removing it would be proper, not leaving it there and asking for a source. Why? Because the entry would be a stupid, trivial fact of absolutely no relevence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be reliably sourced. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no harassment, Power Slave. Demanding that a source be provided for something as retarded as that is about as clear a case of trolling as one can find.  I'd be surprised if you didn't earn a short block for this if you persist in keeping this gag running across the project. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with the jargon of balls meaning testicles, I always used juevos but that is not the point. The point is that I have followed policy and guideline and other editors are demonizing me. POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 04:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what is meant by earning a short block? POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 04:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you see the yellow box at the top of the page when you edit this page, which says You must notify any user that you discuss.? Did you do that?  No.  Woogee (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike Allen requested me to report him so I did. I'm sorry I forgot to tell chzz, but I was not sure if he was a person or an automation. POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you notify Mike Allen? Well, that's it, I'm not going to continue this, WP:DFTT.  Woogee (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On my talk page. And again with the "troll" jargon. Please keep the personal assaults to a low. Considering a number of "editors" have been impeding my ability to help the article, I'm inclined to think I am not a troll. You are all hobgoblins in that case. POWERSLAVE TALK/CONT 04:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all nothing but a tempest in a teapot. Power Slave appears to be a non-native English speaker, so perhaps some of the idioms that many of you are using have been unfamiliar to him. Power Slave, the reason that people reacted the way they did was the information that you asked to be sourced was unquestionably vandalism, and you seemed to be asking for sourcing of a vandalism that was appropriately reverted and ignored. Perhaps this whole thread could be archived? There is no administrator action to be taken here. NW ( Talk ) 04:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppeteer Polylepsis, another sock.
I'd like to point out that User:Ao333 is clealy another of the many sockpuppets of serial sockpuppeteer user:Polylepsis but I'm unsure how to file a sockpuppet report. Wetog (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've managed to file a report now Wetog (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User Tbhotch and Lil-unique1
Please report Lil-unique1 and Tbhotch, as they are threatening me on the site. Tbhotch refers to Lady Gaga articles via her real name, when it should be via her stage name for reliability and accurate purposes. And user Lil-unique1 has threated to contact an administrator to report me. Please can you place some sort of block on the? Thanks. CharlieJS13 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, CharlieJS13, but your recent edits here and here are disruptive and completely inappropriate. You should not remove a third person's comments from someone else's talk page, and you certainly may not edit war over it. Please stop immediately. — Satori Son 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. "report me because I called Lady Gaga, Stefani Germanotta" its ridiculous. I asked If you wanna do that changes, you should discuss it first on the talkpages, after this you started blanking my user page and my talkpage. Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C.  15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CharlieJS13, I see you've already been blocked for your edits here and here. My suggestion is for you to please take a deep breath and for everyone to try and discuss this content dispute calmly on the appropriate article talk pages. Good luck. — Satori Son 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this content dispute involves numerous articles, I have asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion there. — Satori Son 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13 has been reported at WP:AN3 as well: .&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrew the AN3 report, as CharlieJS13 has begun to communicate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He may have begun to communicate, but he refuses to be reasonable at all, and insists that he is correct in the face of contrary evidence. In my opinion, his contributions in this regard should be reverted and the traditional convention followed until a cogent argument to the contrary can be formulated. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that his version of "communicate" seems to involve selective hearing, selective reading, and a lot of assertions. I've reverted the articles to the sourced, BMI-aligned versions, and hopefully they will stay their unless there really is a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga to change from the normal format.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to comment on the discussion since i have been involved. CharlieJS13 recently made a number of edits to all Lady Gaga song articles changing the writer credits from Stefani Germanotta. I pointed out (and reverted) the edits citing WP:MoS and also stating that it is standard practise to acredit artists by the birth name for song credits. Following my revert CharlieSJ13 put the following hidden comment at Telephone (song) "The main artist should be credited by their stage name not their real name". Following this comment i left a message at his talk page which he subsequently removed without replying. The following another revert he made i once again asked him to clarify upon what basis he was chosing to revert content. Then i once again asked him if we would respond to which on April 15 i got no reply. CharlieSJ13s page is littered with various warnings about the addition of unsourced content, edit warring and warning templates not just provided by myself. . At one point following his own block for edit warring he contact User:Vaniello who is an admin to request that User:Tbhotch is blocked from editing. On April 16 the following to comments shown in the one diff were left on my page. Now i'm sorry if i was too harsh with the user in my comments... that much i might be willing to accept but then for me to come back today to find that i've been accused of threatening CharlieSJ13 is actually quite hurtful and i believe the basis of this ANi is unfair against both me and Tbhotch. The issue here is not necessarily over content it is over the fact that CharlieSJ13 has rapidly reverted and edited against policy (to my understanding) and has failed to discuss the rational. Rather than responding to the polite message i left he simply removed it and then when i started using warning templates he has accused me of threatening him. I believe he has filed this report because i found sources from BMI which list Stefani Germanotta as the songwriter and Lady Gaga as the artist and added them to all Lady Gaga singles. Now he cannot change the information from a valid and credible source and has so filed this report. Might i also remind people that CharlieSJ13 has been involved in removing content from another user (Tbhotch)'s personal page.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that CharlieSJ13 has continued to revert sourced information. Look here where's he's removed a valid source and then changed Stefani Germanotta to Lady Gaga and again in several articles immediately after User:Kww notification that he had recieved a WP:3R warning, , , . Also note that his argument is invalid as he changes Nadir Khayat (birth name) to RedOne (stage name) but does not change Rodney Jerkin (birth name) to Darkchild (stagename).Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also can i add that just 5 mins after i went back to all the articles above and re-added the source and changed back to sourced information it was once again been removed. CharlieSJ13 has now broken WP:3R multiple times and ignored the guidance at WP:Lady Gaga.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NAMES, celebrities should be referenced by proper name first, then by stage name/alias (space/format permitting). That and reminding everyone to read WP:Edit warring is all I'd like to add at this time. - Vianello (Talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Aipom610 seems involved in this as well (at least by behavior, can't tell if there's socking or whatever). I'm not involved (and don't want to be!) in the content/editorial dispute about how to word her articles, but WP:BLP attacks on the performer herself are clearly out-of-bounds. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i agree this is essentially a content dispute i would like to know why CharlieSJ13's behaviour has not been addressed. I'm aware he has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring but the in the discussion i explained how he had removed content that had a credible source as well as attempted to black User:Tbhotch's personal page. Finally he issued this WP:ANI without warning or responding to requests that several users had made to him about discussing the nature of his edits. Am i the only person who thinks that it should be explained to him that wp:Warning Templates are not threats and also what ANI actually is because to me it doesnt seem like he understands the nature of whats happened.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13's block just expired, and he has not only resumed the edit war, he has been corrupting the existing ANI report. I've re-reported him at WP:AN3.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bannination
I have indefinitely blocked, and propose that we consider banned, a user whose entire history is harassing the subject of a WP:BLP, Lia Montelongo. I am presently removing as much of his crap from the history as is reasonably practicable, so it's currently deleted. It will be beack shortly. Accounts include: I believe this is the real Lia Montelongo: Articles of interest: I will semiprotect the talk page of the article on restoration, for obvious reasons. This has been going on for two years at least so it's unlikely to stop at the first attempt. OTRS ticket 2010041610044763 refers. As an aside, why on earth is mrskin.com not blacklisted? It's one of the "sources" this person used. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * , (protected redirect, now).
 * Sounds good to me. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Four years, not two - Bravo Rio was active in 2006. Endorse ban - This kind of BLP abuse we explicitly and completely do not need here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please, this is terrible if someone has been harassing and stalking a living person here for 4 years! Totally unacceptable. Institute permanent community ban. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, did you notice the following sentence in the article itself: After trying acting in the late 1990s, she has since been harassed by a producer for over 10 years with threatening emails and putting her images on projects she is not affiliated with. After many years and requests from her to him to leave her alone he has continued to be persistent with attaching his project to any of her most recent successes in hopes to sell more of his extremely low budget film. She has no option now but to proceed with legal action due to recent defamation and family humiliation. That is probably a clue as to who is doing this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article is fully protected, can an admin please remove this ASAP? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This harassment of a living person is unacceptable. I support a ban. --  At am a  頭 23:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Yes I just realized that it's unlikely that dead persons are harassed but you know what I mean.


 * Is this topic actually notable in Wikipedia terms. I note the article was AfD'd in 2008 with a no consensus outcome. I would imagine if it went back there today, it would be deleted..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, the subject does not appear very notable to me either. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be unreasonable to list it at AfD, given that it's only Guy's report here that brought it to attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How an article is brought to one's attention should be immaterial, IMO. If you consider the article lacks notability, list it.  BLP's need all the attention they can muster.   Tide  rolls  00:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only problem is, since the article is protected you can't add the template to the top. Twinkle would probably choke on it too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for repeating the request, but can an admin *please* delete the text referred to above (or at least tell us why deletion is not needed). -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not the article meets our criteria for inclusion, I absolutely would support an indefinite ban under circumstances such as these. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support proposed ban per nomination. And if a BLP article has borderline notability but remains an attractive nuisance for a four year campaign of socking and harassment, it's better for everyone if we delete it. Notability is a guideline, not a moral principle.  Common sense should reign. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  412 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 10 years, off-wiki. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hideously, even after all this admin attention, the article STILL violated BLP. I've just removed a horrid chunk. The whole thing is also unreferenced. Should be deleted or stubbed now.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse block/ban and support deletion/salting of article. Despicable. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go on Bryan's nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See further Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination)--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely endorse ban. Someone should take a look at Brian Glynn (actor), the male video game model she was alleged to be in a romantic relationship with. He seems about as notable as she does, and I'll likely nominate it for deletion once I get back from dinner if no one else has... but I'm running out the door. <font face="Segoe Script" color="gray">AniMate 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have sent and received an e-mail from Amelia and she supports deletion of the article. Any administrator who stops by the debate, which is clearly going for a delete vote, might be interested in the e-mail, which I will send if she says that it is alright to do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse banning - repeated BLP violations as well as abuse of more than one account. This simply should be not on. Harassing the subject of a BLP to the point they contact OTRS clearly shows that this person is abusing their editing powers. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 06:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have snowballed the AfD as delete, since there was a risk of it being used as a further locus for this foolishness and the subject evidently has no problem with that. I am very heartened by the overall robust response to this, I should say that the supertanker has probably turned on BLP, this is great news. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 50kg Banhammer, please. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Not that I think it will matter in practical terms. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. Like Shadowjams, I doubt whether a ban will mean much to someone who is willing to behave this way in the first place, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse community ban and this seems like an obvious snowball to me. As I cannot imagine anyone arguing to let a stalker resume editing, I've tagged the accounts appropriately. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pile-on endorse Looking at this case, we shouldn't be discussing how long to keep this user blocked--we should be contacting his ISP and the police. Also endorse Guy's decision to delete and salt the article for now--if it is to be recreated (and it's a big if at this point), it will need to be completely rebuilt from scratch. Blueboy96 15:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have checkusered these accounts (to the extent they have edited recently) but found no other socks. I am going to delete the userpages and talkpages of most of the accounts, because they are harassment usernames. Please advise me directly of any further incidents involving this situation. My thanks to everyone involved, particularly JzG, for dealing with this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New user admits to being a return of a banned user
User:CLOSEXACT admitted a few minutes ago that he was a new account for a banned user, Guitarherochristopher, after I asked him so based on similarity in behavior and the fact that he knew who User:White Shadows was and seems to have borrowed an edit notice from User:Master of Puppets. He does seem to be editing in good faith, having created the G-Surfers article just now, and his old user account has had its talk page access disabled, so he could not post an unblock appeal there. I am starting a thread here because I've never dealt with a situation quite like this and don't know what else to do. I realize he will probably be re-blocked, but that he's at least trying to make productive edits makes me feel he deserves something more than simply being reported directly to AIV or SPI as I would normally do with a sock.  — Soap  —  01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me crazy but if he can keep up his good edits. I say we give this guy another chance with this current account. I know that he'll be probably re-blocked anyway but thats just my opinion.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that he's not operating any sockpuppets, if that information helps you somehow. --Deskana (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not even once was this guy ever useing more than one account. He only got "banned" due to his myspacey edits. It apprears that this account is actually being productive and countering the edits that got him banned in the first place. Like I said, give him a chance. I know that my opinion on this contradicts one of WP's core policies but I think that this case is diffrent and I hope that you all see that as well.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is helpful, but an indefinite block for a series of problematic edits is not something that anyone should just be able to sock around (whatever their intentions). That said, his edits have turned productive, which is promising.  If he would agree to temporarily cease editing using User:CLOSEXACT, and if he would agree to make an unblock request for User:Guitarherochristopher, I think it should be given serious consideration, with the understanding that a return to unconstructive or unacceptable edits would lead to a swift reblock.  I think we ought to hold off on dropping the hammer on the new User:CLOSEXACT, and obviously his old talk page should be unprotected so he can make a proper request there.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't just get to sock our way back in. This guy generated a mass amount of AN/I traffic.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was involved in one of his sock puppetry cases (that turned out to be false) he should have his talk page access restored for GHC so he can make a proper unblock request. His socking though has to end.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sock should be blocked and that is the end of it. Just further evidence that there is no respect for the wikipedia community.--Crossmr (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I support a block of this sock as a violation of GHC's ban.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I interrupt this. I am unable to log in under Guitarherochristopher, so don't unblock that account until I respond to User:Soap or somebody in Wikipedia that I figured out to log in under that name. c LOSEƎXACT 01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have immediately made a statement to that effect but you didn't. You could have contacted the blocking admin immediately and you didn't. You could have done so as an IP. It was 2 days after you made the account and only when questioned did you admit who you were.--Crossmr (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a block as well. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support blocking, as allowing this user to continue editing would, IMO, erode the credibility of blocks made in the future. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 15:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for AGF and "we dont do punishment, we just hope people reform and become good editors". What a load we spout out one mouth while we block people and dont give them adequate tools to tell their side. "Lets block someone, PRIOR to getting their side, then allow them to only edit their own talk pages so they cant even take the admin who blocked them to AN/I and get a fair 'trail', then lets have any decisions to unblock them be made by OTHER admins who are unlikely to question the authority of one of their own." Nice system we have here; so very fair. Not saying this individual deserves to be unblocked, not saying he didnt do things wrong, but if its true he has now been editing nicely within the rules and obeying and respecting Wikipedia it is simply wrong to punish him again now for past offences. We now know who he is, unblock his new account, watch him, and if he does something wrong THEN block him.Camelbinky (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF is not an indefinite shield. There were about 5 or 6 AN/I threads about this user. He had lots of time to give his side of the story or change his behaviour. He finally exhausted patience and was blocked indefinitely. His last chances had been expended. We don't let banned and block users just walk back in the door, especially one who wasn't honest about his previous account. He only admitted it when questioned.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Give the guy a chance here. As stated above, GHC's talk page access was revoked. As I remember, we are dealing with someone who is severely autistic. I suggest we allow GHC talk page access, let him post an unblock request. It he wishes, allow him to change user to the new identity after GHC's unblock request is allowed. If he wishes to use new account, old account can then be redirected to new account. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * are you saying he wasn't given a chance before? Wikipedia isn't therapy.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. It doesn't work that way. I admitted being a banned user and, get this, was blocked an hour and a half later for eight months. see also There's also the borderline new username; containing the substring "sex act".
 * Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200

<span style="white-space: nowrap; background-color: #eee; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, #999, #eee); border: 1px solid #999; border-radius: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 0.5em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); display: inline-block; margin: 0.5em 0; padding: 0.5em 0.8em 0.5em; font-variant: small-caps;" title="“Bollocks to the rules!”">— Sincerely, Street-Legal <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.5);">Sockpuppet <span style="margin-right: 0.4em; padding: 3px 4px 2px; background-color: #ddd; border: 1px dotted Red; border-radius: 0.25em; -moz-border-radius: 0.25em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.25em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.25em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"><span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.5);">Jack Merridew   05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * :that isn't going to fly as a signature..--Crossmr (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be something you whipped up special for the occasion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That not my sig, it's my post wrapped around my sig. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, given the evidence of some constructive editing, I'd say that a chance should be given. I appreciate that GHCs editing previously, whilst not damaging to Wikipedia, was not constructive either. Let's not apply the rules absolutely to the letter here, cut a little slack and we may gain a productive editor. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. The claim about autism was made by someone claiming to be his father. I don't think any evidence was actually provided otherwise. In terms of useful edits, he's only made 10 mainspace edits, 3 of which were to link to the new article he created (which has some questionably irrelevant content in it) and a couple of other extremely trivial changes to articles.--Crossmr (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few reasonably constructive edits, yes, but more that are just about formatting his user page and user talk page. His posts to other editors' talk pages are as much about the formatting as the content (and frankly they are almost impossible to read because they are white-on-black). This wouldn't be much of a problem if it hadn't been for the fact that Guitarherochristopher was asked over and over by many different people to stop focusing on the prettification of his user space; see this final warning from an admin for instance. Even applying AGF (and I don't think his intentions are actively bad) there still seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is about, and given the large amount of extra work that misunderstanding caused to other editors a few months back, I would not think it would be a good idea to lift the ban now. But in any case, he can't go on editing under his new account as if nothing had happened - at the very least he needs to appeal his ban under his old username and argue in a way that shows he understands why his previous editing behaviour was unacceptable, and how it will change. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account, not simply because it is a sock of banned user, but because recent edits demonstrate the same pattern, , of behavior that led to the original ban (i.e., a mix of reasonable contributions along with excessive My-spacey edits). Given the thin attempt to disguise identity or behavior, I don't believe GHC or his sock are editing in bad faith, rather it seems to be an inability to comply with this project's goal and practices. FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to an unbannning if someone can craft appropriate and strict editing restrictions, and believes that there is a reasonable chance of GHC being able to follow them. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Webcomic creator?
Could someone take a look at this editor's contributions? I tried the COI noticeboard but got no response. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stale report moved here from WT:AN for archiving. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 

Lewis Hamilton
Another spate of IP vandalism today. I've blocked an IP for 2 weeks, and Materialscientist has blocked another for 31 hrs. The article has now been semi'd for 2 months.

As I see it, either the article should be semi'd indefinitely, or alternatively it should be unprotected, but a warning added that shows up when editing that vandalism to the article will lead to long-ish blocks (at least 2 weeks for IPS, a month for non-IPs) being imposed without the need for a warning to be issued, thus allowing IPs to make constructive edits to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Post this to the actual noticeboard, not the talk page. :P <font style="color:#000000;"> f o x 09:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stale report moved here from WT:AN for archiving. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 

User:GaryColemanFan
This user is being disruptive about a single issue and won't get over it. Here is the story:


 * 1) I close  a discussion since the consensus was becoming clear.
 * 2) GCF decides it is a premature close,  and reverts it (keep in mind, he is one of the two  that opposed the move).
 * 3) After  sysop Ged UK  moves  the article based on consensus, GCF, once again, decides to revert me  after I re-closed  the discussion.
 * 4) Ged UK then  reverts his edit once more.
 * 5) Even after  telling the others there was consensus, GCF  once again reverts it (that makes three times if you lost count).
 * 6) GCF then  decides to attack me after I made a (semi-brusque) comment requesting  him to revert himself.

I admit I was not exactly perfect in the process, but he is being disruptive, blatantly denying consensus proclaimed by 8+ editors. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Turian, first of all, there were only 7 users who agreed (not more than 8 as you stated above): User:Curtis23 (proposed the move),User:Jeff Silvers, User:Tony2Times, User:Turian, User:MPJ-DK, User:Afkatk, User:3bulletproof16... I count 7. Not 8+...


 * But regardless, think it is mightily clear that polling is not a substitution for discussion (majority does not replace consensus). You have been informed to read guidelines like WP:VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS, but you have persistently decided to ignore them and instead act uncivilly. You have had problems before with those above guidelines, as also with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CIVIL, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:VANDAL and many others (evidenced bythis days-old discussion from WP:ANI in which you ended up being blocked and various other threads between you and I personally (which you reverted from your talk page; apparently so no one else would be able to easily view them). In fact, there were even some admins who posted in that archived ANI discussion mentioning that you "shouldn't have closed an ongoing discussion" like MoonRiddgenGirl and Dream Focus. By the way, I have to point out that Turian stated he planned on leaving the Professional wrestling WikiProject and leaving the users who opposed the discussion (one of them was GaryColemanFan [the other was myself] alone). This doesn't seem like "leaving him alone", does it?  Raa   G   gio   (talk)  04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is so complicated. GFC reopened the discussion today and I closed it once again. He probably saw that and came here.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, let me add number eight. I thought there was another one,  but I may be wrong. Second, let's consider all of the logical fallacies  within your argument:
 * Observational selection, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem tu quoque,  red herring: Your comments not once referenced the actions of GCF,  but instead, try to minimize my position by tarnishing my name within  the argument. You also mention my block (which I was unblocked  from) as a reason to not scrutinize such behavior. Comments about me are  rather irrelevant.
 * Impugning motives, stacking the deck, appeal to  spite: You claim that because I  stated that I was going to leave the project, that I must have something  evil planned or something vindictive planned. I do not need to be in a  project in order to report users or be a part of the discussions. I  would had left him alone if he had left consensus alone. My position  just merely changed with the circumstances.
 * I count seven things wrong with your argument. Now, would you care to comment on the fact that multiple editors, including uninvolved ones,  have declared that consensus was made, yet he continues to ignore it? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian   ( talk )  04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying it is irrelevant is a preposterous notion. The thread on ANI, the various blocks and the threads on your talk page all began with the topic of you closing the aforementioned move discussion pre-maturely. Only 7 editors had a consensus when you closed the discussion; regardless of anyone who has agreed with you afterwards (because like I pointed above, there have also been multiple editors who have disagreed too). GaryColemanFan had presented an argument against moving the page, and the counter-argument that was utilized was basically "GaryColemanFan doesn't have to agree; lets move anyway because most of us agree with the nomination". If you take the comment above as an offensive one because I mentioned your previous thread at ANI, then I must apologize for the misunderstanding, but it has a direct concordance with this newer thread. And yes, my post above is also about GCF because I am explaining that he is just obeying Wikipedia guidelines and protocol and you are just "determined to misunderstand". With such determination, it is very difficult to find an agreement.  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  04:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. I know you don't like me. I don't give a crap. I know you were the one who voted to oppose the move. I don't give a crap. You are trying to minimize my integrity in order to somehow push yours forward. Everyone has moved one besides you two. Do you perhaps see what is going on here? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  04:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty I moved on. @#!*%, I made it clear on your talk page that the move could stay in place; that it is not a big deal to me. My integrity has nothing to do with the situation; you are bringing up for discussion GaryColemanFan at ANI, not me. However, I am inclined to defend GaryColemanFan, not because I "don't like you" (as you mentioned above) , but because all he is doing is defending the guidelines which you vehemently ignore (WP:VOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). Because of your determination to misunderstand, I find it fruitless to argue with you. However, why don't you try something new, like actually addressing (1.) how you believed that consensus was achieved when there was two oppositions with various arguments against the move that hadn't been unproven, (2.) how you followed WP:POLL/WP:VOTE when you closed the discussion a few days after it was brought up and a few minutes after its last edit, and (3.) what you are trying to achieve in this ANI thread other than prevent GaryColemanFan from obtaining the discussion he as an editor has the right to obtain? Unless you directly answer those questions without the pointless responses criticizing my approaches (instead of addressing these concerns), then I'd have to accept that any conversation with you is pointless when you won't even want to discuss the matters at hand.  Raa   G   gio   (talk)  05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not using the number as a crutch. Will you fucking drop that already? The arguments were much stronger. And yes, I have closed  discussions where my opinion wasn't the consensus opinion. Get off of it  already. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian   ( talk )  05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian, who cares if the discussion is closed or not? GaryColemanFan can comment there until he's blue in the face, unless consensus changes, it doesn't look like the move will be undone, so who  exactly is this hurting? Let it go, let them continue to discuss, and *gasp* you don't have to respond. <font face="Segoe Script" color="gray">AniMate 05:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I care. It's disruptive editing, and he has made personal attacks against me by  calling me a troll. There is a reason discussions are  closed. Why are AfDs closed? Why are RfAs closed? It's the same  principle. You cannot say that you condone such behavior, especially the  personal attack. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian   ( talk )  05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you care, and I am telling you to let this go. It's a WikiProject  discussion, which isn't the same as RfA or AfD. I'm fairly certain  Wikipedia won't fall apart if you ignore this. <font face="Segoe Script" color="gray">AniMate  05:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at the consistency in admins defending policy... :/ –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If he is making personal attacks, bring a thread forward based on that or ask for action based on that. Discussion is not disruptive until it moves into WP:POINTmaking or trolling, and continuing discussion after consensus has been decided is not, on the face of it, either of those things. Ironholds (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See number 6, he has made attacks. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, didn't RaaGgio and Turian have a recent thread on here about a dispute between them? Cats and dogs?! Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has essentially nothing to do with him, but he has decided that it is relevant, despite the uselessness of such an argument. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The name GaryColemanFan rings a bell - turns out that back in January he was doing a similar thing, WP:OWNing content and arguing and edit-warring endlessly for a point of view against all comers. Is "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=356520738 Get lost, troll] an acceptable form of interaction during a content dispute like this? He seems to me to have an ongoing issue accepting any result that is not his own preferred result. Conclusion: wrestling articles are a locus of lame. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * THANK You! Finally someone said it...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 12:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary does tend to do that if he doesn't get his way he keeps going until he gets his way (which usually doesn't happen).--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so something must be done. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If a block must be issued than make it a 12-24 hour I don't think more is necessary.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest abstaining from a block for now; most of the problems seem to be part of a content dispute. Instead, a final warning for Gary; ; more personal attacks, or failing to abide by consensus, and a block is the likely outcome. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that. He is in pressing need of modifying these long-term issues. If the other parties here want to clarify matters via a user RfC that would seem to be a good next step. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Reponse from "the accused"
WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikpedia policy. Specifically drawing your attention to Consensus, the policy states that "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." This means that discussion is a good thing. On a talk page that is automatically archived, the only possible reason for manually archiving an active discussion (sometimes only several minutes after the last post, as Turian has done several times) is to end discussion. I know that the page was moved (note that Turian himself states that this happened when consensus "was becoming clear", meaning that the discussion had not come to an end). Even if there were a consensus to move the page, however, I have made no efforts to overturn the move or to "fail[...] to abide by consensus". I merely took off the archive box so that people could continue the discussion. This is in keeping with WP:CONSENSUS as well as the Wikipedia guideline Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Turian, in stating that a 6-2 vote is clear consensus, shows a deep misunderstanding of this guideline, since consensus has nothing to do with votes and everything to do with discussions...the very discussions he has worked hard to prevent. In summary, I have done nothing but insist that an ongoing, soon to be automatically archived discussion, should be allowed to continue if editors wish to comment. Please also note that "Guy" is neither impartial nor accurate in his comments. He chastizes me for calling someone a troll, but has himself called me an "idiot", a "dick", and a "fuckwit".

If I may speak to the "troll" comment, I was responding to a user who came to my talk page and told me to "bow to" his wishes. His post was not a good faith attempt to build an encyclopedia, and was rather an attempt to provoke an argument. I deleted his comments from my talk page and used the word "troll" in the edit summary. I readily admit to this. If he didn't want a response, however, he was always welcome to avoid my talk page altogether. I certainly have no problem promising to avoid calling him names if he abstains from posting on my talk page (unless there is an actual need, such as a 3RR warning&mdash;not that I have ever violated 3RR, of course, but it serves as an example). Getting back to the issue at hand (which, in reality, was put to rest months ago), there is absolutely nothing wrong with civil discussion. Consensus had been reached on an article, and "Guy" came along and swayed other people to his side. This is perfectly fair, since consensus can change&mdash;something that editors who insisted on stifling debate in the current move discussion no longer seem to care about, especially as several discussions have been closed and archived within one day...certainly not long enough to ensure that editors have a chance to read and comment. I disagreed, but I did not engage in an edit war. Instead, I clarified my position, which had been misrepresented by other editors. This is simply not disruptive, and no "long-term issue" exists. No warning is necessary.

To reiterate, I am not going to comment further on the move discussion, the discussion is going to be archived in 7 days, and I am going to avoid discussions with Turian. Any warning would simply be punitive and against Wikipedia policy (and, certainly, "Guy" can sympathize there, since he spoke out against punitive measures during his block in the not-too-distant past), as there is no ongoing problem that needs to be dealt with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Um Gary, Turian will continue to bother you. You know that right.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 00:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how calling someone a "troll" can be anything not disruptive. Do I have anything against you? Do you gain anything from smearing the "opposition"? This isn't a one-sided thing; it is a fairly obvious point that consensus can change and that it is fine to keep discussing something after a decision has been reached (within reasonable limits). It is also a fair point that personal attacks are not tolerated. Your query about Guy above shows you know this. That's why my suggestion is warnings for the personal attacks and consensus-battling - and a chance to move on from here. I'd suggest you take it, and Turian note the point about closing discussions. Ironholds (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to do with any "consensus-battling". As far as personal attacks, I would direct you to the Wikipedia article on Troll (Internet), which states "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community...with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." This definition seems to fit perfectly. He posted an inflammatory message on my talk page ("bow to" my wishes) to provoke and emotional response (an unflattering edit summary). If, however, you feel that my response was inappropriate, I can see where you're coming from. We could always go with the precedent set when "Guy" called me an idiot, a dick, and a fuckwit. I was told, right here at ANI, that posting a message on his talk page (in that case, a warning for deleting content) was sufficient justification for him to call me any names he wanted. At any rate, you seem to be calling for a warning based mostly on a disagreement that was resolved in January. Such a warning might very well set a Wikipedia record for "Warning for the stalest diffs". I strongly suggest that everyone move on, as no issue even exists. I will do my best to avoid Turian, and I will hope he does his best to avoid me. If anything on Wikipedia ever deserved to be manually archived, it's this conversation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is blatant wikilawyering, playing with semantic details to obscure a documented underlying fact. Consensus building does not mean holding your ground until everybody else has died of boredom, which is your technique. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would your technique be? Ignoring Wikipedia policy and just counting votes to make decisions?  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My technique would be not to engage in the long-term stonewalling tactics habitually used by GCF. How about yours? Guy (Help!) 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, mine would be to let him present his argument, and if I oppose, I would present him with my reasons in a counter-argument. That's usually how discussion works, not only in Wikipedia, but in any community. If the counter-argument makes sense, GaryColemanFan would accept it, because I've witnessed him do it before. If it doesn't, he sure will tell me why and discussion will continue until we achieve consensus. Is that not the point of WP:CONSENSUS?  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  14:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He continued to open it well after people had enough time to respond; so your argument is kind of crap. I never used numbers as th base of my action; I know the policy. You, however, like to only hear want you wish. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Holding your ground until everybdy else has died of boredom" - as in, allowing a discussion to continue for more than five days, especially when half a dozen editors are still commenting? I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. As for the situation from before, the process went as follows: (1) a consensus was apparent, (2) you convinced people to go with the opposite, (3) I clarified my position, as people were misrepresenting my argument, (4) the content was removed, in a move that I believe was contrary to Wikipedia policy, (5) I asked for clarification on two relevant boards, (6) you and the people who followed your lead altered my posts and later insisted on archiving them before I could get an answer from a neutral party, (7) a neutral party sided with you, and I dropped the issue altogether, (8) three months later, you appear again, brandishing your obvious conflict of interest and insisting on punitive measures for an issue that has long since been forgotten. To be honest, I had to think for a while before I could even remember what article you were talking about.
 * Now, this has dragged on far too long. As previously stated, I am committed to avoiding Turian wherever possible. The discussion at hand will be archived and forgotten soon. Case closed. Can we get a neutral administrator to close this as "no action necessary", please? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we have to give everyone ample time to reply! Sound familiar? –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awww, Turian is finally learning. Good for you. And here I thought you were actually ignoring everything that I would tell you. Lets just see if you continue to "give everyone ample time to reply" when someone wants to actually challenge your argument.  Raa  G   gio   (talk)  19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't understand sarcasm. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been away for the weekend, I haven't a clue what this thread is about, but I do know one thing. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette
An IP user has placed some vandalism on the Pauley Perrette page. This is considered in clear violation of BLP and is vandalism. I believe it should be removed with oversight. Could an admin do that please? Also, yes, I am well aware of bringing this to a high-viewed page, but since it isn't phone numbers/addresses/etc., I don't think it requires email contact. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is simple vandalism, not something that requires oversight. Revert and ignore. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- and watch the page if you like, and also warn the vandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie...wasn't sure how things were done with BLPs. I will mark this resolved. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Warring and POV, need help
An admin is needed to help stop POV and Warring in this page. I have faithfully tried to keep this article as clean and constructive as possible. The article contains a long list that has a lot of unverifiable/wrong information. I have read it and kept the information that I could verify; however, there is another user who is pushing for his own POV without presenting any references/proofs to the huge list he's providing. The situation needs to be controlled. The article needs to be locked; however, caution should be considered here to not lock it at the unverifiable/false information until the other user can provide references/proofs to his huge list.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for three days to allow full discussion. If this is the 'wrong version', then so be it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'm doing is keeping the old version which many have contributed to, it's now a big list of Assyrian settlements. The only thing you're doing is destroying it by removing so much material. You're whining about sources to small villages, all to destroy. Help with filling the list with more villages instead of destroying this article just because you don't like the name "Assyrian". Shmayo (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of that article. I have clearly stated that your list contains imaginary/unproven entries. Removing such materials is not considered destroying. If you make a good list, no one can touch it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not mentioned any town that you think is not Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. You only made fool of yourself when you said Qamishli. If you have any knowledge about Qamishli you wouldn't say it's not Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac. Shmayo (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopping vandal
I am experiencing an extremely persistent and blatant IP vandal, and despite an admin blocking a number of his IPs, he keeps coming back and reverting again. Already blocked by User:Cirt are ] (his talk page is complete with a message to me showing his "I'll do what I want, leave me alone" attitude), and. These IPs also vandalised my user page. Most of the vandalism concerns music album pages, adding and removing music genres with no consensus or discussion, removing references and occasionally adding inappropriate ones. He has also extensively removed dozens of links to heavy metal music, changing them to the hopelessly inappropriate heavy metal. When I changed them all back, he just reverted them all again with another IP, now blocked by User:Ged UK.

I believe this user is also User:Adyrock88 contribs, who basically just does the same thing - single-issue genre troll. This guy is not going to go away. Does anyone have any ideas? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the "I'll do what I want" message from the IP user talk page. Shouldn't be there in the first place. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible that a rangeblock might be appropriate here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that after this edit, the IPs are definitely Adyrock88. For the vandalism, I issued a Warm4IM warning. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who immediately removed that warning. Adyrock thrn made many reverts in the last couple minutes.  I took him, specifically, to AIV, where he was blocked by NawlinWiki as a "Vandalism-only account".  This should allow the IP socks to be blocked as socks quite quickly. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by NawlinWiki. I have no comment on the rangeblock, as they're beyond my skillset. Ged  UK  19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

109.166.129.180 has now removed this discussion from this page. It has been restored, as you can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This new IP is already undoing all the admins' edits . Surely a rangeblock is in order. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And another Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone list all the IPs involved, so we can judge if they all fall within 109.166.128.0/21 and if it's worth rangeblocking ? Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've protected the articles for 6 hours while we work out the rangeblock options. Ged  UK  20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rangeblocked for 3 hours. All IP edits from the range for the past hour have been socks of the user. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The range is actually 109.166.128.0/20 (because of 109.166.143.54) which I just rangeblocked for 48 hours. Since you only blocked for 3 hours, feel free to drop that length if you want. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IPs I've encountered are: 109.166.128.190, 109.166.129.180, 109.166.132.65, 109.166.133.32, 109.166.134.121, 109.166.136.147, 109.166.136.161, 109.166.136.175, 109.166.141.153, 109.166.142.116, 109.166.143.54, and the anomalies 93.122.196.165 (already blocked), 93.122.254.25 and 93.122.249.14. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I found from some of the histories: There could be more, but that is what I have found. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 20:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no good edits since April 2 from 93.122.192.0/18 either, so I've blocked that for 48 hours as well. Big range, but nothing else on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: no I haven't, I edit-conflicted with Abecedare. But it's blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Thanks. Also blocked 93.122.192.0/18 for 3 hours. Have kept the block period short since this is a larger range and there were a few legitimate edits from it ~3 hours back, but feel free to extend it. I think we have now covered all the listed IP's (all belonging to Orange Romania ISP). Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: The ISP has access to 109.166.128.0/17, although the user seems to be getting IPs allotted from a smaller pool. Would be worth keeping an eye on the edits from the /17 range to see if the rangeblock needs to be expanded. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look out for yet another Orange Romania IP address 62.217.247.238 contribs from a different range, which has just made two edits and . Deep Purple (album) could do with the protection that the other articles currently have. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! He is persistent, since I guess he would have had to try many times before being assigned an IP that wasn't blocked. Blocked 62.217.247.0/24 48 hours and protected article 3 days. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would protect Deep Purple (album) and lock down that range. What would be the overall damage of blocking all of "Orange Romania"'s IPs, cause if this IP jumping (from 109.166. to 93.122. to now 62.217.) is any indication, it is just going to continue til they can't jump anymore. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 21:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with an editor making attacks and allegations against other Wikipedia users, other organisations and other individuals
Hi. I am getting in touch with you concerning the editing behaviour of Nobs. The reason I am getting in touch with you in particular is because Nobs has spent what appears to me to be an inordinate amount of time attacking other editors. The crux of the matter is that Nobs has spent the month or so engaged in repeatedly attacking or accusing others, both Wikipedians and not, of having engaged in acts of harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, insertion of anti-semitic content, criminal activity or lying. I will like to add at this point that Nobs has not levelled an attack against me by name, but I am deeply concerned by his behaviour. I'll do my best to list these incidences in as concise a manner as possible:


 * Here Nobs accuses, by name, an individual of engaging in and facilitating vandalism of a site.
 * When we expand the entire section we see the same pattern of behaviour by Nobs01, where he makes allegation after allegation about named individuals, unnamed individuals and an organisation. He specifically accuses one named individual of smearing Conservapedia, but when the evidence is examined  we see one man's personal opinion about Conservapedia and one that, whilst not flattering to Conservapedia, doesn't seem to meet the criteria to be considered a smear.
 * Here Nobs makes the accusation that editors of Rationalwiki have taken over the WP:Conservapedia page, and then accuses those editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism.
 * Here we see Nobs making the accusation that "much of this criticism of CP over the past year was was inserted by RationaloWiki parodists in both the "Hit List" and "Lenski" incidence."
 * Here we see Nobs make the sensationalist claim that "A handful of Conservapedia Sysops (few than a dozen) have blocked and deleted over 10,000 sockpuppet accounts from roughly two dozen Rationalwiki editors over the past three years. That averages out to 50-100 sockpuppets daily."
 * Here Nobs accuses another editor of "trolling behaviour".
 * Here Nobs accuses other editors of "bullying and intimidation".
 * Here, after an editor makes a single posting to Nobs Talk Page, Nobs accuses him of harassment.
 * Here Nobs accuses Rationalwiki editors of interfering with his Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests.
 * Again we see Nobs accusing other editor(s?) of bullying.
 * Here Nobs accuses the organisation, Rationalwiki, of self-promotion, and again makes the accusation that Wikipedia is controlled by Rationalwiki founders.
 * Here Nobs once again makes the claim that Conservapedia is under attack.
 * Here Nobs makes accusations of interference and personal attacks.
 * Here Nobs makes the accusation that he was "shouted down by RationalWiki editors and impugned with all sorts of trash" and also makes the accusation that he has been intimidated and "viscously attacked".
 * Here Nobs accuses a specific Wikipedian user of "encouraging readers who share your lack of NPOV to vandalize an off-wiki website". Yet the template which Nobs talks about does no such thing.
 * Here Nobs makes the unsupported and from my point of view (given the lack of evidence he offers), despicable claim that Rationalwiki editors have engaged in inserting anti-Semitic vandalism into Conservapedia.
 * Again Nobs makes the claim that Conservapedia underwent "cyber-vandalism attracted by this misuse of a Wikipedia project page".
 * Again Nobs reiterates all the claims of vandalism and anti-semitic content that he made in the previous three points.
 * Once again Nobs attempts to link the insertion of anti-semitic content into Conservapedia with Rationalwiki editors, again without justification or evidence.
 * Again an accusation of suffering personal attacks from a (named) editor that Nobs had already leveled many other accusations against (see above).
 * Yet again, another accusation that Rationalwiki editors have used Wikipedia pages to vandalise Conservapedia.
 * Here Nobs makes the claim that "hostility, incivility, and trolling" had been directed at him, and then asks another named user whether "As a RationalWiki founder, do you have any influence over the conduct of these users who are intent on ridiculing and making life miserable for Conservapedia editors who are also fellow Wikipedians?". Again, Nobs provides no evidence that such a thing has happened.
 * Once again Nobs makes the accusation that "&hellip;RationalWiki editors were both involved in discussions on an archived Talk page here about anti-semitic content in conservapedia. I am a Checkuser in Conservapedia and personally reverted much of that content, which was placed by several of the founding editors of RationalWiki" and once again gives no evidence to support this attack on Rationalwiki founders.
 * Nobs makes an accusation about Lipson, an individual named in the article, source and publicly known. Nobs states "Conclusion: Peter Lipson misrepresented the circumstances under which he became involved in the RationalWiki project."
 * and diff Nobs edits the Conservapedia article in such a way as too link and accuse Rationalwiki of being involved with the spate of vandal attacks that Conservapedia alleges happens in 2007 (I have to say alleged at that point because I believe that there have been instances where what Conservapedia considers to be vandalism can differ to how vandalism is described or perceived in criminal law. I don't want to get into libel issues here, so alleged will have to do).
 * Here Nobs makes the strange claim that vandalism is less serious than "malicious editing". He then makes the accusation, once more, that Wikipedia was used by Rationalwiki editors to mount vandalism attacks against Conservapedia.
 * And again the accusation that Rationalwiki members were involved in "coordinating massive vandal attacks." Nobs also prominently mentions Lipson's name in connection with these events.
 * And again, the same accusation that Rationalwiki members were vandalising Conservapedia. Interestingly Nobs even points out that in the article he is using as a source the journalist actually says "malicious editing" in that particular section and context, not vandalism.
 * And again.
 * And again.
 * And again.
 * Now Nobs claims that "The underlying WP:RS essentially states certain named editors, who are also Wikipedia users, engaged in "malicious editing."". The WP:RS mentioned doesn't support seem to support that claim.
 * Again the contention that Rationalwiki co-ordinated vandal attacks.
 * This time Nob makes the accusation that the source mentioned names and accuses individual Rationalwiki members of vandalism. It doesn't.  As far as I can see, the only thing the source says about vandalism is: "And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."  As you can see, this is a single sentence, set by itself between two paragraphs and, because of it's setting, difficulty has been found in placing an exact context.  However, what the source explicitly doesn't do is name individuals and state that they engaged in vandalism.  For the record it should also be noted that Rationalwiki specifically states that it doesn't engage in, endorse or condone vandalism of any site.
 * And again, pretty much the same accusation made by Nobs, only this time he claims that the source used in the point above states that Rationalwiki members engage in "malicious vandalism". As far as I can see, it doesn't.
 * And again.

I apologise for the size of the list, but it does illustrate my concern. Over the course of twenty five days Nobs makes a total of 36 allegations on Wikipedia about a variety of matters. Now I can't say that Nobs is wrong in all of his accusations, although where evidence could be seen next to his allegations he often seemed to be. Rather, what concerned me was Nobs' pattern of making accusations and launching attacks during the past month. Now I'm inexperienced in dealing with such matters on Wikipedia and so thought that it would be best if I brought it to somebody's attention. That way this can be reviewed by somebody experienced in these matters and, if it turns out that there is nothing to be worried about, then I can be told that I'm an idiot and to bog off, as opposed to me trying to take this through other channels, being wrong, and causing harm to other users as a result.

Additional info: Nobs was warned about his attacks, etc; against other editors, here. There are also diffs showing Nobs being warned about his attacks by other editors on Talk:Conservapedia and on other User Talk Pages, and diffs showing his attacks being removed. If you wish those posted let me know and I'll attempt to add it here, but I should warn you it is another long list, and could take quite some time to compile.

Any help you could give me in this matter would be brilliant.

Thanks.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind too much, but for readability of this thread and the whole board, I've collapsed the list. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not a problem, as I said above (somewhere!) I'm not experienced in these matters so help is gratefully received.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Three neutral Admins have been engaged in this open Mediation for the past severaL weeks. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Stunteddwarf/SakuraNoSeirei, This is good work, and I thank you for it. Here's one piece of evidence that was neglected, an editor who was interviewed for the reliable source. This editor didn't use the term "vandalism," or "malicious," he refers to it as "cyber-terror." From the Rataionalwiki 2.0 website. nobs (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest I think Conservapedians and RationalWikians deserve each other. Both sites make me laugh, but in different ways (one is, after all, doing it intentionally). However, at some point we probably have to get the more obviously entrenched partisans to step back form the articles and leave it to people who don't have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the rights and wrongs of the legitimate arguments of the contributors on Talk:Conservapedia. The only concern I am addressing here is Nobs using Wikipedia as a vehicle to launch attacks and allegations against other users, other people and other organisations. As far as I am aware, that is a no-no on Wikipedia. If there is sufficient evidence against a person or organisation to post information in an article that would otherwise be considered an attack then that information should be included inside the article. But if there isn't sufficient evidence, and/or the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, then such allegations and attacks should not be aired on Wikipedia Talk pages. There are many other sites that Nobs can use to make his attacks and allegations.

N.B. I notice you are using an external source and have, again, misquoted what somebody has said (for the record the source says "At first we just complained about CP, their policies, petty actions, etc. Then we began a process that was very similar some cyber-terror tactics (although much less sexy, frankly.) Basically, we wanted to cause CP editors/sysops to waste time dealing with us. This would not really bring the site down, but it would tie things in knots. It was very manipulative."  As can be seen the editor didn't say that he engaged in cyber-terror, rather he/she began "a process that was very similar some (sic) cyber-terror tactics."  That is a very different thing). I'm not sure why you have raised your point here, it does nothing to address the concerns I have raised that you have spent an inordinate amount of time over the past ~month to launch what I consider to be unacceptable attacks and allegations against other editors, people and organisations.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree the article should be written by neutral editors. My efforts have not been to attack or cause problems with active WP users who are also Rationalwiki users. I have bent over backwards to protect their privacy rights and facilitate quiet mediation. The central issue is, what is to be done when a reputable mainstream journalist published information that other sources tend to give evidence was bogus? You will recall, this is what happened to Stacy Schiff in the Essjay controversy where she eventually published a retraction.
 * And I'm on record extensively over the past six weeks attempting quiet resolution of this problem. Thank you.  nobs (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the attacks listed above? It would be good to stay on topic. --76.10.165.2 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A mainstream journalist published information that later it was determined was not true in both the Stacy Schiff instance and the Stephanie Simon of the LA Times instance. These alleged "attacks" all point to the evidence Stephanie Simon of the LA Times was misled by the persons she interviewed from Rationalwiki about (1) who the founder of Rationalwiki was, (2) when Rationalwiki was founded, and (3) under what circumstances Rationalwiki was founded. nobs (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you multiple times why your interpretation is wrong. You have ignored it every time and simply repeat the same attacks over and over and over again. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The record clearly states over threes years of discussion in the Conservapedia Archives and RationalWiki talk pages Stephanie Simon errantly reported who the founder of RationalWiki was. This error has been edited out by consensus. Rationalwiki's own website corroborates the second error, when Rationalwiki ws founded. Simon appears to have been misled on this point as well.  nobs (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to debate this with you here Rob, this section needs to be focused on your policy violations. Just to demonstrate that your error was explained to you previously . Yet you continue to propagate outrageous claims and attacks against WP editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed private mediation with you at Rationalwiki and have been rebuffed several times and told to bring the problems in the Stephanie Simon article to the relevent talk page in Wikipedia. I have contacted an independent bureaucrat on behalf of Rationalwiki founders to protect their privacy concerns. But the problem for Wikipedia remains, having errant information from a Reliable Source and users with a COI seemingly wanting to stand behind errant information. nobs (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stay on topic and address the accusation that you have been repeatedly making serious personal attacks at other WP editors and others. Other matters are irrelevant here and should be discussed in the appropriate places. --76.10.165.2 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I did not make accusations. The Reliable Source, which is in the article, states "According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, "From there, [RationalWiki members] monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."  nobs (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is not about the article. It is about the attacks you have made against other editors as described in detail by SakuraNoSeirei at the top of this section. As others have already asked, please stay on topic. --rpeh •T•C•E• 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only accusation or "attack" I can see that warrants any further explanation is the one which references my checkuser rights as a Conservapedia sysop. [ Posting that evidence would be inappropriate. I've been seeking to locate the appropriate party within Wikipedia who can review non-public and confidential information to help resolve these matters.
 * The other alleged "attacks" can all be seen within any given context. Nowhere have I been accused of incivility or policy breaches while working with three independent Admins. I'll be happy to cease discussing any of this mess publicly, but would like to know where I can address WP:DR for independent review. Thank you.  nobs (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can email private information direct to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The materials are quite bulky. Can I use a subpage from my user page to prepare and edit the materials for context? nobs (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Nobs. Your approach to "How should I handle non-public information?" is to publish it? Not the wisest move on multiple levels. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note there is a difference between non-public and confidential. Also please note the extensive lengths I've gone to over several weeks, if not years, in protecting privacy. nobs (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RW 1.0 was a register-to-view wiki whose URL was only circulated to a few select members at the time. One of the CP sysops managed to infiltrate it and shared his login data with you and others. You can hide behind semantics, but you still crossed a major line there, and you did so in the middle of a discussion about your behavior. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The numerous (just search for "semit" on Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 15) accusations about RationalWiki editors/founders inserting anti-Semitic vandalism into Conservapedia had nothing to do with Wikipedia or with improving the article, though. The anti-Semitism issue isn't in the article, and it was only brought up once three years ago on a talk page, where it never moved beyond "Hey, look at that!". Nobs just brought up this issue again (and again) to attack and discredit editors he was in conflict with. The same goes for his other random accusations that he decides to ignore here. --Sid 3050 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Sid, to the Archived discussion. Note User:Hojimachong was engaged there. Here's his Rationalwiki user page where he discusses vandalism and "subversive schemes." (Hoji was a trusted sysop on both sites at one time). That archived Wikipedia page links to Conservapedia's Judaism entry. Here's one of Hojimachong's contributions to that same article.  nobs (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for ignoring everything I said, Nobs. And I find it funny how you take "I am not here to discuss vandalism, or subversive schemes." from the user page you link to and claim that this was where "he discusses vandalism and 'subversive schemes'". Please stop dancing around and tell us what your anti-Semitism accusations have to do with Wikipedia or with the Conservapedia article. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs: You mention in an above post that re: this discussion, you are/have worked with three independent Admins, and that when working with those Admins have not been accused of incivility or policy breaches. Can you provide the names of these Administrators, the specific area(s) (note: please do not include any sensitive information that you may have sent to the Admins by e-mail) of what it is you are working with them on, the diffs, and the links to the matters you have brought to their attention. This will be of invaluable help in ensuring that there is no duplication of effort with this page and, if the Admins are working on the problems I have highlighted above, I can inform them of this discussion. Thankyou.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Papa November has been most helpful and judicious in overseeing a difficult situation. He's dovoted a lot of attention to detail. User:B Fizz likewise  has been intimately involved in discussions, fair, impartial, and helping advise all parties on some policy matters.  User:Hipocrite, while I've taken quiet umbrage a couple of times from actions (once to quash discussion on privacy matters and once quashing a reliable source matter) has generally been neutral. Hipocrite was helpful toning down incivil remarks from another user.  There may be other admins involved, too. None have had the need to give me even a warning on policy breaches or incivility, and there's no record as far as I can find.  nobs (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "None have had the need to give me even a warning on policy breaches or incivility, and there's no record as far as I can find." On 14:08, 10 April 2010 Papa November informed you that this accusation on your part was "&hellip;an accusation of malicious behaviour by a living person. I'm not saying the person in question is innocent or guilty, but those comments can only be included on the talk page if you can cite a reliable source that explicitly states those exact words."  Please note the exact words used by Papa November: a reliable source that explicitly states those exact words.


 * Regarding the allegations and accusations that you have made. The WP:RS that everybody is quibbling over on the Conservapedia Talk Page, the LA Times Article,  does not mention, by name, any person that has specifically engaged in vandalism, anti-Semitic behaviour, bullying, harassment, intimidation, trolling, criminal activity or lying.  Indeed, nowhere does it say that people have engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour, bullying, harassment, intimidation, trolling, criminal activity or lying, yet you have repeatedly attacked editors, other people and organisations with those allegations. It does state that an unknown number of Rationalwiki members made the claim that they engaged in cyber-vandalism.  The source does not explicitly say that the members who made that claim did in fact engage in cyber-vandalism.  Furthermore, any evidence gleaned from this source can only apply to the date of the article (2007) and before.  Since that article Rationalwiki has refuted the allegation that it engages in or endorses vandalism.  Barring a recent WP:RS that states otherwise then that claim must be honoured.  In other words, your allegations (as seen in the original diff links that I posted above) that current Rationalwiki editors, or Rationalwiki itself, are vandals or are still responsible for vandalism are accusations that are not explicitly stated or supported in this WP:RS.


 * This leaves the other sources that you have attempted to use to justify your attacks. These sources are, I believe, a blog and Rationalwiki.  As has already been agreed by both consensus and general Wikipedia policy neither blogs, nor Rationalwiki, are considered to be WP:RS, or reliable sources.  Even if they were, when they are studied next to your the stream of allegations and accusations that you have made over the past ~month, the sources do not explicitly corroborate your attacks and accusations.  If I am wrong in this matter please list below the explicit statement made in each source that you have that corroborates each of the accusations and allegations that you have made listed in the original diff links above.  Please explain why you have also felt it necessary to have made many of the same accusations over, and over, and over again, and, where these have been directed against other editors, named persons or organisations, how these don't constitute attacks.  I would especially like to see the explicit statement that you say supports your accusation that Rationalwiki editors have or do engage in inserting anti-Semitic material into Conservapedia, as I find that accusation, repeatedly made on your part, to be particularly offensive.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

One more for the list: "The issue ultimately surrounds an active hoax perpetrated by the founders of Rationalwiki against a mainstream journalist who now is being cited as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article." --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time; here one says it was done for the press and another admits he waterboarded a friend for publicity.  nobs (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this vitriol really going to be allowed to continue? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobs, I was hoping that this process would be a wake-up call for you. Unfortunately you appear to have missed the point about the entire above post. So I will spell it out. You actions, as noted above (and presumably driven by a COI), have crossed a line. Wikipedia is not, and I will repeat that, not your personal vehicle for launching damaging, and potentially defamatory, accusations and attacks against other editors, living people and organisations. If you want to do this, find somewhere that will allow you to do this. Wikipedia is not that place.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother. Point made, point taken. God bless you. nobs (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to do this, but this is repeat offense


Violating wp:harrass and wp:civil and wp:npa.

cf: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.123.220 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously more attempted wikihounding from the same blocked user from that ANI report. That he is still allowed to sockpuppet with IPs and harass anyone who dares disagree with him on his excessive and sweeping attempts to change Wikipedia into his personal idea, as seen above and his editing history, is a blight on Wikipedia. If such a person is going to continued to be allowed to edit, when we are fully aware he is indef blocked and continuing his disruptive behavior, what is the point of blocking him? Why block anyone? What are WP:SOCK and WP:BAN for? As for his claim that I am violating harass, sorry, but I can do nothing but laugh at the idea. He stalked me before, but somehow I am harassing him when HE called my attention to that discussion during his changing hundreds of articles from using otheruses4 to using about (one of which was on my watchlist) during an on-going (now closed) RfD, as mentioned above, where there was obviously no consensus for removal. He also tried to get a bot approved to do the same despite consensus clearly being against him., and when he has a talk page full of folks annoyed at him for it. Please. Not that it matters. Whenever it gets to the point that he gets reported to ANI, he jumps IPs, is allowed to do so, and continues on. Also, please note that he never bothered with the required notice, nor actually justifies any claim he has made here, other than point to a previous discussion showing that while I may have been uncivil in response to his blatant wikihounding, he was the one found guilty of harassment. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that the above anon somehow missed the big orange box and failed to notify the editor they reported. Thanks to the other editor that notified her. —DoRD (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User 78.101.184.250
Hi. The user with the IP adress 78.101.184.250 has made at least 30 edits in the past two days to pages mostly about political parties. He/she is adding an Islamist group (Hizb ut-Tahrir) to the lists on those pages, in addition to external links for that group. I don't know about the legitimacy of that organization in such countries as Lebanon or Syria; he/she may be right in contributing to those pages. But he/she has also edited pages such as Australia and the United States, even after I and a registered user (Timeshift9) undid his/her edits, and Timeshift9 told him/her to "cut the crap." I highly suspect this user of vandalism (again, I'm not entirely sure, which is why I'm using this page as opposed to the one used to report vandalism), but I feel that undoing his/her edits manually will not work, as he/she appears to be very determined. I hate to be helpless, but I would very much appreciate some advise. Thanks! 72.93.241.60 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if mention of the group is warranted on those pages but the addition of external links and see also internal links is clearly inappropriate. I've cleaned these up, removed the text that needed sourcing, placed the appropriate notes on the user's talk page and will alert them to this discussion. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio images
Can I have some more eyes on the image uploads of ? I spotted they had uploaded some logos as PD-self, but a review of earlier uploads brings up each and every image on Google Images, all on sites with copyright notices, all older than the WP copy, many higher in resolution.

I've only scratched the surface: I started listing them on WP:PUI, but there's 50 or so and it'd take for ever for me to check, tag and list each one myself. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 09:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly tag all the logos for speedy as copyvios - I can't see any way they are not. If they are important to an article, someone can reupload them with a proper license and FUR --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted some of the more obvious recent images but I suspect that everything they uploaded as own work is unreliable. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like WP:CCI might work. It's precisely for this kind of situation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Should the user be asked to stop uploading while this is looked at? I see there is some conversation on his talkpage but he seems to carrying on regardless.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked them to stop uploading pending investigations, and deleted their most recent logo upload. I've also filed this at WP:CCI - sorry, Moonriddengirl, I managed to completely forget about CCI (there's a big hole in my memory marked "things you rarely use" and I put almost everything into it). ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems with me. Gives me a chance to remind people in general. :D (Not that we need more, but you know....) I have populated the text at Contributor copyright investigations/Sisiluncai and have asked User:MER-C for the image list. I'm not sure how he gets them. I imagine it'll be up and ready to go soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

<-I'm failing dismally to get to understand the problem. So far, almost all the articles they created are copyvios. Many of their edits are copyvios. Almost all their image uploads are copyvios. It's going to take a few more days of work at WP:CCI to untangle all this.

I asked Sisiluncai not to upload any more images, but they continued. I engaged them on their talk page and explained what was wrong with copy-and-paste into Wikipedia. They flatly deny doing so, saying that the word-for-word copies are entirely co-incidental. I've tried three times to get some evidence that they know they shouldn't do this again... but since they never did it in the first place, they won't say they won't do it in future.

I am, therefore, inclined at this point to push for a block. I'm now involved, if only in cleaning up and explaining, so I'd like someone else to make the decision and to press the button. I believe they're not going to stop the copyvios until we do. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Can't see you doing more than you already have, I would support a block until they realise why their actions are incorrect. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely - user apparently has no interest in stopping at this point. Any admin can feel free to unblock upon consensus. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support block. I intend to presumptively remove this user's major contributions soon per WP:COPYVIO (even the ones marked OK) due to the presence of translation copyvios, of which I found two today. MER-C 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support block. You have gone more than out of your way to explain things to this user. Either he honestly doesn't get it and needs to be blocked as a next step in the education process; or he's long crossed the line into bad faith. Support an unblock if he can demonstrate he's willing to contribute in accordance with copyright and plagiarism policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support block. Everything I looked at was a copyvio, except the ones where I couldn't find an English source and MER-C turned up translation copyvios. Same for images - the only one that wasn't a copyvio was by accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support block. He evidently is not able to understand the problem, given his denial of copy pasting when copy pasting is obvious. Assuming good faith, WP:CIR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. AGF means we assume a person intends to comply with copyright, not that they actually have done so.  Individuals who do not understand that they're consistently in violation and continue to create problems have to be blocked; we need to respect the law. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  412 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The progress that's been made so far in Contributor copyright investigations/Sisiluncai shows that this editor is not making a constructive contribution to the encyclopedia, and is also wasting a lot of time of other contributors. Better just to keep him or her away, for the good of the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly odd and angry unblock request now on User talk:Sisiluncai. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 06:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Puzzling edits by User:Doradoratheexplorer
I am puzzled by the recent edits by (tagging articles as db-banned, creating articles with incorrectly-spelled titles, changing the lowest recorded temperature for a city in Canada). Some of these edits may be in good faith, and others are probably best understood as vandalism. Perhaps the temperature change is legitimate, but I can't confirm it, and I didn't receive a reply to my question about it. I have expanded Chater, Manitoba ‎ and Kemnay, Manitoba, the two articles tagged as db-banned, so that they are no longer eligible for speedy deletion. <font face="Times">Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandalism of climate data seems to be something that also did, and that is the user who Dora is using db-banned for. Here they change the record high temperature for Death Valley to  666°F, and here they change the record low for Verchoyansk to 666 below. Note also that the first edit from Dora was to say "Hello guys. It's my new user".  I suspect sockpuppetry.  —  Soap  —  22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect vandalism-only account adding nonsensical speedy deletion tags to pages that blatantly don't meet the criteria. Reporting to AIV. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is a sock, alright, but the name of the temperature-vandalizing master account is eluding me at the moment. —DoRD (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * db-ban doesn't apply anyway. SourApplez1211 was indefinitely blocked, not banned. There's a difference.--Chaser (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another indication that this is a sock of a banned user, imo. —DoRD (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely there's enough here to block per WP:DUCK even if we can't identify the sockmaster (yet). I highly doubt somebody who has been here for 2 days has knowledge of the CSD and use of the tags and some of the taggings would appear questionable at best if I weren't suspicious already. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * db-banned most certainly does apply. WP:CSD reads "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block having no substantial edits by others. ", and WP:BLOCK reads "If a user is blocked indefinitely, he or she is considered a banned user until an administrator unblocks the user". The confusion surrounding G5 was discussed in February, leading to a clarification of the language in WP:CSD. Note that the language from WP:BLOCK makes the language in WP:CSD redundant: if the socking user in indefinitely blocked, he is to be treated as banned.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef per WP:DUCK as they have resumed creating inappropriate articles and redirects. Hopefully someone can shed some light on the identity of the master account, though. —DoRD (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would file an SPI to find out if this user has any more socks. --Bsadowski1 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Iambleeding4assyria
Single-purpose account spamming Assyrian-authored anti-Chaldean propaganda on Chaldean Catholic Church. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed that User:Iambleeding4assyria is a single purpose account spamming a single article Chaldean Catholic Church. An admin should consider blocking the user mentioned above and protecting the page from further vandalism by such users.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reported them to AIV, not to mention they have in a way broken the 3RR rule as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Lulaq
This user seems to have a chip on his or her shoulder. After I noticed a personal attack s/he made on User talk:68.33.79.36 (now deleted), I used a template on him/her for it. Her response is here. Since nothing I say is calming him/her down or deterring her from her accusations, can another user or admin help me out? —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B">(v^_^v Dittobori) 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To say that because I AM offended by a racial attack against my race that stayed on Wikipedia for 5 DAYS that I had pulled up on my iPhone (mistakenly believing Wikipedia to be a credible source here), I have a chip on my shoulder is highly, highly offensive. The edit in question was deleted by this admin and it was not a personal attack. I displayed my severe disgust for the racist comment, but I will NOT apologize for that. Lulaq (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being offended by overt racism is fine, as is remedying it as soon as it's noticed. Reacting to it by personal attacks on the alleged perpetrator--who may not even be the same, since IP addresses change all the time--is indeed against the no personal attacks policy.  By all means, please help us keep Wikipedia free of such nonsense... but don't get so personally involved that you lose your cool, eh? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without having seen all the referenced postings, I would have to say I agree w/Jclemens, who put it well.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lulaq, when a random idiot vandalizes a page (racial or other attacks are a favorite way they do that), the thing to do is just revert it, and put a notice here or at WP:AIV if they persist, so admins can block them. It happens 1000's of times a day, though it is usually reverted fairly quickly.  There is not really any way to get back at the vandals, so if they get you upset and you yell at them, they have successfully manipulated you while they run away laughing at your discomfort.  You "win" by not letting them get to you.  If you still want to respond to them, it's best to leave them a talkpage template like test3 or test4 without adding anything to it.  Those templates are basically bureaucratic form letters that make the vandal feel like they are talking to a machine, so they get no gratification in the form of a more human response.  We overuse templates here, but in this situation it's exactly what you want.  See also: WP:DENY and WP:RBI, about denying recognition to vandals. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, I don't think you should have used the NPA template in a situation like this. If a person edits inappropriately because of a legitimate grievance (as happened here), discuss it with them in English instead of leaving threatening templates.  Templating someone in that situation is sort of like flipping a middle finger. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lite-Brite
I've already reverted 3x on Lite-Brite so would appreciate an admin taking a look. It started with User:Vitroroberstonsucks (who I reported to UAA) removing points about Vitrorobertson without sources. That happened twice. Then an IP did the same edit. Now User:Wolfsheim is taking up the cause. Here is a Guinness Book source which only list the co. Thanks. 7 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick work Redvers.  7  08:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. I also reverted the sock's edit and then semi-protected Lite-Brite for three days. That should slow things down. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 08:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redvers, you full-protected it, actually. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B">(v^_^v Dittobori) 09:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also - I think someone may still need to take a look at User:Vitroroberstonsucks in the UAA backlog...  7  09:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jeremy: Bugger. Changed it. @7: I've unb'd them. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism
Okay, time to close this down. the basic premise of the complaint hasn't gained traction and there has been some advice to the nominator that they can choose to accept or not as they wish but there is a clear consensus that mentioning holocaust denial in the context of a debate about the existence of Jesus was a poor choice and needlessly hurtful. Right now further debate will just further the hurt on all sides so I'm calling time. If parties still want to argue this over then I suggest the next step is an RFC. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC) }} User Slrubenstein has recently accused me of anti-semitism. I find this libelous personal attack highly offensive and request that an administrator take action immediately. Eugene (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene and Bill the Cat 7 have been making unfortunate and repeated comparisons between questioning whether Jesus existed and Holocaust denial (and flat-earthism etc). In addition, when editors have expressed concern that the Christ myth theory (about the theory that Jesus may not have existed) relies heavily on the views of Christian biblical scholars, Eugene or Bill (Bill certainly, I forget whether Eugene has also said this) responded that, if that's a valid concern, we ought not to trust Jewish historians to write about the Holocaust. Given that Jewish historians may or may not be religious (likely not for the most part, in my view) and that the Holocaust has nothing to do with religion anyway&mdash;at least not directly&mdash;it's a poor analogy, so I've asked them to find another one, and hopefully that will bring the matter to an end.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Accusing" me of lame analogizing is one thing; accusing me of anti-Semitism is quite another. I take this very seriously. Eugene (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a little more than lame, Eugene, but arguably quite offensive, and it's been going on for months. My suggestion is that the analogy come to an end, and we all go back to discussing content. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not; I will not just let this go. I realize that you are an influential administrator on Wikipedia, Slimvirgin, but I simply will not chalk a libelous accusation of anti-semitism up to wiki-talk frustration. I want action against Slrubenstein. Eugene (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally see no libel and I dont take it seriously and hope no one else does, and saw nothing more than PERHAPS stepping over the line into somewhat, and very slight, incivility; nothing that warrants admin action or even any discussion here at AN/I because discussions get heated and often an obstinate editor making extreme claims can push an editor to the edge and that is NOT a reason for admins to get involved. Id also have to agree with Slrubenstein that comparing the belief that Jesus never existed to the belief that the Holocaust never existed is not a good nor legitimate comparison; him calling you out on that isnt calling you anti-semitic it is just pointing out the flaw in your logic. Agree with Slim.Camelbinky (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity for those with hair triggers and you are clearly upset. can you just confirm that you are not invoking NLT and that terms like libelous and slander and taking action are just the upset and anger talking? Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: "you are just getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism". I am not asking for a lawsuit so NLT isn't relevant; I'm asking for a wiki-block or something else Wikipedia related. Eugene (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you've been writing on that talk page does to many look like anti-semitism. Observation, not accusation. If you want something done to him, then are you prepared and willing to accept action against you for your words? Whatever you want done to him, should be done to you as well. Are you ok with that? Words are words... you seemed ok with ignoring many who asked you to stop your analogy and didnt... perhaps now you need to ignore his words that you took offence at.Camelbinky (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll apologize to Bruno Bauer for calling him an anti-Semite the next time I see him--so long as an admin tells Slrubenstein to remove his relevant comment and apologize to me. Eugene (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or... you can apologize at that talk page for your insensitive pushing of an analogy that was in bad-taste (and not even a correct analogy). Then Slrubenstein can apologize to you. And then you can not mention that analogy ever again and he can not call you anti-semite anymore.Camelbinky (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I continue to mention the analogy because a number of RSes make the analogy. I take it from your comment that nothing will be done. *sigh* Eugene (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, truth is (almost) always a defense against libel claims. As others have observed, Eugene's approach in the edits/comments that were being reacted to certainly raise that as a possible defense, in my opinion. I also find Slim's observations disturbing. Also, I don't know, perhaps I'm the only one, but I find it somewhat odd that a Baptist senior pastor is the one demanding "I want action against Slrubenstein", and not coming at this issue with greater understanding of Rubenstein's upset here. That said, it would be better to call a person's approach anti-semitic, rather than the person himself. (minor point -- this certainly isn't slander, as the nom suggests in his title, as it is written communication).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having made the mistake of reading all the discussion, I'll make the further mistake of commenting on it. Slrubinstein lost his cool and made a personal attack that is obviously in violation of WP:CIVIL.  It would be a very sad day if this board does not accept that a violation occurred.  In addition, I strongly advise Eugene to replace his analogy with another that won't unnecessarily antagonize other editors for reasons barely related to the article.  There are plenty of other analogies that would serve instead. Zerotalk 08:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I tried to go with ID and creationism first. Eugene (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth mentioning that Eugene has been liberally insulting good editors on that page for months just for disagreeing with him, accusing them of anti-Christian bigotry, ignorance, disruption, and lying&mdash;even now on his user page. The insults were such that an editor who'd never been in any trouble before, Jbolden1517, ended up being indefblocked after four years of editing, because he lashed out against Eugene with what looked like an offwiki threat. So it's a little odd to see this complaint from Eugene. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read most of the section (Talk:Christ myth theory) that led to the comment that is being complained of here. I do not know what Eugene thinks would be a suitable response to a repeated suggestion that the two historical events (whether Jesus existed, and whether the Holocaust occurred) are somehow equivalent in terms of historical doubt. Slrubenstein very patiently explained in some detail how an extremely prominent historian (who believes that the historical Jesus existed) has nevertheless stated that there is no conclusive proof. Slrubenstein very civily asked Eugene to substantiate the claim that historians cannot establish with certainty that the Holocaust occurred, and Eugene responded with a list of Holocaust deniers (as if there was some comparision between a very hazily documented 2000-year old event and a hugely-documented event from 70 years ago). Then Slrubenstein got a little crotchety and said If you wanted to make some comparison, you would find as examples two acknowledged historians of the Holocaust who make the same claim. Otherwise you are just getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism. Eugene has failed to understand Slrubenstein's message which is actually saying that if there is no credible example of a historian who doubts the Holocaust then Eugene's statement is expressing anti-Semitism. I do not know if that is true; if it is not, WP:COMPETENCE could be invoked to question whether Eugene should be participating in the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone completely uninvolved in this dispute, I give notice that drawing analogies to holocaust denial is offensive, unacceptable and must stop. If any further such comparisons are made and brought to this board then I will happily block the person making them. There is no possibility of that kind of analogy forming a part of constructive dialogue in this case, and in fact it probably violates Godwin's Law. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So reliable sources used as university text books can now be shouted down on the authority of an internet meme? That's kind of creepy. Eugene (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hide behind antisemitic sources. This ("[...] historians can never settle anything with absolute 100% certainly, not the existence of Jesus, not the Holocaust. [...] despite the fact that fewer academics deny Jesus' historical reality than deny the Holocaust.") was your own, and I am amazed you were not blocked for that. Hans Adler 09:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it like this - if you insist in using unnecessarily antagonistic and poor analogies when there are perfectly good alternative ones, you have to accept that (a) people may be offended, and (b) you may be asked to stop doing it. Both have now happened. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eugene, this is really simple. Do not draw parallels with holocaust denial. How hard is that for you to understand? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eugene will argue that it is the sources that draw the parallel and not him. However, these are invalid comparisons and add nothing to the article. Eugene's userpage makes it clear that debunking the Christ Myth is a mission for him. Bearing in mind his occupation this could almost be considered a conflict of interest. He has also engaged in speculation on the real life identity of another editor (along with Ari) which I thought at the time was unwise . Sophia ♫  10:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I applied two tests before I made that comment. First, I asked myself whether the analogy is gratuitous, i.e. could Eugene have made his or her point without making the analogy.  The answer is, yes, i.e. the analogy is gratuitous.  Second, was the analogy appropriate.  One might argue that in some instances on that talk page - and it is really shocking how often the analogy is made on that talk page, it is like a child standing on a street corner and just yelling "shit! Shit! Shit!" over and over again - but there are some instances where one could argue that the analogy is appropriate.  But not in this specific case.  Eugene's point was in no way parallel or comparable to mine, so it doesn't even make sense in context.  So it was but unnecessary, and pointless.  That is, within the context of the discussion.  Talk pages are meant for discussion that might improve the article, not cause pain to other users.  Yet that is what Eugene is using the talk page to, to casue pain to other users.  I am not asking him to apologize to Bruno Bauer; he could apologize to me, and to anyone else who, reading his words, would take offense.  I would rather he just stop.


 * When I am accused of doing something wrong and the accusation is false, I typically say, "Look, I am not guilty of what you say I am guilty of; I think this is why you misjudged me." When I am accused of doing something wrong and the accusation is true, I generally apologize, and reexamine my behavior.  What I do not do is attack others; I certainly don't attack the person who tells me that I have wounded them.  What kind of person would? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside I'd like to hope someone finds the editor Jbolden1517 who was indef blocked for lashing out at Eugene and unblock him since being pushed over the edge by a rude editor who, as someone else mentioned was doing the equivalent of a child screaming "shit! shit! shit!" on a street corner (and then chastise the blocking admin for not using common sense and applying it, circumstances were a mitigating circumstance). In real life we dont then spank the adult that tells the child "shut the fuck up!" (and yes I often swear at lil child on the street corner, its fun and legal, except in Minnesota). We must, as thankfully most in this thread have been doing, understand that circumstances and the events that lead up to an "uncivil" moment MUST be considered. Too often I see an admin saying "that was a personal attack and personal attacks are never acceptable" and block even though a bully has pushed an editor to it through their actions, those admins should be defrocked on sight for lack of common sense. Eugene has a COI in this matter and probably should be topic banned from contributing to this article; based on his comments on the talk page and on his own user page it is clear a proper NPOV article is not his goal and his own goal becomes nothing better than POV pushing vandalism. Having a minister who has made the comments he has made continue to contribute to this article would be like having the Pope contribute to an article on the sex-abuse scandals.Camelbinky (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My goal has never been anything other than to help write a high quality article on this topic that clearly and accurately reflects the current state of scholarship. If that can be accomplished, there is no need for me to push a POV. I think Slrubenstein just helpfully summarized my frustration, albeit with reference to a different dispute: "How can you improve an article... if, whenever you insist that a reliable secondary source be used, you are accused of being a marxist? This is clear evidence of disruptive editing." Eugene (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the blocking admin. Feel free to chastise me all you like, but we always block people indefinitely for making off-wiki threats here; it doesn't matter what the provocation was. Also, I said to JBolden1517 that if s/he withdrew the threat and made it clear that such behaviour wouldn't re-occur, I'd unblock them - and that offer still stands. However after a very half-hearted unblock request was declined s/he chose to leave the project. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Everyone should stay calm and avoid insulting each other, particularly Eugeneacurry; 2. Accusations of antisemitism are extremely serious and not to be made as lightly as Slrubenstein has done here; 3. Comparisons to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial are generally unwise and unconstructive (be it in debates over Christ myth theories, climate change, or Israel/Palestine), and should be avoided. Is there anything more to be done in this thread? Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, one of the first to raise public consciousness about the Holocaust was someone who inspected the death camps first-hand, the well-known Jewish scholar Dwight Eisenhower. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a swap, we Jews take Eisenhower as one of us and non-Jews can have Senator Cantor from Virginia... with a name like Eisenhower its not like anyone would question his Jewishness ;)Camelbinky (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Accusing another editor of having made a personal attack cannot itself be accused of as a personal attack - if so the whole system would not work. It looks like my problem was trying to get this offensive editor to stop his ofensive, ofending behavior on the talk page of an article, rather than taking it to AN/I. Will this person, who has littered the talk page of Christ myth theory with talk that is (1) unnecessary for improving the article and (2) unnecessarily hurtful to Jews be allowed to continue this offensive behavior because he has complained against me here? Will I be sanctioned for trying to get him to stop on my own, without seeking any formal sanction against him? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since some have seen fit to pile on here and reassert Slrubenstein personal attack, I suppose I should explain myself so that unsympathetic editors don't take the liberty. My point in the discussion was that while it is true that the disicpline of history doesn't lend itself to logically ari-tight proofs the way pure mathematics does, this is trivially true.  The fact that the historicity of the Holocaust can "only" be demonstrated with a confidence factor of, say, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% doesn't mean that a reasonable person should complain that it isn't quite 100%. The historical conclusion is so close to certain as to not make any difference whatsoever. The consensus of academics in the field recognize this and thus treat the denialist position as just so much horse-crap. Likewise the fact that Jesus' historicity can "only" be demonstrated with a very high degree of probability doesn't mean that editors to the article should latch on to that lack of 100% confidence as somehow significant.  As with the Holocaust, the united consensus of academics in the field affirms Jesus' historicity and also regards the denialist position in this matter, the Christ myth theory, as just so much horse-crap.  Given, then, that analogy, categorizing the CMT page as "pseudo-scholarship" should be non-controversial--yet, maddeningly, it isn't.  I don't see anything at all anti-Semetic about that position--especially since I have tried to add material to the page which indicates the anti-Semitic roots of the CMT and the straight-up Nazi sympathies of some of its more notable goof-ball advocates. Given all this, Slrubenstein's accusation of anti-Semitism on my part is totally unsupported and constitutes a serious personal attack. Eugene (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. You are still trying to assert the validity of your offensive and irrelevant analogy. Stop it. It's offensive and irrelevant. If you can't see why it's irrelevant then you probably ought to be looking for the contemporaneous photographic and documentary records of the life of Christ (I think you'll find that they are less prolific than those of the Holocaust). If you can't see why it's offensive then we'd better just ban you now and be done with it. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you done now? Because if you've been paying attention, most of the advice given in this thread has been directed at you. You don't seem to be paying much attention to that, and instead are focusing on your hostility towards Slrubestein. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Wow, Eugene- stop while you're behind and walk away... slowly...just walk away... You basically just accused "some" of us of personally attacking you... If I had personally attacked you, you'd know it, trust me. Then you went on and AGAIN compared the historical proof of the Holocaust to the historicity of Jesus... seriously?! This isnt the place to debate whether or not Jesus lived, but I'm grad student in history with a bach's degree in poli sci and with a genius level IQ and Im only 40% sure that there was indeed a man named Yehoshua ben Yusef (Jesus' probable birth name, as the word Jesus is not a Hebrew/Aramaic name his real name translates as Joshua) who lived around the years 5 BCE-30CE and less sure that he ever in his life claimed to be a messiah. Even the US News and World Report recently had a special edition on this topic; this is NOT a fringe idea nor a ridiculous one. Sorry, but you AGAIN saying this is the same as the Holocaust is insensitive and shows your ignorance (or blindness) to the subject. Your COI is a problem. This isnt a topic you should be using your time on. I commend your calling in life and the good works I assume you do in helping those of your faith be better individuals and in worshiping your god; however working on this article isnt the way to help the world be a better place. As for any "personal attacks" that have been done to you- "turn the other cheek" I believe is an appropriate response?Camelbinky (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside: I have always been impressed by Ike's comment that he wanted to see and document it for himself because some day people would try to deny that it ever happened. Smart fellow. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are people alive today who were victims of the Holocaust. This makes the analogy with the Christ myth theory simply a bad analogy - bad in the sense that it does not help Eugene's own argument, in relation to the Christ myth theory. Now, in the article I actually provided the analogy that Sanders provides, Alexander the Great (i.e. that there is as much evidence as there is for Jesus' existence as there is for Alexander the Great). Why Eugenecarry decided to jump on me, when I was not even arguing against him, is beyond me. But if he needed to provide additional analogous cases from Jewish history it would have ben easy: the existence of King David and Moses involves at least as much conjcture as the existence of Jesus. So I keep coming back to the basic fact: Eugene insists on making an analogy that is not analogous and does not help his case. Why keep focusing on the Holocaust when there are so many other, better, analogies available? Why pick th one thing that is most painful to most Jews alive, Jews who have relatives who survived the camps? It is unnecessary, and it is cruel. And there is no excuse for it at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was told that the evidence for much of what we "know" about numerous historical figures is no better than the evidence we have for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It's funny how the people demanding we take that on faith are often the same ones who won't believe that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a true record... Guy (Help!) 18:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that equating a recent event for which there are countless documents, films, sworn witness testimonies, dead corpses, and mountains of other physical evidence, against a religious belief in a man-god about whom there are no written records during his hypothesized lifetime, nor a shred of any physical evidence, amounts to denialism and antisemitism. Most antisemites and denialists don't deny the Holocaust because they truly don't believe it happened; they do it to cause added pain to the victims and their families. I believe this comparison smacks of the same motivation, since as Slrubenstein notes above, if the goal were a sincere desire to compare apples-to-apples with Jewish elements, the historicity of Moses or King David could have been used. It would be better if people here focus on content, instead of trying to hurt or offend their fellow editors. Crum375 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed the discussion at the Christ myth theory and found Eugen's edits to be highly biased, however, the response to him here is out of proportion by some users who don't understand what the dispute is about. He is not comparing users to holocaust deniers and he is not antisemitic. One more thing, comparing something to holocaust denying may be bad, but it is different from comparing something to the holocaust. Sole Soul (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He is comparing the likelihood of the Holocaust, one of the best documented events in human history, to the historicity of Christ, for which there is not one bit of contemporaneous evidence. This seems like classical antisemitism and denialism, since he could have easily used Moses or King David if he sincerely wanted to make a reasonable comparison. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But he is saying this "likelihood" is most certain. Sole Soul (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is the evidence. He is comparing an event with mountains of contemporaneous evidence to one with none, thereby putting them in the same category. This is exactly what denialists do: they minimize, trivialize and deny the evidence. And why do it, if he knows it hurts the victims? Why not pick the historicity of some other historical figure, if his desire is sincere and professional? Crum375 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Denialists minimize the holocaust evidence. Eugen is maximizing the christ historicity evidence by comparing it, mistakingly, to something he highly regard as most certain. Sole Soul (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Six and half dozen are still the same thing. Crum375 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Killing by mistake and killing with intention are all killings. Sole Soul (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the kind of trivializing and minimizing we don't need here. If everybody stuck to content, we'd be way ahead. Crum375 (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ?!. Sole Soul (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. He may or may not be anti-semitic -- stating that he is not anti-semitic as though one knows for a fact it strikes me as an over-statement.  How would Sole Soul know?  Just as I think stating the opposite is an overstatement.  What we do have as consensus is that his choice as analogy is viewed by the consensus here as no appropriate, hurtful, and baiting.  At this point, I would suggest that he pay heed with greater sensitivity to that consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would Epeefleche know that Sole Soul does not know Eugen personally to state that he is not anti-semitic? Sole Soul (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI I've noted this discussion on the articles talk page here. I'm hoping to have references to holocaust denial removed from the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this in the specific context. Bill the Cat said that no major historian considers the existence of the historical Jesus (i.e., we are not talking about theological claims like, Jesus was the son of God or was resurrected, we are talking about whether a man existed). I said that in fact EP Sanders and Paula Fredrickson, two extremely important historians of Jesus and both of whom argue that the Jesus of the Gospels really lived even if one rejects all theological claims, both admit that the exisence of Jesus involves some conjecture. User Akhileus misunderstood my point. He said that he thought I misunderstood Bill the Cat, who was refering not to conjecture about what the historical jesus did or did not do, but whether such a man even existed. I wrote back that I had understood Bill the Cat Correctly, and that yes, even historians who believe jesus lived admit that this involves some conjecture, but - and this was my main point - that historians make such conjectures all the time, and that such conjectures (although of great importance to the editors of this article) are not what historians are ''most concerned about. I explained that I just wanted to make sure that the work of acaemic historians be represented accurately. And that is when Eugenecurry added this little bit of soothing, constructive wiesdom: "fewer academics deny Jesus' historical reality than deny the Holocaust."

Huh? Where does "the Holocaust" enter into this? What is the point of this comment? He says this is a "fact" so okay, maybe he is relying on some knowlege of how historians work. I ask him:
 * Hmmmm. What is your source for numbers on Holocaust versus Jesus? You must have precise numbers, what are they? How many academcs deny the Holocaust? How many deny Jesus? Sources? Given that we have film records and first hand accounts of the Holocaust, which we do not have for Jesus, I find this curious.

and his reply is, that he 'has no source for this claim. Instead he mentions the same pathetic list of Holocaust deniers many victims of anti-Semitism are familiar with: electrical engineer Arthur Butz, Greek attorney Konstantinos Plevris, KKK leader David Duke.

So it hits me, like a shock - this reference to the Holocaust being conjecture is pointless. He claims it is a fact, yet has no source. He provides names of people who are not historians, who certainly are not analogous to Paula Fredrickson or to EP Sanders. His point is not relevant to mine. It is not relevant to the discussion. It is entirely gratuitous. He simply saw an opening for a cheap shot against a Jew and took it. He found some very bad but in his mind somehow plausible pretext to spout the anti-Semitic claim that somehow Earl Butz and David Duke have as much authority in talking about the Holocaust as the most well-resepected authorities on the topic. It is bizarre and hateful and I repeat has no place at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, please see my comment below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to this thread until later this evening because I've been suffering from insomnia, but the slanderous accusations and misrepresentations of the facts have become so bad that it's turned into a surrealistic nightmare, which compels me to respond now..

First, we see Slrubenstein misunderstand, and misrepresent, the comparison to Holocaust denial, which resulted in emotionally-induced and unjustified slander against Eugene. I was shocked when I heard about it, which led me to write this on Eugene's talk page:


 * I agree Eugene, this has gotten out of hand. What will we be accused of next? Pedophilia?

Well guess what happened next? I'll give you three guesses but you'll need only one. Camelbinky said:


 * Having a minister who has made the comments he has made continue to contribute to this article would be like having the Pope contribute to an article on the sex-abuse scandals.

So not only is Eugene (and me, implicitly) accused of being an anti-semite, he is now being compared to a pedophile. Isn't that also slander?

Second, Slrubenstein, and others, have misrepresented the facts. The comparison was NOT that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore Jesus does not exist. Rather, the comparison is that the historical reality of the Holocaust (which both Eugene and I affirm 100%) is not denied by reputable scholars and, similarly, neither is the historical reality of Jesus' existence denied by reputable scholars. I don't think it could have been made any clearer on the CMT talk page, so I'm inclined to suspect that certain people are intentionally distorting the facts.

Furthermore, and most importantly, neither Eugene nor I are making the comparison. There are reputable, peer-reviewed, highly esteemed scholars who are WP:RS's who have made the comparison. Bart Ehrman is one that comes to mind. You can hear him say it in his own words here (around the 2:43 mark) (but please start at the beginning of the audio so as to appreciate the context).

Third, it really doesn't matter if any one of us is offended or has their feelings hurt. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group - for example, see the FAQ on Muhammad and how displaying pictures of him is highly offensive to many Muslims, yet are still displayed using reliable sources.

Fourth, as I alluded to in my opening, the vicious, premeditated and, needless to say, uncivil behavior of some admins on this board clearly displays administrative abuse of authority. You guys are supposed to do your best to understand the concerns of both sides of a dispute and resolve issues fairly, and not attempt to belittle, threaten, slander, and insult honest editors acting in good faith. I'm on my knees (not to be cute, but I'm literally typing this on my knees) begging all of the admins who have participated in such behavior to reconsider their actions. If these actions continue, Eugene and I will be forced to lodge a complaint, but I sincerely want to avoid that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request for JBolden1517
Within the context of the above, I'd like to request an unblock for, who was indefblocked on March 28 during a dispute with Eugeneacurry at Christ myth theory. I can't unblock him myself because I'm involved in the content dispute now too.

Jbolden had been editing for four years, with a clean block record, no trouble that I can find, and around 5,000 edits. He'd been editing Christ myth theory since May 2007 and was until recently the top editor of the article with 286 edits. In September 2009, Eugene became involved in it, and by all accounts the personal attacks on the talk page increased. There was mediation over one issue, and during it JBolden lost his temper and posted what looked like an offwiki threat to Eugene; see here. It isn't pleasant and I'm not defending it. Black Kite was right to block for it.

Rather than accept Black Kite's offer of an unblock if he'd withdraw the comment, Jbolden left Wikipedia. (My understanding is that he didn't realize he'd been offered an unblock.) I noticed this last week and emailed to ask if he'd like to be able to edit again, and he said yes. I think he had just reached his breaking point when he posted that remark. He's not sure whether he wants to continue as JBolden, but whether with that name or some other, he'd like to be able to do it openly and legitimately. The talk pages of that article have become fairly toxic, and I can understand people lashing out, though I'm not excusing it. It's unfortunate that an editor with four years work behind him got caught up in it, so I'd like to see us fix that.
 * Postscript: Jbolden has just posted an apology on his talk page. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support if, and only if, he acknowledges what was so egregious about that attack and assures the community there will be no repeat. If he decides to start a new account rather than continue as Jbolden, I've no objection, but he should advise an editor trusted by him and the community (I'm certain SV can fulfil the latter at the very least) of his new identity. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblock. Not only no, but HELL NO!!  He threatened the life of Eugene.  Without a FULL apology and a promise to never engage in such activity again, he should be forever blocked.  This is not funny, or a simple misunderstanding, people.  It doesn't matter if the threat was made due to frustration or because of actual intent.  Let me remind everyone that Eugene does not hide his identity.  Anyone can buy a ticket to his place of employment and then go there to blow his brains out.  This MUST be taken seriously.  If an adequate apology is made, which only Eugene can assess, then I have no problem with allowing him back.  I'd like to think that he's not such a bad guy; just someone who got carried away because he could not express himself clearly (which happens to all of us from time to time).  It's not my life, however, that hangs in the balance.  Thus the sincerity of his apology must be judged by Eugene himself.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the wild west, but if he was going to go and "blow his brains out", wouldn't he have done it already? This seems very much out of character and there is no explicit threat on anybody's life. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, Bill, that's the kind of hyperbole that's on the talk pages, and it doesn't help. J's comment wasn't pleasant, but it was hardly a death threat. He lost his cool, and lots of people looking at the talk page archives will understand why. That's not to excuse it, but some empathy would be appreciated. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, if he is willing to apologize and promise not to do it again, then I have no problem with him being unblocked. But if anyone here is suggesting that his threats be overlooked, then that poses a serious security risk.  He has yet to apologize but so many of you want to ignore the threat.  If Eugene decides to pursue this matter further (assuming there is no apology and a promise not to do it again), then things will get ugly.  This is not a laughing matter, and I find it bizarre that it is being treated so lightly.  I mean, if anyone else made a similar threat, would you all respond in the same manner (i.e., block for a short amount of time and then unblock without getting a sincere apology)?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill, perhaps you didnt see Slim twice posting that there has been an apology already (and other editors are referencing it as well). It is on JBolden's talk page.Camelbinky (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I didn't see it. Thank you for pointing it out to me.  I just looked at it and it seems sincere.  I withdraw by opposition and hold no grudges against him.  Eugene should be notified; I think he will be as forgiving as all of us.  Case closed.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support unblock under <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell 's conditions, though I agree that the block was appropriate. Such threats are toxic to Wikipedia. I'm not advocating requiring some kind of abstract eating of crow here (and am sure HJ Mitchell isn't either)—just, as he says, some assurance that he won't be stepping over that line again...which requires some indication that he sees it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support unblock, likewise with the conditions User:HJ Mitchell recommended. Difficult circumstances never excuse personal attacks, but I agree that losing his contributions is not the preferred option.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  01:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He's been using an alternate account for the past week and a half. Not that many edits (10 or so), but not all of them have been unrelated to the area he was editing when he was blocked. I would oppose such a unblock on the basis of unless an complete interaction/topic ban was set first. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was contemplating supporting the proposal, but as I take a very dim view of the alleged behavior, I cannot at this time. —DoRD (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with topic ban or other conditions. If he's been using an alternate account, presumably he would like to return fully, and I think that's fine if he agrees to stay away from Christ myth theory and related articles for awhile. Returning to those articles right now is just a recipe for losing his cool again. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jbolden has just posted an apology on his talk page. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock based on the apology referenced by SlimVirgin above, which appears to be in line with what HJ Mitchell requested. --RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per everything above and per my comment in the associated thread above where I voiced hope that this would happen. When I get blocked someday in the future I hope Jbolden voices support for my return as well. ;) Camelbinky (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and to be honest, I read the original 'threat' as nothing more than ' I see you insulting me off-wiki on other forums, and I'll bring the fight there if you don't knock it off. I see NO 'real world threats of harm'. That's all thee is to it. I note his use of the phrase 'other forums', which I read as off-wiki. It is inadvisable to escalate an on-wiki fight to anywhere not wikipedia, but it's stupid to interpret 'let's you and me fight on lots of internet sites' as 'I'ma kill you' or any such. Finally, the issue of Holocaust Denial as comparable to the existence or non-existence of Jesus is stupidly irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he existed, of which two wildly varying quantities and qualities of support evidence exist. Some form of RfC on the original matter, of categorization, may need to be held, but I see no reason to shut down this call for unblock with THAT topic as the excuse for closure. (Note:I was asked to weigh in by others.) ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Intemperate behavior on both sides, established editor made a comment which, viewed with your eye scrunched up looked like a threat, hasty block presumably to enforce policy, now comment apologized for. Unblock and move on. -- Stani Stani  04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a one time loss of temper can be excused, particularly given the level of frustration apparently created by others. A sincere acknowledgment of a mistake and a promise not to do it again - a necessary condition IMO, and per HJ Mitchell - has already been made.radek (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. Per SlimVirgin.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock at this time. This may not have been a threat that would materialize, but most people supporting an unblock have explicitly acknowledged the gravity of it. Our ordinary standard for unblocking after RL threats is high because they jeopardize the free editing environment, and in a way unlike anything Eugene did. The block evasion in the last few weeks does not inspire me to have any extra degree of confidence in what JBolden is saying now. If anything, it militates against making any kind of exception in our usual handling of threats.--Chaser (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose jbolden1517's profession of repentance is disingenuous. He has commented off-wiki as recently as April 10th that "I wish I had made a threat and I wish I had carried it out." Eugene (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock If that single diff ("what looked like an offwiki threat to Eugene" above) is all there is, I agree with the other comments that it is readily interpreted not as an actual physical threat, and the statement from the user in their current unblock request is adequate. Naturally anything smelling like a threat in the future should result in another block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock (blocking admin); I said to JBolden all along that indefinite did not mean infinite and that they may be unblocked if they posted a request showing that they clearly understood what they'd done wrong and that no such situation would recur. At the time their unblock request was perfunctory and was declined.  If they have now realised the error of their ways then I have no problem with an unblock under those conditions. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I acted based on interpretation of all of the above, and unblocked at 05:28AM, Eastern time ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support unblock. Humans make mistakes, and deserve second chances if we learn from them. ---GRuban (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. As GRuban says, "humans make mistakes", and after four years of giving his free time to the project, he deserves another chance here. I'm not minimising nor condoning his threat; but four years with a clean record has to be taken into consideration, so I say unblock him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

174.3.123.220 and Template:Otheruses4
FYI, is systematically replacing otheruses4 with about and disruptively informing people about not using "otheruses4" while the RfD on "otheruses4" seems to be trending to keep, and is deletion shopping it to TfD at the same time.

See the RfD for examples of where users complain about his "disruptive warnings".

Seems like WP:POINT infraction.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The user is replacing redirected templates with the correct one. Where's the disruption? Jafeluv (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User notified of this thread at this timestamp. --Taelus (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jafeluv: the disruption is committing an edit and clogging up watchlists to replace a perfectly functional redirect from a long-standing and easily recognized name. See the discussion at BOTREQ for more. See also WP:R2D. The assertion that the template is "confusing" or "will cause confusion" doesn't convince me that this needs to be done if it the only reason for editing the page. SmackBot is already converting them when visiting the page to date templates. Adding it to AWB's general fixes should be a next step. But simply making edits to bypass it is wasteful. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's much need for a thread here. I gave the IP a firmer warning yesterday to discontinue any large-scale replacement, and I'll follow up as needed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another IP at it now as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That's just one edit, and the IPs are from different areas, so who knows what's going on there. Probably it's just a watchlist thing, nothing sinister. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved from AN. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it as Keep. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

xeno, I don't understand why you keep using WP:R2D for that! This is not the core idea by WP:R2D.

To everyone: Moreover, we already do similar replacements. Take for example Fact and Citation needed. I don't encourage solely replacing the template but the whole thing is getting out of control. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Past history of this IP who has done this numerous times under other IPs and who is, in fact, a banned user being allowed to continue socking under an IP despite having engaged in the same disruptive, harassing and incivil behavior and mass, pointless editing that got him banned under his user name,. That he is still allowed to edit, with the full knowledge, and even support of some administrators seems, to me, to make the entire blocking policy pointless. He is also continuing the same harrassment from that previous ANI, apparently, with his report against me below for objecting to his ridiculous attempt to have otheruses4 deleted while running around removing it from every article he could and claiming it wasn't used anymore. And from the rapid fire way he was able to do those removals, I have to wonder if he is operating an unauthorized bot as well. Also note that despite the closing as kepe, he is continuing to do replacements because someone told him he could do them as long as he did "another edit" with it (bad advice, IMHO). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad advice? I first hear that this IP-address is related to a banner user name now. Secondly, independently for that: This kind of replacements is common! What is better to understand what it does? "otheruses4" or "about"? I beg of you: Don't see the tree and miss the forest. We have to fix pages layout or not? Can we involve more people on that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here here!174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That presumes it is broken. For editors like myself, who have been here for many years, otheruses4 makes sense and is common place. It was, until fairly recently, what was used in the documentation, and there is still otheruses2, otheruses3, and otheruses5. 2, 5, and 6 are still recommended in the docs. I don't see how changing it to "about" is any easier to understand as it still has a multitude of differences between the various variants. I think it was bad advice because it basically told him to ignore the consensus at the RfD and the numerous people asking him to stop by just making some other "minor" edit to get around it. Particularly considering his behavior here in trying to get a bot to do it and doing hundreds of replacements during the discussion, makes it bad advice, IMHO. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * otheruses3 redirects to {[tl|otheruses}}, so effectively, there is only otheruese2 and otheruses5.174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the debate and my close were about the continued existence of and nothing else.  They had absolutely nothing to do with the usage of the redirect as opposed to the target, and asking an RfD to decide the mores of hatnoting (okay, melodramatic on my part there) isn't really appropriate.  The redirect was kept, it doesn't mean anyone has to use it. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 01:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I reading this thread right? We're getting mad because an editor is replacing one acceptable template with another acceptable template?  Why do we care?  Why does this thread exist? Buddy431 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is more or less a case of "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" to be clear. Replacing tons of templates on pages on the assumption that a redirect is going to be deleted clogs up watchlists, and would be pointless if said redirect were going to be kept. It's a matter of waiting until the discussion is over before doing things like this. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained before, we already change: "2otheruses" with "two other uses" and "fact" with "citation missing". Why we do this? Because we need new editors that want to touch the article to understand the wikicode without having to spend a lot of time reading manuals of how some templates work and wonder what they do. This "otherusesX" templates follow this rule. I suggest that we focus of they "how we replace this template" instead of the "why". The "how" is a good question since we want to do it without causing problems in thousands of pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think AWB is going to replace it as part of general AWB editing, right? That seems like a reasonable thing. But there's no reason to go through and change them en masse. "Deprecated" just means that new uses should be avoided, it does not mean that every old use has to be fixed right away. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough we have bots doing silly things like replacing talkheader with talk header; but at least they use a bot flag and an edit summary. This is an IP committing edits simply to change from one template to another. That they do not use an edit summary means that countless editors will be compelled to check the edit to ensure it isn't vandalism. Moreover, I'm not convinced that "otheruses4" is confusing. In fact quite the opposite: I think "about" is worse. The raison d'etre of hatnotes are to tell the reader what the article is not about, and direct them there when necessary. Anyone who is "confused" by "otheruses4" for more than a few seconds should perhaps seek a simpler hobby. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for the removal of a userbox
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On his user page Weaponbb7 features a box containing this text: "This user understands that the category of religion is an invention by European Christians which they falsely and inaccurately apply to the rest of the world, and that atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are acting out of extreme ignorance, if not outright disregard for other cultures." First of all, I am not really sure whether this is proper English. Anyways, due to its hostile and above all inaccurate depiction of atheists I would like to ask for the deletion of said userbox. However, it seems to be no userbox template. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MfD the thing if you don't like it. I think it's just the user's opinion on the world as he understands it.  Myself, I think we're travelling thru space on the back of a Star Whale.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment—there's nothing to MfD, the content is typed straight onto the page. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 11:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But I have not found the template for the user box so I could post a MfD. The userbox is bashing of Atheists and Europeans and it is based on false assumptions. If there were something to the message it wouldn't be so bad. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">· CUSH · 11:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of "religion" as a "belief system" rather than as a "system of observances" is largely Christian (more particularly Protestant) in origin, so the box does have something to it. DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And atheists who demand the elimination of religion from public affairs are disregarding cultures which do not have a notion of a secular state. So there's two components of merit. As he's not directly addressing you, I don't see the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone who writes on their user page that following an Abrahamic religion is like joining a Neonazi party has any right to whinge about a userbox that's pretty innocuous in comparison. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Along with providing links to youtube videos titled The Bible: Evidence That God Is Evil?, it looks like we may be heading for a WP:BOOMERANG moment here. Tarc (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To all who have commented so far (except Reyk and Tarc), when you clicked on the edit button it said at the top of the page, "You must notify any user that you discuss." Weakopedia (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weakopedia, do you WP:AGF much? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say - that your edit did not remove my comment? Or that the editors discussing Weaponbb7 did inform him of this thread? Either way, this is not the appropriate venue for your remarks. I have already answered on your talkpage. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It reads like a pretty inclusionist userbox to me ... and when do we delete things from userspace that are not grammatically correct anyway? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

comment Cush seems to be under the impression that this is my user box. When really i saw it on someone's page liked it and added on mine. Secondly Cush it is good manners to inform someone when and ANI thread is opened regarding them. thirdly I believe this mostly retaliatory for his Userbox that stated "This User considers belief in the abrahamic faiths to be flaw of character" with a crossed out star of david i nominated for deletion and was promptly upgraded to Speedy deletion by a third party. I also started a RFCU on his repeated his pattern of Personal attacks in content disputes with people who he perceives to be religious. This particular ANI thread came after i took up hisneed to include Judaism in the "See Also" section of Ethnocentrism when no other culture is singled out. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Please check these contributions
has made several edits to user talk:Areftipo which appear to be WP:OUTING, but this may be a valid attempt to draw attention to abuse. I do not know the history of the editors involved. I suspect an off-wiki agenda at work. refers. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie reverting endlessly
There is an RFC at WT:ACTOR that is stale. is routinely reverting my edits with the rationale that the RFC is not "closed" and yet she's dug her heels in about closing it. This amounts to an open ended filibuster of the issues at hand. The discussion stands at 164kb/6 weeks, so there's not much room for more that needs saying. The RFC needs a close of some sort and an appropriate route forward determined. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now being WP:TAGTEAMed by   — Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagteamed? — Mike   Allen   06:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what is going on. Yeah, there is a discussion, that is endlessly complicated. But the overriding issue here is that the discussion is still open and Jack Merridew charged in and we agreed a long time ago to stop going about and making changes to this formatting, an agreement which he accused me of violating one time, when I undid an edit by someone else that served to combine multiple tables into one mass table. Note he clearly states he didn't realize I had made a revert. Except for reverting his covert edits to tables, that is the only time I've edited table coding and yet his bad faith behavior towards me is legion across various talk pgaes. Meanwhile, Jack Merridew persists in going about, making changes to the table formatting and hiding it behind deceptive edit summaries that do not in any way indicate he has changed the table "clean-up, bot-trick"  "clean up"  "tidy"  "tidy"  "wikify". The list goes on and on. He's been approached by an administrator following a WP:3RR complaint asking him to stop  as well as by other editors. It's bad faith to go about making specific changes to things that an editor knows is controversial and hiding it behind deceptive edit summaries in an attempt to disguise the edits. That I challenge that is not an AN/I issue regarding me, it is an editing issue regarding Jack Merridew's editing practices. For instance, see here where he tried to blackmail into responding to bad faith questions on WT:ACTOR with "If you don't want me editing filmographies as I see fit, respond to the open questions on the wt:actor page." I'm quite sick and tired of seeing his name crop up on articles where I've edited and have to go back and check to see what's he done since he employs this deceptive edit summary strategy. And the only tag-teaming I saw was by Jack Merridew and Tbhotch. That someone calls Jack Merridew for deceptive edit summaries and forcing his POV isn't tag teaming. That editors question the practices isn't tag teaming, it's questioning the ethics of an editor who thinks he's ready for administrator tools. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never even seen Tbhotch's user name before that edit. You and your usual friends (MikeAllen, Crohnie, and Pinkadelica), however, are all over anything I do in this area. That's what a tag team is. Jack Merridew 09:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well first, I have no "friends" here. Anyway I seen you reverted something on my watchlist (Anna Kendrick)  I took a look of your contribs and low and behold if you weren't reverting based on your assertion of hard coded tables are bad, again. I reverted and left you an edit summary, again.  Nothing more.  So quit accusing me of being friends with people I don't even know and have had limited discussion with here.  Mostly asking for help on actor based pages.  Whatever.  I'll be glad when this is closed.  —  Mike   Allen   14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the colors but what you need is some CSS declarations which apply for you automatically. In this case, something like: Then can start the table {| class="wikitable filmography"\n without needing to specify anything on a per-row or per-cell basis. ―AoV² 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much that on-offer at: WT:ACTOR. It would need a consensus at MediaWiki talk:common.css. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except note that Jack Merridew has declared unilaterally that no changes to CSS would be considered or accepted. Such were "offered" and unilaterally declared verboten. Dangled like a carrota nd snatched away. Then all of it has been muddied up with his newer campaign to do away with tabled filmographies at all. Each time something was discussed, something new was stuck in to muddy the waters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What I said was:
 * The inclusion of such domain-specific tweaks in the site css will not happen; it's unwarranted and would amount to a camel's nose for hundreds of other domains to seek classes for themselves. If someone were to propose a much higher level abstraction for a class to tweak the standard <tt>"wikitable"</tt>, that could get a lot of support, including mine. This would have to be something of much wider applicability. diff
 * I've been advocating the bullet list approach since Michael Q. Schmidt suggested it on 7 March:
 * I'd support plain bulleted list for the reasons you cite. Hard-coded tables are about the poorest method of presenting this information diff
 * I've been discussing all of the options, including tables, and have offered possible solutions that I don't support because I was asked to. You, however, evaded the whole prior discussion last year that went against you:
 * MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9
 * by abandoning a prior template approach that was offered in lieu of a common.css change, and resorting to hard-coding everything. This has resulted in chaos, as there are now about a half dozen major variations of this hard-code styling in wide use in, you say, 32,000 articles.
 * nb: WHL doesn't just want filmographies to have this look; she want's all tables in actor/filmmaker bios to sport it; awards and whatnot, too.
 * nb: WikiProject Military history uses #B0C4DE; (LightSteelBlue) a lot, via templates for the most part, and would likely have an interest in such a site-wide css tweak involving "their" color. Prolly not using the class name "filmography", though.
 * This board is not the place to rehash the whole sprawling RFC and the prior attempt to get this into common.css. What is needed is a close of the RFC and a sorting of the proper direction forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm working on finding consensus in the RFC. This is complex and may take a bit of time (indeed, I've been at it for quite some already). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've said a lot of things in a lot of places, Jack and that is not what brought us here today. That you want to separate "film" appearances from other actor's work is beside the point at this board, although a less disengenous person would realize that an actor's work is an actor's work, be it film, television, or stage. There's not a huge assertion of support for using one style of table heading for a "filmography" table because you consider it that and and a different style television or stage appearance table for the same actor because Jack Merridew thinks it is something different. It's all in an actor's body of work and trying to shove through that television appearances should have a different presentation because you call it something else is basically semantics. What I see here, though, is yet another attempt by you to make it such a convoluted discussion that we lose sight of the original point - that you agreed to stop going about and pushing your POV view on tables and you have not upheld that, even to the point of using deceptive edit summaries to disguise your attempts to edit where you agreed not to do so and then came here to complain because others revert those attempts. Let's not lose sight yet again of what we're talking about. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC is now closed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've read it and, while it's not all I was looking for, it's a reasonable close and route forward. The semi-open issues, such as color and tables-for-all, can be addressed pretty much as you suggest. I'll be proposing a plan for implementing the next steps (mostly getting xenobot to do a lot of it). Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without having yet looked back at the closed RFC, and over here because JM alerted me that I was mentioned, I still personally find tables to be a pain in the arse... difficult to set up and difficult to update and maintain... and this even more so for new editors. In an actor's article I find it less than helpful in showing ongoing notability to have a table that might for example list three television series a prolific actor might have been in and then the character name.  At first glance such a meager amount of information is near useless, and woefully informative to a reader. If however, the same information was in a bulleted list that showed those same three series and included the large number of episodes for each and a year-range in which the actor took part... well... that might far better show a reviewing editor that the actor probably meets WP:ENT and so likely avoid an unneccessary AFD.  HOWEVER... in cases where the actor is extremely well known and has an very long list of work, a table might serve.  For those whose work may be great, but in a limited number of projects, a bullet list might better serve.  I belive the option should for either... allowing editors to add a list if it is more productive for their efforts, and experienced editors to then table-ize if they want to spend the time... but only if that table actors would show information the number of episodes and year range of participation that is more pertinant to showing the possible meeting of ENT. Just sayin.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Institute of AfD needs protection
The decision of Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was to merge the content of that article into 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Not to delete. Not to keep. But to merge. It was a heated debate with many dissenting views but those who "lost" are now trying to ignore the decision made at the AfD and to simply agree on the same day on the talk page that it would be the best to just delete it instead. But just like with close result elections, those who lost can assemble a crowd but it doesn't mean that they have that narrow majority that the other side has (look at Italy, many huge protests involving millions of people but then the same ruling party wins again).

Is it clear that the AfD serves zero, none, nada, no purpose if the hard made decisions over there are ignored and exactly opposite moves are taken? AfD decision is to merge and we delete. Tomorrow AfD decision will be to delete and these users will keep on recreating deleted articles.

User:Jack Merridew who strongly disagrees with including this content wrote on a talk page "I've removed this silliness." as if it was his call, if he has more authority then AfD where admins closed the discussion and made a decision based on dozens and dozens of votes, arguments, proposals, views. He also called the content he is removing - "shite", "ignorable" and "rote platitudes". Other dissenting users are not using insults so much, but are equally ignorant. Their posts "Agree with removal", "It's a pity that the AFD effectively forced the article to accept a mountain of off-topic material." or raising questions like "Is 106 citations for one death appropriate in any article?" on an article talk page right after the lengthy AfD was closed is simply mind-boggling. It's like going to a polling station day after the election if you don't like the results to cast your vote and while doing that you also consider that this "vote" of yours is somehow able to override whatever was decided in a serious process of elections yesterday.

On my part I tried to bring two sides together and put the content into collapsible template so if someone can't stand to see that content with their eyes they don't have to for as long as they don't click show. I think this is fair enough for all.

How can any dissenting users be above the AfD? If we were to ignore decisions made at appropriate places, then Wikipedia is about to descend to anarchy. So, Admins - hello! Please do something to protect basic institutions of Wikipedia. And please do it in a simple and quick manner without dragging this, otherwise anyone who disagrees with some decisions made all around Wikipedia will know that they can obstruct the whole project for some time with their nonsense and ignorance of the community and consensus.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly think this is the appropriate place to be discussing these issues. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Protecting the basic institutions on which Wikipedia is found on from disrespect is the first and foremost duty of admins. Of course you could propose a better place to discuss this as you haven't.--Avala (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, although the text is a bit long, the point is perfectly valid. If the outcome of AfD was to merge, it's no good pretending it was really to delete, but the admin was too polite to say it. If that is what is happening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merridew was the problem here, not the Afd process. He objects to the enitre genre, so decides to Afd the most high profile recent example, knowing full well it would end as nothing more than a train wreck. Then he weighs in with opinions as seen above, and that merge = 99.44% removal, as he and others edit war on an article linked from the Main Page because they can't act like adults and respect the outcome of the Afd, or send it to Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And the edit war continues. What has to happen here before someone will fully protect this Main Page linked article? MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir yes sir. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And also, give Physchim62 a wrist slap for labelling one of those reverts as both a minor edit, and a vandalism revert. . MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course with the returning backhand, slap the people who have forgotten that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD is not an "institute" that needs protecting. An AfD discussion has three possible outcomes: Keep, Delete, or No consensus (which defaults to keep). Administrators have IAR powers to suggest an alternative solution to the problem, but such solutions are constrained within the limits of any invocation of IAR, that is that they are in the best interests of the encyclopedia. made a goos faith decision to suggest a merge "once the article has been sufficiently condensed". The suggestion to condense the subject matter has not been followed by the editors who wish to reinsert it the the main article: instead, they wish to add 74kB of wikitext in one go, disregarding many policies and guidelines and also the ongoing discussion on the article talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read through my "date late on the elections" comment. This, or the article talk page, is not the place to make revisions of the AfD decisions.--Avala (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For information: I've listed the article at WP:DRV, which I think is the next step to take re this subject. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT...
Can someone inform that these edits are inappropriate,  & ? Perhaps a note about the angry POV-pushing would help as well? Or the banhammer would work... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These are clearly legal threats to me. Aren't we still immediately blocking for that? There have been some discussions, so not sure what we're currently doing. — Satori Son 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously involved, but the combination of legal posturing, aggressive POV-pushing, and outright rude behavior doesn't bode well for the long-term prospects of this editor... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like blocked Oriclan. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana and Pinoy Big Brother
Can anyone intervene in this?

Over the past couple of days, has been deliberately removing contestant data from Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010. Despite the information about them coming from the show's official website, he uses WP:OR and WP:BLP in deleting them wholesale without even listening to anyone that such data is valid. He is also doing the same with Melason. We have been putting up contestant data on Pinoy Big Brother and its related articles for many years, yet no one has taken issues with them until Active Banana stepped in. He seems arrogant with deleting the materials. Gogo Dodo has been alerted of this matter, but although he has yet to respond, other admins with experience on BLP issues can also join in the effort as well. Please help. thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notified Active Banana: .--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've intervened - by removing the material again. If this somewhat trivial information is indeed from a reliable source, then that source needs to be quoted, though I don't see why potted bios of non-notable people are needed in the article anyway, especially if they're verbatim from another place (WP:C). Some of the information is indeed slightly dubious per WP:BLP and I don't see how the article is improved by it anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". And per Black Kite, I have no further comment. Active Banana (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Black Kite, the profiles need to be sourced. I think this issue got escalated a little too far with all of the template warnings (WP:DTTR), messages, reports to WP:AIV, etc. without much discussion of the issue on the article talk page or friendly notes on user talk pages to open a discussion about the issue.  I recommend that all parties step back for a moment, dial back the anger, and work out the issue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Concern with IP's message
made several nonsensical comments on several talk pages, but the IP's comment at Talk:Sesame Street (since reverted) concerned me a little. I was not sure what the proper venue for this was. If there is another place to post my concerns, please let me know. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI imo (I've done the "B" part), the threat doesn't seem credible. But if someone wants to report it to MOREnet staff, feel free. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MOREnet's contact page is here. Not sure what precedent has been with such comments on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. While I highly doubt the threat is credible, that's one of a series of abusive edits from that address over the past week. I sent them an email with that diff and a link to the contributions page that more-or-less said "hey, someone's dicking around on your network, just letting you know." Universities tend to be a little touchy when someone's doing that in such a way it can be easily tracked back to them. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable approach. Thank you! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued vandalism from user 216.115.123.69
This user has just vandalized again, after being blocked previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.115.123.69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.188.168 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: you'll normally get a faster response by reporting this sort of vandalism to WP:AIV. Rodhull  andemu  00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Various IPs at Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell
Various IPs (likely a single editor and/or meat puppets) have been attempting to publicize claims made by a blog. They have certainly crossed the line into personal attacks on several occasions and edited against consensus as well. While the attacks on me are of no consequence personally, the newest IP has now graduated to baseless legal threats. This article is currently semi-protected, preventing further damage here (at least at the moment). I leave the issue here for consideration of the need for further action, if any. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An apparently related IP has been stopped by protection on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 01:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein
Entire section has been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Slrubenstein to centralize discussion and to remove space on the ANI page. –MuZemike 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:92.17.229.215
I'm not sure what to make of this user's edits... does anyone else have an opinion? Do they seem... odd... to you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should AGF, but it could be a banned user. There are some that tag their own sockpuppets.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's another sock. Any IP that turns up continuing these edits (including edit-warring against them!), if it comes from Poland, should be blocked for a short while; any IP from elsewhere should be blocked as an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * was making edits to Wikinger sock pages and made a request on my talk page to remove copyvio notices from Wikinger's user talk page. This IP address geolocates to Poland. However, none of the edits really merit blocking, so what action should be taken? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Block, revert, ignore. Everything this banned user does should be immediately reverted, no matter what. Except if by reverting it you would be reverting to yet another sock of his, as is often the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't block, because I am not a sysop. However, for any sysops here, I also found . Wikinger admitted to having a dynamic IP, so maybe we should consider a rangeblock. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Whack-A-Mole
These are clearly sock or meat puppets of with a focus on, an article which Bircham (who self-identifies as the owner, William Martin) has been trying to whitewash for years. OTRS volunteers can see the history at, , , , , , , , ,. Needless to say I will not be participating in any "mediation" with this user, since his problem is with core policy not with any individual user. Just to clarify one point he keeps making re Mike Godwin's letter, Mike did not give him permission to edit the article (he can't, as far as I can tell), he basically sent him a sofixit form letter which Bircham has persistently, and again in the face of all clarifications, misrepresented as permission to edit. He has been told that provable errors of fact backed by sources will be considered but that he absolutely will not be allowed to dictate article content and that no comment from anybody anywhere can be construed as conferring any right to edit that article or anything else on Wikipedia. Unfortunately this fails the "laa laa I'm not listening" test so we have to keep saying it month after month, as you can see from the number of OTRS tickets, all of which say pretty much the same thing. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's your plan? I notice that the article has never been protected; semi-protection could obviously help a bit but if it's been going on for years, it's a band-aid fix. RBI, I guess? <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving content to user:Orlady, who seems to me to be doing a good job of keeping it clean. I'll be happy to protect if Orlady asks, of course. The real issue for Bircham is that we (as in I) won't unblock him. Look at the history to see why not. The only reason this is anything other than straightforward is the relentless misrepresentation of Mike's letter - and there has been a lot of water under the bridge rarely has a subpontine metaphor been more appropriate since then. The fundamental problem is that he does not like the answer he's been given time after time, so keeps asking in the hope that it will change. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I often have a hard time remembering which of these unaccredited universities is which, but I think I recall that the Bircham article was semi-protected (and perhaps even fully protected) at one time or another. Is there any chance that some of the article logs have been expunged?
 * Knowing that some entities like this one have sometimes been wildly successful in using libel lawsuits (or the threat of same) to achieve their goals, and seeing that Bircham recently succeeded in getting a Kenyan news media outlet to "correct" a negative story it had run 2 years earlier (see and ), I can't help but wonder whether the article history has been subject to intervention (presumably WMF-directed) that is not visible to me (as a mere admin on this wiki). --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any oversight activity or log suppression on that article, but that does not mean it has not happened. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this is just a case of faulty memory on my part, combined with a bit of paranoia. It's truly difficult to keep track of the differences between unaccredited outfits with similar names, like Bircham International University, Buxton University, and Washington International University, each of which articles has engendered its own unique forms of drama. --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. The higher the profile of Wikipedia the more important it becomes to these places to use Wikipedia to "fix" the fact that the world thinks they are degree mills. As to Bircham, the historically widespread use of the term "accredited" by Bircham, combined with the small print on their website acknowledging that they aren't but throwing in some special pleading for good measure, is a really suggestive of active fraud rather than just foolishness. Yes there are ways for non-traditional institutions to gain accreditation. For some reason pursuing accreditation and meaningful quality assurance are never quite as attractive as whitewashing Wikipedia. Can't think why... Guy (Help!) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost every diploma mill seems to have this problem to some extent. I just see it as another wash-rinse-repeat situation. Semi-protection would work, but it would basically mean semi-protecting it forever. On the other hand, this "school" is on enough watchlists that any modification to it will not go unnoticed for more than a couple hours on the outside. It's aggravating, it pisses us off that we need to even deal with it, but in all reality, this guy invests far more time in trying to circumvent the system (and with less success) than we do in containing him. Trusilver  02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, exactly that. We should not be too wary of reaching for the protect button if sockpuppetry levels increase, but otherwise there's not much needs doing; it tends to go in waves every few months, presumably this is tied to a periodic Google sweep by Martin - I have been in contact with a few other site admins and they get the same from him. What really gets the old spidey-senses tingling is his claim of "recognition" from dozens of legitimate institutions based on his "graduates" having managed to transfer to those places. We know from extensive documentation that fact-checking even by top universities can be lax, there have been full professors at mainstream colleges whose degrees turn out to have been bought from degree mills. There is only one form of recognition that matters in post-secondary education: accreditation. The sheer volume of words expended by Bircham in trying to get around that (for them) inconvenient fact is what persuades me that the sources are probably right. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm Stauner/Irvine22
We've had an outbreak of socks this morning from banned user Irvine22 under the [Stauner] label. Affected articles (which could do with some protection) are Cynefin and Welsh People. For those interested the stauner is urban slang see here --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  06:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked - thanks for tracking this one. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am watching those articles too. Let me know if you need any enforcement; per WP:DUCK I don't think there should be any problem in blocking any such user names on sight. --John (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2 times 3RR, POV pushing, Page lengthening and Dicussion Page Vandalism by BangladeshPride
This new user BangladeshPride has for the been breaching rules of wikipedia multiple times trying to push his POV on the article Bangladesh Liberation War. He started to edit wikipedia on 14 April 2010, and since then has made over 20 edits including 7 reverts. Most of his edits consisted of unsourced changes in cited data. However he did did cite one reliable source which was placed in the article. He however continued his POV pushing trying to repeat it multiple times as well as vandalising cited data.

Following editors tried to stop his vandalism and POV pushing through repetition of certain points on the article page:
 * Myself
 * User:Sentinel_R
 * User:Drmies

Here are the details of his action.

He started to edit wikipedia on 14 April and immediately breached 3RR on the same day.
 * 1st revert: 11:44, 14 April 2010
 * 2nd revert: 12:01, 14 April 2010
 * 3rd revert: 17:22, 14 April 2010

I followed wikipolicy of WP:AGFC, thus assumed good faith for first 2 edits. Then I went off line thus not being able to report WP:3RR violation

In the next few days he had made 4 more reverts and multiple edits :
 * 4th revert: 09:37, 15 April 2010
 * 5th revert: 06:28, 17 April 2010

Following this I issued him a warning
 * Warning

He still continued reverting not heeding the warning


 * 6th revert: 20:19, 17 April 2010

After this Administrator Toddst1 gave a warning ban of 24 hours to him.
 * 02:10, 18 April 2010

BangladeshPride simply removed the banner of ban from his talk page and continued reverting and editing breaching the 3RR rule for the 2nd time
 * 
 * 7th revert: 06:00, 18 April 2010

This time as he was already under ban I gave him final warning and did not report to WP:3RRN.
 * Final Warning

The article was then reverted to the version before the dispute started till it was resolved on talkpage and Administrator Ragib fully protected the page
 * 21:53, 18 April 2010

BangladeshPride however immediately started requesting for removal of protection from Admin Ragib so he could continue his vandalism and pov pushing
 * 
 * 

He started multiple sections on talkpage as well, to repeat his POV to stress on that. He also resorted to Dicussion Page Vandalism repeating my talk on articles talkpage as well.

Finally he responded to my final warning stating "uplinkansh you are giving me warnings when you are the one vandalizing the page. i will be giving you a warning soon. plus i have contacted the neutral wikipedia moderators and showed them your continuous vandalism. do not simply try to get people banned so that you can stop people from removing your vandalism."
 * 

Following this he started sending me warning messages even though the article had not been edited since it was reverted to version before dispute started till dispute was resolved and was place under full protection by Ragib
 * 
 * 

He is continuing to request for removal of protection from Admins Ragib and User:Excirial to try to get protection removed through WP:FORUMSHOP
 * 
 * 

I would request some sort of action by Admins relating to actions by BangladeshPride.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At first glance this looked like the sort of TLDR thing that usually ends in an editor being Plaxico'd. However, Upon review, UplingAnsh has good points and a valid complaint. I have blocked BangladeshPride for 48 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring, harassment (calling UplinAnsh a vandal when he clearly isn't), and multiple violations of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I welcome second/third/fourth opinions of other editors. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've taken a look, and I see a lot of belligerent POV-pushing (some of which seems blatantly wrong), nRR (where n certainly exceeds 3), and lashing out at other editors in retaliation rather than listening and talking. So I think it was a valid complaint, and your block was the right thing to do - and if he doesn't start to talk, it unfortunately might even need to be extended. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

45g, Michaeldsuarez, and Snaisybelle
Can some interested admin or editor look into what is going on with these three editors? I received a comment from 45g that some Encyclopedia Dramatica fight has spilled onto Wikipedia. I don't visit ED and have no wish to be involved in anything to do with it, so I'm disinclined to go look into this any further. I know that ED issues have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but like I said, it appears to be spilling onto Wikipedia. See all of the relevant conversations at:


 * User talk:Gogo Dodo
 * 45g's talk page
 * Snaisybelle's talk page
 * Michaeldsuarez's talk page (Archived)

Thanks to anybody willing to dive in. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First glance suggests that 45g has been rather abusive, and may have violated WP:NLT on Snaisybelle's talk page, to my eye. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Internet fights are so ridiculously moronic. What is this, 4th grade? If someone violated policy here then block them and ignore the rest. I'm quite sure that the last thing we need here is to add ED's drama to our own. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not specifically an ED issue, nor is it an internet fight. You may dislike ED but we follow the same processes as you, and this is a prolific vandal who has been banned on multiple occasions who has crossed the line into internet and too-close-to-my-doorstep-for-comfort stalking. He has made attack pages on me at wikipedia specifically as well as literally hundreds of off site issues. Whether he is banned or not is frankly beside the point as I am currently dealing with the matter through police and care workers. JUST GOT SERIOUS YO. Snaisybelle (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit, else why do you still allow the user Paralel to edit? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's "Paralel", and how is that user relevant to this issue? In addition, what exactly are you calling "Bullshit"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the link to my talk page with a permalink, since User:45g recently blanked most of the discussion relevant to this issue. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not really all that interested in online fights either. If you're wondering how this began, please refer to my page on ED. Some tosser stuck it up over 2 years ago after I had a long war with the morons who did that page as well. I don't think it's ever gonna be deleted. Not that I care. Let them have their fun. They're all highly immature, anyway. I don't think their ma ever talked sense into their heads when they were young. Oh right - they still are young. I don't believe they're as old as they make out. But this is the last time I'll be discussing this issue on here. The rest is classified. 45g (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account
claims that his account has been compromised and requested that it be blocked indefinitely. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User talk page was improperly speedily deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And although it is now a blue link, it has not been undeleted yet. Another editor has left a message on it. Could an admin please undelete? DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, this should be undeleted and redirected to the Talk page, as if it were a WP:RTV. Than should seem to make sense for what is essential an abandoned account. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll do it shortly. Rodhull  andemu  23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I added a BLP-Prod tag to an article the account created: Twinkle automatically notifies the creator. I will redirect the talk page. Or if it needs to be reverted to the version prior to the deletion feel free. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rodhull  andemu  00:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the talk page has not been undeleted, just redirected to the userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any admins who can tell the difference between a userpage and a usertalk page? DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can't see the history, but as far as I'm concerned, I deleted the userpage and restored it without the two recent additions, then redirected it to the Talk page. That preserves the GFDL requirements as far as the User page is concerned. And any use should be able to tell the difference between a User page and a User Talk page; it just seems to be customary in these circumstances to do this. If this is a problem....? Rodhull  andemu


 * No, it is customary to delete the userpage and keep the talk page. You restored exactly the wrong page. Please read WP:RTV. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, does anyone fancy restoring the talk page and re-deleting the incorrectly restored userpage? DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored User talk:Iceman444k. My first undeletion; hope I got it right. The userpage seems to still be deleted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks fine to me. Another admin redeleted the userpage (which is also fine and DOES NOT NEED UNDELETING!) DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks good. Thanks for fixing my overreach.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought user pages weren't normally deleted unless the user requested vanishment. I have an account that I stopped using for various reasons ages ago, but I wouldn't want its userpage deleted. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The user did request to exercise their right to vanish, but I see that WP:RTV has been tightened up to allow deletion of the user talk page only where there is "a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient.". – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And only via MfD, not Speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And now the talk page has been re-speedied by another admin. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad - I've re-restored it -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 21:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Phantomsteve (or may I call you Phantom?) Is there a Guinness record for the most deletions and undeletions of a usertalk page? DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would gather this one is up there. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone gets the idea to delete it again, I've tagged the page and left a comment. —DoRD (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes, marijuana/cannabis
Am I missing something here, or is WP:REDIRECT in place to address precisely what SqueakBox is doing at the moment, changing every link to marijuana into Cannabis (drug) ? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTBROKEN, specifically. I don't get it either. Marijuana is more intuitive and probably more widely known than cannabis, making edits like this one seem odd. So what's the deal, SqueakBox?--Chaser (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc, linking to this explanation would have been helpful to begin with. In any case, I can't see how this messes up Special:whatlinkshere. Squeakbox?--Chaser (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I saw his response as simply a direct refutation of the redirect guidelines, so I didn't think it was important at the time. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirects mess up what links here & also mess up urls (esp important in sharing). When I do basic routine maintenance/janitorial work i do not expect to be edit warred against & reported here (when he said he was reporting me here he also said . Tarc:"From past experience with you re: Virgin Killer, I don't have the stomach for interaction, honestly". This strikes me as bad faith. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Squeakbox, but interacting with you has been a most unpleasant experience over the years...with the Virgin Killer album eDrama and your repeated threats to go to ArbCom (which you never did) over the Wales co-founder issue...which is why I have avoided it for some time now. It is unfortunate that this recent trip of yours happened to come across a music page that I watchlist.  We have content guidelines linked above that while not policy, reflect a broad consensus of the community.  Your reasons for editing counter to that guideline really do not make sense.  What does it matter in what link you "share" ?  It all goes to the same article. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy 4/20? I think that "marijuana" in general is ideal when one is talking about "that leafy green thing one might roll in thin paper and smoke"; cannabis could also refer to hashish, or any number of other preparations of the drug. Mass changes without regard to context seem inappropriate. That being said, I don't think WP:R2D quite covers this because SqueakBox is also changing the displayed text. Has this been discussed anywhere (such as WT:420?) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I felt this was more of a general-interest concern over a style guideline rather than something for a wiki-project. And as far as displayed text goes, I believe this user has only done that twice in response to reverts; one of my own at Alice in Chains and one of MZMcbride's at Blow (film).  A random sample of other edits... Scooby-Doo, Green Day, Muta...shows' it i just a straight change to cannabis . Tarc (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's little need to replace marijuana with cannabis ; the former is a redirect to the latter. In fact, in the example above, this edit to Blow (film) is probably unwarranted for the fact that it's an American film and (though I haven't seen it) quite probably refers to the product as marijuana and not cannabis. Since they're basically synonymous (not totally), the use of one term or the other should be guided by the the article topic/content & direct usage of of either term in the topic's real-world sphere of influence. Academic treatments of the drug are probably better aimed towards Cannabis, but many colloquial uses in articles (e.g., Feel Good Hit of the Summer) would be degraded by a replacement...In essence, I don't see a mass replacement to be of much benefit and it has the potential to cause some content confusion. &mdash; Scientizzle 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support using "cannabis" (the scientific name for the drug) rather than the nickname "marijuana" as I believe the former to be more encyclopedic. I say this without having looked in detail about the edits SB is making. --John (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the 'scientific name for the drug' isn't simply cannabis. In fact, if you go to PubMed, "cannabis" will return 12344 research articles and "marijuana" 15047. Since "marijuana" is a specific preparation of cannabis, and is associated with specific cultural identities, movements, and uses, there are valid arguments to use that term instead of cannabis in particular articles. In my example immediately above, the term "marijuana" is used specifically in the song. Replacing it with "cannabis" would degrade the information within the article (in a very minor way, mind you, but non-zero). &mdash; Scientizzle 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Marijuana", besides not being the scientific name, is rather US-centric. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to John/DuncanHill: how then, does one distinguish among the different preparations of cannabis? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that is straying a bit far from the point here regarding one user making mass changes contrary to guidelines. But if we really need to get into that, I'd reply that we're writing a general-interest encyclopedia here, not a technical or scientific journal.  Would we replace all instances of "cat" and dog" with "feline" and "canine" ? Tarc (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it's inappropriate to do these mass changes for the basic reason that "marijuana" may be arguably a more appropriate term for a given article. Redirects do not, as far as I can tell, "mess up" Special:WhatLinksHere. Any of these changes should be made on a case-by-case basis. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to clearly distinguish between the language our articles use and the links we emplace into articles. Here's a nice analogy for those who see nothing wrong with using marijuana rather than marijuana or (better) cannabis; what about booze versus booze versus alcohol? I am sure we can think of other examples. I may be at an extreme end of this argument, but I don't think there should be any links to "marijuana", and I don't think we should even use the word except in quotes or other very special cases, any more than we should call it "boo", "shit" or any of its other many nicknames. As an encyclopedia for grown-ups we should use the grown-up word for it. --John (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as a "grown-up" who does academic research in neuropharmacology and drug addiction, I can assure you that "grown-ups" who study the effects of cannabis & cannabinoids commonly use the term "marijuana" in scientific publications (as I noted above--check out PubMed). The term may have slang roots, but it's hardly equivalent to modern street slang. To turn your "booze" analogy around, I hope you wouldn't propose changing all alcohol-related links to ethanol...that's the "grown-up" term, you know. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @John, again, if we use "cannabis", how do we distinguish among the different preparations? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much as I despise WP:R2D, this is exactly what it's in place to prevent. Changing links from "marijuana" to cannabis en-masse is disruptive and unnecessary. The former is more commonly use in North America, whereas the latter is more common in the UK and Europe and as for the "grown-up word" argument, if we were dispensing with "grown up words", we'd have to change all the links to "weed". Essentially, I think it's another one of those national variations of English and should only be changed where there are strong national ties. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing for getting rid of the proper scientific term but for encouraging it. Xeno, we can easily distinguish between the different forms of the drug where necessary by using the words for then, eg hashish. In most cases this probably won't be necessary. Scientizzle, the ethanol article is a general one on the chemical substance so alcoholic beverage is definitely the one. Like I say, this might not lend itself to a general answer but we do need to be thoughtful not just about what word we use but about what we link to. --John (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I say, this might not lend itself to a general answer but we do need to be thoughtful not just about what word we use but about what we link to. Exactly what I was arguing. Mass changes (the point of this thread) are inappropriate because their value is quite limited and, given that there are legitimate arguments for the use of one term rather than another in certain articles, potentially detrimental. If you want to change "marijuana" to "cannabis" in any particular article, go ahead...I was simply pointing out that cannabis:marijuana::alchol:booze is a flawed analogy given the academic use of the particualr terminology. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And what word should we use for the leafy-green preparation of the drug? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not ready for consumption? Risker (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest herbal cannabis on first mention. --John (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who ever calls it "herbal cannabis"? Are we looking to confuse our readers? 66,700 hits for "herbal cannabis" versus 23 million for marijuana . That being said, I think this probably should be discussed at WT:MOS or something. We're straying off topic. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia observes 4/20, with a pointless edit war over redirects versus pipe links to cannabis/marijuana/weed. (Boy, some people know how to have a good time!) First, stop fixing links that aren't broken, especially en masse. Second, discuss this somewhere, but not here. Third, um, what was I saying? Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghits are not the be-all and end-all of naming though. Agree this should go to another venue. --John (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps it should be resolved that mass changes of this nature should not be conducted until consensus is reached at the appropriate venue. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If discussion is warranted, sure, though for now the rest of these changes should be reverted. I see a few here and there already have. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the ones where I felt context mattered (i.e. it was most definitely referring to marijuana, or as John suggests we call it, "herbal cannabis"). Not so bothered about the rest. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's the point of case-by-case changes and of WP:NOTBROKEN. If the redirects aren't broken, don't "fix" them. But if they've been "fixed", no point in reverting unless the context justifies certain text (as opposed to a particular link).--Chaser (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reversed a few more as well based on context, but not planning on going on a blind spree, no. We'll see if squeakbox decides to edit war over it like last night, as going by the last entry on his talk page, he's pretty dismissive of all of this. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:75.68.82.23
This editor is the user who seems fascinated by causes of death. He or she was given a final warning by admin Ronhjones not to change date formats in infoboxes, yet continues to do so. Their last block was for 1 month; because the IP is obviously stable, and their edits are generally suspect and unhelpful, if not quite obvious vandalism, and because they refuse to enter into discussion about their editing, despite concerns expressed by numerous editors, as seen on their talk page, I believe a block of at least 3 months would be justified. Could someone please take a look? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They also edit using Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a month. Rodhull  andemu  21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Harlan wilkerson
I'm rather new here, so I'm not sure I'm in the right place. I do wish to complaint about the conduct of Mr. Harlan Wilkerson. After having a long discussion with him, in which I explained to him elaborately why his edits were incorrect and counter-productive (see Talk:All-Palestine Government), he tries to revert my edits (which were all explained in details) and started to threaten me on my personal talk page (see here: User talk:Kalamiyat). Some of his accusations against me are not clear (at least to me, as I said I'm new here), but his overall conduct is not what I would expect from a civilized person. Please see to that. Thank you very much. Kalamiyat (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed Mr. Wilkerson hid my comments under a title: "long off-topic WP:SOAP rant" and "long off-topic discussion". Some of these remarks were reference to relevant sources about the matter in question and explanation why Mr. Wilkerson's comments were wrong. Personally I am quite offended by these accusation (though I don't really understand what "soap" means in this context). I am not sure this kind of behavior to new comers would encourage more people to contribute to this project. Kalamiyat (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Drork is probably relevant here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, who is Drork, and why do I keep hearing this name here? Aren't you going to do something about these insults I receive? Is this is they way you handle incivility here, by accusing the complainant with strange accusations? Kalamiyat (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Until a few days ago the article had a subsection on the continuity of laws which explained the Palestine Mandate was a state and that its laws were retained by the successor government. The "discussions" were only tangentally connected to the subject of the article to begin with, but they quickly turned into inappropriate personal attacks and long critiques of sources that were not even cited or applicable to the article in the first place. The long additional sources threads Kalamiyat added regarding statehood didn't actually mention statehood, and so advanced an unpublished synthesis. They also contained defamatory remarks about myself and other living persons, such as lawyer, Prof. John Quigley so I collapsed them. harlan (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Magyar Televízió
See archive ANI report - Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608. It's still going on - as soon as the latest page protection was lifted, the same IP editor (he claims there are two editors, but they both have the same style and add the same kind of stuff to the same kind of articles), he's back adding the same unsourced trivia after ignoring all discussion. Lots of stuff added to this and similar articles has been blatantly false, so we really can't trust any unsourced additions from this person.

The problem is, what should we do? The IP ranges are owned by TOT in Bangkok, Thailand, and will be used by many people - I've seen other editors operating from the 125.25.x.x range, so a range block might be quite damaging.

I've asked for page protection again, and would welcome any suggestions as to how to solve this problem long-term. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  08:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've informed the editor at his last-known IP address, User talk:125.25.42.129, and at the article Talk page, Talk:Magyar Televízió -- Boing!   said Zebedee  08:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For now I've reprotected the article, for 2 weeks, or pending whatever comes out here. Ged  UK  08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not claim there are two, I claimed there are three. and from today, I will quit editing Wikipedia. (Really, I edit Wikipedia only 20 days). And I'm sorry for editing Myanmar TV articles. Really, I did not claim anything. THERE ARE REALLY THREE!!. But all TOT users have this IP range (125.25.). I disagree blocking the range, that means Thailand will be banned from editing Wikipedia. and what is your "same style"? I do not understand.
 * He have nothing with me. OK and I am sorry for making him sad by editing Vietnam Television. But for Magyar Televízió is his false. He didn't know that if he edited an article that being watched, if he editing some other that will be watched too. See Talk:Myanmar Radio and Television.--118.172.193.0 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar International
And now he's back adding a load of unsourced material to Myanmar International, using IP 118.172.193.0 (talk) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  01:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And he's tagging other unsourced articles for deletion - see --  Boing!   said Zebedee  01:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't reply for a long time
I see that User:Boing! said Zebedee haven't replied my comments for ten minutes already while he is now online.--118.172.193.0 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter for administrative action. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To say the least. For the record, however, Boing! has now replied to each and every query on his talkpage. — Satori Son 13:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for a laugh though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It must be election time again
An OTRS ticket alerted me to the fact that links purportedly to newspaper endorsements of were, in fact, to his campaign site. Looking into it a little further, I have removed a block of stuff almost al of which was sourced to his own congressional microsite or YouTube. I guess there will be a lot of campaign staffers vigorously buffing up their candidates' Wikipedia resumes right now. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's a quite bitter UK election happening too. Ged  UK  13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A bitter election? Thank goodness there is something to get excited about, rather than having to listen to those politician fellows. I have to say I am a Fullers ESB voter, although I may tactically vote for Flowers IPA if it looks like that Boddingtons lot may go top...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm voting for Lindt 70%! 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I favour black sheep, and will probably vote accordingly.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Pablo. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 here also. Though I do have an appointment with a bottle of St Petersburg Organic Best that I am anxious to keep. Incidentally, I created WP:FLUFFYBUNNIES in response to this and another one that just came up on my watchlist. Incidentally, I know a gentleman by the name of Boddington who insists that he is far from bitter. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, with all these candidates to choose from, I'd settle for a coalition government and a different beer every day -- Boing!   said Zebedee  21:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need a bitter election, we need a mild election. Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild should win it with a swing of 6%. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You Brits need something stronger, like Scotsman stronger! Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked McEwan's was an excellent Scots ale (and thus as Brit as can be). I'm forming a breakaway XPA faction, though. Tonywalton Talk 00:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How did we miss this?
looks like a copyvio and uis undoubtedly a copy-paste (we have a complaint from the owner of this page ) but it was not reverted - despite the occasional fixed-space para which is a dead giveaway for a copy-paste - for over 8 months. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears no capable editor ever looked at it, otherwise they would have fixed stopped to investigate the obvious formatting issues. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope that any capable editor wouldn't fix the formatting without first verifying the provenance of the text. As Guy notes, large blocks of poorly-wikified text are almost universally copy & paste work.  Fixing the formatting of an unwikified lump of text is almost always the worst way for an editor to spend his time, as not only is their effort wasted, but it means that the copyvio is apt to go unnoticed for longer.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm aware of one case where every single revision of an article over a four-year period was based off of an "example" essay for sale on the internet, with every single revision over that period being formatting tweaks by editors who had plainly not read so much as one sentence of the article. Big lumps of unformatted text either are copy-and-paste copyright violations, or else some editor's wholesale replacement of an article with a lousy "preferred" version. Either way, editors should think - and investigate - before they improve a wasted effort. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that it obviously hadn't been looked at by any competent editor; as they surely would have seen the obvious formatting errors and then dug deeper into the problem. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 23:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidently. How the hell does "Created page with ' Don Chastain was bigger than life. A career as a performer was a perfect choice for him. To watch that big, handsome guy move across a stage was to see confidence..." not set alarm bells ringing? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It possibly was missed by many, many editors. Looking at the watchlists, this isn't that unheard of unless the unchecked ones pile somewhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus at Ugg boots
I originally placed this at WP:3RR, but it had been there many hours without any attention (while others around it got resolved), I suspect because it's not a simple case of 3RR, so I decided this might be a more appropriate venue. I'd like to submit to the admin community for review the editing history of, on the article.

There has been a slow-burning edit war between one user, Factchk, and at least four other editors (myself included) who have reached a consensus on what the intro to the article should contain. Factchk, seemingly a single-purpose account, has repeatedly violated this consensus to insert information in the lead paragraph of Ugg boots that asserts its trademark status in certain countries. A consensus of other editors have agreed that the trademark information is inappropriate for the opening paragraph (especially since it is detailed at some length later). And, in fact, prior to Factchk's involvement an RFC was conducted and closed on March 3 which serves to reinforce the current active consensus. I am somewhat new to this dispute but another editor, User:Hoary, has suggested that Factchk's pattern of editing follows other accounts (possibly IPs) who have had a similar purpose (edit warring over trademark info); I wouldn't be surprised if he has some sort of conflict of interest. Since the end of March Factchk has regularly appeared at the article every few days to re-insert his preferred version; no amount of discussion on the talk page helps -- his response is to make appeals to the inherent supremacy of "facts" that override consensus. It's my feeling that this pattern of editing behavior has become disruptive -- every couple days the article is destabilized, not to mention the fact that the consensus of editors currently watching the article are getting tired of it. This is his editing pattern, the diffs are all pretty much the same.


 * April 20:
 * April 16:
 * April 14:
 * April 5:
 * April 5:
 * April 5:
 * April 1:
 * March 31:

The article deserves a stable version that reflects the consensus of editors. Thanks. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 00:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trixies everywhere are up in arms. (This seems like a content dispute). Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is, but it's a content dispute with someone who won't respect a long-standing consensus, achieved through what's recommended in WP:DR. As "plain old editors," we've exhausted our options.  So I submit it here.  &mdash; e. ripley\talk 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention, Tim. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of swastika in Jainism
While I am highly respective of all religions, this symbol can be confused for Nazism and I think a replacement should be made to the article and the template logo. TeacherBarney (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed on the article talkpage; there doesn't seem to be any administrator action required here. Tonywalton Talk 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The swastika is a touchy subject, but if it's something used prominently in that religion, wikipedia shouldn't censor it. The swastika article should tell all about how Hitler hijacked that otherwise-respectable symbol. And the placement in the article at present is way down the page, not thrown in the reader's face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute so I am marking this resolved. Please discuss at the talk page of the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think per this edit, this looks more like a troll than an innocent user. -- 76.90.87.88 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely a troll. Posts a Nazi swastika in the template and complains about it here. I'm assuming the only reason he isn't blocked is that he hasn't edited since he was last warned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, BLP violations and legal threats by User:THETRUTHPROTECTOR
This "new" editor has added negative personal information to the articles John Hillerman (based on personal knowledge) and has launched personal attacks accompanied by ethnic slurs when it was removed. He has restored derogatory information at the Edd Byrnes which was removed as inadequately referenced per WP:BLP, accompanying the restoration with additional personal attacks, stating that the editor he is in conflict's "mother is a whore." On my talk page he said "I've vanfalized nothing!!!! Prove that I have!!!! If you threaten me one more time, I promise to sue wikipedia and you! Test me! See if I don't!!!" which violates the policy No legal threats. I have previously warned him, including an "only warning" for personal attacks and a final warning for vandalism, and reverted him, so to avoid it being just a personal disagreement I will leave it to others to determine if sanctions are indicated at this time. I have notified him of this discussionEdison (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's back: see . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And as ... I see an RFPP in the article's future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for block evasion, straightforward ducking. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also . FYI: WP:RFPP requests have been submitted for the two articles involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Kreuzzug der Revision
Found this delightful little account while checking the MascotGuy filter. I don't speak German, but I know rants when I see them. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't speak much German either, but it looks like s/he complains about admins and process on German wikipedia, where s/he was banned/blocked, apparently for edit warring about global warming (which s/he thinks is a political construct), and block evasion.  The writing style doesn't seem especially crazier than what we see in userspace in English, though of course it's wp:SOAP.  User's contribs page on de is de:Beiträge:KunzSN. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like an attack-only account to me. Page deleted, user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet death rumour
Today's unsubstantiated (to date) Internet death rumour is Richard Dawson, whose death is being reported all over the place but not by anyone reputable or reliable. (An unbylined obit was just posted to alt.obituaries by someone glorying in the name "Letstrolltonight".) Could people keep an eye on it tonight? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew, for a second there I thought you were going to say the internet was dead. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... does Usenet still exist? Maybe I ought to pop in and see if Alt.Music.Pink-Floyd is still around. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Was it 'Internet'?"
 * SURVEY SAYS!
 * BZZZZT
 * But seriously, the rumour's running through Usenet with the grace and speed of a three-legged okapi, so look out. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just completed a news search, nobody in the mainstream press is reporting this, and I found several sites directly contradicting the report. Survey says: Living! hugs and kisses all around. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.richarddawsonlives.com/, his status remains "Stable, but boozy"  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.richarddawsonlives.com/, his status remains "Stable, but boozy"  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Article Loop Problem
Black Virgin Mountain seems to be stuck in an infinite mobius loop of sorts when I was looking at it via the Did You Know suggestions page. Anyone can figure out what the fark is going on? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black redux
A question has arisen as to whether the links on Talk:Edwin Black, or any of them, by User:Saxstudio should be removed as unproductive/unuseful/outing. See previous discussion on that talk page and between User:Blaxthos and myself at my talk page. As I have been handling a long OTRS ticket with Mr. Black, I don't consider myself sufficiently uninvolved to decide this. Other opinions are invited. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the links pending the outcome of this discussion. They look to much like outing to me, and I fail to see the point of multiple links to various versions of the same article. I will add that I don't like ethnic categories and certainly not where they don't reflect anything in the article that makes the ethnic category meaningful or notable, so I don't blame Black for objecting to being categorised as an American Jew. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IP welcoming sockpuppets
iP 115.240.73.7 and IP 122.160.178.38 has been replacing templates with welcome templates, including  | here, and | here. I feel that this needs prompt administrator attention as I am concerned that the IP in question is actually a sockpuppet of the users he has been welcoming. Immunize (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * is bagging & tagging as necessary... &mdash; Scientizzle 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet death rumour
Today's unsubstantiated (to date) Internet death rumour is Richard Dawson, whose death is being reported all over the place but not by anyone reputable or reliable. (An unbylined obit was just posted to alt.obituaries by someone glorying in the name "Letstrolltonight".) Could people keep an eye on it tonight? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew, for a second there I thought you were going to say the internet was dead. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... does Usenet still exist? Maybe I ought to pop in and see if Alt.Music.Pink-Floyd is still around. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Was it 'Internet'?"
 * SURVEY SAYS!
 * BZZZZT
 * But seriously, the rumour's running through Usenet with the grace and speed of a three-legged okapi, so look out. --NellieBly (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just completed a news search, nobody in the mainstream press is reporting this, and I found several sites directly contradicting the report. Survey says: Living! hugs and kisses all around. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.richarddawsonlives.com/, his status remains "Stable, but boozy"  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.richarddawsonlives.com/, his status remains "Stable, but boozy"  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Article Loop Problem
Black Virgin Mountain seems to be stuck in an infinite mobius loop of sorts when I was looking at it via the Did You Know suggestions page. Anyone can figure out what the fark is going on? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black redux
A question has arisen as to whether the links on Talk:Edwin Black, or any of them, by User:Saxstudio should be removed as unproductive/unuseful/outing. See previous discussion on that talk page and between User:Blaxthos and myself at my talk page. As I have been handling a long OTRS ticket with Mr. Black, I don't consider myself sufficiently uninvolved to decide this. Other opinions are invited. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the links pending the outcome of this discussion. They look to much like outing to me, and I fail to see the point of multiple links to various versions of the same article. I will add that I don't like ethnic categories and certainly not where they don't reflect anything in the article that makes the ethnic category meaningful or notable, so I don't blame Black for objecting to being categorised as an American Jew. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IP welcoming sockpuppets
iP 115.240.73.7 and IP 122.160.178.38 has been replacing templates with welcome templates, including  | here, and | here. I feel that this needs prompt administrator attention as I am concerned that the IP in question is actually a sockpuppet of the users he has been welcoming. Immunize (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * is bagging & tagging as necessary... &mdash; Scientizzle 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive
IP 86.155.74.236 is this troll again attacking the WT:CRIC page today. His normal IP range 88.108.0.0/18 was blocked for one month last weekend. Could someone please place a similar block on his new range? Thanks. Jack | talk page 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Afraid not. It's far too big a range to block, even if it were technically possible (which it isn't).  And even if it was technically possible and wouldn't cause huge amounts of collateral damage, it's only a small range of BT Broadband, the biggest ISP in the UK, so the user could simply hop to another one of their ranges. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should file an abuse report with the person's IPS. I have been seeing this vandal pop up time and time again here at AN/I. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. How do you do that?  Jack | talk page 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Thundera_m117 userboxes
Some of the userboxes on User:Thundera_m117's user page may violate WP:BLP, WP:Userbox and WP:Userpage policies and so I would suggest that an Admin has a look at them.

Shown at the bottom left-hand side of the user page, there is a userbox whose text reads: This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel. It contains photos of people who are presumably supposed to be self-hating Jews. One photo shows Noam Chomsky. I believe that depicting Noam Chomsky in this way is probably a violation of WP:BLP rules. A group of Orthodox Jews is shown in another photo. I believe that showing a group of Orthodox Jews in that way is divisive and therefore probably a breech of the WP:Userbox and WP:Userpage rules.

A userbox shown in the middle on the left-hand side of the page carries the text: This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference. Although the article on Mahathir bin Mohamad certainly seems to indicate that he had very unpleasant opinions about Jews, I think that the way the userbox states that the speech was antisemitic may violate the WP:BLP rules.

Other userboxes may be overly divisive. For example, one seems to be lumping Christian Fundamentalists and White Supremacists (and representing both with a Nazi swastika). Another states the user's belief that Hitler and Mohammed were the two most evil men. Another expresses the user's support for Obama's Immigration Reform as long as it does not include the influx of Muslim Migration to United States.

On the 10th of April I left a message on the user's talkpage telling him that I thought that some of his userboxes may violate WP:BLP policy. Then, realising that the user does not edit Wikipedia regularly and believing that I had a responsibility to remove potentially libellous material, I edited Thundera_m117's userpage, leaving another note to explain what I had done. Predictably, the editor objected to my changes and reverted my changes. I then created a new section on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard to raise comments regarding the potential problems. The advice there was to create a new incident on the ANI noticeboard.

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please notify him, even if he rarely edits here. We recently had an issue with a user's userboxes here, so you might want to read up on that when you get the chance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I notified Thundera_m117 immediately after raising this incident. I don't personally have problems with the contents of the page, but I think that others might and that there are WP:BLP issues there which should be looked at.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (After many, many edit conflicts!) Wow! That's quite a collection of userboxes, but none of them really start ringing alarm bells. If it were up to me, I'd dispense with all political userboxes because I don't think they contribute to a healthy editing environment, but none of his are blatantly violating nay policy and he's entitled to express his opinions. All of them. If you can think of a viewpoint, there's probably a userbox for it! If any are of concern, try discussing the matter with him politely and, failing that, get community input at MfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a recent case where one reason that an editor was sanctioned was that he called an International Court of Justice judge an antisemite in talkpage comments. It seemed to me that implying that somebody is a self-hating Jew in a userbox is fairly equivalent. There have been cases where users have been ordered to change userboxes on the grounds that they were divisive, too.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If the particular userboxes are templates that can be separated, MFD them. If not, I'd say list the whole page at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wdl1961
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

has been edit warring, violating 3RR, by adding how-to instructions in Jump start (vehicle). User has refused meaningful discussion on talk page, and has shown no regard for WP policy, i.e. WP:NOTHOWTO. Edits:       --Dbratland (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be required to read art. first and apply rules evenly.Wdl1961 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline you are using, WP:NOTHOWTO, says an article should "should not read like a "how-to" [...] manual". It does not say that an article should not contain any how-to instructions. The article Jump start (vehicle) does not in fact read like a how-to manual. Wdl1961 has merely added a brief section dealing with a fundamental safety issue, that contains some how-to information. But this does not turn the article, as a whole, into a how-to manual. There are other snippets of "how-to" information elsewhere in the same article. For example, the section immediately above the section Wdl1961 added says "A slave cable is plugged in to the receptacle on each vehicle, and the dead vehicle is started with the live vehicle's engine running."  If no how-to instructions are to be permitted in Wikipedia, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be hobbled.


 * Another example is the article on rip current. That has a section on escaping a rip current. This section also contains some how-to instructions. But the article, as a whole, does not read like a how-to manual, and it seem to me that the article would be incomplete, indeed irresponsible, if it did not include this section. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, other stuff exists. The point is to continue moving the how-to instructions away from Jump start (vehicle) and over to Wikibooks where it is most appropriate.  The fact that some parts of the article, or other articles, deviate from policy is not a reason to insist on making it even worse. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is missing my point, which is that these articles do not "deviate from policy". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the policy that way is equivalent to saying you can put how to instructions into any article you like as long as there are other parts of the article that are not instructions. Is the only reason for having the policy to ensure that merely some of each article is encyclopedic in nature? --Dbratland (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in any guidelines is it said that you can't explain how something works. If that were the case, then you couldn't even write a coherent article on something like a fish hook. But what the guideline you invoked said, was that articles should not read like an instruction manual. Some articles require an explanation here and there of how things work. There is nothing unencyclopedic about that, so long as the article doesn't degenerate into a mere instruction manual. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think with something like this, which does carry an element of danger, Wikipedia should not be giving instructions, especially unsourced ones. If we have sources that indicate the correct way to jump start a battery, they should be linked on the page. That seems to be sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, safety instructions like these need impeccable sources, like the sources given for escaping a rip current. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to put a hatnote at the top of the page, rather than the bottom as guidelines normally indicate, saying Instructions on how to jump start can be found at Wikibooks? This would help clear up any confusion and direct those looking for help to the right place.  And if there is nothing left to say on Jump start (vehicle) after all the how-to has been moved to Wikibooks, then the page should be deleted or merged.--Dbratland (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally disagree with such a hatnote, because it's not the job of Wikipedia to meet the needs of every user who's looking in an encyclopedia for information an encyclopedia shouldn't include. It seems to defeat the purpose of defining what does not fall within Wikipedia's mission and domain, if Wikipedia just links to all that information anyway, especially right at the top of the article. If users look for how-to information here and can't find it, they can reasonably be expected to figure out that there may be a better place to find that information than an encyclopedia. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef block and ban on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE. This editor has a long record of edits that can best be described as "surreal", bearing little relation to reality and no relation to WP policy. I believe they have some past career experience with electricity power generation, but they still have a particularly unusual view of how some well-accepted engineering principles work. Their abuse of references is particularly problematic as they've often made edits that are just plain wrong, but aren't obviously so to an editor not skilled in the arts and assuming that a claimed cite will mean the same as that which a reference actually stated. "relational vibration" in engines was one of the worst examples of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read through their talk page, browsed through their mess of a user page, and looked at some of their edits, I'm inclined to agree with Andy Dingley that the competence of Wdl1961 is indeed an issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

for easy ref "Relational Vibration "

copy from Talk:Four-stroke engine

13 User:Wdl1961

14 file

14.1 Relational Vibration

Wdl1961 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have jump-started a great many vehicles in my time, the content you added was borderline incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * first occurs before last like 1 ,2,many,many.

Wdl1961 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that sounds just like plain craziness. A certain soundness of mind is required to edit Wikipedia, and it does not seem to be present here. I was about to indefinitely block at this point, but Georgewilliamherbert was faster than me.  Sandstein  20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I have left a message asking them to try and clearly communicate on their talk page the reasons for their communications issues.  This is an indef block based on the communications and coherency issue - not a permanent block.  They may have an issue they can resolve, or they can refocus on communicating coherently and succeed in the future.  Any administrator who comes to believe that they are going to be able to edit in a productive manner and communicate in an intelligible manner going forwards is welcome to unblock without further notification to me.  I don't know whether they will be able to do that, but one would hope that they can.  They have been reasonably good about vandal fighting and I don't doubt their good faith, but there's something wrong here that good faith does not overcome.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Alteration of revision history of Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith
I am concerned about tampering of the edit history of this article. I have suspected that User:Cuñado has had an undeclared conflict of interest in the subject of Bahai'sm and I had notice that this user had a large number of revision to the above article in his/her contribs. I wrote this message of the user's talk page and used a calculator to show that the user had made 833 edit using two different names (Cunado19 and Cuñado). I even copied and pasted the link to the edit statistics page here. As of this writing, the page shows only 55 edits for Cunado19 and 29 for Cuñado and shows a pattern of frequent editing with several gaps of up to 2 months where no edits are recorded. I know what I saw, and at Talk:Homosexuality and the Bahá'í Faith I am being accused of having a bad memory and being discouraged from looking into the matter.

I would like an administrator to look at the logs and see if this page has been recently altered. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can look at the logs: . No revisions have been deleted, either here or at the other titles where this was once moved.--Chaser (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had looked at the public logs, at least for the main page. The revision history for Revision history of LGBT topics and the Bahá'í Faith is missing. I think this is why the edit count has changed. I would like this looked into by an experienced database admin. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The page got moved to a different title, as that link clearly shows. The edit history is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&action=history.  Woogee (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From a review of the browsing history on my laptop I found that I also had opened Edit count of Bahá'í_Faith which is closer in appearance to my memory of the page in question. It would seem that in the sleep-deprived state that I wrote that message, I had confused the information on the two pages and came to the wrong conclusion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, however I felt that if there were a chance the revision history had been altered then it needed to be looked into. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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

This should be an straight forward. Since I am involved, I thought it would be best if someone else looked into it. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted, I think. Looks like I redundantly re-blocked them, though. lol Figures. —DoRD (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to both of you. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a lifeline, should this editor decide to either mature or evolve. Rodhull  andemu  01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that he has self-reported his age as pre-teen, that might take awhile. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to stifle enthusiasm here, but I think constructive editing requires a level of apparent maturity and ability that isn't necessarily determined by age alone. However, if he's blocked indefinitely, there is no reason why he should not quietly return and be a constructive editor in the long term. I'm sure many young people have taken that lesson to heart. If he returns, and is disruptive, however, he'll be blocked again. Simples!. Rodhull  andemu  01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Deilami Language
Some sentences had been entered in the article Deilami language. I explained in the talk page why these matters are not exactly related to the issue, but Revision history of Deilami language shows that it has been reverted two times without any discussion. Writing these sentences, in this manner, is first-hand research, because in the source which is used for this sentence, has not ever been referred to a language such as Deilami Language. there is not enough sources to prove this article and these original researches have been made in it. sicaspi (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is nothing that administrators can do for you, you must reach a consensus with other editors of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have discussed but that user does not answer. She/he only reverts without discussion for two times. sicaspi (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be called edit warring, which should be reported here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Deilami_Language sicaspi (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately nobody answers there. --sicaspi (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't help that you created a malformed report. At the top of the page, there's a huge link in a big box that says "Click here to add a new report". Doing so gives you a template that lets you fill out the info so that reviewing administrators can take action quickly. Otherwise, you're forcing people to dig up evidence for your claims, when you're supposed to be presenting that evidence up-front. --  At am a  頭 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A real discussion is now happening at Talk:Deilami language. (What could be more fun than a hypothetical ancient language? ) I don't perceive that any admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Computer1200, allegations of socking against me
In an ongoing discussion at Talk:Asian fetish User:Computer1200 has now accused myself and User:Abductive of being socks of one another - see here and here. This is totally untrue, and is a clear breach of WP:AGF. (He has also contributed here on a related issue - see ANI.)

Computer1200 is a single issue editor who has displayed an obsessive personal attachment to this article, and apparently also to Mail-order bride. He has aggressively reverted any changes which do not suit his agenda, and has said some very strange things in the article discussion. I'd be grateful if someone could hand out some kind of administrative ass-kicking, or at least tell him to mind his manners. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope this one doesn't drag on. Computer1200's real problem is he can't believe that two people might hold an opinion which contradicts his own. His tone is quite unconstructive. As I have mentioned a while back in the Civility/Poll, I am not as concerned about passionate language as some people, but when the overall effect is to derail any discussion it goes too far. Also, even though one is not supposed to say it, I would have no problem with being SPI'd since I'm not sockpuppeting. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrative ass-kicking? Jeez, Hippo43, that's not very nice. But you need to mind your manners as well, as indicated by your history of getting blocked? Anyway, look - it's just that you two sound exactly the same. And I stand by all my edits, about which nothing is out of line at all, contrary to your opinion. I am just simply trying to make sure, along with Crossmr, that changes to long term content that has been the status quo for years are made in a systematic way. You have repeatedly and incessantly come in to the article, wiped out and transformed a whole section without discussion. That is against Wikipedia policy. Where you have tried to insist that your edits follow Wikipedia policy, you have not shown arguments that make sense. I apologize if that offends you, because it is in noone's best interest to offend, really. But in the end, I'm not sure why you both can't just take it to the discussion page, reason things through over time, and settle with compromise when appropriate. Although you will probably categorically deny it, that is really my posture concerning this whole incident. Anyone can look at the discussion to see where I offered a compromise solution. Computer1200 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pvae
Can someone keep an eye on ? After two warnings, he is continuing to add inline references to songfacts.com, which is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "So I'm down / And so I'm out / But so are many otters..." --Sinatra. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we just blacklist the link? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the link is unreliable, that would seem to be an option. Although I wonder if it's like IMDB, where parts of it are permissible as sources and parts are not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could always try it and see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

semi protect Teletoon (Canadian TV channel)
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was wondering If somebody could semi-protect this page there have alot of edits by IP users that are incorrect or disruptive. a few people have been reverting said edits however I don't believe much of the editing has been productive in the past few days. So maybe a protection would get a discussion going on the board. Thanks Krj373 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:RFPP, and see which page takes care of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, since they seem to have left for the night. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui
Entire section has been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui to centralize discussion and to save space here on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp until this sections reaches the top of this page. –MuZemike —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Troublemaker and legal threat
User:Woogee is a troublemaker sticking his nose into other's business in order to create drama.

Woogee made a legal threat of slander on my talk page. That is blockable.

Woogee tries to get Tarc mad at me by encouraging fighting. I will not take the bait and fight. But please have an administrator talk to Woogee and ask him to behave and not be like Child of Midnight, another person butting in, trying to create drama. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When were you planning on notifying me of this thread? DFTT.  Woogee (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, this was this person's first edit to me, after I had asked him what I thought was a civil question. I wonder who this person was in their previous life.  Woogee (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop this drama mongering. Just read or edit. Stop invading my privacy. Ok, I'll admit it, I was born in India and believe in reincarnation.

Woogee is someone who stirs up trouble, baiting users to fight with each other and trying to fink on others. Just read some Wikipedia articles and when you have done that, edit a bit. There is no need to drama monger or to edit just for the sake of editing. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if Willie Sutton Bank President is an obvious sock of JB50000/Judith Merrick or any of the other socks used by this group. DD2K (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I regretfully agree.  is indefblocked as a sock / block evasion.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Seemed duck-ish, but the account had been sitting around for almost a year so I wasn't 100% sure.  This is one seriously dedicated troll. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 comment on my talk page.
Sorry, but I am a fed up of this kind of comments directed towards me. Exemple just today (I can kiss my what?). I had recently asked for you admins warning him about this behaviour... If some users can´t edit and discuss civily, they can possibly have a 2nd chance, but not even a warning from any of you? FkpCascais (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again with these nonsense reports. The only marginally rude comment I can find in your diff is "drag your sorry ass to AN/I". This imho is an understandable response to your continuous removal of User:AlasdairGreen27's posts , and your renewed attempts to insult our mental health (apparently, we're terrorists and "both need 'extra' work" ). AlasdairGreen27 informed User:FkpCascais that he may be reported for censoring other users' comments, it seems FkpCascais decided to "counter-sue".
 * I'd also like to draw the attention of you guys towards the previous (ignored) reports about this person's disruptive behavior, WP:NPA violations and snide comments. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was blocked for 1 week for having said one bad word in foreign language. I had been extremely carefull since then, but I demand equal treatment. He had no need for saying that to me, and he has been disrespectfull with me continously, again, with no need for it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You were not banned for "one" word, and you have not been extremely careful since then. And trust me, you do not want "equal treatment", people were blocked for far less than the obscenities you saw fit to share with the community ("shitter", "imbecile", "terrorist", "nazifyer", "go kick some rocks in your village", etc.) --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "trust you"? What is this, the joke of the month? So, "drag your sorry ass" is by you a "marginally rude comment"? Maybe I should say it to you to see how tolerant would you be. And why you all need to defend eachother everytime someone gets in trouble (everyday)? You (direktor) may personally have your reasons in your private continous war with Ragusino, and that had tired admins around here, but otherwise, you deserve to be extremely punished because your lack of civism has reached points I have never saw in nobody (and has nothing to do with the dispute we have, I promise to wait you, as I always did while you were several times blocked...). FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Trust me" is yet another English expression you've taken too literally. And seeing as how I warn several times and wait until you make at least four personal attacks before reporting I'd say I was pretty tolerant. AlasdairGreen27 and I are friends on Wiki, but that has little to do with the fact that you more than provoked the response you received. I am writing these posts because he's most likely offline and I don't want anyone here to take action without the full picture. It seems that's what you want, though, given your cleverly written report.
 * I do not gave a "private war" with Ragusino. There is no Ragusino on enWiki to have a war with. He was a sockpuppeteer whom I've reported so he does not like me. I revert him because that is the proper and recommended thing to do with all posts of banned users. Plus, none of this concerns you in the least. Your own personal standards and perceptions of civility do not concern me, especially since your obscene comments don't say much about your own manners. Even though I may be a "disturbed imbecile shitting out my words". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons, he shouldn´t had said it. It has gone too far this time (I wasn´t even talking with him...and he attacked me with this) FkpCascais (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, incivility is wrong even if it is directed at a user who has been equally nasty? I can agree with that. You and Alasdair have both crossed the line. Consider yourselves warned to cut it out, now and forever, or you will be blocked. I suggest you drop this matter and that the two of you endeavor to avoid one another and don't comment on each other's talk pages, or the community is going to get very tired of these endless shenanigans and be done with one or both of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I am tired of this, and I wan´t give up just because it´s the easieast solution. I had not said a bad word since the block I had two months ago (well this kind of insults, never). I had been extremely patient under extremely hard circustancies and I wan´t tolerate this behaviour. Please find this "equaly nasty" as you say, and where did I crossed the line? 2 months ago when I receved 7 days block? Not fair. That is not the case and stop being manipulated. Antecipating this behavior, I had been avoiding him for quite a while now, I had never commented anything on his talk page, and beside a short discussion that ended with him disrespecting me and WP, I berely had any contact with him. FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I think we're all pretty damned tired of this. Please take the advice offered to you and shut it down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked FkpCascais for 24 hours, since I have read their response above as an indication to continue causing disruption by pursuing a matter when they have been advised that stepping back from the dispute was the most appropriate response. As ever, if any admin feels that I have been over zealous (or plain wrong) in my actions then they may be reversed without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hxseek personal attacks & request to lock article
Saints Cyril and Methodius is a flashpoint for Slavic nationalists of various stripes who claim the brothers were Slavs despite over 20 scholarly citations from university press sources claiming they were Greeks. I tried to reach a compromise when an academic source was presented to the effect that their mother might have been a Slav and inserted a sentence to that effect in the article. However that was not enough for user:Hxseek who proceeded to launch a vicious personal attack on me as seen here. The fact that he self-reverted should be taken into account when deciding on the actions however. At any rate the article should be locked for editing by unregistered users as this will save a lot of time in fighting drive by vandalism by disgruntled Slavic nationalist editors.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) User:Hxseek has been notified.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In responce, Anothroskon (A) is intentionally twisting and manipulating the facts to disrupt the good will and cooperation of the article.
 * (1) At no point have I stated that Cyril and Methodius (C & M) were Slavs, as I have reiterated numerous times in the discussion page. So this the first of A's false statements.
 * (2) Instead, I have argued that there is a considerable body of reliable sources which state that C & M could have had a Slavic mother. A has been unleashing accusations that such theories are those of "Slavic nationalist crackpots". When even his fellwo Greek editors acknoweldged that there were western, reliable, uninterested sources which support such a notion, he has now twisted and lied to you, that he came to this "compromise". Nor is it unreasonable to include such information. Eg, if one looks at Nelson Mandela's article, there is a 3 paragraph discussion about the tribal affiliations of his family. No-one accuses the editors invilved there as being pan-Zulu's, or what have you. One would have thought that inclusion of such information is standard in the biography of a person's family life. Clearly, his personal agenda dictates a hard-line nationalist view that anything historically Byzantine was simply, and solely, ethnic Greek (when as far as scholars are concerned, there is not even arguement that this was not the case)
 * (3) Leading to point 3 - clearly he is maing personal attacks by calling everyone whoc does not agree with his line of reasoning as a pan-Slavist.
 * (4) His actions have been nothing but inflammatory and counter-productive. Rather, I have on numerous times tried to extend an 'olive branch' and tried to reach a compromise, and reassured him that I have never claimed that C & M were not Byzantines. An an academic level, I have tried to eductae this chap that being a "slav" and a "Byzantine" need not have been mutually -exclusive identities. One could be both, just like one can be an "Dutch-American", for example. Such a seemingly simple concept is apparently beyond the grasp of this poor fellow. Rather than opening up to such views, he calles me a 'racialist' for talking about races. When i clarified that "Slavs" and "Byzantines' do not constitute races, but are actually socio-cultural models, his simple responce was that I was again going on about race.
 * (5) I recognized that the comment he has highlighted was not within the spirit of Wiki, henced I personally removed it immediately. However, he cannot prove that this was directed personally at hime. Secondly, he is no position to accuse others given his inlfammatory and PA behaviour. Case in point - his ongoing usage of "Slav nationalists".

Hxseek (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "this poor fellow." Yet more personal attacks. This sort of battleground editing, of which more examples are to be found in the Cyril and Methodius talk page is indicative of the level of behavior exhibited by slavic nationalists and the reason this article needs to be protected.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition the compromise was effected by myself since I respecte academic sources and include information supported by them in the article most of which incidentaly was brought to its present form by me. The same cannot be said of either Hxseek's edits or those of the other slavic nationalists.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is Mr Anothroskon who has degraded the discussion to nationalism. My concern is with upholding the evidence and current academic theory. ANy reference that I have made to Greek editors is in idntifying certain trends which are prevalent and apparent to all users who visit any article who have to do with anythign Greek. I have not isolated them in my accusation, nor have I made blanket statements about them. In fact, this behaviour is not confined to non-academics, but state sponsored academians throughout Greece. This is not a figment of my imagination, but a trend which ahs captured the attention and criticism of several western scholars. . I invite hime to provide evidence of my alleged 'Slavic nationalist' behaviour : ...... Hxseek (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not Hxseek's racialism and nationailsm but his use of foul language (wtf, shit, etc) and personal attacks and the need to protect this article from further vandalism.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such an article attracts malicious edits from both sides, this is not only work of 'Slav nationalists'. You have grouped me with this group, but clearly have no proof. So now, your arguement rests on my use of 'wtf' and 'Sh*%', and alleged personal attacks on you - says the guy who has been less than truthful in this whole affair, and he who brandishes baseless claims of nationalism. Hxseek (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. So firstly I'm not sure that this is the best place to put this. Rather than putting this on ANI you might want to consider asking for mediation or even taking the issue to ethnic and religious conflicts where people would be better acquainted with this type of problem.
 * Secondly, although personal attacks (which appear to be coming thick and fast here from all sides) are not ok, and it would be nice if an administrator would step in and give you all a slap on the wrist, no one seems to have done anything to warrant a block. Apologies all-round with promises to be more civil in future would pretty much solve this. You guys could even take a break and edit another article for a while. (Just a suggestion).
 * As for page protection, looking at it there have been 2 cases of IP vandalism in the last two weeks and the article is very heavily patrolled so I don't think that's really needed. If you're suggesting that the article be fully protected I would argue that you're nowhere near that stage yet.
 * Also, with regards to specific points of contention, why not file a request for comment? That way you could at least get a consensus with some uninvolved editors. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your points sound reasonable enough. I will pursue these other avenues including a continued discussion with Hxseek and a request for comment. Thank you for taknig the time to comment on this.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Lone Pine Mountain Devil
Not much of an "incident", but would someone please take a couple of seconds and delete this obvious hoax: completely unsourcd article, zero Google hits for either of the alternate names for this creature, a sketch in the infobox by an "unknown artist" which on Commons is credited to the person who wrote the article (User:Justin.Gilette), etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted. Not a bad hoax, but I've seen better (this is still my favourite). Black Kite (t) (c) 07:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just the name itself was enough for a laugh! Thanks for that, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

POV/vandalism-only account

 * POV edits pertaining to Algeria, Morocco, and Western Sahara. Warned repeatedly and persisting in his behavior, including blanking pages. Has removed the warnings from his talk and insists that others' edits are vandalism. Is almost certainly related to some of the following Moroccan IPs:

Please intervene. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that User:AlgeriaLove is already blocked under WP:3RR, but I have opened an SPI case at Sockpuppet_investigations/AlgeriaLove to deal with the rangeblock. You may wish to add additional comments there. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange behavior
This is very odd, but has been repeatedly copying Svick's userpage, including barnstars to his/her own userpage. I deleted the first attempt, then recreated the page as a redirect to the talk page, then deleted it since it may have caused some confusion. We have warned this user multiple times to stop this behavior, but he/she has continued to copy either Svick's userpage or my userpage, again complete with barnstars and everything. A 3RR was placed for an unrelated reason. I'm not exactly sure what should be done here. It just seems incredibly odd. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know what NNT has to say about this. Have you notified him of this thread?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they properly attributing the copied material? If not, delete as a copyright violation. If so, remove references to the original user and leave it be (imo). – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notifying - not deleting. I can't do that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it continues, see User:NoNewsToday. Completely disregarding all discussion and repeating the exact same thing is worrisome. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 15:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-deleted and user blocked for 24 hours. The fact they used the reasoning "Resolved discussion" for restoring the content, yet had infact made no effort to engage in discussions at all, gave me little reasoning to continue to assume good faith past this point. Hopefully they will actually read the warnings, our policies, and perhaps even respond now that they have been prevented from simply recreating the material after deletion. --Taelus (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good block. Probably could've justified it on the edit warring as well. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure copying someone's user page is any kind of actual policy violation, there is no regulation of barnstars, they are handed out on whims. That being said someone who would edit war over their right to do that is almost certainly a troll up to no good. Good block. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mission Six (band)
Tried to move this to Mission Six, couldn't because " the new title has been protected from creation". I find there was a Mission six deleted A7 in Nov 2008. Not sure if it's the same topic. Could an admin check that, and move this page if appropriate? PamD (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that Mission 6 was also A7'd in Nov 2008. PamD (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Must have been a bug, there is nothing in the protection log. I went ahead and moved it, but you might want to try and find some better sources or it may get deleted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of userpage(?)
Not sure if this is the right place, but there is a user,, who (other than vandalizing some pages a few days ago) is doing nothing but collecting explicit images and writing weird porn-ified versions of Star Wars on his user page. I'm not sure if this is violating any rules/policies per se, so I thought I'd bring it to the attentions of others. <span style="color:green;font-family:'Lucida Console', Arial, sans-serif;">// Programming gecko ( talk ) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is entirely inappropriate. The user may be a troll and just trying to attract our attention, or he may be using it for more personal reasons.  Either way the page is definitely in violation of User pages. The page needs to be deleted (hopefully through a speedy).  Them  From  Space  05:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All those images, unless somehow encyclopedic, should be deleted as "not needed". - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just edit-conflicted with you. I was about to suggest they be placed in restricted use.  Them  From  Space  05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I said with the shower pics over at Commons. They disagreed with me on the grounds that they could be used somewhere. I really don't see all these images being used anywhere, as most of them aren't worth keeping. Things seem to always come back and meet you again on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, am I the only one getting the vibe that this person is likely a young boy who has just discovered women? Just a thought, but you never know on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The page described above was deleted earlier but has since been restored with only one image. I still see this as problematic and think it should be redeleted, and perhaps a block is in order.  Them  From  Space  18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A vandal full of zeal
A rather irritating vandal has been active since yesterday. They create accounts, typically containing the word "zeal" (or "zeel"), and starts making edits most of which consist of adding a totally irrelevant "!" in seemingly random articles. Messages from bots and users to their talk pages are rudely reverted. A prototypical example is. The vandal is nothing if not diligent, and can edit dozens of articles before being blocked, after which the show starts all over again with a new user name, sometimes within minutes. Any help would be appreciated. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagged and bagged a few seconds ago. Can we get a CheckUser here to see if there's an underlying IP range? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And here comes . Favonian (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To which I'd like to couple, also bagged and tagged. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 11:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and and . JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG, he mutates: . Favonian (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * + ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + and  ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + Favonian (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 13:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Zealking Feel free to add as necessary. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added all of them to date to the SPI. Also, edit filter 316 is monitoring for these.  NawlinWiki (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone
This incident covers etiquette, edit warring, and battleground issues so I'm reporting it here instead of at a narrower-purpose noticeboard.

has been engaging in 3RR violations at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon (see page history for evidence), incivility at User talk:Duke53, and in general has exhibited an ongoing battleground mentality regarding the subject of Mormonism (see user's contribs). User is also reverting other editors' complaints regarding them on noticeboards. Although my religious sympathies align with those of Routerone, I find their behavior inappropriate. I think Routerone does not exhibit the degree of emotional detachment from the subject of Mormonism to constructively contribute to articles or discussions surrounding that topic. I'd like some uninvolved admins to have a look to determine if some sort of sanction is warranted -- whether a stern warning, topic ban, or limited-duration block. Thanks! alanyst /talk/ 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that a <B>deletion</B> of a <B>legitimate</B> 3RR report would be grounds for more than a 'limited-duration block'; he has done similar things in the past. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this highly unfair. Firstly, my edits on the page were justified. Nobody should make a biased and controversial statement on the page using a youtube video as a source, that's why I was revertign. Secondly, I do not wish to promote incivility, all I want to do is fix what I feel are problems in Mormon related topics, as many of the articles have been unfairly written and somewhat manipulated to meet a certain viewpoint by those with a prejudice against the religion. I have had hundreds of legitimate edits unfairly reverted to these pages, and to be honest it isn't easy to keep my cool over it. Duke53, also has a severe history of incivility and distirbuting bad faith towards editors. I do not want him to be involved in a "punishment" over me. Especially when I have been discriminated against by him and numerous others upon trying to fix problems in articles. Routerone (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

report has been reinstated at 3rr (with no additional commentary from me there). Routerone, do not do that again. If the report is spurious, the reporter will likely find themselves blocked. If you have not broken 3rr, you have nothing to worry about. Syrthiss (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) First, I'm coming to this as an involved admin. While I am not a fan of either of these editors or their tactics, there are two issues here: first, Routerone should not remove 3RR reports, no matter if they are legitimate or not. Second, Duke53 has a history of provoking editors, especially Routerone. A quick search will show the headaches caused. Blocking or banning Routerone over this would be a poor option- a better option would be to ban the two users from interacting on the other's talkpage. tedder (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed the report is because I feel I recieve a degree of harassment from this editor, and therefore cannot take him with respect. In the past, he's reverted legitimate edits by me claiming them to be "vandalism" and called them "point of view". Duke53 himself, has just not long come off a weeks ban for personal attacks and gross incivility (he also left personal attacks in his unblock requests). He can usually edit legitimately, however he has a prejudice against mormonism and looks to simply annoy mormon edits in the topic field, (also making fun of the religion on his userpage). He usually behaves uncivilly and crudely, to all LDS editors who comes in his track. Routerone (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't entirely blameless in this either, Routerone. You've been blocked for questionable activities (sockpuppetry), and POV concerns is not a legitimate exception to edit warring (see WP:3RR). tedder (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Routerone's 3RR violation occurred in a conflict with User:Taivo, not Duke53. Duke53 was uninvolved in that dispute until he made the 3RR report, and I was uninvolved until this AN/I report.  If Routerone is crossing lines in conflicts involving multiple editors, the common factor is Routerone.  I was also alarmed to see this message by Routerone to Taivo, suggesting that Routerone would take advantage of Taivo's announced wikibreak to modify the article under dispute to gain an edge. alanyst /talk/ 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt I am guilty of these claims, and I will confess to that. However, I mentioned Duke53's behaviour and such because generally I dont want this to be an attack against me. Although I have misbehaved, I feel it is injustified if those equally notorious (Duke53) try and use this to get one over on me. I've been uncivil throughout these articles, but mostly it has been down to provoking through inapropraite reverting and such which has lead to my frustrations because of the stumbling block on the articles that I want to change for the better. Routerone (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alanyst: it's as much with Duke53 as with Taivo, it's things like this and this, leading to this and this 3RR report between Duke53 and Routerone that are uncivil. I'm having trouble seeing any net benefit from either of these editors. tedder (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That article is definitely not in the greatest shape; quite a few big chunks of it appear to be unsourced.  If these folks could figure out how to use the talk page, as opposed to their undo button, I hold out hope they might be able to improve the article.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tedder, how sporting of you:<I>"Blocking or banning Routerone over this would be a poor option- a better option would be to ban the two users from interacting on the other's talkpage.</I>" A <b>much better</B> solution would a be a topic wide ban (mormon related articles) for User: Routerone; oddly you never voiced any concerns over my recent block. Hmm.
 * I did everything by the book in this case, and will not accept any restrictions because he has repeatedly broken WP rules. I will always have the right to file 3RR reports against any editor; one of the rules for that is posting a warning at that editor's talk page. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. What exactly is <I>your </I> net benefit to WP ? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Duke53, I feel that really he does not need to be asked such a question. This report should not be turned against him. If you're going to make a point here, (nobodies saying you're not entitled to) keep it on track. Routerone (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus, a topic wide ban would be harsh. Aside from the problems I've had on these pages, my contributions towards them are not actually negative or inapropriate. They are just firecely objected to for dubvious reasons and hence that causes tensions which sadly leads to me behaving inapropriately, I know, I shouldn't... Routerone (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving into frank territory here. Routerone, you made a mistake. You've made others (as have most of us). You know that continuing to revert and claiming 3RR exemption is incorrect, yes? It seems this has come up before; I know that (ironically) edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard has come up before. It's entirely appropriate to claim WP:BEANS, but doing it again wouldn't be appropriate- again, this is at least the second time it's come up. tedder (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is "third-strike" time for Routerone on this issue. He has been indefinitely blocked until he shows that he has read WP:3RR and states that he understands that "posted to YouTube" is not covered by its exclusions. Any admin can unblock without consulting me once that has been done.

Other editors involved in this area should not view this as vindication for their role in this affair. "Sourced to YouTube" is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove material, and it probably should not have been restored in the first place. This is an editing area that has been plagued by edit-warring from both sides, and it has to stop.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Block lifted. I'll be watching this article closely.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Every time I think I've 'seen it all' here at WP I get a surprise; just <B>TODAY</B> this guy did a <B>7</B>RR violation, deleted items from my talk page <B>and</B> deleted a legitimate 3RR report and he gets a<I> block of about 4 hours</I> ! His history is as shaky as anyone here, but he keeps getting handled with kid gloves; always an excuse, either by him or admins (mistake, etc.) ... why is he above the rules ? I guess that the 'block' will really teach him. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly. That's why it took hours for me to respond in the first place. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that Routerone is aware of why his editing was unacceptable. If he continues to edit war, I don't see any reason that anyone would ever lift a subsequent block. Hopefully, he understands that as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:07 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * "<I>I don't see any reason that anyone would ever lift a subsequent block.</I>" And I can't any reason why anyone would believe that this sham of a block will have any impact on his behavior. This was not his first rodeo. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 12:11 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * I would strongly advise against you accusing me of participating in a "sham". I can't speak for any other admin, but I can promise you that the next time I block Routerone for edit warring, it will be indef without condition.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Has Taivo's behavior been reviewed as well as Routerone's? While Tavio's edits were more than simply pressing the revert button, he appears to have just as many counter-edits as Routerone in the history of the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article. But don't demand immediate response from him, as his talk page states that he is on a wikibreak/vacation. Perhaps we should open another ANI discussion for it, or take it to WQA? <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Taivo have a history of edit warring? Not a pointy question, I'm just trying to establish it. Certainly this is a case of "it takes two to tango", though perhaps more than two were involved here. tedder (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * His block log only shows one very short block (appointed for 24 hours, lasted less than 1 hour) for violating 3RR in November of last year. A quick scan of his history shows a lot of recent edits at the aforementioned article, but a history of apparently constructive edits and discussion ranging across various articles. Tedder, I'm not sure what you mean by "perhaps more than two were involved". The history of the article in question shows the edit war to be practically exclusive between Routerone and Taivo ranging April 21-22. All editors involved in previous editing disagreements on that article, including Routerone and Taivo, [full disclosure: also including myself] appear to have acted within the bounds of civility and WP policy. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 01:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a brief statement from me while I have access to the internet for a little while, I'll offer this. If you examine the actual history at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon you'll notice that my "reverts", unlike Routerone's, were not usually just hitting the revert button.  1) I added an equivalent list of pro-Mormon summary statements to balance the non-Mormon summary statements; 2) I changed the citation of the YouTube video (which was a video presentation of a written document) to supplement the written source rather than the other way round; 3) I initiated every discussion on the Talk Page concerning these edits.  At no point, either on the Talk Page or in actually editing the article itself, did Routerone actually propose alternate wording to the contentious wording, nor did he comment on why my attempts at making the wording more acceptable were not acceptable.  He did not cease reverting until I removed all text in the paragraph (both apologetic and critical).  As noted above, on my Talk Page he made it clear that he intended to edit to his liking in my absence.  I have a solid history of NPOV editing at Book of Mormon and here at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, and you can examine my User Contributions to see that I am far from a WP:SPA.  I have positive working relationships with several LDS editors--while we have differences of opinion, we have worked well to achieve NPOV wording in the places where we have collaborated and we all fight vandalism from both directions aggressively at Book of Mormon.  The difference between Routerone and those editors is that Routerone seems bent on removing all critical comments from the Book of Mormon related pages.  Personally, I think he is too emotionally involved to edit objectively or to work objectively with non-Mormon editors.  But I will leave that for others to decide.  I violated WP:3RR as well.  I, too, get too close to the action sometimes.  But the difference between Routerone's actions and my own are that I was trying different things to edit to a solution while Routerone ignored everything and just hit the revert button.  (Taivo (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
I asked a protection of the Today's Featured Article (TFA), the answer was no (though in the article there is excessive vandalism. 3 admins didn't add a NPOV because one said "and probably having my admin status revoked.", he other said "Please see WP:NOPRO", and the third said (and that's why I'm here) "Instead of fussing at an admin who doesn't want to risk losing their admin status, go ask another admin and see what they say." This is incredible because there's where the users can ask for protection, so why I should go to another place. I'm not asking revoke of permissions I only want some protection to the article Earth. Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C.  19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we ask for something and the answer is no. It happens.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I miss a conversation somewhere? Why would you be defrocked for protecting TFA? Dloh  cierekim  19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably best just to read the comment in context... – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)IMAO, the article doesn't need protection. There is vandalism of a kind but the article is well watched and it is quickly reverted. There is one disruptive editor who will be blocked if he/she continues. Let it go. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's being reverted, but how about we protect the article so that vandalism isn't an issue any more? It would save the watchers some effort, and reduce the likelihood of a reader seeing a vandalised version to virtually zero. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this applies as yet. Main page featured articles often attract vandals, but they also attract (albeit very few) genuine IP editors who would be pleasantly surprised to discover that they can edit the article. It's a tradeoff! --RegentsPark (talk) 3:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * What you're referring to is a guideline, ie: not binding. Keeping TFAs unprotected lets many more vandals through than people genuinely interested in improving the article. It's a trade off, but you have to wonder whether it's worth it. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's some creationism/evolution edit warring and the typical "Oh Boy, Look what I can do nonsense." The reverters seem to have a handle on it. However, the TFA may be protected if the vandalism is "excessive." Not seeing that right now. Have not seem multiple vandals working so fast you can't revert. We leave it alone so new editors can learn.  Dloh  cierekim  19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's a long standing practice that we don't protect TFA unless the vandalism becomes exceptionally severe. We want non-editors who read the article to find out that yes, we really mean what we say by "anybody can edit".  So we keep it unprotected, watch it carefully, and revert vandalism quickly. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean it's a guideline that was written long ago? Any admin who declines protection due to NOPRO, and any editor who supports the guideline, has a responsibility to help out with the monitoring IMO. The turnout for the TFA patrol is usually very disappointing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments/questions:
 * 1) Do I understand correctly that this article has been essentially permanently semi-protected since 2008 because of too much vandalism day in day out, but since it's the TFA we unprotected it?
 * 2) Where do you suppose a good place would be to have (for I'm sure the 10 millionth time) another perennial discussion on changing the WP:NOPRO guideline? I assume WT:NOPRO wouldn't be public enough? My spidey-sense tells me that it's possible consensus has finally shifted on this. --Floquensock (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, I don't see where you notified any of the editors that commented at RFPP, particularly Beeblebrox, about this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * imo, this isn't really about them but more about the article (and NOPRO). I did leave a note at the RFPP thread. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dlohcierekim:Well I asked at 16.30 UTC, see the historial at that tme. Also the first response for my request was at 17.37, when the vandalism was very persistent too. Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C.  19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see 3 admins on that page, and I'm sure if they felt overwhelmed they'd go ahead and protect for a few minutes to get a handle on it. Dloh  cierekim  19:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither admin at RFPP will protect the page due the template it's on the requests.  Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C.  19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without arguing the past it looks like only 1 vandal edit (that contained a touch of truth) in the last half hour. Even if it could have used it then it seems like a waste of time to beat the horse carcass now.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm in and out, but I'll watch the thing. If I should protect and someone felt I'd over reacted, they'd certainly be free to revert me. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of quick points:
 * They only asked for one hour of semi-protection. Frankly I didn't see the point of that at all.
 * The thing about ArbCom and being desysopped was in reference to the move protection. When the page was unprotected from editing indef move protection was left in place. That decision makes perfect sense to me, but another admin apparently did not agree and reduced it to one day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I would be wheel warring if I then undid that admin's undoing of another admins actions. My initial recommendation was to re-address this matter tomorrow, but apparently that is too long for Tbhotch to wait
 * I've already thoroughly explained why I did not believe a one hour protection, which by now would be long-expired, was needed nor any compelling reason to exempt this from the normal practice of not protecting TFA but if another admin sees such a need they can feel free to go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support restoration of indef move protection. It wouldn't be moved without discussion. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support it too. Beeblebrox is correct that reapplying an administrative action after another admin already reverted would be wheel warring, but it can be allowed to occur if there is a consensus to do so. So let's get that consensus going right here. --  At am a  頭 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone has already done this. Dloh  cierekim  21:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, it's kind of funny that on Earth Day, Wikipedia refuses to protect the Earth, but does ensure that it can no longer be moved. --  At am a  頭 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd think more people would be willing to protect the Earth. Where's Hancock? Dloh  cierekim  21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute, has anybody actually read WP:NOPRO?? I just read the protection log for the article, and it's been indefinitely semi-protected since February 2008. Now, to quote WP:NOPRO (the only guideline stupider than WP:R2D imho) "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Thus, it shouldn't have been unprotected and the protection should be restored in keeping with the guideline. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) :I read it. But, given that it has been unprotected, the vandalism is nowhere near the level that it needs protection. Facts on the ground earth, so to speak. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Facts on the ground; facts on the ground; lookin' like a foo' with your facts on the ground" ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I did find some useful IP edits to today's FA, , , and believe it would be counter-productive to stop continued evolution on Earth by hindering anonymous forces (even though some are malign). More seriously, does anyone know of a way to add the day's featured article to ones watchlist without doing so individually each day ? Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At Mitchell-- glad someone else noticed. :) Actually, Wheelwarring would be fighting over an admin action in a "combative" fashion. It's another matter to take action one sees as emergent and then submit for review and discussion. Dloh  cierekim  21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But to be more down to Earth, there's much less vandalism today than I'd have expected. Dloh  cierekim  21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I spend a lot of time around the Main Page and the vandalism today seems relatively light. The last two occasions I've seen it so bad that protection would be in order would be wife selling (though it was April 1 if memory serves) and Kirsten Dunst, which was way out of hand. I think it's necessary that protection on TFA should be uncommon, because it's inevitable that it will attract more than most articles, but it's a sorry state when admins (not meant slightingly of anybody- I have the utmost respect for the admins involved here) are afraid to protect it because of that stupid guideline. I agree with Floq that we need to have a serious discussion about rewriting it (or deleting it altogether!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the discussion (definitely a 'down to earth' suggestion). It's an open question as to whether we actually attract new editors through the featured article. And, I do wonder about the potential damage to wikipedia's reputation when the creation date according to christianity is left on the article for a minute. Presumably there are enough people who read the article during that minute to conclude that wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. (I'm less concerned about obvious vandalism because it's, well, obvious.)--RegentsPark (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not wishing to attract controversy, rather to start a meaningful discussion on the issue, I've sent WP:NOPRO to MfD. The discussion is here for those who are interested. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What the hell happened to the rest of this thread? I'd restore it, but I can't find a diff for the removal. Anyway, I'm MfD'ing WP:NOPRO. Discussion is here for those who are interested. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what happened. Not easy to undo, either. <font style="color:#C60;font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:90%;font-weight:bold;">Brad 23:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Bloody hell that was complicated! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I didn't dare try. ;) <font style="color:#C60;font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:90%;font-weight:bold;">Brad 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't easy, I can assure you, but it's a good job there weren't many intermediate edits. The only logical explanation is an edit conflict, but Duke53 says he didn't get one. I hate edit conflicts >:( ! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He edited an old version of the page. Take a look at this diff. <font style="color:#C60;font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:90%;font-weight:bold;">Brad 23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How the... Excuse me on minute, I have a trout to deliver! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Failure to understand wikipedia policies and blatant lack of care towards warnings.
Hello. User:Lukek26 is proving problematic with edits to Janet Jackson discography. It is a long term issue begining with edit 1 on february 27, 2010 where he added information was not in the source given alongside (basically falsifying brazilian chart certificates). After being reverted around an hour later on same day he re-added the info edit 2. Then on March 12 he/she added incorrect information in edit 3 and despite being reverted added it again edit 4 and following reversion one again edit 5. Then over the course of 3 edits on March 18 and 20 he changed credible sources to uncredible ones edit 6, 7 and 8. Then despite being removed he re-added them on march 23 in edit 9 with two more edits adding falisified information edit 10 and 11. On april 22 in edit 12 he inflated sales figures and once again claimed something which was not in the source given. Then for a second time on the same day in edit 13 he added unsourced and inflated information and upon reversion did it again in the space of 10 minutes and five edits, edit 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

In between all that he made similar changes to Number Ones (Janet Jackson album) on April 15, 2010 in edit A and on April 22, 2010 in edit b changed credible sources to uncredible ones. He was given one warning (a serious one) on March 25 and two on April 22, 2010 [User talk:Lukek26]. Note that he left the following response to one of my warnings diff. I'm at a loss because he has failed to enagage in any discussion and has ignored all warnings given to him as well as all of the removals/reversions made on his edits. I won't comment on what sanctions should be made that is the job for administrators but i do think there's certainly a case of administrator intervention and action. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that he's received more than just a single warning. He'd blanked all of the prior warnings before the level 4, which I gave on 25 March. Please note that in that warning, I invited him to discuss the edits, but as far as I know, he hasn't. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apoligies i wasn't aware he'd been involved in blanking prior warnings. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been anons, too. I've been having to revert fake certifications from numerous Janet Jackson articles recently. Janet Jackson has never had any level of certification issued by the ABPD for any single or album, which makes the vandalism a bit easier to spot. I'd support a block, and probably a week or two of semi-protection of the target articles to prevent the nearly-inevitable followup.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking this over more carefully: this was pretty nasty. His very first edit was this, so I have to conclude that he is a sock of some previous editor that Ericorbit interacted with (most likely Special:Contributions/189.32.228.8). I haven't found a constructive edit yet.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Was this comment on my page from December profanity in Brazilian his native language? i wasn't even aware although i've just translated it with babelfish/google and im shocked.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely, with the provision that it can be unblocked at any time if the user commits to citing sources accurately and responding to concerns about their editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abidreh
Was indeffed last year for being basically a Pashtun supremacist SPA who reverted only, and reverted endlessly using homemade youtube videos, eg see Behbudi and another page and and another. Was given a reprieve and now inserting a youtube sermon into Pashtun people; the said cleric allegedly predicted that Pashtuns will be the ones who will wipe out Israel and ccreate an Islamist Palestine  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Abidreh has been edit warring on the Pashtun people article. I've indeffed for that. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Users who don't know what Wikipedia is are being misled
moved to WP:Village pump (development). <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 09:52, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Trolling by single-purpose account
A single-purpose account,, has been trolling this deletion discussion, generally hectoring every user who comments in favour of deletion – which has so far been unanimous bar A930913 themselves – and getting passive-aggressive in response to criticism. Of their 20 edits, 18 have been based around the discussion; if a block is not in order, a strict warning for probably COI etc. almost certainly is. (User notified.) <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a single purpose account is not a blockable offense, or indeed an offense at all. Neither is being passive aggressive, and that's if we accept your contention that this is even occurring, which I personally do not. Responding to multiple persons who hold a point of view contrary to one's own is how we build consensus. Yes, sometimes users take it too far and end up hurting their own cause as a result, but that also is not a blockable action. I don't see that this needs to be here at all, at worst this merits a WP:WQA thread, but my advice is to just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that something's slightly wierd here, but he's using policy based reasoning on the AFD for the most part, and is not being disruptive or abusive. I don't know if he's right or not, but whoever they are, they have a right to participate in a discussion as long as they do so constructively (and aren't already banned, and there's no sign of that).  I think there's nothing here requiring administrator intervention.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an SPA quite simply because I have made more than just these edits. (I made this account over a year ago with the future intention of just this?!) Not a troll either according to Wikipedia because my primary intent it to preserve the article, not to "provoke other users into a desired emotional response". "Passive-aggressive in response to criticism" where criticism is calling me a hector implying that I am bullying other users and then tells me to read a dictionary when I say that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If A930913 ever decides to try a bid for adminship then this AfD may haunt them, but other than that I don't really see the problem. The discussion seems overwhelmingly supportive of article deletion, and I don't see a single policy being violated. --  At am a  頭 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider edits like this to have no constructive purpose and to be purely disruptive. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that looks like a pot and a kettle to me. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree, however, you initiated that conversation by calling me a hector. I said that was a derogatory term, to which you said "go read a dictionary." I went on, in your link above, to bring proof to what I previously said, to which I still stand to be corrected. On the basis that you then went to move the said content into the (empty) discussion page, I can only assume you realised you were wrong and wanted to hide the evidence. --A930913 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not wrong, and I did not hide the evidence; only a fool could seriously suggest that I did. If you are not prepared to edit Wikipedia constructively, you need to find other things to do with your time. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TT, you are the one acting like a bully here, trying to intimidate a less experienced user. Back off already. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not bullying anyone. A39 is a troll operating a single-purpose account which is clearly not his first, who is hectoring every single editor who comments in a non-controversial deletion discussion. He is also edit-warring over the conduct, as well as sniping, hair-splitting and back-biting.
 * I foolishly thought that the admins may like to intervene because he's behaving like a tosser. If not, fine; since the article is going to be deleted anyway, he's lost the "war" anyway, and his attempts to score minor debating points are failing and anyway futile. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was foolish of you to think that we would do something here on your say-so without looking into it and seeing that you are trying to get someone blocked just because you find them annoying. Calling them a "troll" a "dick" or a "tosser" isn't enough to convince an admin to block. You have not provided any diffs that show any kind of policy violation, and you have "hectored" them right back. No admin action is being taken because no admin action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Acting like a tosser is not a policy based reason to block somebody. I read through the discussion, and in my opinion his comments are extremely tame. This is definitely a case of WP:KETTLE... calling him a troll is not exactly civil is it, and nor is claiming his comments are "hectoring" (AFDs are a discussion, not just a vote). Now if the editor in question is believed to be a sockpuppet, that would be a different story, but so far no evidence has yet been produced for that. Therefore, there is no problem here for admins to solve. As I write, the article is headed for clear deletion, so it's not like his comments are swaying anybody.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite involved in this deletion discussion and think that everyone who has significantly contributed to the discussion, including myself, should now just calm down and keep quiet. We have all said all that is needed and both sides have put across their interpretations of perfectly reasonable guidelines. I don't really see why there is any need for any more discussion unless prompted by new, and most importantly, different reasons for or against deletion and I won't be making any further comment unless that situation arises and warrants it. The whole discussion now just looks silly and isn't helping sway any opinions. No more vandalism, no more reverts or editing of questionable faith, please! Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. RJ (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikiquette alerts‎‎ - relates to this. Putting this here only to tie the 2 together both ways, I think it really should be done with at this point.- Sinneed  20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What pisses me off about the above is that A93 is insisting that s/he is not a single-purpose account; can someone please, for the love of God, explain that s/he is, and direct them to read WP:SPA, since it points out that an editor who only edits relating to a single article (bar two of their edits, ever) is an SPA? Thanks. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correcting one-another's thinking is not needed, probably not practical, and not the purpose of Wikipedia. I think both of you (and I, myself, for that matter) would better serve WP to behave differently ... but our thinking is our own.
 * SPA really mainly impacts how the community views the editor and is very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing. There are many wonderfully useful editors who only do one thing, doing it very well, as SPA's.-  Sinneed  21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As is pointed out at WP:DICK, going ahead and calling someone a dick is somewhat of a dick-move in itself and decreases the chances that they will listen to anything else you have to say. Basic psychology tells us the same thing. Being openly hostile to somebody is not likely to result in them respecting your opinion. Since there is still nothing being presented here that requires admin action,I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to crack passwords?
Earlier today (about 16 hours ago, 1300 UTC-I think) someone from IP address 65.30.190.86 reset my password using the option on the log-in screen. I was wondering if anyone else got a similar email. <font style="color:#8B0000">~DC <font color="#ffb612" face="Tahoma">Talk To Me 05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a simple enough username that it might simply have been random. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to worry about. Somone else wanted the username DC, that's all. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Esp. considering the IP is from Herndon, right next to DC...  7  06:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I get three or four of those emails a week from es:wp. It's people requesting that the password is e-mailed to them, but of course the e-mail comes to me. You should not need to change your password though.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These emails crop up from time to time as trolls try to mess with people's heads. You can safely ignore the email, as it changes nothing about your password unless you follow the directions therein. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I get these fairly often too.-- SKATER  Speak. 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To bring back a sense of panic, I've never had one. --SGGH ping! 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks guys. I didn't know if this was a random thing or some sort of mass password cracking attempt. Best editing, <font style="color:#8B0000">~DC <font color="#ffb612" face="Tahoma">Talk To Me 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnett Shale
Barnett Shale has been the subject of an advocacy campaign involving concerns about drilling in the formation. , and  are inserting identical walls of text citing concerns about drilling. Note this little gem from the IP. While a discussion of the subject is relevant in the article, the meatpuppetry is out of hand. Since I'm modestly involved, I'm bringing it here.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the gem the edit summary...not the reintroduction of the screed. Both the named accounts there seem to edit Barnett Shale in a SPA fashion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, three single-purpose accounts all adding the same information to an article? Looks fishy to me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Theotocopolis has engaged on the talk page, but it's a bit too early to call this resolved, as his next action was to take the B-class article down to a stub.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography
is the subject of an OTRS ticket with factual corrections (which were reverted but I've taken that up with the editor). The content has many hex codes in it, suggesting it was copied and pasted form somewhere, most likely a (spit, spit) Word document. The maintenance tags invite further scrutiny of the subject matter for WP:OR and other issues (such as half the sources being vague citations to the organisation's own magazine). I know nothing of the events concerned so if anyone has time to look over it, check for copyright violations and so on, it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand
I person left me a strange message at User talk:ExpertResearcher. The same person did this. I apologise if I did anything wrong. I don't understand the intricit working of the Wikimedia Foundation's website. I apologise if I caused any harm to deodorant. Sincerely, Frank. ExpertResearcher (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll answer on your talk page. --SGGH ping! 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling by single-purpose account
A single-purpose account,, has been trolling this deletion discussion, generally hectoring every user who comments in favour of deletion – which has so far been unanimous bar A930913 themselves – and getting passive-aggressive in response to criticism. Of their 20 edits, 18 have been based around the discussion; if a block is not in order, a strict warning for probably COI etc. almost certainly is. (User notified.) <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a single purpose account is not a blockable offense, or indeed an offense at all. Neither is being passive aggressive, and that's if we accept your contention that this is even occurring, which I personally do not. Responding to multiple persons who hold a point of view contrary to one's own is how we build consensus. Yes, sometimes users take it too far and end up hurting their own cause as a result, but that also is not a blockable action. I don't see that this needs to be here at all, at worst this merits a WP:WQA thread, but my advice is to just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that something's slightly wierd here, but he's using policy based reasoning on the AFD for the most part, and is not being disruptive or abusive. I don't know if he's right or not, but whoever they are, they have a right to participate in a discussion as long as they do so constructively (and aren't already banned, and there's no sign of that).  I think there's nothing here requiring administrator intervention.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an SPA quite simply because I have made more than just these edits. (I made this account over a year ago with the future intention of just this?!) Not a troll either according to Wikipedia because my primary intent it to preserve the article, not to "provoke other users into a desired emotional response". "Passive-aggressive in response to criticism" where criticism is calling me a hector implying that I am bullying other users and then tells me to read a dictionary when I say that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If A930913 ever decides to try a bid for adminship then this AfD may haunt them, but other than that I don't really see the problem. The discussion seems overwhelmingly supportive of article deletion, and I don't see a single policy being violated. --  At am a  頭 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider edits like this to have no constructive purpose and to be purely disruptive. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that looks like a pot and a kettle to me. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree, however, you initiated that conversation by calling me a hector. I said that was a derogatory term, to which you said "go read a dictionary." I went on, in your link above, to bring proof to what I previously said, to which I still stand to be corrected. On the basis that you then went to move the said content into the (empty) discussion page, I can only assume you realised you were wrong and wanted to hide the evidence. --A930913 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not wrong, and I did not hide the evidence; only a fool could seriously suggest that I did. If you are not prepared to edit Wikipedia constructively, you need to find other things to do with your time. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TT, you are the one acting like a bully here, trying to intimidate a less experienced user. Back off already. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not bullying anyone. A39 is a troll operating a single-purpose account which is clearly not his first, who is hectoring every single editor who comments in a non-controversial deletion discussion. He is also edit-warring over the conduct, as well as sniping, hair-splitting and back-biting.
 * I foolishly thought that the admins may like to intervene because he's behaving like a tosser. If not, fine; since the article is going to be deleted anyway, he's lost the "war" anyway, and his attempts to score minor debating points are failing and anyway futile. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was foolish of you to think that we would do something here on your say-so without looking into it and seeing that you are trying to get someone blocked just because you find them annoying. Calling them a "troll" a "dick" or a "tosser" isn't enough to convince an admin to block. You have not provided any diffs that show any kind of policy violation, and you have "hectored" them right back. No admin action is being taken because no admin action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Acting like a tosser is not a policy based reason to block somebody. I read through the discussion, and in my opinion his comments are extremely tame. This is definitely a case of WP:KETTLE... calling him a troll is not exactly civil is it, and nor is claiming his comments are "hectoring" (AFDs are a discussion, not just a vote). Now if the editor in question is believed to be a sockpuppet, that would be a different story, but so far no evidence has yet been produced for that. Therefore, there is no problem here for admins to solve. As I write, the article is headed for clear deletion, so it's not like his comments are swaying anybody.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite involved in this deletion discussion and think that everyone who has significantly contributed to the discussion, including myself, should now just calm down and keep quiet. We have all said all that is needed and both sides have put across their interpretations of perfectly reasonable guidelines. I don't really see why there is any need for any more discussion unless prompted by new, and most importantly, different reasons for or against deletion and I won't be making any further comment unless that situation arises and warrants it. The whole discussion now just looks silly and isn't helping sway any opinions. No more vandalism, no more reverts or editing of questionable faith, please! Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. RJ (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikiquette alerts‎‎ - relates to this. Putting this here only to tie the 2 together both ways, I think it really should be done with at this point.- Sinneed  20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What pisses me off about the above is that A93 is insisting that s/he is not a single-purpose account; can someone please, for the love of God, explain that s/he is, and direct them to read WP:SPA, since it points out that an editor who only edits relating to a single article (bar two of their edits, ever) is an SPA? Thanks. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correcting one-another's thinking is not needed, probably not practical, and not the purpose of Wikipedia. I think both of you (and I, myself, for that matter) would better serve WP to behave differently ... but our thinking is our own.
 * SPA really mainly impacts how the community views the editor and is very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing. There are many wonderfully useful editors who only do one thing, doing it very well, as SPA's.-  Sinneed  21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As is pointed out at WP:DICK, going ahead and calling someone a dick is somewhat of a dick-move in itself and decreases the chances that they will listen to anything else you have to say. Basic psychology tells us the same thing. Being openly hostile to somebody is not likely to result in them respecting your opinion. Since there is still nothing being presented here that requires admin action,I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to crack passwords?
Earlier today (about 16 hours ago, 1300 UTC-I think) someone from IP address 65.30.190.86 reset my password using the option on the log-in screen. I was wondering if anyone else got a similar email. <font style="color:#8B0000">~DC <font color="#ffb612" face="Tahoma">Talk To Me 05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a simple enough username that it might simply have been random. <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  06:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to worry about. Somone else wanted the username DC, that's all. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Esp. considering the IP is from Herndon, right next to DC...  7  06:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I get three or four of those emails a week from es:wp. It's people requesting that the password is e-mailed to them, but of course the e-mail comes to me. You should not need to change your password though.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These emails crop up from time to time as trolls try to mess with people's heads. You can safely ignore the email, as it changes nothing about your password unless you follow the directions therein. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I get these fairly often too.-- SKATER  Speak. 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To bring back a sense of panic, I've never had one. --SGGH ping! 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks guys. I didn't know if this was a random thing or some sort of mass password cracking attempt. Best editing, <font style="color:#8B0000">~DC <font color="#ffb612" face="Tahoma">Talk To Me 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war and protection on Eric Ely
is currently on AFD, see Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination). (Disclosure) I nominated it. It is clearly heading for a delete consensus. However, this is a second nomination following hard after the first, so it isn't that straight forward.

An edit war broke out on the article itself during the AFD. Some argued that the article contained lots of non-notable trivia and strippedit down, other argued that the stripped-down article violated BLP. Eventually someone blanked the article for the duration of the AFD and suggested people look in the history. To avoid further edit warring, I protected it. I'm sure its the wrong version, but whatever.

I'd like someone uninvolved to look at this and either endorse my protection, or otherwise.

I further wonder whether we might short-circuit this by WP:SNOW closing the AFD - there's no way that article is going to survive anyway, as even the keep voters must admit. However, given it is a second nomination, some may disagree.

Anyway, I'm not touching this again (maybe *I* shouldn't have protected it) - I leave others to think about it.--Scott Mac 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that an early closure wouldn't hurt anyone. I'm suprised this survived the first AFD as he isn't that notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in the discussion, but looking over the history—there is indeed significant editwarring happening—I endorse full protection of it. You're right, Scott, you might not have been the ideal person to carry out the protection, but I don't think there's a need to go through the hoops now of you unprotecting it and then me immediately re-protecting it. I'm not offering an opinion as to what the "right" or "wrong" version might be. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO a hard line needs to be taken against people who edit warred to keep poorly-sourced, contentious information in a BLP. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would endorse this version being protected for the duration of the AFD to prevent edit warring and to err on the side of caution for BLPs. The current note is peculiar. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, this is less peculiar. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While I endorse protection, I wonder if a SNOW closure at this stage (2 days) might in flame the overall debate more than if we waited for it to run a couple more days. --SGGH ping! 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've half a mind to snow-close it, but I agree with SGGH that it may just end up at DRV if that's done. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I object to an involved editor protecting a version different than the one originally proposed (and only endorsed by Xeno). That said, I would endorse the SNOW delete (as a keep !voter) as it's clearly a snow delete. Obviously either snow or otherwise the closure should be done by a non-involved admin. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was not involved in the edit war at all - indeed I'd never edited the article except to afd it. I took no view on the correct version. Further, I did report the protection here for review. So I don't think I did anything objectionable. And looking at it, there's no substantive differenced between the version I protected and Xeno's - which is, I assume, why he rightly felt free to edit a protected article.--Scott Mac 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hobit may be talking about the minimalist, but still article-ish version I spoke about above at 14:38. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this gives us a reason to close per SNOW.
 * The discussion at the AfD now has shifted to debating WP:N and WP:EVERYTHING, whether simple citability is notability, and on what to do after the article is deleted. -- Rico  18:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnett Shale
Barnett Shale has been the subject of an advocacy campaign involving concerns about drilling in the formation. , and  are inserting identical walls of text citing concerns about drilling. Note this little gem from the IP. While a discussion of the subject is relevant in the article, the meatpuppetry is out of hand. Since I'm modestly involved, I'm bringing it here.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the gem the edit summary...not the reintroduction of the screed. Both the named accounts there seem to edit Barnett Shale in a SPA fashion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, three single-purpose accounts all adding the same information to an article? Looks fishy to me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Theotocopolis has engaged on the talk page, but it's a bit too early to call this resolved, as his next action was to take the B-class article down to a stub.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography
is the subject of an OTRS ticket with factual corrections (which were reverted but I've taken that up with the editor). The content has many hex codes in it, suggesting it was copied and pasted form somewhere, most likely a (spit, spit) Word document. The maintenance tags invite further scrutiny of the subject matter for WP:OR and other issues (such as half the sources being vague citations to the organisation's own magazine). I know nothing of the events concerned so if anyone has time to look over it, check for copyright violations and so on, it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand
I person left me a strange message at User talk:ExpertResearcher. The same person did this. I apologise if I did anything wrong. I don't understand the intricit working of the Wikimedia Foundation's website. I apologise if I caused any harm to deodorant. Sincerely, Frank. ExpertResearcher (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll answer on your talk page. --SGGH ping! 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on AfD
Hi. Could someone advise me how to deal with an outbreak of sockpuppetry on Articles for deletion/R. Garcia y Robertson? I can no longer tell the genuine users from the ... well! Deb (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly looks fishy, but do you have any actual hard evidence they are all sockpuppets? None appear to be obvious SPAs or new users; if they are sock/meats, it's not immediately obvious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a deletion discussion like this would have attracted so many comments all of a sudden - four since lunchtime? All of them questioning the truth of my accurate statement about Avon Books? Deb (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * if you look at the notes left in small print in the AfD, the discussion was listed on two different deletion-sorting lists, one for authors and one for academics. This is undoubtedly where people are coming from.  And, by the way, your statement is inaccurate, the books that were published in the 1990s by Avon are not self-published, Avon was at the time a major paperback imprint (although I'm not certain who owned it at the time), and the self-publication industry was not nearly as well-developed as it is now.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check th AfD, please, for definitive information on the "Avon" question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly take this to SPI. Jamesaxler, gryphonrose, and Padguy and one of the IPs certainly look suspicious. The way that the bolding of the KEEP is messed up, the use of "on the basis" in 3 of the statements, how they cite one another cumulatively, and the fact that each of these were dormant accounts that just sprung back to life---3 within minutes of one another.  You should probably initiate an SPI.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If they're sockpuppets, the puppeteer is tremendously disciplined, since they only have their edits to the AfD in common, per this Wikistalk result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't visually see any overlap and their histories were short enough that it was doable visually. BUT I can see the potential based upon my observations above. No guarantee, but enough to have me curious.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of sockpuppetry, but there does appear to be some off-wiki canvassing. Nothing to do here except pay attention to the arguments, not the sheer numbers of !votes. <font style="color:#C60;font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:90%;font-weight:bold;">Brad 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys, for the information about this group of... well, what can one call them? I didn't realise they had become so powerful within wikipedia.  I get enough hate mail on my talk page, let alone getting it on a website I didn't even know existed.  Let's hope they don't find their way over to wicipedia.  Deb (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"well, what can one call them?" Interested parties who figure your opinion isn't gospel. Don't assume that it's so impossible that a group of people might disagree with you that they must be a bunch of sockpuppets, especially when your opinion of what is or isn't notable is incredibly skewed and biased based on what I can only assume are your own personal interests? Explain to me how Peredur Lynch, editor of a Welsh Encyclopedia and Welsh academic, whose article you created, is more notable than the author R. Garcia y Robertson? Especially since your initial case for him not being notable enough was partially based on blatantly inaccurate information (your claim that he was only self-published by a vanity press imprint). The reason you suddenly have a bunch of people disagreeing with you (that's NOT hate mail) is because you are (1) wrong, and (2) guilty of double standards. 86.136.82.253 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this just proves my point. Deb (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm not going to keep posting on this, because this isn't hate mail or a flame war, but you could do with learning that when multiple people disagree with your opinion it isn't automatically sock puppetry or a personal attack. In this case it is because your opinion was both uninformed and wrong. You got more and more people coming on to Wikipedia to tell you that because you stubbornly stuck to that demonstrably incorrect point about Avon Books being a vanity press, demanding ever more proof of them when you couldn't prove your own claim that Garcia wasn't published by a reputable publishing house. 86.136.82.253 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued copyright violations Bs1996
continues to upload images missing copyright statuses after final warning. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NoNewsToday again
After a short block, we are back: User:NoNewsToday copied another user's userpage to his own again. This time it's User:Taelus's user page, the admin who blocked him for 24 hours and so now his userpage claims, among other things, that he is an admin. And again, the edit summary he used is “Resolved discusion” without even an attempt to answer. Svick (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And before I finished this post User:Jauerback blocked him indefinitely (and deleted the user page). Svick (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If any admin wishes to unblock, feel free. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although, I'm sure I'll see a sockpuppet in the future using my userpage. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Community ban: HistoricWarrior007
is/was a more or less single-purpose political agenda account promoting a pro-Russian view on military conflicts in the Caucasus, especially at 2008 South Ossetia War, an article he kept busy for over a year through incessant slow edit-warring and talkpage argument. I blocked and restricted him a couple of times under the WP:DIGWUREN Arbcom rules, and finally gave him a 6-months block some weeks ago. Since then:
 * he socked in late March through an IP that could easily be proven to be his known range. When blocked, the IP vehemently protested its innocence, although I consider its style of contributions to be quite WP:DUCK-certain.
 * another IP sock, from the same geolocation though a different ISP (, was caught today, again DUCK-certain on the basis of style and agenda. I re-blocked his account indef in response to the latest sock.
 * As a response, he re-appeared with yet another IP, again from the earlier range, again protesting the innocence of the 12.88.* IP, but revealing that he had been socking with this latest IP all along too (and, implicitly, again confirming that the first IP was indeed his too.) He is also now threatening that he will continue socking

See User talk:HistoricWarrior007 and User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 19 for details of the sock cases.

I propose treating him as formally indef community-banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Holy crap, I'm agreeing with FutPerf. Clearly not going to learn and persistant socking proves this. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The socking is fairly apparent, but I would like confirmation regarding the disruption of the original account - would I be correct in assuming that HistoricWarrior007 was replacing sources with those of a pro Russian nature, or otherwise attempting to bias the article(s) by unduly representing pro Russian sources and deprecating others not of that viewpoint? The edit war being so slow makes that determination difficult, but I would respect Fut.Perf's word on it - the other side of the coin being that simply bringing in other sources, especially where it presents a differing viewpoint from the majority, and arguing for their inclusion is not by definition disruptive. I should think, from the recourse to socking, is that it is the former activity that has been the case here, but I should like confirmation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a complex picture. His first sanction and its background (back in November) are described here. That was for a threat against an opponent. Overall, his behaviour has been a mixture of constant low-level edit-warring with an overall aggressive, overbearing attitude on talk pages and a tiresome WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-like tenacity in arguing the same points over and over – like when he kept arguing literally for months that a certain quotation, where an obviously partisan source was giving a glowing endorsement of Russia's policies in the Ossetia war, had to be quoted verbatim, at paragraph length, and given a particularly prominent place in the article. Or when, more recently, he kept arguing for weeks that between two apparently reliable sources, one of which gave a negative assessment of the military prowess of the Russian army as demonstrated in the war, and the other a positive one, only the latter could be used. In fact, the sheer quantity and length of his talk page postings was disruptive. This article has run up to something like 32 pages of talk archives, and those are almost entirely filled with debate fired by him. It's difficult to pinpoint individual postings in this maze as exemplifying the disruption individually though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it seems a fairly straightforward case of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Support community ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User :86.186.168.20 (Talk)
User has made Personal attacks on User:TheFBH, and has broken WP:3RR, see here. User may also be User:86.177.89.130, who broke 3RR against TheFBH,. User also reverted legitamate edits by User:Magog the Ogre. . Suggest an immediate block. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would have suggested protection however the edits are about 14 days old. Also, please notify both IPs. SGGH ping! 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dynamic IP from a large and busy range, so the next user on it will be someone different; and as mentioned the edits are 14 days old. No admin action needed here, a warning on the usertalk pages would suffice. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on user page by sock
Is this the fastest way to tackle this? Any passing admin, please look into the history of User talk:Imperial Monarch. I'm pretty sure that Edgwrhgegggqggqweg and Fly likeanagle are the same vandal. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked both. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good and quick work. I got a bacon treat for you whenever you want to come by--as the crow flies, I'm quite close to you this weekend! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Cirt (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying minor
Editor not using real name, appears to be aware of our concerns. No admin action required Is the information here too much information for a minor to be putting on their User page? Woogee (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The e-mail address is a bit much and should be removed. No strong opinion on disclosing her age.  Them From  Space  05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is in a grey area as far as the need for oversight is concerned, as COPPA only pertains to those under the age of 13 (as it would need to be followed as the WMF servers are located in the United States and hence subject to Federal law). What may work here is someone to try and speak to this user privately (i.e. via email) about the dangers of releasing such information for the entire world to see. That way it won't seem as WP:BITEy but yet remain sincere and concerned. –MuZemike 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I would say something, but since they live in LA County, it could be any number of 14 year olds. So it isn't like you could pick them out of a crowd like some other minor users have ID'd themselves.  I would agree that the email address could be removed and oversighted, but others (young and old) have their email addresses on their pages.  It is a risk you take.  You could let the user know that they can link to their email address by listing the Email link we all use, so the actual address isn't visible.  Just an idea. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified the user of this discussion. Suggested that she asks here if she wants her e-mail removed and oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to notify her. Thanks to Mjroots for taking care of that. Woogee (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per this, I've removed her email address from the page, but it should probably be oversighted as well. —DoRD (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DoRD, seems to that ArbCom decision gives latitude to remove such information, it doesn't make it mandatory. Is there some peculiarity about this matter that makes it an "appropriate case" for removal/oversight?  Not sure which way I feel yet, there are some very productive children on this site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think revision hiding would be fine here. The danger of having a publically viewable email address for a self-identified minor should be self-evident. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't to me, given that anyone can get in touch of said minor without let or hindrance by clicking on "Email This User".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When using the internal email system, at least a record is kept. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding redundant, I have to agree with xeno. (I forgot about the alternative to oversight, though.) —DoRD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue the point, but this is a matter where we should have better guidelines than a very ambiguous ArbCom decision almost four years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a formal guideline to point to would be great (turning WP:CHILD into a guideline for example) but from what I've seen at ANI in the past, that ArbCom decision has been interpreted consistently which can be used to show how the community feels on the matter. As to this particular matter, I agree that the only troubling bit of information is the email address, all the other info is generic enough to not threaten the child. --  At am a  頭 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Her date of birth though could, perhaps, be a problem. I won't remove it, but just saying.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

<-- I feel like it would be preferable to do something like this privately by either emailing the user or functionaries. By posting something like this we only draw attention to the very things we are worried about becoming public. I know there are multiple Oversighters who deal with issues like this on occasion. <font color="#999" face="Tahoma"><font color="#008">James  (<font color="#000">T |<font color="#000">C ) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but as was pointed out above, since she's 14 she is old enough to decide whether or not her e-mail address is public. That said, she is quite young so we should inform her that posting her e-mail address on her page is probably not a good idea. We can delete all the old revisions of her userpage to hide the e-mail address, if she wishes so. Also, in future, please send requests like this to the oversight team (contact details here) rather than posting them publically. As this request doesn't require oversight I won't delete this discussion, but had it been suppressible, I would have had to delete it. --Deskana (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about. I don't receive any emails at the address anyway. No biggie lol. Age wise, I'm currently in high school so I think it's a little nonsense to considered myself a child. It won't be not to long until I turn 15. Rihanna Knowles (talk) 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rihanna, legally, you are a child. Not everyone on the internet has your best interests at heart. Please be grateful that others are acting in your best interest. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have the 'best' interests. If I'm giving 'too much information', then how come you don't even know my by my real name? Seems like you admins think I'm ignorant enough to give out my address or phone number.  I do agree with Deskana. I'm not 12. I know what's right and wrong. If somebody anonymous contacts me (Which never happened for 3 months with my e-mail public), It should be kept to me not the federal law. The age requirement age at Gmail is over 13. I've made a specific search and they are many Wikipedians here at the age of 14. Rihanna Knowles 23:48, April 23, 2010  (UTC)
 * He just means someone might mean you harm, rather than having your protection at heart. You're right though, this does seem to be a lot of fuss about nothing. The threshold of dangerous information displayed by minors, for me, is something that could help a person find you in real life; a full name and school name, for instance. A mere email address is no big deal. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 23:24, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the risk is small, but it is there. From the info on your user page it is clear that you aren't using your real name (which is good). You seem to be aware of the dangers of displaying too much personal info. Personally, I wouldn't have my e-mail address publicly viewable but I won't force you to remove it if you don't want to. Marking as resolved. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please
Somebody incorrectly replaced the article about Tariq Khan, a former Guantanamo captive from Paikistan with information about Tariq Khan a General in Pakistani Army.

I believe a kind administrator could fork the revision history so that an article named Tariq Khan (Guantanamo captive) had the appropriate portion and the remainder was attached to Tariq Khan (General). I'd like to request someone do that.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the edit where everything went downhill, but the question is whether the captive is notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but the wikipedia has a speedy deletion process, a formal afd process, and prod in between. Simply scribbling a new article over top of an existing article is not an approved deletion process.  It is vandalism.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Geo Swan, could you demonstrate where you started a discussion with the user that replaced the former content, and show how that discussion reached an unsatisfiable conclusion? Anyone can create a new article, even you, and solve this problem by maintaining two articles.  Insofar as there is no evidence of any bad faith, no evidence of any attempt to resolve the problem (or even that there is a problem) and no need for admin tools to resolve the technical aspects of this issue, what is there for admins to do?  -- Jayron  32  04:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Geo seems to want a forking of the page's history, which, if possible, would make things easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's technically feasible... The better option is to create the new article with the edit summary "Text moved from article " which would be an unambiguous way for anyone to do it. An admin isn't needed for that.  -- Jayron  32  04:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it feasible? We could delete the article, restore the edits about the general, move those edits to a new title [e.g. "Tariq Khan (general)"], restore the remaining edits, move them to a new title [e.g. "Tariq Khan (former Guantánamo detainee)"], and convert Tariq Khan to a disambiguation page.  I have no opinion on whether this is the right thing or the best thing to do, but I don't see why it's not technically possible.  Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is now Tariq Khan and Tariq Khan (Inspector General). Since the talk page was entirely created after the change, it has been moved. Please feel free to rename and fix. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I raise the issue with the anonymous IP, User:116.17.220.173, or User:Farookkattikhel, the named user with exactly one edit? No.  That seemed like a waste of time, since neither one of them has edited in 16 months.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten password attack
Some goober clicked on the "forgot password" link to my Wikipedia account. I got the notice - and the offender's IP address - via e-mail to my Wikipedia registered account. The e-mail header shows it's authentic. Both my e-mail account and my Wikipedia account passwords are uber-strong, so I'm not worried about a compromised account (unless Wikipedia's temporary password generating algorithm has been cracked). My main question is this - since I've got the offender's IP address (via the e-mail), I can hard-block the account, but is this advisable? Rklawton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the thread above from above about this. If it is in the 65 range, there might be a serial cracker or someone who wants to just mess with us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given your username is a bit more specific than the earlier case (which was User:DC), I guess it's possible, but I really don't think a hardblock should be our first instinct, since it could be a good faith contributor just trying to figure out whether they've already registered. Of course, ignore everything I've just said if it turns out one IP is responsible for attempting to reset the passwords of multiple accounts.  (Although, I'd hope MediaWiki might have some protection built in against this...)  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks all. It's not persistent, nor is it the IP above, so I'll ignore it.  Rklawton (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I received a "forgotten password" reminder today (around 2038 UTC Friday), but this was from someone in the 64 range. I myself have received reminders for other WMF projects (Wikinews, Wikibooks, Commons, etc) in the past few weeks, but this was the first reminder regarding English Wikipedia. Willking1979 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As this is the second (maybe third) statement about password cracking, perhaps someone with links to the wiki-technical community should send and email with some details. The 64, 65 address spaces are class A and huge, so more specific IP information would be useful to them. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're on irc, you could ask the devs on #wikimedia-tech. But this is actually a fairly low number of reports, i.e. it sounds like some idiot clicking around, rather than a more serious attack. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

70.240.215.243
Not sure to whom or what this could be related, however User:70.240.215.243 left this edit on my talk page, then made this edit to User talk:75.99.184.58 requesting their assistance in having my account hacked. However, the IP user has only made those two edits plus one reversion to their own talk page.

Hate to stir the pot, but I was wondering if someone can determine if this is a sock of another user or simply a vandal. Thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a WP:NLT or am I being a bit too sensitive today? SGGH ping! 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban needs tweaking
Frankly, I don't like interaction/topic bans very much. I think they generally create more problems than they solve, and one particularly flawed one has come to my attention. There is a ban listed | here that came out of a discussion here at ANI last month that restricts three users, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factomancer from interacting with one another. In the right hand column a huge loophole is detailed. These three are to ignore each other except if they think one of the others needs to get in trouble, then there is a complex set of procedures they have to follow to report one of the other two. I think the community made a mistake in adding these provisions. The ban is supposed to prevent these users from stirring up trouble with one another, but this loophole actually encourages them to look for opportunities to create more drama. I propose that this "reporting mechanism" be removed from the ban and that the users be instructed to ignore one another, period, full stop, no exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rules are silly, and IMO the ban is not working as it should. The ban was supposed to prevent the community from the disruption by constant fights at AN/I, but as the events of the last few days have shown, the effect is just the opposite. Although I have never violated neither the ban itself nor the rules, I feel myself like an informer in the worst meaning of that word, and I'm ashamed of myself for following those rules and doing that. I am asking the community that the ban is lifted from all three of us. I promise voluntarily to stay away from the user no matter what the user does to me, and not under any circumstances report the user to AN/I (I have never done anyway). I was reported to AN/I quite a few times. I promise to do my best that it will not happen again, or at least happen much more seldom :) I mean I promise never again to write "Drork was right" in my edit summary :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *It's worth noting that I have now blocked Mbz1 for violating the ban yet again with this edit . The restriction clearly prohibits commenting on one another's talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC) actually I misread it, ignore that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At first, Beeblebrox's idea seemed strange to me, but now I see the logic of it. We would literally be preventing all complaints by these users about one another, per any channel. If they consider this poses a handicap to their participation in Wikipedia, they have the option of not editing here. Of course, if they can choose articles to work on that are unlikely to be visited by any of the others, then they should not be inconvenienced by this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make things easier here, here are the details of the reporting mechanism: "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." I've never seen such an elaborate scheme in an interaction ban before. The main text of the ban says it's to be "broadly interpreted" and this provision seems to directly contradict that, and to actually encourage stalking and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That language was written by me; it's a close or direct copy of an interaction ban from mid last year-ish that I wrote, after discussion on ANI and elsewhere, for other users. Let's see... the Koalorka / Theserialcomma interaction ban from Aug 22 2009 and on - .  It seemed to be well liked at that time as a reasonable balance.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion, and indeed at the time there was support for this, and I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, it just hasn't worked out very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the next appropriate step IMHO would probably be indeffing people, not changing the restriction; but that's up to the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem to be blocked indf if I violate the terms of the ban. But I do have problems with totaly erroneous enforcment. And the talks about the ban "spirit" replacing the ban "letters" are actually an open door to block without a case.--Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- Yes, this makes eminent sense. I have watched this interaction ban work out horribly, just become an attempt at "gotcha!" while it creates more and more drama. Beeblebrox is right-on.  Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand Actually perhaps lifting the ban altogether would be best per Mbz1. I think both users have learned their lesson here.  Mbz1 has made a commitment, now if Factomancer would make a similar commitment I think this thing will go away.  Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to make nearly any commitment to make this distracting ban go away, but I doubt that is going to happen. Factomancer (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Anything that reduces the WikiDrama in this editing area is a Good Thing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Otherwise, one of them may violate seriously and get away with it, with the others unable to point it out without being sanctioned themselves. If the users can't abide by the terms as written, the next logical step is an outright ban, rather than removing their ability to point out violations.  The intermediate step is asymmetrically unfair.  I agree the situation is approaching or at the next step level, but this proposal isn't the right next step.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose considering the problems already existing with the enforcment of this ban (which to me seem as bad idea from the begining)removing the reporting mechanism will only make it just worse, of course. --Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in that it would stop any encouragement for one party to follow the other around looking for violations. --SGGH ping! 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to SGGH: And you assume that reports of violations from other editors who are not banned will not come?--Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of an interaction ban is to reduce drama, clearly that goal has not been achieved. Most of us can see for ourselves when it is in everyone's best interest to walk away from a user or a situation, but you three don't seem to be able to do that on your own, hence this restriction. This is the central point here, and I know you're sick of me but I'm going to try one more time to clarify this. You should just ignore Factomancer, and they should ignore the two of you. Try and follow the spirit of the ban as opposed to the letter of it, and everyone, including you, will be happier on the long run. If one of you is doing something that is really so bad as to merit blocking, it will be noticed by somebody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Makes sense. The reporting mechanism was a very bad idea to begin with, given that it encouraged each party to inform on each other. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, per Factomancer (with the word "apparently" in front of "encouraged"). --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, as I have stated earlier about this interaction ban: "the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block." And, IMO, one should also consider applying such a full interaction ban on more editors in the I/P-area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan B
Maybe George is right, and it's time to up the ante. What if we leave the ban conditions as they are now, but instead of a slowly escalating series of blocks, any of the three who can be shown to have violated the ban gets an indef block. If this thing actually had some teeth it would have a better chance of curbing the problem. The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue be eliminating themselves from the equation. In the interest of keeping this conversation on point I will go on record right now in recusing myself from any further blocks based on these conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Along these lines - the whole point of this was really to point out to those involved that the community has communally run out of patience with all of this mess, both sides of it. In general it would seem like the message was not received.
 * We can only warn so many times. The question is zero more warnings, one more warning, or N (very small) more warnings.  Beeblebrox is proposing zero more; I agree that that's within reason given the situation.  Perhaps two more and a six month block is the least strict next step I think I'd agree is reasonable.  Some solution bounded by those two limits seems about right.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero more warnings - It really is time to try to put a stop to all this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No more warnings - Agree with BMK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ugh, I didn't want to be drawn into this discussion, and I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break, but this proposal would mean one of us would be indeffed for sure. Given that we are active in similar topic areas, it's very, very easy to accidentally trigger the interaction ban without thinking, particularly considering that the ban is to be "construed broadly" and one of the ban conditions is reverting an edit with no time-limit, which essentially means that we have to check the origin of all material in an article before editing it to be 100% sure that we aren't violating the ban; even the writer of the ban has admitted that that condition is an onerous burden.
 * "The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue"? Only if it's me. Is that the assumption here? Because I don't really feel I deserve to be indeffed quite yet. And if not, then let's be honest and discuss that.
 * To be frank, I think this ban has been a disaster and has encouraged interaction, of the "informing" nature, not discouraged it. A simple ban on reporting parties to noticeboards would have had a much better outcome because that was 99% of the original problem. Factomancer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we agree that the ban has been a disaster, that's something. It wouldn't have to be you that would get the indef, I only meant that the first one of you to violate again would get the banhammer, although I suppose it's possible that one of the other two would get it and then one or the other of the remaining users would be foolish enough to follow suit. Of course the more desirable result would be for the three of you to take this seriously and just follow the ban to the letter and not make any edit that even comes close to maybe possibly violating the ban, ending the need for any more blocks or other drama. Simply ending this cycle of drama is my only concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I have taken this ban seriously; unfortunately I assumed the ban was supposed to prevent actual interaction not incidental, accidental mentions of the other party or editing material they may have also once edited. As I explained, I am still concerned about the indefinite nature of the revert prohibition. Given that Wikipedia doesn't have a "blame" feature, in my opinion the ban still places an undue burden on us. Factomancer (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Give plan A a chance to work first, at least. --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support zero warnings toward me only--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose Plan A and B and also Mbz fetish for getting the third degree, though I might understand wanting to get forced to take a break. The interaction ban was interesting, but simply detracting from editing the encyclopedia. I would suggest a simple extended topic ban on all and hope the time off does it's usual work. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the admins who has had the slightly traumatic experience of trying to enforce the ban, I agree that it has not really worked, mostly because the three editors have a penchant for excessive drama (to perhaps varying degrees) and attract a peanut gallery of equally unhelpful supporters in each instance of conflict. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox and Georgewilliamherbert above.  Sandstein   21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan Z
Every successful person has a plan Z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has wasted too much time. I propose a completely novel solution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with trying to be fair is that people can push to the edge and then pull back when they get some kick back - the incentive is always to try and game the system. I propose a solution from Drama theory. This is not supposed to be fair. The punishment is random, and its scale may not fit the crime. Bigger crimes are more likely to have bigger punishments though. Thus while there is a slim chance a participant may get away with a major provocation, there is also a chance that even a mild infraction would be met by a response completely out of proportion to the crime. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People who continue with undesirable behaviour will inevitably at some point be met with sudden death, completely out of the blue. In this case, this would be a ban, but several other punishments may be meted out with higher probability, such as long blocks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The participants either behave, or the random throw of the dice will remove them at some point from the situation - leaving the remaining participants to contemplate the corpse and the value of life before deciding their next course of action. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a set of dice with all 6's on them.
 * And another with "Live" on half the faces and "Die" on the other half. And one die with "Die" on all 6 sides.
 * Plan Z, however, is obviously the Zombie solution, which is not satisfactory. This situation must not live on and on and on in a warped half-alive state.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (In an effort to lessen the tension), not Zombies GWH, but Nazis.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I truely like this solution, but the problem is that the one who should enforce the ban is always an admin-i.e., assumably human, and therfore, it's very hard to assume (maybe impossible) that the choice he/she made is realy random and totaly unbiased. If there is any on line application that allow to both editor and administrator to see a set of dice and then the result after they were thrown-and lets say that 2=no sanction needed...3=48 hours blocked, 4=72 hours blocked.. 7=one month topic ban 12=indf block-then it could work. But it's all not even realy hypothetical.--Gilisa (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Zombies is Plan 9, surely? Guy (Help!) 09:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan "B" for ban me alone

 * Okay, here's the deal.
 * I am the subject of three months broadly constructed topic ban (not to be mistaken with indefinite broadly constructed interaction ban :) ) I propose


 * 1) To lift the interaction ban altogether from everybody involved or leave it in effect only for me. I have never violated the interaction ban, and I have no difficulties in complying with the ban in the feature,
 * 2) Change the time span of my broadly constructed topic ban from three months to indefinite without the right to appeal. This will successfully illuminate almost every possibility of my interaction with others, who are editing in the area that falls under my topic ban.


 * Few words why I am proposing that change:


 * 1) Gilisa got into that interaction ban by a pure accident, and ever since the editor was blocked two times for nothing. I feel myself responsible for those blocks.
 * 2) Following the rules of the interaction ban turned me into an informer. I'd rather to be informed about than to be an informer myself.
 * 3) I'm tired of being discussed on AN/I over and over again. Hopefully with the new measure it will not happen again.
 * @Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I would hate to be forced to take a break. I am just tired. I called an anti-Semite "anti-Semite" at an article's discussion page, and was blocked for "BLP violation" without any warning. I wrote a first article about Robert Kennedy, and was dragged into fishing SPI. I was not allowed to remove the accusations of me using a sock neither from the article's discussion page nor from the article deletion request even after SPI came out as "unrelated". I was also falsely accused in being a racist. I wrote a second article about 800 years old synagogue, and was falsely accused in "demonizing Muslims in every paragraph". I filed my first ever AE request about the admin, who misused his tools, and was topic banned. I exercised my right to appeal the ban, and few admins suggested that I should be punished harsher and harsher for doing just that "As such, I oppose any slippage in the current ban on Mbz1, and in fact encourage it being tightened" and "I recommend that further appeals, complaints, and other nonsense from Mbz1 should result in escalating blocks.". I was wikihounded on its worst, and not just by one, but by few users (I guess I am an easy target). So, no, Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I am tired, and I guess everybody is tired of me. Now, after two blocks for the "violation" of my topic ban, and declined request to add some reference to my old article, I understand how broadly constructed my topic ban is, and I will be fine in avoiding being trapped and blocked for violating it. After everything that happened to me I am no longer interested in the editing I/P related articles. I am a coward, I would not like to end up with an indefinite block issued by admins, who are simply too busy, and/or cannot care less to try to get to the bottom of the problem.
 * So, please adopt my proposal ASAP, and archive the thread. Please, everybody, accept my apology for the time I took. From now on I will try to do my best to remain in the corner I was put into. Sorry for the long post, hopefully the very last one on that board.
 * @Sandstein, I might have violated my "broadly constructed" topic ban with that post. I am sorry about that. It will be great, if you could forgive me this hopefully very last violation, and do not block me, but I sure, will understand, if you do block me. I guess my next block for the violation of my topic ban is a week now. Anyway....

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think disruptive users should be allowed to propose the conditions of their own bans. We went through months and months of rigmarole with, haggling over which of the parameters (originally of his own devising) of the topic ban he was or was not skirting at a given time.  I don't even like the idea of interaction bans, as they just create needless drama and red tape for the rest of us to deal with. We aren't equipped to deal with what amounts to a wiki-restraining order.  How about users are simply held to the standards of conduct that we already have in place?  If User A does something against User B that is sanctionable...personal attacks, incivility, or whatever...then simply sanction User A for that action right then and there. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be nice, wouldn't it? The problem is that before this interaction ban, User A would repeatedly do something sanctionable against User B and admins would refuse to take any action simply because there was so much drama that they would rather stay uninvolved instead of do their job. That's how this idiotic interaction ban came to be. Now it has evolved into the same thing. After a while of strict enforcement, it has reached the point where admins are refusing to take action on clear violations of the interaction ban simply because they don't want a spotlight on themselves. Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tarc, I do not know the user you are talking about, but apparently the user was asking to reduce the sanctions not to make them harsher. The only reason I asked for that is to stop taking time and causing the disruptions. I would not like my proposal to be a cause of a new lengthy discussion. I said what I had to say. I believe the project will benefit from my proposal. Let's just adopt it by a sole admin's action (I was topic banned by a sole admin action anyway). Please. Okay I said it all, and now I am taking that board off my watch list.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc, I have no problem with any editor making any proposal. I don't think, and you probably agree with me, that editors in conflict with the sanctioned editor are in principle always a better source for amking proposals about him or her. All we have to weight is the rationale of the suggestion. No one is asking for pity or even second chance here. We only ask reason to play a role here again. As Mbz said, I was blocked for nothing twice, and I found this interaction ban to be totaly superfluous and much more distrupting than anything that preceded it. And I do believe that there was too much drama about the drama. Lifting this interaction ban would be more beneficial.--Gilisa (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Breein seems to feel that anyone who won't make a block based on their recommendation is some sort of coward. At least that's what was strongly implied in my case. The point, which I have tried again and again to make to this group, is that interaction bans are supposed to be a mechanism for reducing drama, and just because we could block somebody for a technical violation does not mean we must. Conversely, if a user engages in behavior that is contrary to the point of the ban without technically violating its specific conditions, they can still be blocked. Unlike content editing, admin work consists of making numerous judgement calls as opposed to rigid adherence to rules. At least you are all pissed off at me now instead of continuing to go after each other, that's something. I think in the end the best course is to do what was mentioned above, to strengthen the severity of the consequences of violating the terms, and to strongly recommend to all the users involved in this matter to try and simply avoid each other as much as possible instead of looking for reasons to get someone blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? I thought Plan A (prohibiting the banned users from reporting other banned users) clearly had more support from admins/uninvolved users than Plan B (strengthening the severity of the ban). Factomancer (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, give me a break-you had no reason to block me and that's clear. Maybe I will submit soon a request for amendment in the AE. If you suggest that all of these proposals will be enforced the same way you blocked me, then I oppose them all from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you feel you must. As I have said again and again, my only interest is in putting an end to this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for caring.--Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
We need to bring this thing to a close and decide what action, if any, is to be taken.The whole "random" Plan Z is more or less a joke, and the idea of a one-way interaction ban does not make a lot of sense. Then there is my initial idea of removing the reporting mechanism, but I think GWH makes a valid point that it was done in good faith and failed, and now it's time to move on. That leaves increasing the penalties for violating the ban in a last-ditch effort to get these users to simply stop interacting and ignore one another. Of the options presented I think this is the simplest and most likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you not hear me the first time? Plan A was much more supported than Plan B. You can't just ignore consensus because you want to. And GWH wrote the failed ban. Why should he have input into new ban conditions? Factomancer (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling nobody is listening to me. I have posted again and again on the undue burden placed on us by the unlimited revert prohibition, whereby we have to go through the entire contribution history of an article to ensure we do not accidentally edit material inserted by the other party. Increasing the severity of the penalties of this ban would ensure that we would get indeffed for not exhaustively checking an articles history. This is ridiculous. The ban conditions need to be changed. Simply increasing the penalties won't solve anything; although it makes for good politics. Factomancer (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get to demand the ban conditions to be changed. The ban was imposed on you. It is up to the community to discuss the ban. I find it pretty rich that you, the person who was sanctioned, is questioning someone else's (more specifically, an admin's) right to comment here. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy or guideline that says that users can't ask for their own ban conditions to be changed and participate in the community process.
 * And nowhere in this discussion have I ever questioned an admin's right to comment.
 * 0/2 facts correct, Breein1007. Since you seem less than competent at correctly identifying violations of policy you should leave it to the admins or other users to do it.Factomancer (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be baited by your incivility. There is a difference between "ask[ing] for their own ban conditions to be changed and participat[ing] in the community process" and what you are doing. You have not asked. You have said "This is ridiculous. The ban conditions need to be changed." Very interesting interpretation. Breein1007 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)