Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573

Possible legal threat by User:EastSideMiner

EastSideMiner (talk · contribs) may have made a possible legal threat at here (I am assuming while he was logged off). I have placed a warning template on his talk page, but I thought I would raise it here in case any administrators want to take further action. Singularity42 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP should probably be blocked and a CU run to make 100% sure that EastSideMiner was in fact logged out when making the threat.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: user was notified here, but was subsequently removed by the user. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats (or any kinda threat) on Wikipedia, is unacceptable. Recommend imediate 'block'. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet going on with this user and Minerfan (talk · contribs) and UKguy1983 (talk · contribs) from last year. All of the accounts have been trying to get this non-notable individual into Wikipedia. I think a reset of the article SALT is reasonable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They should be blocked for 'atleast' being annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

^ wth? GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked EastSideMiner for the legal threat. I'll look more into it to see if there is socking going on. MuZemike 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Non free image partial deletion

An old version of File:Chrome 3.0.195.25 Wikipedia.PNG has a non free image in it. Is is possible to delete the old revision while leaving the new, more appropriate one?--Michaelkourlas (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Old version deleted, note added to credit original creator. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Michaelkourlas (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring noticeboard

Administrator attention seems to be required on the 3rr noticeboard. Some reports are days old and some have been archived without being resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jéské Couriano vandalism again

Resolved

 – Page semi protected by Wknight94 (talk · contribs). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but User talk:Jéské Couriano seems to be undergoing the beginning of another co-ordinated assault. I would appreciate any help in ridding the attacks and name revelations from the anonymous IPs if it continues. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good place, esp. for higher priority stuff. Talk page protected. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for acting so quickly on the matter. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto; I've unprotected now since it seems to have died down. My guess is this is related to the attacks on Fran Rogers on here earlier this week, given the nature of what was being posted (according to Melicans), and that there'll be more stuff like this until the RL proceedings end and Jarl's access is revoked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff V. Merkey ip again

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a month.

Current ip

• 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Most recent accounts (both indefinitely blocked)

• Jvmphoto (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Recent discussions

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Obvious_sockpuppet_of_Jeff_V._Merkey_-_coi.2C_harassment
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Jeff_V._Merkey
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jvmphoto

I see why now why the Jvmphoto account was so quickly blocked indefinitely. Looks like we need the same for this ip. He's continuing to edit his article against WP:COI, using Wikipedia as his personal battleground [1] [2], and harass others [3]. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also the outright threats, of course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You know guys, its pretty childish to keep fighting over something you do in every other article on military subjects. And you fail to recognize or acknowledge when I retract something. I can index and link spam google too, just like Wikipedia and push this wikipedia article to page 5000 if I like by hiring and SEO company and paying them $3000.00 and post my own article instead on google. so how about for once follow your own rules. There's no ARBCOM Proceedings in force anymore and the reasons for blocking are erroneous by WERDNA/Fagerburg and I can post docs about that to on that website. There was no harassment of Fagerburg, it was in fact the other way around. So I tire of the constant banter and fighting. It's just a waste of time. Ignore this POV pushing editor user Ronz and stop the dog pack ganging up on each other and the subject of a bio. OK? LOL. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved too much in the editing of this article but I have been watching it. I don't really see what the problem is. Merkey has posted a bunch of stuff on his personal website that more than verifies most of his claims. I am not taking sides. I just see potential for a pretty good article if everyone would stop reverting, arguing and picking at each other. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 4twenty42o. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am going to take a break for the rest of the weekend and spend some time in Park City with my girlfriend. She owns Robert Redfords Film production company and lives in a 35 bedroom house on the side of the mountain and is beautiful as hell. I'll be in the sack with her all weekend and riding around town in her ferrari. I'll see you guys on Monday and hope I don't have to hire an SEO company to bury that article someone in the bowels of Google. Just conform it to every other article on Wikipedia that quotes military awards. Good night guys. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh yeah. This guy is certainly credible. It's like the 'I'm Rich!' version of Madlibs... HalfShadow (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To 4twenty42o, the actual content of his edits aren't of much relevance at this point, and that's the sad part. Merkey probably has the capacity to be a good contributor, but his tendency to make threats to others has gotten in the way. What's really relevant at this point is his inability to make a mature request for unblock, or any kind of apology or acknowledgement for his general incivility and other problematic behaviors (in addition to the fact that this potentially falls into ArbCom jurisdiction, given that they handed out the original ban). This kind of block evasion is only going to dealt with by continued blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fall under ArbComm jurisdiction because he's under a community ban for harassment of Pfagerburg by calling that user's employer to attempt to get him fired. See this AN/I thread from '08. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Has anyone seen this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the post, given that it really didn't do anything but hurl accusations at longtime editors. If you'd rather the post stay up, you may revert my edit, given that you commented in the thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the reason for the block and I agree that punishment is merited. Its just that I have seen the same information added, removed, reverted and re-added. Can't we reach a consensus on one thing, move on to another and so on? Like I said earlier I am NOT taking sides but I see quite a few reverts that I disagree with from pretty much all of the parties involved. Just seems rather petty I guess.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Were that to be the end of it then that would be okay, but that's very unlikely given the overall history. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Italian With A Two-Way Radio

Resolved

 – Blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 07:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Italian With A Two-Way Radio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user worries me, their fourth contribution is posting to Baseballbugs' talk page. Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

He's done this before. Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, if anyone has anymore information, it would be welcome.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Also sock of User:Bad Snakes Ta Ta, per checkuser. Blocked now ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 07:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. The I-troll-ian had said something about batteries. I don't know from batteries, except pitcher-and-catcher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Another, User:Itallian With A 2 Way Radio. Please block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked, no other socks I can see - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's reverts using Twinkle

Resolved. Not to be a jackass or anything... Master of Puppets 04:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is misusing Twinkle to revert someone he is in a dispute with. See [4] and [5]. A relevant discussion thread is here. This appears to be a content dispute and not a vandalism situation. He appears to have done this earlier month too when he was reverting Betacommand with edits like [6] and [7].

Neutralhomer has had his Twinkle rights taken away several times now. In looking in his monobook, it was first taken away on Dec 22, 2007, then a few days later on Dec 30, 2007. It was removed again on November 2, 2008. His rollback rights were taken away in April of this year and have not been restored. Since it appears that he is, again, misusing the tool, can an admin investigate this further and make a determination about whether or not it should be taken away? Thank you, either way (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Neutralhomer of your report. Please note this is a REQUIREMENT. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that and have left him a link to this report. either way (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Having done that, all these diffs do look like content disputes, and none of them looks like vandalism. Reverting is OK, but Twinkle offers the opportunity to revert with an edit summary, and this option should be used in all cases that are not clear cut vandalism. Neutralhomer, I think you risk getting Twinkle took off you if you do this again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"...If you do this again"...I think given the amount of times he's had such tools, he should be well aware of appropriate uses of the tools, and should have it taken away now rather than "next time". either way (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the information that was removed is clear vandalism. The information violates no rule on Wikipedia and no consensus has been established to remove this information. As I told User:Piano non troppo, he needs to go to WP:TVS and establish consensus first then if that consensus is established, then only then remove the information from all pages, not just two. The links to Betacommand were working links, so I seen no problem reverting them (I did check) and you can view WINC-FM, WUSQ-FM, and WFQX (FM) for the same live stream links. There was no need to have them removed unless the company asked for it. If the company asked (which they have been known to do with other sites, I will be glad to revert myself.

I would like to ask why you (Either way) are involved in this. Since we have history it would be better to let an uninvolved admin work this ANI post and not you. This is, again, another prime example of the stalking of myself by Either way. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a pure content dispute. The automated tool should not be used in these instances, nor should they be labeled as vandalism. I am allowing an uninvolved admin to resolve this. That's why I brought this here rather than removing it myself. either way (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

With our history, you are not uninvolved. Doesn't matter, you want me to revert via the AGF link or the Rollback link or just standard ol' Undo, that is fine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I want you to discuss, rather than reverting and accusing of vandalism. Did you ever tell Beta why you were calling his edits vandalism? And could you please drop the incivility as you've done here to Piano non troppo? As you can clearly see, he has not brought this dispute to ANI, so stop blindly accusing him of trying to get you blocked. either way (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I couldn't. If you remember correctly, unless I have something constructive to say, I am not allowed to contact Beta per you. So no, I didn't tell him. But if he would have clicked the links for the webstreams, he would have seen they didn't violate any policy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with either way here. Bold edits are not vandalism. The content removal was accompanied by an edit summary justifying it. Reverting was fine, but treating it as vandalism was not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you want me to use the ol' Undo button, I will. I make a decision if something is vandalism, to me, both felt like vandalism. I didn't mark Beta for vandalism, but Piano non troppo and I had this discussion previous on another page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just use the 'rollback' rather than 'rollback vandal' option in Twinkle, and put something in the edit summary. Don't hand a hostage to fortune as they say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That can be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! So is this a compromise for all? Neutralhomer can keep Twinkle, and won't mark edits as vandalism when it's a dispute/WP:NOTVAND. Is everyone reasonably happy now? (yes, I'm butting in) tedder (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with it. See, I don't mind comprimising. I will use the vandalism button for only blindingly clear vandalism (like putting cuss words on a page or blanking) and leave the rollback button and AGF button for everything else. I can be comprimised with, ya know. Ya just gotta ask. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe this is a fair compromise. Neutralhomer has had the tools taken away 4 times already, so I don't see why we should allow him to continue using the tool if this is a continuous issue. He doesn't seem to understand that these edits he reverted are not vandalism, and that he will just continue to revert anyway. either way (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll keep checking up on him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I so knew you (Either way) would say that. You can't be happy with something. You will not be happy until all my tools are taking away and I am blocked indef. We have found a comprimise, accept it...so we can move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting, and EC, EC) Okay, so EW, you are concerned about edit warring. Can that be handled when it happens at WP:3RR? Edit warring will happen with or without Twinkle. Perhaps the compromise would be worth accepting, then take a step back from the issue and cool off. Nobody is stopping you from reporting Neutralhomer to 3RR if you have issues- but WP:HORSE seems a worthy suggestion at this point. tedder (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not edit warring....it's that he's using the tool inappropriately for non-vandalism. Like I said, it's already been four times taken away from him because he has used them in disputes and for non-vandalism. He says now "Oh, I'll only use it for vandalism" but he's said that/agreed to that every other time it was taken away/restored. Why do we keep allowing use of it if these issues just keep coming up? either way (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The words of a man who will stop at nothing to continue an arguement ad naseum, to get my tools taken away, and to get me blocked. This is a clear case of stalking. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per ALOT of thinking, I have decided to leave Wikipedia. I am sick and tired of the constant baby-fied actions of a handful of very insecure and inmature individuals who have nothing better to do than troll around Wikipedia and cause drama and problems for others. That isn't directed at one person, it is directed at several. Wikipedia has turned me into a person I don't like and I can't stand. The stress of working with some of you people gives me a constant migraine. You all can destroy all the pages on Wikipedia, delete everything, or whatever, I honestly don't care anymore. To show I am serious, I have requested all my userpages be deleted per {{db-author}}. I am done. I am tired of the threats, the bitching, the ANI posts, this, that and the other thing. It was old about 2 years ago and it is really old now. I have much better and more rewarding things to do with my time and my life than to sit and argue with children, or adults who act like children on a WEBSITE. Goodbye. - Neutralhomer (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• One final note, per this edit, I have erased my monobook. If you all so feel the need, you can go ahead and protect it. - Neutralhomer (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry this had to happen, Neutralhomer. Feel free to come back at any time if you so choose, and hopefully this time away from Wiki lets you clear your head. Cheers, Master of Puppets 04:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

69.121.221.174

I brought up a sockpuppetry investigation against 69.121.221.174 because that user was engaging in behavior that I thought to be reminiscent of the previous Spotfixer sockpuppet TruthIIPower. Later developments in that investigation showed that Spotfixer had indeed edited with that IP. Therefore, that IP was blocked.

After an extremely angry email to me and some gradually calming-down discourse at User talk:69.121.221.174, I believe that the IP should actually be unblocked. From what the IP tells me, it seems that

• The IP belongs to a university residence
• A journalism class at the university brings up the use of "mother" vs. "pregnant woman" on Wikipedia every year, hence the periodic debate over that issue (new classes of journalism students taking that class) which led to my suspicions of sockpuppetry [added 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC): the class is not contributing to Wiki; various members of the class are inspired by the class to edit Wiki on the issue brought up, but of their own accord]
• Other students at that residence were editing articles on cooking right before the block, and would like to be able to continue to contribute.

and I find this reasonably well substantiated by the user contributions.

I'm afraid that I made a mess of things by actually finding a situation in which similar behavior + same IP ≠ sockpuppet. I now find myself reasonably convinced that they are not a sockpuppet and should be unblocked. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would agree with you that it is probably reasonable to unblock, but not that you made a mess of things. One of the advantages of creating an account is not being immediately associated with everyone else that ever was at that address. It was a risk that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad risk, just that it didn't pay off.- Sinneed 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is used by a banned user then a block is entirely appropriate. Anyone who shares that IP who is not the banned user can create an account elsewhere (like the uni library) and then edit without further restriction. Thatcher 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The start of the tangent. To clarify: The class is not editing Wiki. Students from the class are inspired by the debate in class to edit Wiki. Sorry about my poor stating of the issue above.

If a journalism class has a yearly debate of "mother vs pregnant woman", why don't they just create a WP account for that purpose? A vandalising IP shouldn't be unblocked just because other people at that location don't vandalize. Heck, where I edit from is usually blocked, don't affect me any. Not sure I agree with a university class using Wiki as a debate project, but that's a different subject. IMHO, you were in the right with the block. Tainted Conformity (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) They couldn't just create an account - a wikipedia account can only be used by one person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) True enough, I guess. Personally think an exception could be made in that type of case though, considering that they're not on the site to improve it as much as use it for class. As long as they had their class's contact info (name of the university & class) on the userpage, I personally wouldn't see the problem. Tainted Conformity Chat 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC) To clarify: this isn't the IP of a journalism class, it's the IP of a residence where people from the journalism class have lived. Hence the two cooking-related edits right before the block. Also, I think it has been people inspired by the class, but acting on their own initiative, who have editied Wiki. Awickert (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I am involved in the "mother" v. "pregnant woman" argument on the opposing side the ip is on, he or she and I have been sparring) The ip has made many advanced edits inconsistent with a first go at wikipedia (signed edits on talk pages from the start, brought a case to Wikiquette alerts), appears to know the lingo very well and has a rudimentary enough grasp of policy to throw it around in arguments. This is also rather damning. It is conceivable that this is not a sock (or meatpuppet) of spotfixer but I would be very surprised. - Schrandit (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I do acknowledge that the IP was used by Spotfixer, which is why the block occurred in the first place. I am reasonably convinced however that while they edit with a similar intent, it is not the same person, and am concerned that we have blocked a whole ton of people who work behind the same IP address. But I understand Schrandit's points as they were my initial reaction to the situation as well. Awickert (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued misunderstanding of the issue - a class is not editing Wiki as an experiment.

If a journalism class (or anyone else) is conducting breaching experiments on wikipedia, they should be told in no uncertain terms to cut it out once and for all, and should be blocked on sight if they do it again, even if it's years later. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your input, but there is an issue that I would like resolved to which this conversation is orthagonal. I am collapsing all of this material. Awickert (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This situation arises regularly with schools, university libraries etc. Creating an account is free, and there is no requirement to hand over any personal or identifying data, hence the advice is to create an account if the IP one wishes to edit from is blocked in this manner.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama "death threat"

Thought I should report this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Sweden&diff=321725633&oldid=321647437 Cassandra 73 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

These happen so often that maybe there should be some regular conduit between OTRS and the FBI if there isn't one already. Then such diffs should just be emailed to OTRS for referral. Once that is done, I'd say to administratively delete the diffs unless there's some policy against that. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, report it to the foundation or OTRS, then they'll contact the FBI. After that's done, delete the revision.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed the foundation, they've stricken it from the logs and blocked the IP (no mention of the FBI in the response I got). Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal at English Defence League

Resolved

 – No Administrator action required, disputed content issues, moved to the talkpage. — Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about recent actions at English Defence League. Specifically, User talk:Verbal is editing in a way that comes across bias and is not beneficial to the article as a whole. My recent concern is the removal of a POV-check tag. Concerns have primarily stemmed from Verbal's pushing of "far right" and "political" as unqualified labels but also includes minor details (improper use of words to avoid, weight, etc) that are pretty easy to fix. This has been going on since September and both editors and random IPs have expressed concerns. Verbal and User: Snowded would not allow for the POV template disputing neutrality at the top of the article while discussion was ongoing since they considered it closed. Another user and I continue to not be satisfied with what appears to be bias so I added the POV-check tag here (I actually second guessed myself and replaced a smarmy comment with it). I went into detail (for the third time) here I thought that worse comes to worse I would find out I was wrong. Verbal inappropriately removed this tag which was both a request for involvement as well as a notice that there is a potential neutrality concern here.

Another user brought disruptive editing on the page by Verbal here on October 21 which was considered resolved (it was too general maybe?) here. I am not familiar with the other discussion involving the user on this page. Notification of perceived disruptive behavior was done throughout the conversation at User talk:Verbal#EDL disruptive editing against clear consensus and the following subsections.

The user has engaged in what I feel is inappropriate minor edit warring (not exceeding 3rr) and questionable tactics on the talk page. This is only opinion, though. I do feel that removing a tag requesting a check for neutrality crosses the line. I also wanted to say that I feel weird going to bat for an organization that has some dirty roots but editing against bigotry is just as bad as editing for bigotry here.Cptnono (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a repeat posting of a recent content dispute. My edits are supported by the consensus on the talk page, policy, and reliable sources. Cptnono has repeatedly tried to remove or weaken the description of EDL as "far right", despite many many reliable sources and several talk page discussions supporting this. I have yet to see a policy reason for removing the clearly correct term "political". Rather than coming to ANI, a better idea would be to bring actual policy reasons to the talk page or to go to WP:NPOVN. This appears to be a further misuse of ANI, as I have not broken any policies. Cptnono is strongly pushing for the article to follow the EDL line (as can be seen on the talk page), which would fall afoul of several policies - most notably WP:NPOV. I don't see any need for administrator intervention at this point, though as always I welcome more views and opinions. This area is hot with pro-BNP/EDL activists at the moment due to recent BBC coverage of the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, convicted for inciting racial hatred. Verbal chat 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If the dispute discussion over the article's content is continuing (thus no agreement), perhaps the 'tag' should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems the dispute is mostly resolved, apart from cptnono. Maybe he'll come on board too. I expect more debate on the talk page with a new proposal shortly. Verbal chat 15:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution which Verbal has now got to. There are signs of a breakthrough on the content which may then move the tagging issue forward. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly npov concerns on that article and still are and perhaps the two parties will never agree, there is nothing wrong with such an article carrying a npov template till the end of time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the POV concerns are throughout the article and not just the "far right" and "political" terms. I also never proposed removing far right but just clarifying who laid that charge since they dispute it. One of my concerns was actually one that showed bias towards the group. The overall tone and instances of POV is why I thought a check tag was needed. The continuous locking down of the page by the editor, disputing that there is a dispute, and removing a request for input are just too much.Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

{Undent}Verbal has been editing entirely appropriately at this page. There are some pov pushers who would like to down-play the extremely right-wing of this group or who would like to suggest that the group is not political. Verbal has not, afaik, broken WP:3RR or WP:CIVIL. Verbal's edits have not been tendentuous nor have they been pushing an inaccurate POV. This ANI is frivolous. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an issue here if the terms are sourced. Cptnono says that the terms are unqualified. I looked at the page, and I didn't see that the term "far right" was sourced. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be an issue to source. Auntie E. 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right is in the sources. The group dispute it and it falls under the words to avoid guideline since it is a label. I think it should be included. It should simply say "by the British press" as it already does in the prose. Per Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral... There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources, ... -WP:WORDS Basically "The British press describe the EDL as far right. (currently in the prose) > The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right... (currently in the lead). There are also concerns which I have reiterated over and over again.

I also feel Verbal is the POV pusher which can be seen from a quick ctrl+f search through the talk pages, his reverts, and the two other recent ANIs against him. This ANI isn't about that, though. It is about his deletion of a POV check template.Cptnono (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that now it is sourced, but disputed. I don't see a sourced label as a "word to avoid", do you have a link? Auntie E. 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC

So what POV do you claim Verbal's pushing? The other ANIs had nothing to do with politics, they were about his supporting NPOV in science articles that bothered some fringe promoters, so that's a red herring. Auntie E. 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that may advance a point of view#Words that label.

What? Leaky Caldrun's (the 21st) was actually this article. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be about politics. In this case, though, his goal appears to be to prove to the editor that EDL are bad and far right. Although he might have the moral highground it is still pushing a POV.Cptnono (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV template is clearly warranted, there is active dispute about the neutrality of it and I see no reason not to have the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ANIs: I thought there were two on Colloidal silver, sorry, one was on another noticeboard. Still, it's not relevant here. This sounds like a content issue that I shouldn't have stuck my nose in. Auntie E. 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not related. I think the recent history is a problem but that is an issue to only be taken into account if an admin wants to consider a block. As it is, the article needs a POV check and it is a problem that Verbal is trying to control content by removing the dispute tag and then the check tag.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the NPOV template as I also suport that the article has issues and User Verbal has immediatly reverted my addition with an edit summary of.." One editor is not a dispute. Please get consensus for tag".. Under these commented discussions and there is a clear opinion that there is a NPOV issue I feel that User Verbal is continuing the behaviour that brought him here. There is clearly a NPOV issue and removal of the template under these conditions is excessive and unnecessary. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention that you also had issues, and there are no ongoing issues on the talk page that directly relate to the neutrality (cptnono brings up far right, but no one else agrees with him). I suggest you go to the talk page of the article. Verbal chat 20:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal is on or over the bright line that is 3RR on that article and I have left him a warning on his talkpage here . Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say you didn't know I had issues with that page, I have commented here that the page warrants a npov template and then I actually added it, yo8u should put it back until issues here and there are sorted out, the wheels won't drop of the article if it has a npov template will it, I fail to see your reasons for rushing to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have listed other reasons on the talk page a few times. I don't know why you continue to only focus on one part of the concern. Unschool has also proposed an alternative draft. On top of that, Off2riorob has also attmepted to add the template. Stop reverting.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I reverted to your pointless tag again. Why on Earth should I read this page to find out what content you want in the article? That's what the article talk page is for. You two are in a very tiny minority, and cptnono's repeatedly bringing up the same answered "concerns" is disruptive and annoying. Verbal chat

Your failure to address the issues and reverts (it obviously wasn't vandalism) are annoying. This is a great example of why you need to critically evaluate your own editing and talk page behavior.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of the contributors to EDL I want to say that regardless of what the final version looks like, it's NPOV will always be challenged by someone. There has been progress today but NPOV issues swirl around it. It's only a tag. It might get others involved. I'm pleased that Verbal thinks that the current version [8] IS NPOV since the lead has been a major source of conflict between us (and others) for 10 days. However, I would ask him to concede that others will think it needs more work to improve the article's NPOV and just leave the tag on for a period. It's only a tag FFS and confers meaning only to those who seek it. Let's polish the article, not the top margin. Leaky Caldron 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User Verbal has self reverted and I really appreciate that, take a little (more) time and chat on the talkpage and try to find a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest closing this as resolved. Lets say that this is not going anywhere here and close this drama, take a step back and over the next few days try to resolve issues on the talkpage a bit more. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this position? Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wanting to see some admonishment but that is probably exactly why this should be closed. Discussion can continue on the talk page. Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should I be admonished for acting properly? The tag is pointless, and it's hard for those of us acting in good faith to keep the uninformed POV of some editors, and intentional POV of others, out of this and similar articles. Off2riorob and cptnono are not helping improve this article, and indefinite tagging - as proposed by off2riorob - is never acceptable. Verbal chat 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Daylight Saving - Europe

Resolved. Master of Puppets 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Today the clocks go back in Europe. Should the main page not mention this? I apologise if this is not the best place to mention this - but, obviously, a quick response is needed and I do not know how else to attract the attention of someone who can take the necessary action. JMBryant —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMBryant (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a big deal IMHO. But you can suggest it at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates if you like. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that this happens every year (to the best of my knowledge, at least), I don't think it's an ITN candidate. You could try Wikipedia:On this day, though I'm not sure how well that would go either. I'm marking this as resolved, though, as this isn't the appropriate forum (if somebody can move it to one that is, that would be great - I need sleep). Master of Puppets 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to get there - and cannot spare the time to learn right now. Inasmuch as this is something that needs to be done soon or not at all can anyone who knows how please do it - and, yes, On This Day would be better - but I don't know how to change that, either. Twice each year people are inconvenienced by failing to remember daylight saving on/off dates so reminders in public places (like Wikipedia) are a useful service. JMBryant —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Right, but the world isn't just Europe (see for the USA), so we would need to do every time change for every country, which is soemthing we don't do. MBisanz ^talk 07:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated though, JMBryant, even if we don't implement it. So please don't hesitate to provide suggestions in the future (generally, a better venue is at the appropriate village pump page). Thanks! Master of Puppets 11:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move / redirect problem

Resolved

 – moved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Something is going on with Dick Smith and related articles. User:Twistie.man appears to have moved the page Dick Smith to Dick Smith (entreprenuer) - which of course has been misspelled. My attempt to move it to the correct spelling was unsuccessful - because Dick Smith (entrepreneur) has likewise been blanked and the content moved to the incorrect spelling by the same user. There is no auto-redirect at Dick Smith either. I do not understand how something like this gets fixed. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at it. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to Dick Smith (entrepreneur), with Dick Smith redirecting there. Presumably something else is going to put at Dick Smith, like a disambiguation page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to insert information on Ibrahim Zakzaky, but being deleted.

Unresolved

I am trying to insert biographical information on Ibrahim Zakzaky - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Zakzaky . It has a reliable source so it should be OK, but someone keeps removing it and I don't know why. The paragraph is:

According to former Iranian diplomat Adel Assadinia, the IMN was set up with the financial support of the Iranian government and is modelled on the Lebanese Hezbollah.[4] He said that Iran provides IMN with training "in guerrilla warfare: bomb-making, use of arms such as handguns, rifles and RPGs, and the manufacturing of bombs and hand grenades." He suggests the IMN could be used to strike Western interests in the event of conflict.

I don't know what I should do about it or if I have done something wrong. Please help. From Yassin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.29.168 (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The account responsible (Tajomalli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) for removing that text seems to be a single purpose account that has been slow edit warring on the page and inserting copyright text. I've restored the deleted material, removed the copyright text and warned the user for copyio, but there is a serious lack of communication.--Crossmr (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tajomalli notified of this conversation on user talk. - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to come in and have a look at this user. He seems to be a SPA with a sole focus and so far his edits consist mainly of edit warring to a version containing copyright text, twiceonce after being warned for it. I've also warned him for 3RR, (he's at 4, but they came before his warning).--Crossmr (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ioannis Marougkas 10

Resolved

 – indef block for repeatedly creating hoaxes and repeatedly adding false info to Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can an admin please take a look at the contributions and creations of Ioannis Marougkas 10 (talk · contribs), I have just tagged three of his articles for speedy deletion due to being blatant hoaxes, and his talk page is full of notices about him creating hoax articles in the past. Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it far beyond time someone trouts this guy. HalfShadow (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise...

Resolved

 – Chao19 blocked for 72 hours, Frmatt counseled to read WP:VAND#NOT. --Elonka 04:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Chao19 (talk · contribs) came off his block ,and went right back to his template removal and harassment... this time, throwing in some useless unsourced chatter, too... It seems the short term blocks are not helping him to learn how to properly edit... hopefully something a little longer this time? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed some stuff from the Creed (band) page (as well as their discography page), it looks like he's headed for a 3rr violation (very quickly too!) Is there an admin who can look after this user? Frmatt (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

and they have now left [9] this on my talk page. Oh, isn't he just a joy to have around? I've left a note over at WP:3RR and will shortly be heading to Witiquette alerts too! Frmatt (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Elonka just blocked them before I could finish the 3RR report, so nothing anywhere else! Frmatt (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure 72 hours was really the new logical step... he's already blown through a 31 hour and 55 hour block, coming back to continue without any changes (see here and here for details)... 72 hours is not going to change anything either... I was personally hoping for a week or month (if not indef), due to the repeated blocking, with no intentions of changing his editing patterns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing his recent history, he had made a few reverts which were effectively content edits, all of which were reverted as "vandalism". It was only after that, that he started to resort to profanity. If/when the user returns, it's important to treat him with civility, and THEN if he continues to be disruptive, a longer block may be appropriate. But it's not appropriate to call a user names, and then expect them to receive a lengthy block when they react with aggression. --Elonka 04:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the blocked editor a message and offered to try to help him find the verifiable sources. It looks like he feels bullied. Perhaps a review of bite and civility for all parties is needed. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, how does WP:BITE apply here? He's been around longer than I have (at least since I've been here regularly)...and how exactly was I un-civil towards him in my interactions with him? And yes, they were content edits, but entirely unsourced and unsourceable (at least by any means I know of). I will admit freely that I shouldn't have hit the "revert vandal" button, but I believe that I explained my actions and the reasoning behind them very clearly using the proper templates. I even gave him a note as he was heading for 3RR to give him an opportunity to stop the edit war and provide proper sources. Frmatt (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, that comment was in and of itself uncivil...I'm just feeling a little frustrated at the moment. Tomorrow's forced wiki-break (out of the house all day!) will probably be good for me! Frmatt (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone bother reading this or this? I was very civil (and certainly not BITEy), Chao19 does not care about policy, and has blatently made those edits to prove his point... I was told the last block that "we'll see what happens when he comes back, and give him a longer block if he keeps it up", and I guaranteed that he would (note the title of this section)... all parties involved do not need to review WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL, all parties involved need to read the background on this case... no one was BITEy (user has been here 1.5 years), and the only person that has been incivil is Chao19...

So basically, this is going to all repeat itself yet again in another 4 or 5 days, when he comes back from this block and starts his disruptive edits and harassment agin, and again, the block will be extended only a couple more hours, and everyone will call it resolved... How many times is it going to take for me to get a blocking admin that realizes this editor does not care about policy, and never will? Someone just let me know, so I don't bother posting the history of this case each and everytime, and just wait until block number 7 or whatever to finally have this case actually resolved... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume from the lack of any further discussion that this situation is going to be marked as resolved, and ignored until it happens again? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm proposed editing restriction

Section moved to WP:AN#User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm proposed editing restriction. Wknight94 ^talk 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

F.E.A.S.T. and Hungry: A Mother and Daughter Fight Anorexia

Could I request these two articles be deleted for non-notability? They've also been added as linkspam to eating disorder-related articles. I'd file an AfD, but was under the impression that anonymous editors shouldn't do so. Thanks.  :) —213.239.210.250 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being an anon and filing an AfD! Go IP addresses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.225.42 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as your provide a reason, it doesn't matter who is making the nomination. We are all anonymous internet users after all! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Except IP's can't send anything to an AfD because they can't create the required page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedure not being followed, need administrative attention to follow procedure

Resolved

 – AFD started User:SRMach5B

The talk page of the Malia Obama article has more than one editor agreeing that Malia Obama is marginally notable. Wikipedia prohibits only non-notable biographies but has thousands of marginally notable people.

Wikipedia's WP:BLPNAME policy prohibits naming of children unless they are notable. Since Malia's name is all over Wikipedia, this shows that she is notable. Only a few extremists would say that her name must be blacked out because of the BLPNAME policy.

Furthermore, if one disputes the existance of an article, they should start an AFD discussion.

Because 3 different types of violations of Wikipedia policies, the Malia Obama article must be recreated and anyone disagreeing may submit an AFD. The last AFD was over a year ago when Malia was a little known daughter of a political candidate. This has changed as far as reliable source coverage and notability. Even some editors who oppose the article have admitted that she is "notable" (calling her marginally notable). SRMach5B (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was not deleted, it was redirected, as seems to be appropriate, to the section on the President's family. I don't see the procedural failure here. I understand you don't agree. Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article appears to be the place for current discussion? The article talk pages are available for presenting explanations of why WP will be better served by having a separate article, but her notability seems to be entirely attached to being the daughter of the President, and I don't think there will be great support for the article, right off hand.- Sinneed 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One issue is that some supporters (not me and I am a supporter) of the President think that he wants no mention of the children. However, there are White House photos continually released, unlike the Spanish prime minister who refuses to release photos of his children. Unlike Sasha, Malia has quite a few articles specifically about her. But the ANI issue is no longer a point since there is an AFD open. SRMach5B (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malia Obama (2009) but is now closed as it wasn't filed correctly, and no this isn't just bureaucracy for the sake of it. It was badly formatted so as not to appear in the current AfD and changing a redirect to an article is not normally done as an AfD. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat; also SPA and COI

Resolved

 – SPA now indefblocked and in rampant socking stage; apply WP:RBI.  Sandstein  20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland postal addresses has, for some time now, had problems with an SPA editor, User:Garydubh, inserting COI material about a GPS/GIS system that his company, GPS Ireland Consultants Ltd, is marketing. This system isn't official and has nothing to do with the official post code system being introduced. On 20th October, a new editor, User:Secretary-whbtc, reintroduced the material about the "independent postcode". I removed it again. After I re-removed it a second time and posted to the talk page, I received this legal threat both on the article talk page and on my own talk page. The disputed material was also subeseqently reintroduced by another SPA, User:Ww2censorbastun (User:Garydubh has also been in dispute with User:Ww2censor in the past, who also tried to keep the COI material off the page). Can an admin take a look at this, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Garydubh for making a legal threat. For the other accounts, I would suggest filing a report at WP:SPI. TNXMan 11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Another legal threat, this time from an anon IP, on my userpage here, and on Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bastun - there is no "another legal threat" at that link - you have caused 2 people to be indefinitely blocked - you have a responsibility now to revisit your reasons for starting this and be sure that there is justification...83.70.108.125 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are obviously the same person or a group of buddies. Block'em all. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, but not by me. TNXMan 01:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note that there have been a number of unhelpful e-mails in this matter, presumably from the blocked editor(s), at WP:OTRS ticket 2009102310050555, to which I've now stopped replying.  Sandstein  19:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, Pierre Gres - you have e-mails which you received as you are answering a wikipedia support e-mail address posted on wikipedia relating to this issue. You chose to do nothing and decided to use them as an excuse to exacerbate this situation. There was nothing "unhelpful" in those e-mails except your comment which indicated your refusal to do anything - very unhelpful!!! Furthermore, when you were sent private e-mails which categorically show that there is no link or relationship between me and Secretary - you have also chosen to do nothing about them - also very unhelpful. The purpose of those in support is to help not exacerbate surely.... should someone with so much adverse comment here be involved in any situation where there is a dispute like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_review/Sandstein 83.70.108.125 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS e-mails, as any volunteer can check, consists of requests to intervene in the content dispute and requests for unblock. In reply, I have advised the sender of the e-mails that content disputes and unblock requests are not mediated through OTRS, but only through the on-wiki dispute resolution and block appeals procedure. If the blocked editor(s) feel that there is anything in these e-mails that is relevant to their block, they may post them on-wiki or forward them to the unblock-en-l mailing list as advised in the unblock instructions.  Sandstein  09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Secretary-whbtc as a likely meatpuppet of Garydubh. Before this current dispute, this user hadn't edited since January. And now he shows up. Quack ... Blueboy96 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueboy - please check this again - you are incorrect and Sandstein has private e-mails which prove you are incorrect - you have a repsonsibility to check this out fully and Pierre Gres (Sandstein) has a responsibility to advise you what the e-mails he was sent show 83.70.108.125 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few accusations above 1. "A GPS/GIS system .....this system isn't official and has nothing to do with the official postcode system being introduced" - The introduction of a postcode in Ireland is the subject of an open Government Tender Competition for which GPS Ireland is perfectly eligible to enter with its system - Bastun is not in a position to judge what is suitable or unsuitable or "official" or not - that is the perogative of the Irish Government. 2. That the writer of "Independent Post Code" had COI - Secreatary has himself written on the discussion page clearly indicating that he has no COI - Sandstein has information which clearly shows that he is not related in any way to anyone associated to the Independent System.

3. Garydubh in dispute with www2censor - Garydubh has not edited this article since April 2008 and has not been involved in discussion on this article since Jan 2009. Bastun's unjustified treatment of Secretary has brought him back to discussion - but he is not an "editor" - discussion and editing are two differnt things.

4. Legal Threat - long since removed and a statement of regret made.

5. COI - not the case and Peirre Gres has absolute proof if he or anyone else chooses to use it.

6. SPA - Secetary is not an SPA - is comment on the discussion page shows that he has edited other articles. Garydubh cannot be accused of being an SPA as he has not edited any article since April 2008 and has not been involved in discussion on any article since Jan 2009 - until Bastun decided to allege COI of an independent editor entering comment on an independent system for which his arguments for removal do not stand up. 83.70.108.125 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-blocked that IP for continued block evasion by Garydubh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Garydubh has been given ample advice what to do to request unblock, and it does not include evading a block by changing IP addresses. No opinion about the merits of the original meatpuppetry / NLT block, though the confrontative WP:SPA attitude does not bode well for this editor's future on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  10:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also blocked as socks two new accounts who have been attempting to alter the discussion above, Bolev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gurbut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Marking this as resolved.  Sandstein  20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fast Way to Comment Out Links?

As per Talk:Van_Morrison#Link_to_Van_Morrison_Website I'm commenting out links to vanmorrison.com and vanmorrison.co.uk but it's slow going and I have to leave soon. Is there a faster way of doing this with admin tools? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the issue with the Van Morrison site containing trojans has been resolved. How many links are you talking about though? If there are more than a handful, the ones not supported by WP:EL should be removed (using a bot if there's a really large number), not commented out. If there's just a handful, commenting them out by hand shouldn't be that difficult. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone

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.

---

The DRV is over here. — Jake Wartenberg 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Closed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to close. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we're treating this as we would any other BLP, including the customary message on ANI about impending closure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that with a touch of humor :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it take to make some people observe proper process? I've no opinion about the article or the result, but AfDs run for a minimum of seven days, which would have been until 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC). This means that the AfD was closed several hours early for no good reason, and I'd support a DRV complaint on this basis. Yes, a few hours more would not have changed the result, but if we accept this, then why do we have a minimum AfD duration (recently increased from 5 to 7 days) at all?  Sandstein  16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. You would have supported a DRV complaint even since you also state that a few hours would not have changed the result? I know you are experienced and perhaps even largely vested, but I must remind you sir... please don't DRV a discussion just to make a point about the procedure. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the amusing suggestion that only four of the keeps were weak (at least a half dozen were boilerplate ARS canvass-fodder), but that's a matter for DRV I suppose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a minimum at all? Sounds like bureaucracy to me. Chillum 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it acts as a safeguard against bad closes caused by a skewing of the early responses. WP:SNOW is there for genuine no-brainers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-opened this debate. WP:AFD is explicit about "at least seven days." I see no reason to make an exception in this case; in fact, I see all the more reason to follow the rules by the letter. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-closed it. You do not challenge a closure by reverting it, you can talk to the closing admin first at least, or file for DRV. You are talking about hours over the course of a week, this seems to accomplish little. Chillum 17:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note I was mistaken in thinking that the closing admin was not contacted, it happened off wiki and I did not realize until later. Chillum 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You must not war over the close. We have a process, however, I think you should talk to the closer firstly. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Arzel

• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please review this diff and advise if it is an appropriate removal of another editor's talk page comments? This is part of a long term pattern of questionable edits by Arzel. I can dig up additional diffs if necessary, but I'd like to keep this as narrow of a scope as possible. I've had a long history with Arzel, so I would appreciate it if someone else were to talk a look and address the issue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And this requires admin intervention in what way? --Tom (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment looks more like an opinion than a constructive suggestion for improving the article, but it's borderline and obviously removing it is causing more drama than would have been created by leaving it or moving it into the appropriate section. I would have refactored it to a subsection of the existing discussion, and I think it's likely it would have not received any responses, but I can see where User:Arzel was coming from, in that it's important to try to keep discussions on that particular talk page on track. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The question was posed here because (1) I have a history with Arzel; (2) Arzel has a historical pattern of making such questionable edits, for which he's been blocked in the past; and (3) I wanted uninvolved opinions on the matter. You guys should disclose that you have previous dealings both with Arzel and with me. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I've seen User:Arzel's name in discussions; I don't "have [any] previous dealings" with him so far as I know. Having discussed other articles with you had no impact on my response to you here, as I would hope you could tell by my response. I don't know what to say if you feel my response is biased against you in some way, but I don't intend to preface any comments I make with "I've discussed other issues with User:Blaxthos before, but I'm here to say..." user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

j, I believe Blaxthos was talking about me, but I could be wrong, I run about 25% wrong :). Unless there is some edit war or bigger thing here, don't knowwhat an admin would do. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I believe I qualify as uninvolved. I don't think Arzel should have removed that comment. The editor appears to have been asking about whether or not particular information should be included in the article. This to my mind seems an appropriate use of an article talkpage. Arzel's characterisation of the edit as WP:FORUM is therefore erroneous in this case and the comment should be restored. As for what should be done with Arzel, I'll defer to the wisdom of others. Crafty (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have always felt that removing the comments made by others is not a good idea. The comment was bordering forum-speak, to which they should have been advised so on their talk page. Removing it, however, doesn't seem like such a good idea. I would advise for Azrel to not remove talkpage comments that are borderline and instead engage the user on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• What a sickening display of pettiness on the part of Blaxthos. This report is motivated entirely on his personal vendetta against me. Please tell me the difference between my edit and this edit or this edit by Blaxthos in the past month. Furthermore, if this was such an egregious edit why didn't he just revert it, or anyone revert it for that matter? Arzel (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you revert these edits in the first place? I understand the "not a forum rule", but it seems to me you are a touch zealous about this. Surely there can be some discussion about the subject matter of articles on their talkpages? Crafty (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"these edits"? I only removed one comment from the FNC talk page. The other two edits were basically the same type of comments removed by Blaxthos on other articles. If his are fine and mine is bad I would like to know what the difference is.

I only removed the one comment mentioned in the original complaint because is sounded like forum talk to me. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, it wasn't restored by Blaxthos or anyone else involved here at this time, so it doesn't appear to have been a comment that is intended on improving the content of the article. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone redux

Resolved

 – now closed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is 4:39 pm (UTC-6) today, I believe exactly seven days. Can we close? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My image uploads getting CSDed within 3 minutes of uploading. Is that reasonable?

Resolved

 – ZooFari has owned up to being a bit too quick with the old autoedits, and has apologised at the user's talkpage --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to upload a number of record cover images for use in single infoboxes, but they are being nominated for deletion as orphaned before I have had a chance to add them to the infoboxes. I still have many that I can upload, but if they are going to be CSDed as I try, what's the point? Markfury3000 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are they all being dumped by the one admin? you could try having a word with him/her. Also (correct me if I'm wrong here) can't you add the fair use rationalle at the time of uploading, before adding to the infobox?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When I say "CSDed" I meant tagged with a CSD, not actually deleted. I always add the fair use rationale and licensing when I upload. Markfury3000 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned image CSDs must be orphaned for a week before deletion. So you have a week to write up a fair-use rationale and add it to an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I had visions of one of the admins on speed, sat at the pc crazily deleting Markfury's images :) As it is, it sounds like a recent changes patroller being very up to the mark. The admin reviewing the CSD will decline it if the image is not orphaned and the paperwork is in place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to me a little pointy to CSD tag record cover images as orphaned when the proper target to place each of them in is obvious. It would have made more sense for the patroller to remind him to do it as he went along, or, even better, add the link and the rationale, thus helping their fellow editor. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OP has had an apology, so I guess this is resolved now? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Werdnabot

Please see User talk:Werdnabot#Bot fail. Werdnabot is undoubtedly one of our most heavily used bots, and I don't particularly like to talk about blocking it, but there has been an outstanding issue on the talk page for eight days now, and no sign of User:Werdna since October 3, excepting a single edit October 19. The combination of an unattended bot making errors and an operator who can't be reached is not acceptable, even if it's an essential bot with a respected operator. As such, while I don't like to talk about blocking Werdnabot, I'm nonetheless going to ask that the community consider it. I am aware of the large negative repercussions, but after going this long without being able to contact the operator, I can't continue to ignore it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried emailing him? I've had off-wiki communication with him far more recently than when he disappeared from here. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors, but I have not. I personally check my onwiki talk page more often than my account email, though of course that doesn't mean the same is true of others. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've since sent him an email; thanks for the reminder. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is Werdna has been very busy with live testing and bug fixing of Liquid Threads at http://liquidthreads.labs.wikimedia.org. He's been responding to feedback threads there. You can try leaving a message on his talk page there about this, but we may need to be patient. Equazcion (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA at Atmospheric water generator repeatedly removing sourced info and inserting copyright-violation images

I posted this at wp:COIN 9 hours ago[10] but it looks like that noticeboard gets very little attention these days. Meanwhile the SPA has continued reverting to their preferred version (complete with copyright violation images).[11] This is the fifth time Mateyahoy (talk · contribs) has reverted to the same version since October 15 while making no other mainspace edits. The only explanations given (for reverting additions of NYT, NPR, and Science Daily sources, better writing, wikifying) are that they will "add more info soon" (it's been 9 days!) and that the images self-made. I've already tagged the images for deletion at Commons,[12][13] but I could use some help with Mateyahoy, who only seems interested in maintaining an old version of the article while not editing any other article. T34CH (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Mateyahoy of this thread. Please note this is a REQUIREMENT of filing an incident here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elen

When I first saw the AWG page it was full of misinformation and as an AWG engineer I have tried to add reliable information. T34CH is adding information that is total misinformation such as his statement that Calcium and Magnesium are added because the water is so pure etc... Insofar as the images go I created them and agreed to the waiver. I have suggested to him to keep his edits to the desiccant section but he doesn't seem to want to do this. I dont have a lot of time right now to add more new information but misinformation doesn't help anyone. I will add some better info to the discussion page, that may help clear up any misunderstandings.

Cheers

--Mateyahoy (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, you took out a lot of referenced content and added a lot of cheerful "in my experience" type content. This is not going to go down well. Are there some textbooks on atmospheric water generators out there you can cite to show that your unsourced content is more accurate than that which was there before. If you have references, fine. If not, you need to leave the article alone until you have them, rather than change the content and promise the references later. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Elen There are no textbooks on AWGs. The information that is on the page is accurate referanced information. The info T34 is trying to add is misinformation. I have suggested in discussion that he confine his addition of desiccants to a single heading on the page and then it can be looked at by all and a desicion made as to its relevance and accuracy. All of the information on the page was put there by others except I added the pictures to give a better idea of their looks and how it works. Any of the rest of the information was added or edited by others, but I do agree with their edits.

I have added no cheerful in my experience content at all, except to the discussion page, where I am not trying to start a fight but rather help people understand how AWGs really work.

--Mateyahoy (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Mateyahoy has now made the same set of edits three times, and been reverted by three different people (none of them me) in the space of 2hrs. Frmtt gave him a level 1 warning and Tide Rolls a level 2 (read and removed). Although I wasn't the one reverting, I have added a level 3 warning.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mateyahoy, the other editors have included references. Don't take this the wrong way, but for all anyone knows, you could be making all that stuff up - you might be an engineer of 20 years experience, or you might be a bored short order cook on a slow night. That's why Wikipedia insists on sources. You must stop until you have something that can back you up, otherwise you will end up being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever think to read any of the info and look at the page history to see where the info came from. I have been supporting proper edits of real information that others have put up. My only real contribution was the photos. Any information that I put up was edited out.

Let me repeat any info that I have been putting up was the original info that Luttinger and T34 have been taking down. It seems to me you are fighting without even reading the info, but if you like the information they are supplying and think its accurate then God Bless. --Mateyahoy (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a small number of editors at WP:COIN who respond to requests. I generally respond to everything posted there if someone else doesn't first. Recently there was some controvery at Vivek Kundra involving sockpuppetry, edit wars, page protection, it was a mess. Sorry if the squeakier wheel got the grease. :( In any case, I'll respond here instead of over there... It seems to me that this editor likely has a conflict of interest in their edits. There is no "smoking gun" per se; they haven't claimed to be associated with any company or shown a definitive tie. However, the single-purposed nature of their edits that seem intended to promote "Everet Water" should make it clear. That combined with the spamming, edit wars, original research, and unwillingness to even approach a compromise and constant user page blanking seems to indicate to me an editor not likely to ever be productive to the project. I'd support an indef block if they don't change their ways soon. -- Atama頭 06:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the squeeky wheel is getting the grease here as well. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to disseminate real information not misinformation. --Mateyahoy (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon verfication not 'truth', if you can't provide a reliable source for a piece of information, we can't verify it and it is likely to be removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Mateyahoy has reuploaded the images even though their web source has a copyright notice at the bottom. image on commons and on ttwltd.com; image here, and on everestwater.com Looking over the history, this article has been the target of numerous SPA's in the past. One of the previous SPA's was actually Mateyahoy as 24.70.183.75 (talk · contribs)[14][15] T34CH (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

24.70.183.75 was my address before I had an account :) Since I received an account I have always tried to remeber to log in first.

The images were re-uploaded with appropriate permissions :)

The information you keep uploading is not accurate and is misleading :(

Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Permission from who? The webpages indicate copyrighted material. Please change the information on the Everest webpage. T34CH (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why dont we follow Wikipedias rules instead of yours, and let the admins do their job? If they have a problem with the images I am sure they will let me know. Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the rules. Notice, given that the Everest website claims a copyright and used the images before you uploaded them, the burden of proof is on you to prove you are the owner. Anybody can copy an image from the web and post it on Wikipedia, claiming it was theirs. The admins will be doing their job when they get a chance. I suggest you give some sort of proof about the images and start cooperating with other editors at the article before they get around to this case. T34CH (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said its already done, why are you still talking about it? The admins will take care of it if its a problem :) Cheers Mateyahoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW when you start complaint here you are supposed to notify me, if Elen hadnt brought this to my notice I wouldnt have seen it at all. Mateyahoy (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've deleted the local image that Mateyahoy has uploaded as an unambiguous copyright violation, and I'm certain the image on Commons will also be deleted in short order (I'm not an admin there). Mateyahoy, do *not* upload images from website and claim your own free license. T34CH is fully correct in this situation. It isn't a matter of whether or not admins have a problem, but one of copyright, and you are violating this. Consider this a final warning. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hunster I have followed the rules as per Wikipedia guidelines, there are no copyright violations T34CH is not correct and neither are you. Please refrain from speculation and stick to the facts. If there is a copyright problems then the admins will have a problem with the images, if there is no copyright violations they will not.

Lets repeat The images have been uploaded, wikipedia guidelines have been followed and the images have been placed in public domain following WIKIPEDIA rules. OK? Why dont we all just wait for a ruling from the admins? Mateyahoy (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mateyahoy, I am an admin, which is how I deleted the local image. You refuse to provide any evidence that you own the copyright to those images, and both websites the images come from specifically describe a copyright that is of the "all rights reserved" variety. If you own these images, then you must show *proof* that you own them. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didnt realise you are an admin. I had a notice and emailed appropriate permissions to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org' as per the instructions. Is there a problem with the email? Mateyahoy (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems. One is that the website still claims copyright status. Another is that if you are the copyright owner, you have a wp:COI with editing the Atmospheric water generator article. T34CH (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

T34 I am pretty sure the admins will be able to handle this :) Mateyahoy (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the OTRS ticket has been received, and both images are in the clear. Thanks for sending the email Mateyahoy. I'll make sure both image descriptions are cleaned up appropriately. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And just a note that both images are now at Commons: Commons:File:Atmospheric Water Generator diagram.jpg and Commons:File:Everestwateryeti12.jpg (with request to rename to a more descriptive title). — Huntster (t @ c) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the "Dry desiccation with pressure condensation" section was copied from here, with grammatical errors intact. --John Nagle (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John, but I am at the point that if no one is that interested in how AWGs really work then I think I will just leave them at it.

But it is interesting that I was never notified by T34CH as per the rules

Also he has been using content that is copywritten. "Site developed by APL Technology and Management Ltd. All Rights Reserved."

I could point out a lot more problems with his content but Ill leave it to the admins to figure out.

Thanks Again Keep up the good work :) Mateyahoy (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism warnings

Resolved

 – policy clarified Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that removal of warnings from one's own talk page was allowed. The reasoning is that it is indication that one has read the warnings. However, I have now seen this given as a reason for blocking an IP user. In this particular case, I believe the user had commited other blockable offenses, but this was the ultimate reason given for the block. Of course, some things are supposed to remain on a user's page (e.g., sock, whois, and block templates), but I was under the understanding one could remove warning templates. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. As per WP:BLANKING, while we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors - from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will alert the admin who issued the block, but no need to "name names" or anything. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you should name names. Why should admins get away with undoing the revision of an IP edit that removes a warning template when if an IP editor undoes the removal of content from an Admin's talk page, it is considered vandalism?--125.239.151.99 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No need. As I said, I alerted the admin. It's not that hard to figure it out if you are really interested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. If a person removes warnings from his/her talk page, then it is generally understood that he/she acknowledges the warnings. The problem with new/naive users is that, in removing warnings, some think that they can use the "I never got warned" defense (like with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). However, because all contributions are stored in page histories, that falls apart.

Users should not be blocked, however, for simply removing such warnings. MuZemike 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair is fair. If IPs and non-admin registered users have to have the "sockpuppet" "block" etc name-and-shame templates on their pages, admins should be named and shamed for their bad edits too.--125.239.151.99 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't happen to be 219.89.57.102, are you? Just wondering, because both your IPs come from the same town. MuZemike 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering that too MuZemike. They're from the same town, as is 122.57.91.165. I had blocked 219.89... and then these other two have come along to comment at my talk page about the block. either way (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny you saying that because I thought that 219 editor was told to stay relevant. Which is completely opposite to what you are doing now. I also find it suspicious that you would take interest in me now considering that you just reverted my edits to your talk page ignoring them and then come here to blatantly accuse of me f such nonsense. I can see a great practise of WP:AGF here from an admin. Get a clue.--125.239.151.99 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we are just talking about removal of content from talk pages, I should really just remove your comments right now because your question is not relevant to this discussion...oh hang on. You are admins, it is okay you can revert it back and then warn me for leading by example. Oh dear.--125.239.151.99 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't say it cannot be done because you did it to that ip's comments here. no discusion with them firt, just straight to the revert, warn and revert any attempt to defend themselves. How patronizing.--125.239.151.99 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits indicate clear block evasion and I have blocked all current IPs as such. MuZemike 05:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with User:Mhouston310

Mhouston310 (talk · contribs) has repeated added a lot of WP:OR, not at all wiki formatted content that has also removed references with this edit to the Jim Bowden page. I have warned Mhouston310 several times, but the user has continued with no explanation.--Henry talk 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

For god/dess sake, someone stop Mhouston! I don't think he's even adding info about the same Jim Bowden. And Henryodell, I'd stop now, because you don't want to get into trouble for 3RR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: with no judgment on the content itself, I have posted 3rr warnings to both Mhouston310 and Henryodell. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Add socking to the account for Mhouston [16]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And that account is ignoring warnings. Needs page protection and an SPI as I think Mhouston310 has edited as at least three other editors --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've filed RPP and SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhouston310. There are three IPs and Mhouston310 all adding the identical chunk of text about a person 20 years younger and with a slightly different full name. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also posted a 3RR warning to the most recent IP, as he is now at 4 reverts. Also, the edit summary on this edit could be interpreted as a legal threat if the intent is to file the defamation and harrassment charges off-wiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just spotted that one :) Busy little blighter, isn't he. Netalarm seems to have taken over the reversion job. Wonder how long it'll be till the next sock pops out of the drawer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mhouston310 indef'd and all socks blocked for 31hrs. Hopefully things will quieten down a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Last call (I hope). User:ShelbyBelle - note NOT User:ShelbyBell who has edited the article in a wholly legitimate manner - left a legal threat on Talk:Jim Bowden [17] which I have removed. If anyone wants to block User:ShelbyBelle as another Mhouston310 sock (the text of the threat is pretty identical to the one made by the IP above), I don't think anyone will be arguing. ShelbyBelle should be blocked anyway, as the username is a clear intent to impersonate, harass or otherwise annoy ShelbyBell. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a templated warning to the user's talk page, using {{uw-legal}}. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet along with making a legal threat. MuZemike 05:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:EMCEEHOOD

I wanted at least one more admin to be following the activities of this editor, who appears to be determined to be offensive to Jews and may well be a white supremacist. I warned him on my talk page when he called me a "nazi" and I think the pattern of his edits and activities indicates that in the future he will be extremely offensive to all with whom he comes in contact, with little chance of any useful contribution. I think I'm a little too personally involved now to be able to act with the appearance of impartiality, and I understand the relevant policy suggests I can't pre-emptively block him, so I would appreciate it if someone kept an eye on this editor; my experience suggests that he will need further admonishment, if not blocking, in short order. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Cut-and-dry racism, there. Tan | 39 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate your taking a hand. (I frequently think I am too Pollyanna-ish about the possibility that editors will reform.) Accounting4Taste:talk 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like this happens to those who personally abuse Palestinians and exhibit constant racism towards them as a group and towards any testimony from them. And deny the Nakba. Articles concerning Palestine are very distorted as a result. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? You have proof of this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all over every article concerning the Middle East. Overlapping that problem is armed people involved white-washing incidents. There are some POV problems in articles like Fallujah during the Iraq War perhaps because they suffer the same problems, but they don't suffer editors denying ethnic cleansing and killings in the same obvious way. The English Defense League is making headlines in the UK at the moment, there is even interference there that looks rather like the same people carrying on even while they're being criticised on ANI here![18] 86.158.184.158 (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can attest to this. I was dealing only a few weeks ago with an editor who sought to dispute or remove Arab sources from an article because he believed that Arabs have what he called a "generic storytelling culture" which makes anything they say unreliable (i.e. they are congenital liars). A number of editors rightly criticised this as overt racism. A while back, someone proposed on the reliable sources noticeboard that all Arab sources should be declared unreliable. The proposal didn't get anywhere, but it was dismaying to see several editors agreeing. There is, unfortunately, a significant amount of overt racial and religious prejudice in this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Would people be prepared to look at the discussion on Al-Jazeera in particular and maybe this one on Arab News? 86.158.184.158 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors rightly criticised this as overt racism - seems to me, then, that Wikipedia worked the way it's supposed to. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the same editor trying to shout down 6 others and declear al-Jazeera NOT:RS is currently trying to dominate the Muhammed al-Dura article with an accusation exceedingly offensive to Palestinians. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you spot an editor being racist towards Palestinians, please report them. We don't refrain from enforcing policy in one instance because somebody got away with breaking policy some place else. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The response to my complaint here is that Scotland and Wales have no right to be treated as separate nations and it's offensive of me to complain of the racism expressed. And messages on my Talk page telling me I'll be reported for complaining of racism. And, of course, I and others have reported the racism aimed at Arab sources and nothing has happened there either. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar

Resolved

 – The AfD has been closed and the potential socks have been blocked. Guest9999 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have attracted a lot of single purpose accounts. So far I count a total of five acounts which registered during the course of the discussion and have only contributed to the discussion and in a few cases the article up for deletion. Given that all of these accounts have expressed the same preference as to what should happen to the article and it doesn't seem like a topic which would neccessarily attract a lot of attention from forums/blogs, etc. it seem to me that socking or at least meatpuppetry is a distinct possibility. Guest9999 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that an IP editor has described the same pattern at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar. Guest9999 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, only Robroams (talk · contribs) is still contributing to this discussion … the others stopped after the {{spa}} labels were added … Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)}

Aren't we now at 7 days? someone want to close that sucker down? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken Survey.

The "Help us make it easier to add pictures to Wikipedia by taking a 2-minute survey! " announcement at the top of all pages links to a broken survey. I emailed the errors that popped up to software at wikimedia dot org. Maybe disable it 'till it's fixed?--Elvey (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's sporadic or fixed. I tried again; taking it now.

The main error was

Warning: unlink(/srv/org/wikimedia/survey/tmp/template_temp_090626181546.html) [function.unlink]: Permission denied in /srv/org/wikimedia/survey/common.php on line 6221

--Elvey (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of Twinkle

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.

---

Resolved. I don't need twinkle. The problem is Wikipedia's attitude towards vandals, not mine.   Nezzadar ☎   16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, I was blocked from using Twinkle by Hesperian. After much discussion, it was agreed upon for me to take a two week break and do my edits without twinkle. After the two weeks, I would come back and be judged on my edits. The whole thing is here.

Well, it will be two weeks on Tuesday and I doubt I will be online much until then because of my regular Sunday activity and a one time horrible activity on Monday. So this is it. I have made amends, softened up, and joined a network of supporting people making wonderful contributions. And I would like TW back for those times that I do go on RCP and come across stacked vandalism, where undo just dosen't cut it.

I'll be good, I promise. Thoughts please.   Nezzadar ☎   07:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed the history, but coming back early and issuing a promise with no content are not good signs. Presumably you previously thought you were being good, so what is new? Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at your most recent contribs to look for dealings with vandalism/newbies, as that was a focus of this issue. I thought I'd mention this -- You shouldn't leave two warnings at once. Warnings are meant to inform the editor that they did something wrong, not to make a record of individual bad edits. If you see consecutive vandalism edits by one editor, and that editor hasn't been warned yet, just leave one warning. The stepped warnings are there for a reason -- we're assuming good faith that after being informed of an error, the user will learn, and it's only after they ignore a warning that we step up to stronger words. Equazcion (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time now that Nezzadar has brought this issue to AN/I without having the courtesy to let me know about it. I have no time to respond in full for the next few hours, and I'll take the opportunity to think about it during that time. For the present moment, though, I am opposed. There is/was a serious attitude problem here—an inclination to treat newbs, and indeed just about anyone, as the enemy, someone to be squashed as rudely as possible. I don't see that a problem this fundamental can be fixed in less than two weeks. Hesperian 08:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to "where undo doesn't cut it", personally I almost never use rollback, and rarely use undo, because in nearly all cases I want to look at the user's preceding edits, in their context, in order to know how best to respond. I want to know whether this is two users playing a to-and-fro vandalism game, in which case rollback will simply mask one user's vandalism with the removal of the other's. I want to know if the blanking or an article is inexplicable and unwarranted, or if it is an escalation from a previous thwarted attempt to remove specific objectionable text. I want to find the last good version of the article. There really is no substitute for going the long way: history->diff->edit old version->meaningful edit summary. What Nezzadar needs is a year or so of doing it this way—the right way. Once the fine art of assuming good faith and treating people like human beings has been learned, tools like rollback and twinkle may be offered in confidence. But in my view this lesson cannot be learned in two weeks, especially not two weeks spent avoiding RC. It was only 11 days ago that Nezzadar was saying "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity.... If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't." Hesperian 12:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with you here. Unless it's someone inserting "Barbie does it in the dollhouse", I like to take time to check the history of a strange edit. It sometimes worries me that in the time it takes me to work out if the edit IS vandalism, someone else has just removed it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Undo always cuts it except in the case where someone nails 50 articles at once. But, if someone does that it is very likely another editor with the appropriate tools will encounter it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity.... If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't." I still believe that, heavily. For example, User talk:99.74.31.16 is a perfect illustration of a drive by bigot. Makes racist comments, I revert them, he vandalizes my userpage. This type of clear bad faith behavior occurs so very often, and people love to give level one warnings saying "oh in case this was an accident, don't worry." This is what I mean by sticking your head in the sand. If Wikipedia doesn't respond harshly to bad faith vandals, that is a serious problem. I created the NWarn template specifically to deal with this gaping hole. Whatever though, if passivity is the way of Wikipedia, so be it.   Nezzadar ☎   16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Moot point probably but template:bv exists for a reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a horribly misleading argument. Some newb comes along and says "Wow, can I actually edit this live?!" and blanks a page to test it out. He receives an abusive threat in response. Apparently this is justifiably because some other newb might be a racist vandal? That doesn't make sense. "Assume Good Faith" is not a suicide pact. "Assume Good Faith" would be better phrased as "Presume Good Faith": i.e. assme good faith until you have confirmation that good faith is lacking. Sometimes that confirmation arrives with the first edit. Sometimes it takes many more. Patience is required. The solution is not to immediately attack anyone who makes an inadvisable edit. Hesperian 23:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nezzadar seems to have nailed his colours to the mast now. "Human nature is bad. Humans are overwhelmingly stupid."[19] Hesperian 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for me. I'm cool and have the neatest name. HalfShadow (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful contribution HalfShadow. Goodbye HalfShadow.

Now onto legitimate business: I really don't care what you think Hesperian, because out of all the admins I have come across, you are the least likely to offer advice and the most likely to bite. Yes, you bite. So do I, but you are supposedly held to a higher standard. Your comment above was also horribly misleading. I am referring to people that just randomly insert vulgarities into articles. I am not referring to page blankers. Page blankers are just idiots, the vandals I am dealing with are actually malicious. If you look at my warnings only people that use racist terms and serial vandals get strong warnings. I tend to give out lots of level twos, a few threes, fours when needed. Don't imply that all I do is nail fours. That is unethical, and again, you are supposed to be held to some sort of standard. Please actually be honest in your dealings.   Nezzadar ☎   18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have recently had several unpleasant dealings with the admin Hesperian. His interactions with me have left me dangerously close to seeking his desysop. If a neutral admin wants to get involved to diffuse this, it would be appreciated.   Nezzadar ☎   18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Another sock of Mhouston310

see above

User:70.239.149.143 [20] Anyone up for blocking? Also, is it worth semi protecting the article for a few days? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I just submitted an RFPP request for the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP user

Resolved

 – 12.147.22.105 (talk) blocked for one year. Gabbe (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/12.147.22.105. IP made a legal threat in the edit summary, stating "DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, HARASSMENT CHARGES ARE FORTHCOMING ON SEVERAL USERS THAT ARE EDITING THIS CONTENT." Difference. Netalarmtalk 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The IP has already been blocked for edit warring and sock-puppetry. See also the section above Problem with User:Mhouston310, which is related to this activity. That section also mentions User:ShelbyBelle who made a similar threat a few days ago on the article's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Block was changed to 1 year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

old incident

From 14 January - 17 January 2009, IP 98.14.53.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to have inserted misinformation or nonsense into about ten articles, some of which has persisted. I noticed the problems with Louis M. Goldsborough & David Graham Phillips and have taken care of them, but I would appreciate help dealing with the others; I think at this point I'm going to assume that nothing he inserted was valid and remove it. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC) - I think I've dealt with them all, but an independent double-check would be a good thing. - Nunh-huh 05:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at his contributions - so far as I can tell that seems to be everything taken care of. --Xdamr^talk 16:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Nunh-huh 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavia and user Keldjylland

On Scandinavia, a new user has repeatedly been removing sourced content presenting different views on the topic to impose his personal, unsourced view. The user joined Wikipedia one week ago, and as can be seen from his history, this is a single-purpose account with a strong POV.[21]. Until the German version of the Scandinavia was protected, he had been repeating the same POV-edits there, constantly being reverted by other users.[22]. The problem in a nutshell is this: Some authorities see Scandinavia as more limited than others. In common English usage, it usually included Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, and often Iceland as well. Reading newspapers in English dealing with topics such as health care, education, welfare state, ecology etc., these countries are usually lumped together as the Scandinavia countries. On the talk page, I've shown that virtually all guide books to Scandinavia in English includes Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. While a guidebook is not an authoritative source, if almost all guidebooks, news media etc use a definition, it hints towards what could be called common English usage. I am not arguing that we should present only this usage, but it should also be presented. Keldjylland's arguments center on common English usage being "wrong" and the result of "ignorant Americans"[23], [24]. At the moment we're just reverting each others' versions.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute (and um, Scandinavia does not include Finland or Iceland traditionally). What exactly are you looking for from administrators? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the definition of Scandinavia, but common English usage seems to be different from what you say, at least if sources such as The Guardian, BBC and New York Times are given any credibility. Nobody disputes the traditional definition, the content dispute is about whether to also include the fact that Finland is usually described as a Scandinavian country in English media. I'm happy to discuss this, but object to every reference to it being deleted, even if sourced, because the user has decided that only his version is the WP:TRUTH.Jeppiz (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Every book listed under Scandinavia at amazon.com includes Finland (though I stopped looking after the first page). In fact, some of them include Estonia and the Faeroes, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, isn't this a dispute? As long as the other party is civil, appears to be listening to reason, & isn't reverting without discussion, I'd say your next step is WP:RfC. Good luck; this sort of thing can be very frustrating to handle. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – 213.7.255.111 (talk) blocked for three months. Gabbe (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

213.7.255.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is a block evading sockpuppet of indefed user Charls Andre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has issued legal threats at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charls Andre/Andreas Savvides here. Dr.K. logos 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have advised them of this thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ten minutes ago Toddst1 blocked the IP for 3 months. I agree with the block; obvious legal threat. Three months might be a bit long for an IP block. Tan | 39 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much gentlemen. Many thanks to Toddst1 in particular. Take care. Dr.K. logos 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse redirects and problems with gangs of editors

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.

---

Resolved. I've restored SRMach5B comments at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which is one of the places that they were told to ask. What SRMach5B should not have done is then open this particular section. At the same time Cameron Scott should not have removed the BLP noticeboard comments but should have closed this. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In WP, there are many obscure articles, many that pass AFD. However, because Barack Obama has stated he wants reduced press coverage of his children, many have acted (whether conscience of it or not) as Barack's Wikipedia police. Others have tried to bring back the article but are met with militant opponents who speedily delete things, close up discussions, etc.

Since the main Barack article is under article probation, this should be decided on a community basis, not a premature closure. That's why it's here on ANI.

Malia Obama is notable even by those opposed to the article (see Malia talk page where others admit she is "marginally notable").

Malia Obama has survived the WP:BLPNAME policy banning the menition of non-notable children because she is notable.

Malia Obama has many articles in reliable sources. They cover her and are not about Barack Obama so she is s notable person in their own right.

Malia Obama had an AFD but that was over a year ago when she was a possibly non-notable candidate's daughter and 2 years younger and had no articles about her. That was also speedily closed showing that some may be trying to stop the consensus and block the article.

Malia Obama information has been released by the White House, unlike some countries where the government press office do not release photos or information on the children of leaders. This shows that the White House is not opposed to articles, as long as it is done tastefully.

WP:R#PLA says that there should be articles, not redirects, for terms that people look up. People look up Malia Obama, not Family of so and so.

Administrators, please just restore the article or at the very least let an AFD proceed for the usual time period without giving excuses for closing it early. SRMach5B (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a follow-up to yesterday's ANI thread, as well as a forum-shopping exercise for an editor not getting his/her own way at the BLP noticeboard and two article talk pages (Talk:Malia Obama and Talk:Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_Obama_article). It was explained to you yesterday that an AfD was not the correct route for what you wanted - it's not a question of giving an "excuse" to close an AfD early. This is a content dispute on whether an article should exist or be a redirect, and there's nothing requiring administrative intervention here. Bencherlite^Talk 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just chiming in for background purposes, there was a fair amount of discussion in the last few days at Talk:Malia Obama and Talk:Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_Obama_article about this stuff. As I talked about here, I personally didn't see any strong recent consensus that Malia Obama should not have her own article. In the absence of divining that consensus, I understand the redirect should stay. In my view, when Wikipedia has a gap like this, typically the article keeps getting recreated by less-frequent contributors who can't believe there isn't one (which goes along with WP:R#PLA, an argument not raised last week). So the article has been recreated at least twice in the past week. If AfD is not the proper route to divine consensus as SRMach5B attempted, I understand it has to be DRV? But a DRV of a deletion discussion that was clearly correct in May 2008 (before papa Obama was even a party nominee) seems odd as well. I decided last week not to propose a DRV myself because I didn't want to spend all my editing time on this one issue (I learned my lesson from trying to edit Glenn Beck), but I suspect the Malia article issue is going to keep arising until the article exists one day. Just my opinion.--Milowent (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have a process for deleting articles - WP:AFD, but it seems that there is no process where the community can debate in advance whether or not an article can be created. I'm not sure that WP:AFC is going to be any help here either. Maybe we need a facility where these issues can be thrashed out by the community and agreement reached on whether or not an article should be created - WP:MAKE? Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• You could take this revision to AFD, noting that the page is currently fully protected (for 3 months!) due to edit warring, and that the AFD should discuss whether that revision should be re-instated or be left as a redirect. –xeno^talk 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SRMach5B I told you yesterday that an AfD to change a redirect or to do something with Malia Obama (2009), created by you with the line "See AFD for today. Do not recreate this article until the AFD is settled.", was not the correct venue. Neither is coming back here and requesting admins to go against consensus and recreate an article. First you need to change consensus and you have been told that several times, along with possible venues to do that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't like the answer here, so went forum shopping. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting at proper wikipedia discussion boards should not be demeaned, discouraged, or mocked. Attracting a broader community is not "shopping". The latter term refers to discriminate posting in places carefully selected to push a POV. Clearly, wikipedia community pages are quite indiscriminate and representative of opinions. Please give a fellow wikipedian due respect. I don't see anything unreasonable in his request, although I have no opinion on the issue. - Altenmann >t 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you have not researched this situation at all before offering your opinion here. Tan | 39 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to research anything. I am commenting on a particular comment which refers to a particular action, namely, posting at a common wikipedia notice board. Please explain why posting there must be criticized or discouraged in any other way. I clearly stated that I have no opinion on the essence of the dispute. I am commenting on the way how it is carried out. - Altenmann >t 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP is pretty straightforward. Pick a spot, make your case. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The page in question is not a policy. I vehemently disagree with the text written there. Its indiscriminate language essentially means "shut your claptrap up". Different forums mean broader participation. Unless you are saying that the same "cabal" sits in all forums and you just annoy it by repetition. - Altenmann >t 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with it or not is irrelevant. Someone said "don't forum shop", you said "that isn't forum shopping", I point you to the Wikipedia's guideline on forum shopping, and your response is "well, I don't agree with that" ? You can't berate others for not adhering to your own personal POV, which runs counter to how the rest of the Wikipedia views the matter. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with your interpretation. I did explain my reasons why I disagree. You didn't explain why my reasoning is wrong. Instead, you are simply bullying me by "the rest of the wikipedia". The page you are referring to isn't even a policy. - Altenmann >t 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither is WP:N, but we don't discard it because we don't agree with it. Tan | 39 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't discard it, but we use common sense. You still prefer to ignore my request to explain what was wrong in my arguments. Instead, you prefer wikilawyering. I am retiring from the case, since this is not a proper forum. I guess now I cannot discuss the issue elsewhere, since I will be easily shut for "forum shopping". Good bye. - Altenmann >t 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see you argue that we shouldn't use WP:FORUMSHOP because it's not a policy, but as for the other guidelines, we should use with common sense. This makes about as much sense as you insinuating we are somehow censoring an editor below. And I'm the one wikilawyering! Tan | 39 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Where is the BLP/N discussion referenced above? –xeno^talk 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it with a note in the edit summary that there is a live discussion here. It's pointless to have two parallel conversations. If people think it should be managed there - this discussion should be closed and that opened. or if people disagree with either of those options they can do what they please, as people generally do here... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am confused, Bencherlite says he "didn't get his way... at BLP/N" but no one responded to the thread before you removed it? I do think BLP/N is a better place to have this discussion if we are going to have some kind of result we can bank on. –xeno^talk 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally gave him the idea to put it up at WP:BLP/N during Yesterdays Afd and the closing administrator echoed my sentiments. I personally think BLP/N is a better place for a content dispute like this. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

possible legal threat at unusual place

Resolved

 – 213.7.255.111 (talk) blocked for three months. Gabbe (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At MfD, of all unlikely places, there has been what looks like an implied legal threat from the sock of a banned editor. [25]; this editors obviously COI contributions to the discussion were subsequently removed, in my opinion correctly, by Multixfer , an uninvolved editor. As I was involved in the discussion, I mention it here to ask if any additional action should be taken. I've mentioned my posting here to Multixfer. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much DGG but it was already reported and handled just above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats. I am sorry I did not update you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 22:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe this was discussed above, with Toddst1 blocking the IP for a good while. TNXMan 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I informed DGG again at his talkpage. Thanks Tnxman. Dr.K. logos 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elijah White

This editor has been creating, and then recreating autobiographies about himself. His autobiographical article has been deleted twice as A7 and has now been created a third time. Previously, he had created EMaC (Rapper) which was another deleted autobiography, and I suspect that Ripe Boyzz was autobiographical as well. Every edit he has made has been self-promotional. There are numerous warnings on his talk page (including a final warning for spam), and no attempt at communicating with anyone else in Wikipedia that I can see. He also put a copy of his autobiography on his user page, which I tagged for deletion, he then removed the tag, and I replaced it again. I was originally drawn to this matter at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but that board gets little to no administrator attention. I would report this to AIV but I think it's a bit more complicated than the usual AIV reports. Can an administrator look into this? I don't think that after 2 years of nothing but self-promotion he's going to suddenly become a productive editor. -- Atama頭 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Someone else removed the tag from the user's page, and for good reason, it slipped my mind that A7 wouldn't apply to a user page. But I still think that the larger pattern of edits is a big problem for this editor. -- Atama頭 23:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not A7, but certainly copyvio, as which is it. Also the article. See here. Basket of Puppies 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles have been deleted. He's been here for over two years doing the same things (see his deleted contributions), so I've blocked him indefinitely. No point in allowing a spam-only account. If he shows an ounce of contrition, feel free to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthers

Resolved

 – nothing to see here, move along Kwsn (Ni!) 03:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

I changed the text tonight because I really thought the content was too biased in favor of Barack Obama's Certification Of Live Birth being w/o a doubt authentic ...

I know that many tend to believe that the matter is settled simply because they don't see the inconsistentsies but there are several problems with the unsubstantiated nature of Baraack's Certification.

These are the reasons why I doubt the veracity of the Certification and why I contend the wording in the article ought to be edited to reflect at least some uncertainty as to whether Barack was born in Hawaii ...

First: Barack has ONLY posted a jpeg on a website over 18 months ago and has not produced a physical copy to anyone with any official governmental authority. The Jpeg even conatins the verbage that the Certification is "prima facie: evidence in a COURT PROCEEDING but I would contend that presenting it on a website does not fulfill that requirement and Barack Obama being an attorney should know that . Barack should have just presented his Certification to a judge to have it authenticated in any one of the eligibility suits that have questioned his eligibility. Barack is an attorney who should know how to present evidence so that evidence actually proves what he asserts. Barack and his legal team have fought to keep his Certification out of a court proceeding instead of presenting it to the judge and just prove he was born in Hawaii.

Second: Factcheck.org does not have the authority to authenticate any government document ...

They can handle a document they believe to be Barack's Certification and observe that it has what appears to be an authentic embossed stamp but that does not mean that Factcheck.org has authenticated the certification or that they have the governmental power to authenticate the information on the Certification.

Third: Hawaiian privacy laws makes it a violation to disclose and/or discuss any information contained on documents contained in the vital stattistic vaults ... So if Dr. Fukino disclosed and/or discussed where Barack was born he violated Hawaiian statute 338-18

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

Fourth : The birth announcements do not state where the "son" born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. was born. (Nit picking I admit but this is the last link that can be cited by those who believe Barack's Certification is authentic and accurate. )

And there is at least one way that Barack could have a Hawaiian birth certificate in the vaults and still not have a birth certificate that accurately displays where he was born.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0006.htm

Unattended birth's for instance allows for the information to be inaccurate and allow Barack to have a valid Hawaiian BC.

The 14th ammendment does not use the term "natural born citizen" so citing the 14th ammendment to infer Barack is a natural born citizen goes beyond what the 14th ammendment actually states.

There are court cases that address the need for BOTH parents being citizens AND birth on US soil subject to the jurisdiction to be legally considered both a "native born" and a "natural born citizen" .

So I recommend toning down the verbage when addressing the Certification as "alleged", "allegedly" and other less for certain language because the issue is far from being settled.

The use of the words "fringe" is also not accurate because there are polls that illustrate that there is a considerable number of people that believe that Barack he was not born in Hawaii and/or is not eligible to be president :

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html

The answer is that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure.

24 % that think he was not born in the US is NOT representitive of a fringe movement.

14% that are unsure added on to those that think Barack was not born in Hawaii and that number adds up to 48% of the people that either don't think he was or aren't sure he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTM999 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh...... Could someone give us the CliffsNotes version? All I got out of it was that Orly Taitz was making another demonstrably fake birth cert...</sarcasm> -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it back to the talk page please, this is not the place for arguing about content. You're attempting to argue the content issues here, and it belongs back on the talk page. If you find yourself outside of consensus, then that is unfortunate, but if you can accurately state with verifiable and reliable sources the core of your argument, then you may convert some people to your point of view and may change consensus. Oh...and 24 plus 14 is 38...not 48. Frmatt (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Are they still harping on this birther nonsense? I liked it better when they focused on harmless stuff, like Elvis still being alive, and entertaining nightly at Area 51. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This ethnic POV really needs to be stopped

Resolved

 – complaint is not warranted here at this time - further support has been offered by previously supporting admin.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 has been blocked several(latest block was from Oct 8 - 12) times for disruptive editing and he continues. There should be a way to stop this, other wise he will be wasting our time for no reason in keeping an eye over his POV edits and reverting them. Here are some of his recent edits.

[26] or [27] The user is bringing sources which clearly mentions that 100 years ago the district was a persian speaking city and he is using that to prove that it still is while current and up-to date sources clearly mention that it is Pashtun strong hold not Tajik.

[28] here he is insisting on adding the Greater Iran tag which is totally irrelevant because the Kingdom's capital was based in what is current Afghanistan and according to Talk:History_of_Afghanistan#History_Template History of Afghanistan template should be added since it is part of current day Afghanistan. The admins and other wikipedians has been over this before and they all agreed that the most specific history tag should be added.

[29] and [30] the person's nationality which is Afghan. He claims that Latif Pedram does not call himself an Afghan so we should not include the nationality. However, the same Latif Pedram carries and Afghan passport, an Afghan identity card and is a citizen of Afghanistan. Any citizen of Afghanistan is an Afghan national.

[31] here he is replacing Afghan Poet tag with Persian poet tag instead of only adding Persian poet tag. Razi Faani like Latif Pedram was born in Afghanistan and he was a citizen of Afghanistan. However, the wikipedian does not want to call him an Afghan - It is nothing but nationalism.

Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

First of all, you are required to notify users if you are reporting them here. Second, have you considered speaking to the admin who blocked/unblocked him? He saw what happened last time, what was promised, and can give you a better idea if this is just continuation of bad behavior or something new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about informing the user, however I will definitely get in touch with the admin who blocked him previously. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Ketabtoon is the one who is pushing for ethnic POVs. he accuses me of vandalizing articles while all of his edits are related to ethnic politics. I replaced Afghanistan's tag because Bactria covered not only Afghanistan but neighboring countries also and the Greater iran tag includes all of those countries that Bactria covered. Please read Latif Pedram's article first then judge him. he has clearly stated that he is not an Afghan but an Afghanistani, so why should we impose Afghan on him. Raziq Faani was a Persian poet not an Afghan poet because an Afghan poet clearly is linked to Pashtun poets. Khushal Khan Khattak who was born in a region in modern-day Pakistan is an Afghan poet while Raziq Faani is a Persian poet because his mother-tongue was Persian and all of his poetry is in this language. The sources provided by User:Ketabtoon for Balkh province is not academic. those are only news articles with no reference from they got their stats and census from. My behavior is normal and I have not violated any rules.--Inuit18 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• As the two main protagonists in this thread are aware I am the admin who blocked and then unblocked Inuit18 under strict instructions. I have noted this complaint and have checked the diffs that are displayed by Ketabtoon. Clearly Ketabtoon and Inuit do not get on - however this has not reached the stage where this matter should have been reported at this noticeboard. Inuit has not as far as I can see breached his conditions of unblocking, and he has attempted to discuss his view at the various talk pages. That said, I do get the impression (not being an expert in the fields which are the subject of this complaint) that two of Inuit's changes, that is the one's relating to the article space of Raziq Faani and Abdul Latif Pedram are unnecessary changes and I suggest they are changed back by Ketabtoon. I also note for the record that I have been following this matter, as best as I can, and that Ketabtoon is aware of this. Ketabtoon please feel free to come to my page and ask directly for assistance - but do not do so with poisoning the well type comments relating to this or that person's previous block history. As an admin (and I speak on behalf of my colleagues also) I will check the history of another editor but only after their transgression is analysed. In other words you do not assist the situation by complaining about past blocks but rather you should clearly indicate by diff exactly where Inuit has breached his "parole" conditions, or exactly (without laying false complaint) how his once only edits are disrupting wikipedia. Anything less than that gives an impression of ownership by you over an article. Until that time Inuit is entitled to provided sourced information as much as the next editor - and whilst I can understand that may be frustrating because at the end of the day you both have your own POV, I do intend to block him (or you) from editing except where proven disruption or breach of conditions occurs by either of you.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism necessitates article deletion?

Resolved

A vandal created a new page at File_talk:Acro_dance_hand_walking.gif -- would an admin kindly delete this, or take other action as appropriate to rectify this? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Next time this happens, you can just use {{db}}, or in this case, {{db-g3}}. Grandmasterka 05:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U canvassing and meatpuppetry

I brought this up on the RFC/U's talk page, but I feel it requires a wider audience. For the short version, see below.

I began an RFC/U on Racepacket (Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and contacted a few other users ([32], [33], [34]) to add to the statement of the dispute.

I recently discovered that Racepacket contacted a series of users on Wikipedia to vouch for him:

• Anthony Krupp
• Disavian
• Vaudedoc
• Cornell1890
• Madcoverboy
• Notyourbroom
• Cornell010
• Xtreambar
• Cornellrocky

Among these users, two have given "outside views" and two have endorsed various outside views' summaries.

There is also the issue of the Baechter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, which I initially believed to be a sockpuppet, but that was disproven. After Racepacket stated that he often asks his associates outside of Wikipedia to assist him, I later asked Brandon (who ran the checkuser to disprove that the users are the same person) whether or not the two were in a geographic proximity. He confirmed this and later confirmed that Racepacket and Baechter live in the same city.

tl;dr:

This RFC/U is getting out of hand with the sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and canvassing, and it has not solved any of the issues I intended for it to solve: Racepacket's edit warring on University of Miami and related articles, his inappropriate assumptions of consensuses, his ignoring of other users, his walls of text, ownership issues, and his non sequiturs in discussion (he now seems to be using the two failed GA promotions as evidence that he was right and everyone else was wrong). I need actual outside views on this. Soxwon has been the only completely uninvolved user to say anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just commented there. He had not contacted me. (when somebody does, I say so in my comment ) . My evaluation of his work on the University of Miami article is highly favorable. He has been trying against considerable opposition to remove a remarkable amount of puffery from the article. University articles obviously tend to attract devoted students and alumni, and they periodically need the sort of cleanup that he has been doing. The RfC may indeed not meet the purposes of the person who brought it, and for good reason. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving an outside view, DGG. While his work is good, the way he is going about it is what I want the RFC to discuss.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, you have not informed Racepacket or Baechter of this ANI Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Baechter does not edit regularly and has not edited in several days. I do not think that contacting him will do any good. I will inform Racepacket of this thread, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, when faced with something as icky as an RFC/U, I think I'd want to grab a few witnesses for myself. Is it truly "canvassing", or the "quasi-subpoena of witnesses for the defense?" I'm not going to comment on the real use Meats, because just like on AfD, I expect an Admin to be able to see through that crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think RFC/U's, as well as most other Wikipedia threads, should be as "pure" as possible. That is, where only the selection of editors who stumbles upon it should participate. Canvassing/flagging defense witnesses, undue advertising, etc. only adds a bias to the results unless the advertising is done from a completly neutral location. This cannot be done by contacting individual editors. I'm disturbed that a lot of the community feels it is ok to contact individual editors for backup, as in these cases the facts should speak for themselves. It goes without saying that this applies to both "sides" of the RfC and that I'd equally go against meatpuppetry in the accusations as well as in the defense. ThemFromSpace 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see an RFC/U as being conceptually different than most of our discussions: the goal is to get involved editors to the table to air their disputes, as well as getting uninvolved editors to the table to review the disputes. Thus, efforts to get individual editors that have been involved in listed disputes to comment in the RFC/U are appropriate. It's possible to do that inappropriately, though: there's a world of difference between "Remember that dispute we had over such-and-such last year? There's an RFC/U open on one of the involved editors at ..." and "Hey, those evil Lower Slobovian apologists are ganging up on Fred! There's an RFC/U open at ..."—Kww(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I left neutral messages for people who have expressed concern for the neutrality of university articles. User:Ryulong once again misreads his sources. He incorrectly said above, "Racepacket stated that he often asks his associates outside of Wikipedia to assist him." But he is misinterpreting what I said about overhearing conversations about Wikipedia.

As I read the RFC/U rules, the page is open to any Wikipedia editor to comment. User:Ryulong violated those rules by reverting the outside comments of Baechter twice. [35] [36] The underlying concern about POV-pushing at University of Miami was just reconfirmed by an independent GA review which found "Problems with lack of encyclopedic tone in sections" and "Should avoid advertising the university - present facts neutrally, avoid generalizations and opinons." [37] These are exactly the problems that I have been trying to address in my various edits since early September. Although I must assume good faith in these ANIs [38] [39] [40] and the RFC/U, everyone must realize that the time spent on these ancillary matters tends to reduce the time available for researching and improving the articles. The adversarial tone is chasing off potential contributors to the UM articles. Racepacket (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Baechter is one of your neighbors and has only two edits outside of the RFC/U page. And stop throwing things off with non sequiturs. It doesn't matter what is done here or what GA reviewers have said about the article. This is about your actions in regards to editing collaboratively with the other editors of the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• If User:Ryulong believes that "It doesn't matter what is done here," why did he bother to post this ANI? Because I don't know where User:Baechter lives, I don't know if we are neighbors or not. But I question whether Ryulong has any basis for stating that "Baechter is one of your neighbors." I have not accused Ryulong of being "a neighbor" of the other three editors who endorsed the RFC, because where anybody lives is irrelvant. There are 5,463,857 people living in Ryulong's metropolitan area, and I live in an even bigger one. Ryulong is trying to make it sound like I live in Mayberry and talk to each resident every day. I don't. This ANI and the three ANI's that Ryulong posted previously are really disrupting attempts to work collaboratively toward an NPOV article. Racepacket (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Racepacket, WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices says "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they seem intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion; or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and who's shown interest in participating in related discussions. A template such as {{Please see}} may help in leaving these notices." Racepacket message looks like a friendly notice as he said "For your information, four University of Miami editors have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket." but I think it would have been better if he used the please see template. The link for Notyourbroom is a message from Ryulong about "Block logs" not a message from Racepacket about the RFC. Powergate92Talk 05:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

About Baechter, Racepacket you should read this: [41]. And Powergate92, stop randomly going through my contributions to find ways to complain about me to air old grievances.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not randomly go through your contributions, I found this discussion when looking for a discussion about User:Neutralhomer a day ago, the discussion I was looking for is now in the AN/I archives. Powergate92Talk 06:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks -- mediation not workinig , editors refusing to read?

There are many, many problems with the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks, and in particular with a single user, Parserpractice. A member of the Mediation Cabal (I presume), Justin talk, had this to say about the condition of this article and the editing of Parserpractice:

I saw your mediation cabal case listing. After looking at the article, the edit history and the contribution history of User:Parserpractice I fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the article is seriously deficient in terms of WP:NPOV and violates WP:SYN, WP:NOR, WP:BLP as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also appears that the editor in question is not amenable to discussion. I seriously doubt that mediation is appropriate in this case, the editor in question appears to see wikipedia as a platform to right great wrongs and in my experience such editors are single-minded and mission-orientated. I would suggest you raise this at WP:AN/I. Regards, Justin talk 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Justin:

quoting from the "Righting Great Wrongs" section (right great wrongs), " ... we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources ..." and we find? We find that Justin, whether he knows it or not, has chosen to join the ranks of 'the editors who do not read the reference links' group, and then deign to pontificate about Wiki policies and rules. Has Justin asked why the Dcs editor has not attempted to balance the perspective of Parserpractice with balancing material, rather than attempting to balance Parser's addition of detail with negating deletions?

Justin, perhaps, can identify the original research? the excessive detail?

Where in the contribution history did Justin find cause for pause?

Is the subtitle for the MediationCabal effort to be 'editors who do not read the references'?

What does Justin say now that he has been called out for lack of thoroughness?

Parserpractice (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked for help from the WikiProject & got no response. I think our mediator from the Mediation Cabal has given up, because there's been no sign of her/him since 10/15 on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. The discussions have become an incoherent mess, just like the article itself. And the article's discussion page contains a number of personal attacks against me.

We need serious help please! This is very important to me because 9/11 is such an emotionally charged issue, so it's highly important that we get it right, and not use novel synthesis to blame people or allow one editor with an agenda to sit on the page and defend it in the form she/he wants it to be in. (Is that called tendentious editing?)

Please help!

Thanks -- Dcs002 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dcs002, I'd be happy to co-mediate this case alongside the current mediator. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's gonna mean a lot of reading of some rather pompous material... Dcs002 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see an experienced admin & mediator like PhilKnight take on co-mediation, however, as I highlighted to Dcs002 the article has some serious problems. There are major WP:BLP violations and from what I've seen of Parserpractice's editing it would appear to be a tendentious editor, with a single minded obsession. The BLP violations include some very serious allegations against individuals. Justin talk 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, real BLP issues can and should be reverted, ad infinitum, by any editor. Make sure to explicitly state you're reverting BLP-violating material in your edit summary, and report the reinserting editor to WP:AN3 if he or she insists on readding the material; removing BLP-violating material is not subject to 3RR; readding it is. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin Kuntz says there are major violations: Justin, it is time to directly identify those cases. Instead of offering your 'support' to another's stance, identify the cases!

Parserpractice (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki agenda: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks&diff=324033837&oldid=323902906

Template:Thatcherism

Both under his user name, and as an IP editor, User:The Twelfth Doctor has sought to add material which is deemed by evidently everybody else as at best unverified and probably less than irrelevant to this template, including such things as Sarah Palin. The history of the template here indicates that it has previously been locked to prevent such disruptive edits, all of which seem to be from this editor either in his account or from IPs. And, as per User talk:The Twelfth Doctor, he has already contacted another administrator, who has informed him that he should do what I, who was I believe initially drawn to this template by a notice somewhere, and pretty much everybody else has requested of him, to either start an RfC regarding the material he wishes added, or perhaps provide reliable sourcing for why such material should be added. To date, he has refused to do so. Please advise. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be endemic to this user. Sockpuppeteering, insertion of inappropriate content on talk or in HTML comments, complete refusal to abide by community norms. I think it's worth considering whether his continued participation here is productive. For now, the sockpuppeteering has to be stopped ASAP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now on enforced wikibreak for the next 6 months. Might also be worth looking at Template:Blairism, also his work. The inclusion of "cult of personality" there seems off. Moreschi (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And here I was expecting something to do with User:Thatcher. Looks like the behavior here was consistently problematic. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt2009 (an impersonator)

Resolved

 – indeffed.

Please note that MichaelQSchmidt2009 (talk · contribs) is an account created to malign the edits of the admin MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), and their only edits have been vandalism … this account should be blocked and probably deleted … Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{06:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)}

First off, Schmidt is not an admin, at least not yet. Secondly, the user has been indefed as a vandalism-only account. MuZemike 07:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad (calling him an admin. :-) Thnx fer the swift block! — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the 2009 guy is sure not me. I would quite prefer he not continue using my name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is merely the most recent appearance of a persistent timewaster. (Here's an old example of one of his three or so favorite tropes.) PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Hxseek

Resolved

• Hxseek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hxseek just came off a "1RR/week article probation on Kosovo" block (having been blocked once before for personal attacks) and his first edit was this. His incivility to other editors at Talk:Kosovo and to admins at User talk:Hxseek seems incessant.

I'm proposing a topic ban for Hxseek on Kosovo and Kosovo-related articles. From a cursory look at his contribs, this topic seems to be the only area that brings out this side of Hxseek. Equazcion (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can wait for Hxseek's response before considering a topic ban? I'd like to read his take on this. Basket of Puppies 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an unfair and misdirected accusation. User Equizicon appears not to take heed of the fact that it is user Lontech that is making personal and racist remarks, blatantly and consistently. It is he who is making disruptive edits, going against concensus and accusing all the editors involved in the Kosovo-Dardania talk paragraph of conspiring. Using words such as Demagogy and Serbian Nationalism throughout his edits. I have done nothing but neutral, source-consistent edits.

I admit that some of my comments might be unwarranted. I promise to curb this. However, admin Equizicon is incorrect in charging me with PAs on "other editors" when it is clearly and solely aimed at one disruptive chap. My comments to him, apart from his obvious disregard for scholarly process and civility, are probably in part a reflection of my frustration of my being targeted by admins Equzicon and SarekofVulcan despite the obvious ill-natured edits and comments by Lontech. Merely follow the relevant talk page seciton, and it will come clear. What Equzicon labels PAs, I thought of as an attempt of light-hearted humour directed against an editor who cannot appear to be reasoned with, despite being shown that he has mis-representd sources, constructing OR, making racist statements and attacking every other editor who picks up on his obvious POV. Yet it is I that have been banned, twice. I do not even see how admin Equ.. even construes that last point as a personal attack. Can't we even joke to lighten the mood ? Even if it is not ideal, suh comments are hardly malicious

I even appealed to the very admins involved and got no responce. I stand by my record of conduct and the plethora of high quality, non-nationalist edits I have contributed to Wiki. Kosovo is not even a personal 'issue' for me. However, I think a topic ban is unreasonable. Hxseek (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that Hxseek is usually one of the voices of reason in this field, that the article and its talk page would be worse off without him, and that the disruption during the last few weeks was triggered by typical tendentious and low-quality editing by User:Lontech. We really must start taking out the real disruptive elements before they provoke our better editors to lose their cool. I also note there's dodgy evidence being quoted here. This, cited above as an example of rampant "incivility against admins", has nothing objectionable whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We've all had to deal with what we would deem low-quality editors at one point or another. Low-quality editing is (unfortunately?) not a blockable offense, though. Incivility is, and so is 1RR, on this article. So we have to learn to deal with "low-quality" edits in a civil way, and this is something Hxseek has yet to accomplish, despite two blocks thus far. So what do we do then? If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm listening. Equazcion (talk) 07:26, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Actually, low-quality editing, especially if it is pursued aggressively, persistently, against warnings, and combined with attacks (such as persistent false accusations of vandalism against opponents) and with a general failure to "get it", is a blockable offense. So, first thing, I've topic-banned Lontech for a few months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, Future, but now that this issue is here, shouldn't it be discussed who should get the topic ban? I mean you seem rather previously involved and on Hxseek's side. Why not get some uninvolved input first? Equazcion (talk) 07:32, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I'm as uninvolved as can be on Kosovo topics, except that I have some prior experience through admin work on it some time last year. Knowing the field doesn't disqualify me from working on it, now, does it? And I can impose these kinds of bans under WP:ARBMAC any time, that's what we have it for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

← Well, sure, you can. But I took the issue here to have it discussed, and you've imposed your own conclusion rather quickly and without much actual discussion. It doesn't quite seem right to me. Equazcion (talk) 07:40, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC) 07:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't preclude anything that you may still want to do about Hxseek. I've said what I have to say about him, now he's all yours. But Lontech clearly had it coming – he was actually indef-blocked right in the beginning of his career for rampant POV-pushing, and only let back in on promises of good behaviour, which he has clearly not fulfilled, so a topic ban of a few months is still pretty mild. In any case, I have to log off now and may not be online again during much of the day, so you guys just do whatever you feel is right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fut Perf. I fail to see how this edit (which was cited above by the proposer and) which appears to show Hxseek making a comment, was relevant when you used it in your rationale for topic banning Lontech. I'm thinking you cited the wrong diff? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes of course, sorry about that. I meant this diff, Lontech's edit immediately after coming back from his prior block, where he's still going on about calling the other side's edits vandalism and ascribing bad-faith political motives to other editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I declare that I will voluntarily take 'leave' from the article for a week or two, if that suits. I think the issue might be resolved anyway. There will be no further "PAs" on my behalf, I can assure Hxseek (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

4 months without any warning - this is funny ask other editors involved in that article those with 5 years on wikipedia that are familiar with this article Your statements on distruptive edits are false ive opened discussion for every change and i didnt revert not a single text without consensus. Discussion on talk page isn't disruptive edit.

attacks against opponents: you missed the user talk page about this statement. you added his comments link on my talk page

ive reverted vandalism: Type of vandalism BLANKING - Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. he under minor change mask added 6-8 lines of text

also you added a fake link on my Talk page for this With this edit this is not my edit it is hxseek talk page

find 1 disruptive edit that i did, not reverts? just one disruptive edit . and type the link here.

I'm askin from serious experienced admins to view his actions Fut.Perf..thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inexperienced admin. What the hell is this "Disruptive Editing on the talk page" ? Discussion on the talk page is considered disruptive Edit -- LONTECH  Talk  18:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech is clearly being disruptive here. FPAS's sanctions are appropriate. persistent WP:TALK violations can and should be dealt with when it becomes necessary. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To various: please review Wikipedia:Sword-skeleton theory and User:Moreschi/The Plague before jumping in. Moreschi (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There appears to be a language barrier here that is further fanning this situation. Lontech is not as adept as the rest of us at typed communication. I'd suggest that that be taken into consideration, as it can cause undue frustration on both sides. Could we perhaps focus more on providing diffs of all the alleged disruptive edits and other reversions that are being brought up? Equazcion (talk) 20:31, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Not a language school. If Lontech can't cope with that he has no place here. Plus, he appears to have been pushing a variant on several of themes noted at Albanian nationalism (advancing a connection between the Albanians and the Illyrians is common, and he's simply extended that to the Dardanians). Repeatedly pushing this in the face of reasoned opposition from multiple editors is clearly disruptive, and the theory itself is sword-skeleton stuff and obvious antiquity frenzy. Moreschi (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, I question admin Equazcion's neutrality on the matter. He accused FurturePErf of impartiality, yet Equ has been stretching the truth (to put it mildly) with the accusations aimed at me, whilst downplaying those against Lontech. A less than perfect grasp of English is not an excuse for his blatant violations. User Moreschi has hit the nail on the head. Given the nature of Lontech's edits, I think that I have in fact been rather civil to him, and I am disappointed at Equiscion's inability, as an administrator, to recognise the obvious and act on it Hxseek (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oy. I hope I never actually become an admin. Everything turns into a cry of oppression. I'm expressing a sympathetic attitude towards someone who's having trouble expressing themselves. I saw you being uncivil as a result with snarky comments, something to which you've admitted (and been blocked for). So you've got your own blatant violations. What's your excuse? Frustration? Lontech is frustrated too. Nevertheless I do appreciate your voluntary decision to temporarily step away from the article. And why in the world would I target you? Have I ever even spoken to you before? Where is this coming from? If you see someone saying you did something wrong, they must automatically have some vendetta? I don't know you. I saw something bad happening and I spoke up. I hope you do the same when you see something similar, and I hope you don't get any ridiculous accusations in response. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

So propose a blanket ban for 'snarky comments' against an obvious troll. I would not say that is a vandetta, obviously given that we have no history, yet your disregarding of my appeals and explanations, and your bending of the truth raises questions. Anyway, you're forgiven Hxseek (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to forgive me. I didn't apologize. You were being uncivil and you were blocked because there's no caveat in WP:CIVIL for "obvious trolls". Do remember that. And if you want to raise any of these supposed questions you have about my neutrality, do feel free to express them -- or you could accept the fact that someone actually thinks you did something wrong and has no ulterior motive. Equazcion (talk) 23:44, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

That is fair enough. Now, unless you feel the need to pursue this further, I am happy to end the matter Hxseek (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

i get 4months ban and vandal walks away.

this is unfair i call serious experienced and familiar admin with the topic to review his action for my topic ban.-- LONTECH  Talk  00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. I just did. Moreschi (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

your not serious admin "did i mention connection between the Albanians and the Illyrians or dardanians" thats your imagination

or did i mention albanians?-- LONTECH  Talk  01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but that is clearly what you are trying to imply. Take a look at the log of WP:ARBMAC and tell me again I'm not a "serious admin". Believe me, I've seen all the tricks before. Now shoo. Sit out the next 4 months, edit something else, take some language classes, and return with a better attitude. Moreschi (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

hohohohohoho Fut.Perf. is greek thats why he banned me. The proposal for ban was for another user

conflict of interest I bet athenean told you to ban me.-- LONTECH  Talk  13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Annnnddd you just talked yourself into a block. Well done, see you next week. Moreschi (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion?

I ran across this user last friday afternoon, apparently using their talkpage as a social networking page. No edits outside of their talkpage. I left them a note, and this is the response I got this . I don't want to bite the user, but Wikipedia is not Myspace.

Thoughts? Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No edits on their talkpage since they blanked it themself on the 23rd. I know it's a pattern, but they have now been warned. Keep an eye on it is what I suggest for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact I couldn't understand his atrocious grammar I agree with Bwilkins in that you should watch him from the page blank.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanking means nothing: this page was blanked several times after each chat. I posted a warning.- Altenmann >t 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, blanking is understood as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. See WP:BLANKING. Repeatedly adding warnings does nothing but antagonize someone. TNXMan 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect you didn't look into page history: nobody posted any warnings; the account talks exclusively with itself in this page. - Altenmann >t 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect *you* didn't look into the page history. While I wouldn't go so far as to say my post was a 'warning', it was pretty brusque and did try to get the point across. Its the left panel in the diff I cited above. Syrthiss (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, that seems a bit odd. I'll watch this user on my main account. Netalarm Public (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With a name like "Commonid", let me take a wild guess: if someone were to checkuser this, they would find two or perhaps three different IP addresses all using the same account, using the talk page as a way to leave post-its among themselves. WP:NOSHARE may be more appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation

User:Anna Linkin is trying to impersonate me. See his user page and mine. Anna Lincoln 11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks clear cut to me. Anyone you've p'd off lately that we should check on? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, user page deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been fighting vandalism these days, so lots of IPs suspicious. Thank you guys :-) Anna Lincoln 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

In Talk:Manuel P. Asensio. See [42]. IP editor and new user User:Asar-mr (apparently same user not logged in) have been editing the article and claim to represent subject of article. Article needs to be fleshed out and assistance of subject is welcome, but not this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Asar-mr has continued the struggle and reinstated changes turning the article into an advertisement for Asensio, along with making an implicit legal threat in the talk page. I'm mindful of WP:DOLT and want to work with this person, so I'm not overjoyed with blocking but I don't see much alternative. He's claiming on the talk page, for instance, that FINRA is just some private company when in fact it regulates the U.S. securities industry. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This account blocked as well. He asked for contact info for our legal team; the block notice gives him an email address to pursue action, if he wishes. Tan | 39 14:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was really no choice, given the behavior of this editor, assuming Asar-mr and the IP are the same. He has obviously been editing the article for some time under various IPs, and I've pleaded with him repeatedly to use the talk page and contribute constructively, to no avail. Per the essay I mentioned earlier, I'd not object to an unblock if he and his IPs will confine themselves to the talk page, cease bullying and making threats, and engage in constructive dialogue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Anietor

Resolved

Does tagging an article that has been disputed on the talk page for a week require consensus?

Really, I'm not making this up. Catholic Church, now protected, has been in active discussion (let us say) for some time now, about issues that appear both in the header and in the first section. Anietor has been reverting for some time, to suppress an effort to tag the section either in general or in particular; in fact, he has made no other edits. He has argued (first edit summary, below) that it requires consensus to add tags, which seems to me, and to others, to be nonsense. Please have a word with him; diffs (five exact reversions of tags).

• 01:35 25 October
• 17:46 26 October
• 21:41
• 22:22

• this sole edit by an anon is likely also to be Anietor, logged out.

I would prefer talking out the proceedural question to applying for CU. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection is more than enough for me, although the detailed tags reverted at 22:22 are probably useful for discussion; but they've been copied to the talk page. I'm done, whatever you decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really an inappropriate complaint. Several editors have been discussing this artcle coming to agreement on several points. One side of the argument made edits to the article and I examined the discussion and did some clean up edits. I posted a note on the talk page (see first edit here [43] to show the other editors what I had done - inviting discussion. Two other editors commented in agreement and offered some minor points of improvement that we agreed to. While we were in the process of doing this collaborative effort, Septentrionalis went to the article and eliminated our text and references, inserting text without making any effort to join in our collaboration. I reverted his edits, he reverted mine and I reverted him again, posting a note on his talk page [44] inviting him to come to the article talk page. He posted a very unkind note on my talk page [45] and reverted my edits. Anietor then reverted him and his response is to open this ANI. NancyHeise ^talk 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This sort of behavior leads to page protection and blocking of users. I wouldn't be too proud of this series of editing behaviors. IMO, everyone mentioned in the comment above has dirty hands that are one step short of getting slapped. The appropriate admin reaction, IMHO, is to warn all involved to refrain from edit-warring and incivility. See my warning here. I would appreciate an endorsement of my position from an uninvolved admin. --Richard (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the impartial opinion of the writer of the disputed text.

Several of us dispute that the text says what its sources do (this poll split fairly evenly on another version of the question; Nancy reverted an effort to fix this, at which point I attempted to indicate that there was a dispute. It is this that Anietor has been edit-warring against.

So, again, can an edit-warring minority not only prevent change in the article, but suppress the fact of dispute? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As usualy, Pmanderson spends most of his/her time making personal attacks when not getting his/her way. (Quick aside: Thank you Nancy, for your comment above, and sorry that it resulted in a swipe at you as well, considering your notable contributions to this and many other articles.) I never said tagging requires consensus. However, when there is an ongoing discussion on a talk page, and someone (Pmanderson) disagrees with another editor, or even disagrees with consensus, it is not appropriate to immediately plaster the article with tags, with corresponding texts in the article page, complaining why you think it should be your way or no way. Plastering tags, and writing explanations on the article page is just instigating more edit warring. It's also like pouting because you didn't get your way. I don't know why you want to drag more administrators into this. I'll comfortably stand on my own record and say no more. --anietor (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My perspective is that PMAnderson inappropriately used tags which suggested that the entire article is POV or disputed. On a lengthy article as well-sourced as Catholic Church, that is just patently ridiculous. It's possible that 10, 20 even 30 percent of the article may be POV/disputed but that is just a fraction of what is otherwise a very good article that is near FA status.

However, it was entirely appropriate though somewhat churlish for PM to use tags to identify specific phrases and sentences that were POV and disputed. Given the active ongoing discussion on the Talk Page, it wasn't really necessary to tag the article text. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary for Anietor to revert the tags, either.

As an admin who is active in discussing and editing the article in question, I don't see any actionable complaint here and I urge an uninvolved admin to close this reported incident as "not requiring admin action".

--Richard (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Richard that no action is needed right now. His words of warning on the article Talk page should be well heeded. Page protection works to some degree but stifles progress. I will assist in keeping an eye on the article. The next logical step is to block editors with a tendency to edit war rather than discuss. Hopefully it will not be necessary. Have the page editors considered implementing a 1RR? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Shuttle orion

Resolved

 – Deleted, oversight requested. Wknight94 ^talk 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oversighted -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New user who appears to be a minor is divulging personal information on their user page. Could someone please take care of this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Oversight needed for good measure?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oversighted. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Alansohn issue + IP address registration error.

Resolved

 – Nothing more to do here, move along please... Bencherlite^Talk 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw your attentions to the above user. Apparently, a number of comments was written to him on his talk page, stating that his Huggle reversions were incorrect, since they claimed that their edits were not vandalism. I, myself, is a victim of the reversion and recieved a Huggle warning, stating that I vandalized a subpage, in which he thinks is vandalizing an A-to-start class article, directed specifically for vandals.

On a completely unrelated note, can you please explain WHY is the IP address 202.47.69.212 is registered as HIGH SCHOOL INDONESIA instead of HIGH SCOPE INDONESIA? As a student there, I would like to ask this mistaken representation.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 15:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Methinks Alansohn is too quick on the old autoedit in recent change patrol. That userpage is definitely a joke intended for people to make silly posts on, so making whatever silly post 7107 made cannot be construed as vandalism. If he's getting other complaints, he might need to give the old trigger finger a rest and switch to doing editing or something for a couple of hours. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Alansohn that you were raising the matter here? Alansohn has apologised anyway for the mistake, so I'm not sure there's much else to do here. To answer your unrelated question, the template on the IP talk page says "High School Indonesia" because that's the description given here. Bencherlite^Talk 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't overstate their cases. In a casual look on Alansohn's page, I didn't see anyone else arguing his huggle reversions were incorrect. I admit, I might have been blinded by the huge number of DYK awards and such... I did see that he apologized to you for the reversion. Move to close? Syrthiss (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, close. He already reverted himself and apologized for the mistake.

As for the IP address, Wikipedia isn't in charge of that. A query at http://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl comes up with "High School Indonesia". You're welcome to take it up with them, 7107, but it's not a case for AN/I. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This was an error on my part, though the fact that it was a sandbox page makes it harder to avoid the mistake. I always try to be as careful as possible in reviewing potential vandalism, and I did not pick up the purpose of the page even after reading it. I realized my error as soon as I was notified and I immediately ensured that I have self reverted my revert, removed the warning message and offered an appropriate apology for my WP:BITEy mistake. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to resolve this matter. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's easily done. Jeremy accidentally dumped one of my edits a couple of days ago - came back, reverted and apologised. He blamed it on an automatic tool that was a bit hair trigger, which was why I wondered if you were having the same problem here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Huggle, which is a very powerful tool, that can be used for good, but has its potential problems. One click reverts all current edits from the latest editor to the article and places a warning message that can appear harsh to the uninitiated. All users must be careful and I will be even more careful in the future. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of salted article

Resolved

Alan butler (note lower case in surname) is a recreation of a deleted and salted article Alan Butler. I'd like other Admin comments on what to do about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone already. Still not asserting the notability of the subject, so...Moreschi (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted as G4 and salted. It took me a few seconds to get back here and comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

Resolved

 – Could an uninvolved admin look through and close this discussion? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• [46] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• [47]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• [48]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [49] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [50]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [51] .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [52], [53], [54], [55] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [56]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [57].

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [58] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [59]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[60]
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [61], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Wikipedia, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap.[62] While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston[63] p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see [64]. You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Wikipedia based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Wikipedia is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.

In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.

But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.

When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Wikipedia to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

But instead of doing so you threaten and revet to unsources versions. It seems to me from reading what 66.127.54.181 has written that your behaviour over several unrelated articles is similar. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, and in doing so after it has been pointed out to you that you must produce sources to back up all your controversial claims precisely (i.e. with no synthesise), you are sill inserting disputed text into articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Wikipedia project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here.[65] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.

Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.

To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Gödel modern proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" [66] -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Or perhaps, instead of focusing on the supposed "problem behaviors", you might want to focus on the pages themselves? These "problem behaviors" are caused by persistent attempts to fix problem pages.

For "History Wars", These problems were noted by several people. Unlike the paragraphs quoted out of context above, if you look at the text I proposed for History Wars (preserved on the talk page), I presented material culled from about a dozen new sources that were each removed systematically by PBS and Webley. This coordinated editing has prevented material about the Black War from being presented on Wikipedia, and I urge other editors to go there, read the sources, and check for themselves.

History is different than mathematics. History must stick to sources very closely, and adhere to undue-weight religiously. Mathematics is verifiable from first principles, and can be checked by individuals without external references. This difference is the essential reason for proposing WP:ESCA. Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars.

Regarding OMCV, he has bad feelings, because we disagreed on edits he was making. These edits were factually incorrect, were opposed by several editors, and improved as he learned more about the subject. The final text we settled on was written almost entirely by him, after he had gained enough familiarity to write accurately. This process took a long time, but produced a reasonable text.

The job I am doing here by poking at problem pages makes enemies. It is important to challenge stuff in this way, and it is important for Wikipedia editors to avoid intimidating other editors from challenging material.Likebox (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These comments epitomizes our conflict. The disputed text was blatant OR; I took the time to review the relevant reference to verify that it was OR. After two months the text was reworked to the point that it fairly represented the materiality in the reference (no longer OR). Even if the language in the text is no longer inventive it is still severally out of place so Likebox can argue a thesis that isn't found in any WP:RS. It would be better if the text was just removed and I am not attached to any of the alternatives I offered they can go for all I care.--OMCV (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should substantiate this statement with a quote to demonstrate how Likebox can misrepresent a situation and misunderstand policy. As background the material in question was philosophy of the mind subject matter (where am I). Likebox doesn't seem to have read the source in years [67] and I doubt that Count Iblis and Michael Price have ever read the source.

Stop Being A Pest - I understand you want to delete the material, but deletion has a higher threshhold than inclusion. If you were adding text with new information, you would be taken seriously. You have two 3rd opinions now that support inclusion: Count Iblis and Michael Price. I know that these editors understand quantum mechanics. You balance these against two off-the-cuff comments (including yours, I might add) by outsiders that say "Hey, this looks like synth to me". Since I write in an idiosynchratic way, everything I have ever edited ends up looking like OR or synth to people who don't know the field.Likebox (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UT)

As it is with the History Wars article. The quote above is not taken out of context it is a discussion about sources to verify the change to the first sentence of the text that Likebox wishes to introduce. Despite repeated requests to provide sources to justify the change, he has not done so, and he ignores the provided reliable sources that disprove his changes to the first sentence, (we have never been able to progress to the second sentence). This seems to me to make the dispute over the "History wars" article to be also OR, specifically WP:SYN, and to date he does not seem to understand that. Instead he thinks he is justified in repeatedly inserting the text into the article and on placing it near the top of the talk page again when the talk page has been archived. I think that he should be restricted from putting the same text or near similar text, into any of the articles under discussion, restricted from block copying text from the archives onto the talk pages, and from initiating discussions on the same subjects. If however another editor, without his solicitation, brings up the subject on the talk page or edits in text to the article with which he agrees (again without solicitation), he should be free to support that editor in the usual Wikipedia consensus editing way. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it would be no problem for me to stick to 1RR. Perhaps that would satisfy everyone.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars. No it is not any different. Every blithering crank injecting their pet FLT proof (or these days, P=NP proof, or in your case, incompleteness theorem proof) claims that it is verifiable from first principles and dealing with them is endlessly time consuming, as you are demonstrating. That is why we don't go by verifiability from first principles--we go by verifiability from sources. If you don't like this, the right place to debate it is WT:OR, not in math articles or their talk pages or here. I would not expect a favorable reception there though. If by 1RR you mean one reversion per 24 hours, that's completely useless, since you have been at this for years. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that you cannot distinguish a crank proof from a correct proof is a sign that perhaps editing technical pages is not the best use of your time. The way to differentiate the two is to look at the proof and see if it is proving what it is saying.

The way to establish OR for proofs is to understand the proof method, and check if the ideas in the proof appear in the literature. The wrong way of doing this is to do it like "Punic Wars", by looking for a direct source for each factual statement. The factual statements generated in the course of a proof follow by logic, and are specific to the context. If you lift them from sources and put them into an article, it is nearly certain that they will become wrong statements in the new context. Only the general path is in the sources. This is what the guideline ESCA is trying to explain.

This is not to say that a bogus proof, or even a novel proof, is OK for Wikipedia. But the incompleteness theorem is 80 years old. The method of proof I was using is over 60 years old. The only innovation was using "print your own code" for "fixed point", and updating the computer from a Turing machine to a modern RAM machine. These are trivial modifications, which are only put in for pedagogical clarity and self-containedness.Likebox (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "distinguish[ing] a crank proof from a correct proof" it is a matter of distinguishing between a sourced proof and an unsourced proof and a sourced method and an unsourced method of proving something (see WP:OR and WP:SYN).

It is a pity that with the "History wars" article you are not willing to "looking for a direct source for each factual statement", if you did then you would not try to repeatedly to put text into the article for which you have not provided any direct source despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Legitimate requests that you dismiss with statements like the one I quoted above. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon, while you are welcome to participate in the debate on about WP:ESCA on its talk page, you should not vote on the proposed policies based only on the polemics of the debate here. If you take the time to read WP:ESCA, you'll see that it asks editors to be extra careful, not less careful, when editing articles. Constructive criticism is welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From afar this debate appears to be one of those where WP simply does not work. This failure is inherent in a "democratic" encyclopaedia where anyone can contribute, whether they know the subject or know how to think or know how to evaluate sources. In such an environment, even supposing Likebox to be 100% right and everyone else out to lunch, Likebox cannot succeed. In this particular debate he is fortunate that a degree of civility prevails, which allows the discussion a veneer of true analysis. However, the bottom line is that Likebox cannot succeed when outnumbered, and will reach stalemate with only one opposing editor that digs in. The application of WP:ESCA will not assist in this case. The best compromise, assuming that the opposition will accept it, is for Likebox to write his own page on his alternative proof and link the the two treatments. Assuming the precepts are sourced and the result is sourced, as seems to be the case, this new article is exempt from claims of WP:SYN and WP:OR according to WP:ESCA. Likebox's argument may have deficiencies, for example, hypothetically, as being too restrictive, and on the new page views of the vocal majority to that effect can be introduced. For example, it can be said that the orthodox proof differs in respects (i) - (n), or that Likebox's argument is confined to special cases like this and that. However, readers will have access to the simpler argument and adequate indication that there exist some doubters, justifiably or not. The reader is put on notice that this is that kind of WP situation where the dust won't settle. I do not think any other compromise is out there that can mend this matter. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An editing restriction to make it easier for one faction to deal with the other is simply censorship disguised, and is not a procedure that I'd feel was desirable as a general practice. Perhaps not in this case, but in many, the majority is simply wrong, and it is far too easy to label the opposition as a nuisance or worse and try to eliminate the opposition by fiat. That does not serve WP but only the annoyed parties. Brews ohare (talk)

Very interesting. How do you feel about a single (and single-minded) editor hijacking discussion over the period of years, consuming the time of editors who know better (and have better things to do, probably) to defend against degradation of article content and dilution of quality of the encyclopedia? I suppose that doesn't bother you very much? 67.101.114.82 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposed policy such as WP:ESCA, mostly likely destined to become an essay, has no presidency over the policiy WP:OR. Furthermore there are three separate groups here voicing their concern over Likebox's behaviors which I will try to summarize:

1. The content Likebox adds has a strong tendency towards OR especially SYNTH.
2. A propensity to edit war and display WP:OWN.
3. Disregard for the concerns of other editors and making little effort to reach consensus.
4. Uncooperative use of rhetoric and selective understanding to avoid the substance of the debate.
5. Civility and tone issues which Likebox has called arguing forcefully.

Likebox appears to mostly be a damaging element to Wikipedia lately. If he can't be reformed with sanctions he should be blocked. Personally I don't think Likebox even means to create OR. I think he simply has a strong tendency toward correlating and equivocating ideas and concepts to the point that it obliterates contradictions and inconsistent data in his own mind. His name even suggests these tendencies. Armed with his "internally" consistent world view he sets about editing, campaign style, towards the truth no one else understands.--OMCV (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

the truth no one else understands? OMCV, that is OTT and not true. More likely, if you don't understand what Likebox is saying it is a deficiency on your own part. For example, Likebox was roundly criticised for "introducing" the connection between superconductivity and the Higgs mechanism, which was dismissed as absolute garbage by some. Folks (including me) got it eventually, and it is now sourced. He was right and everybody else was wrong. Criticise his prolix writing style if you like, but he adds helpful insights to articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to OMCV: WP:ESCA is a reasoned discussion, admittedly not a guideline. But the answer to dispute is to talk about compromise. You already are leaving the arena of discussion and entering the arena of debate (i.e. scoring points, not clearing things up) with terms like "internally consistent world view" and "equivocating concepts". What do you think of the separate page notion? It is an olive branch that could resolve this argument without seeking sanctions that simply irritate even the "winners" and provide no sense of accomplishment and no service to WP readers. The new page would be available for pointed commentary as to its deficiencies and allow a reshaping of this discussion as a discussion of the alternative view, rather than a defense of the present page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Separate page notion" is called a "POV fork" and is a non-solution. Moreover, you've made it abundantly clear that you _have not_ read much of the discussion (even "from afar"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.184.172 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 74.1.184.172: The proposed new page is not a POV fork if it contains different material, viz an alternative simpler proof. Your statement that it is "abundantly clear" is not helpful in suggesting specific objections, but appears instead argumentative. I'd like to point out that if Likebox is placed in the position of defending his page, that is a harder task than sniping at the existing page, and a bit of role reversal is involved that could change the dynamics of the discussion. For one thing, those opposed can relax a bit as their particular views are not under debate, but those of Likebox. Also, specific objections to Likebox arguments should be aired, and the result should lead to clarifications of Likebox's arguments, for example, a tightening of logic or a flag that certain eventualities are ignored, or certain assumptions have been made that should be explicit, etc. etc. When all is said and done, the final Likebox page either has something to say, or has become some clone of the original page that can be summarized on the main page or deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review POV_fork and then explain here -- with specific examples -- why giving a separate page to Likebox's idiosyncratic, non-cited, synthetic OR on a subject that is already covered in an existing article and which consensus was against inclusion of same is not a POV fork. Moreover, this ANI was brought about (Carl, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your intent) to address Likebox' _behavior_, to wit, tendentious re-insertion of material against consensus over a period spanning years. Likebox was given ample opportunity to 'defend' (or if you prefer a less 'argumentative' term 'explain' or 'support') his proposed additions on the talk page(s) of the respective article. Consensus there was against the insertion. And he persisted, and has pleged to persist. That's disruptive editing. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that if Likebox has a simpler proof or one more accessible to the non-expert, the proposed Likebox page is not a POV fork. You can see things like this with special relativity, for example, where several different levels of treatment are separately presented. The same with quantum mechanics. The issue becomes whether the proposed Likebox page serves a purpose. Before that judgment can be made, the page has to exist.

Many of the disruptive issues that annoy you may evaporate if the new page construction becomes the focus instead of the existing page. Experiment would tell. What is there to lose? Construction of a new page would be collaborative; dogged insistence on some editing restrictions potentially limits WP treatment of the topic and promotes an approach that becomes generally used, in many such disputes, instead of cooperation. Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Brews ohare was recently topic banned from physics. Does this discussion relate to physics? Why is one editor who was sanctioned for tendentious editing commenting repeatedly on a discussion about tendentious editing? To me this looks like disruption or very poor judgment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman: who can possibly have had more experience with tendentious editors than I?? Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

since Likebox has agreed to stick to 1 RR, this topic should be closed (it should have been a few days ago when he agreed with this). If you stick to 1 RR, then that leads to a far better climate on the talk pages. Consensus is far more important, so it doesn't pay to have polarized discussions.

I agree with the points that Brews is making here, not sure why Jehochman would object to his participation here. Brews (a physics professor) was, i.m.o., wrongly banned from all physics topics, even discussing physics on his own talk page was declared to be illegal. The problem with Brews was perceived to be that he dominated discussions on a talk page too much to get his way. I.m.o. that didn't have anything to do with the physics nature of the particular topic, it just happened to be the case that Brews was only active on physics pages.

Now, when people get annoyed about me dominating some topic, the typical comment I'll hear is: "Count Iblis, why don't you stick to physics?" So, i.m.o. that is something we should be able to say to Brews in such cases, but unfortunately, the topic ban makes that impossible. We can't blame Brews for sticking to his topic ban and participating in other areas of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• CBM, what you are asking for sounds like the standard revert limitation. Take a look at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for sample wording. If something is adopted, it would be best to use standard wording. Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I think we need a general probation like the one D. Tombe got, rather than something like 1RR. Proposal (adapted from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Proposed_decision#David_Tombe_restricted):

Likebox (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Likebox repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

This could be in addition to Carl's proposal. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Likebox could then fall prey to wikilawyering cranks on physics pages. Note that in the arbitration page in which Davd and Brews received restrictions, many other involved editors misbehaved to some extent. E.g. Martin's incivility was noted in the discussions, but in the end he was excused because he was dealing with a difficult crank. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox would do well to stay away from controversial material for an extended period. If a crank does emerge on Likebox's watch he could enlist you, myself, or likely any of the editor here to remedy the situation. Indefinite probation seems very reasonable to me.--OMCV (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the trend here is to gag Likebox, and proposals differ mainly in how to accomplish this aim. I'd suggest that is a very limited response to dealing with another editor, and will tend to alter the atmosphere for editing for everyone. All of us will end up battling a losing battle sooner or later, not because we're wrong, not because we have a WP:POV or whatever, but because the other editors that happen to be participating see us as a problem. Maybe they're all Engineers, or all novelists, or all nuts. Can't we come up with a cooperative solution? Isn't a test page presenting Likebox's proof a better way to go? It isn't irreversible: it's a test, for Pete's sake. Brews ohare (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are unable or unwilling to see is that Likebox, by his

behavior is doing EXACTLY THAT - altering the environment for other editors, to put it mildly. And you are apparently also unable or unwilling to see that what you are proposing, temporary or not *is* a POV fork. Period. Mental gymnastics, indeed. You ask "Can't we come up with a cooperative solution?" Clearly, in the years that his mess has dragged on, we cannot. Hence, the need for sanctions. I don't think anyone is proposing an outright block, but are we to allow *one* editor to continue acting in this way and forcing god-knows-how-many other editors to devote time and energy -- time and energy better spent improving the encyclopedia -- constantly un-doing the damage he is causing and engaging in the same endless debates. 166.205.134.29 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't directly concerned with Gödel's incompleteness theorems. For example, I don't believe I have ever edited there nor do I plan to edit there. The issue is an editor run amok and what to do about it. Despite this I will offer my opinion regrading your question, Brews ohare, since you have asked it more than once. A POV fork sounds like a horrible idea and I have to wonder at the mental gymnastics you must be preforming to convince yourself that you are not suggesting a POV fork. That is what happened to Quantum mysticism with Likebox creating Quantum mind/body problem to provide a home for his owned text. The point of this encyclopedia is not to provide Likebox or anyone else a blog or substitute for a peer-reviewed journal. There must be a compelling reason to split up information and satiating the ego of single editor who want to publish their synth is not a compelling reason.--OMCV (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare you wrote "Can't we come up with a cooperative solution? ". The problem is that on the history wars article, Likebox is repeatedly inserting information that he thinks is correct but he will not produce reliable sources to back up that information, and refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong even when reliable sources are produced that contradicts his point of view. How would you suggest dealing with Likebox when he writes things like this to the talk page

This page is full of crackpot history written by Webley, supported by PBS. I do not intend to cite a SINGLE SOURCE for this statement, because it is too obvious to cite. I will unilaterally assert it, again and again, until somebody fixes the problem.

— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Crackpot History

What would you suggest is the cooperative solution for someone who makes such statements, and then repeatedly carries our the threat? --PBS (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS: You've got me; I've got no answer to that. Brews ohare (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked at the recent brouhaha at Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems I'm just astounded at the other editors' (particularly CBM's) willingness to endlessly engage Likebox. I've come to believe that Likebox should be banned from Gödel's incompleteness theorems and its talk page independently of any other restrictions. Likebox has basically turned the talk page into a black hole. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous 69.228.171.150, If you ever see anybody endlessly discussing something on a talk page, but nobody ever discussing it back, then that's the time to be getting worried. But so long as there are at least two people involved in the discussion, then I really can't see what the big problem is. David Tombe (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are problems. See for example these three sections in the history wars archive (I've used them because the quote above comes from there and it highlights the problems:

• Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Rewriting
• Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Crackpot History
• Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Why Tasmania is important

Look at the dates of the postings. Instead of following through the "Rewriting" thread to reach a consensus, Likebox starts two new sections that express his POV and adds personal attacks against other contributors to the page. He never goes back to the Rewriting thread, so that a consensus can be fully agreed. With this type of tactic, it is very difficult for a consensus to be achieved on small changes to the [article] page. This tactic of flooding the [talk] page with his points of view, particularly when the page is archived, and there is a blank canvas of a talk page, makes it difficult to keep the talk page conversations focused for discussion about proposals for incremental changes to the page (something as a tactic he has stated several times that he is against). -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside perspective; a general overview of this massive amount of text I can't believe I just read the entirity of, I've come to think that a lot of the debate is about making the debate far more complicated than it is. Ignore where the replacement data is coming from, ignore previous conversations and troubles in other articles, ignore large edit warring discussions. Walk this all way way back to some of the most firm policies of Wikipedia. Assumptions: Consensus exists, but consensus can change.

• 1) Are the new theroms inserted verifiable from peer-reviewed sources in any way even nearing the level of detail found in existing sources?
• 2) Is there consensus on the changes among editors?

From every word I've read in this discussion, Likebox's edits have absolutely no sources of the same type and quality as the existing theorems do, making verifiability difficult if not impossible. #1 is already false and we could end here, but let's continue anyway. Even if there were reliable published research and text on the ideas proposed, one would still need consensus amongst editors (and preferably experts) to make an edit properly. Again, from everything I've read, there is an overwhelming consensus on the pre-existing data. If you have no sources and no consensus, what you basing an edit off of? The only direction from here brings you from logic down to conflicted interests.

What does a situation look like to an uninvolved party? Repeated edits that deliberately seek to avoid those Wikipedia guidelines would be vandalism, self-promotion or original research. In this case? Depending on your opinion and knowledge of the topic it might look like any of the three. Sources, and consensus. It can be that simple. Even with sources, new consensus must be formed. Repeated attempted disruption of consensus is not acceptable in scientific discussions. Period. Why are these very basic guidelines being ignored? Opinion: Repeated nearly-baseless edits against consensus are disruptive, and Wikipedia does not list or discuss unproven and unpublished alternatives. If it did, I could come in and claim I had a "modern" perspective of things, too, and you'd have to believe me. Or, because I love using this opinion as a summation for things, I might ponder WP:GARAGE before sticking my head out. Just because someone has new interpretations of existing scientific theory (that you and your friends may or may not have created in your parent's garage) doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. Go get some press and a record deal, like any local band would need to before randomly appearing on stage one night in place of U2. Datheisen (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I have checked out the links that you supplied above. I have absolutely no knowledge about Tasmania's natives. I did a google search and found material that conflicts with what Likebox says [68], but which nevertheless writes defensively against Likebox's assertions. So reading between the lines, as far as the Tasmania issue is concerned, it would seem that Likebox holds a strong opinion which is already a recognized opinion, but which is refuted by at least one source, and going by what Datheisen says above, it is probably refuted by alot more than just one source. I have no intention of getting drawn into this controversy. It is obviously one of those horrendous political controversies involving 'history revision'. I can now agree with you that you might have a problem as regards main article space, and how to portray the correct balance of opinions, but I will keep well out of it. What worried me when I read anonymous 69.228.171.150's edit yesterday was that you might have been trying to nail Likebox purely for talk page discussion. The issue here obviously extends beyond mere talk page discussion. David Tombe (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

David I was responding to your comment on anonymous 69.228.171.150's comment. I have added a "[article]" and "[talk]" to my previous comment to make it a little clearer as to why there may be a problem even when more than two people are involved in a talk page discussion. As to the rights and wrongs of the situation the WP:V introductory sentence sums it up "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ..." and Likebox's statement "I do not intend to cite a SINGLE SOURCE for this statement, because it is too obvious to cite." and actions are clearly a violation of WP:V because repeated insertions text without adequate citations into the article is disruptive ([WP:PROVEIT]]), whether or not he has truth on his side. I don't think he does have truth on his side, but this not a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the number of angels dancing upon a pin head, it is a discussion about how an editor's behaviour of which not ending threads on a talk page where they have been forced into a corner and starting new sections to hide that is a tactic that many POV warriors use on talk pages and part of the problem with Likebox's behaviour with the history wars article. -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS, Yes, I can see now that the issue is more than merely talk page discussion. David Tombe (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Results

There appears to be a consensus that Likebox has engaged in tendentious editing, point of view pushing, addition of original research to Wikipedia, and talk page disruption. I am therefore placing Likebox under probation.

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked for up to one week. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

The idea behind this restriction is that it is a formal, final warning. Further problems will result in escalating blocks. Hopefully Likebox will take this warning seriously and change their editing style for the better. If no administrator objects, I will log this restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but after reading over the above situation I think this is a reasonable result. The jist of the matter is that Likebox is trying to add OR and until there is a fundamental shift in the way we interpret policy, Likebox shouldn't assume that a new consensus exists for the way that OR is handled. ThemFromSpace 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I completely agree with the decision, sometimes I wish you would do this in a bit less of a King Jehochman's Proclamation manner. Prescribing multiple exact block lengths is perhaps too much; some admin judgment should remain. One week to start, escalates up from there. That's about all that needs to be prescribed. Tan | 39 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have adjusted the sanction per your request. We thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Explicitely mentioning OR can be a problem. When Likebox, OMCV and I were discussing this some time ago and I mentioned some articles where I had done what OMCV disapproves of, OMCV visited one of these articles, Relations between specific heats, and behaved in a provocative way there. He suggesting that the page could go to AFD unless citations were given. But his action had no support there. So, you can easily imagine OMCV acting as an "OR-police" and following Likebox to many of his uncontroversial contributions to physics articles and causing problems there.

If a new dispute about OR should arise then a block is only warranted if it is again dispute between Likebox and the regular editors of the article who have contributed significantly to the article. Count Iblis (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If those contingencies occur, please let me or another administrator know. I am not at all keen on editors attempting to push another editor over the edge. If somebody is under a restriction we all have a moral obligation to try to help them comply, rather than goading them or looking for petty reasons to request enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since my name was invoked a number of times I feel I should respond. I went to "Relations between heat capacities" and stated the obvious need for references. I would have added a reference if I had a PChem book handy. I even left a reference for Atkins on the talk page so that some one could copy and paste the reference from the talk page if they could check the book. I was trying to be as helpful as I possible could. I also added a lack of references tag that the Count removed without correcting the problem but saying "Not reasonable to demand citations for first principles derivations.". I re-added the tag stating "everything needs a basic level of citation please offer citation of underived relationships or concerns will be moved to an AfD push" which the Count promptly reverted claiming "since everything is derived from first principles, there are no underived relationships. There is therefore nothing to cite". Thankfully USER:CBM added a reference (sadly in the the annoying parenthetical format;)) and solved the problem. There is still the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issue but having voiced my concern over that I left the page trusting other editors with a better expertise on the subject to fix this problem.

This is a prime example of how the Count misunderstands Wikipedia policy. I didn't want to give him a hard time, it was just a very technical page without any references which looks dubious. It is my belief support by WP policy that there is a the need to cite material when ever something substantive is offered this might mean an entire article needs only one referefence but it still need at least one. Wikipedia is not a primary-source but should point to the relevant primary and WP:RS sources when ever possible.

In terms of Likebox, I have no plans to stalk or even to interact with him in the future. With that said I think Likeboxs needs clear consequences to prevent future conflicts. Therefore, I think the proposed restrictions sound wonderful and hopefully they prevent me from ever having to participate in another valueless dispute resolution proceedings involving Likebox.--OMCV (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OMVC, I'll give a reply to this on Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your response there, your interpretation of WP:V policy is simply wrong. There is no "derived from first principles" exception to verifiability requirements, and your obsession with first principles seems odd to me. Elementary matters are generally easy to source from textbooks which makes your complaints especially hollow. The usual problem in sourcing elementary material is choosing which of dozens or more good sources to cite, but this does not remove the requirement to cite. If you really have been editing wikipedia for several years I am surprised you do not understand WP:V. Beginners often have trouble with it, but after a little while they usually progress past it to fighting over what constitutes a reliable source instead. Quale (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't disagree about WP:V, I agree with you that it doesn't allow derivations from first principles. That's why I proposed WP:Editing scientific articles. See my latest reply on its talk page here for an explanation why it is needed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Count Iblis. I also think the ruling should be explicit that Likebox should be warned first, before any block is implemented. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox is being warned by the probation notice. Administrators have the option to issue warnings or blocks as they see fit. There is no requirement to block for debatable infractions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I think that natural justice demands that someone be specifically warned about a looming block, otherwise they can just drop out of the blue without time for remedial action.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more of an effort should have been made to explain to Likebox what he actually did wrong before storming in with draconian measures. I began sympathetic to Likebox because it looked as if he was the victim of a group of losers who couldn't hold their own with him in the mathematics boxing ring. But then I was shown some evidence that the situation is more far reaching than that. It was Likebox's comments about the Tasmanian natives that made me aware that Likebox was overstepping the mark somewhat.

Likebox is obviously a top class mathematician, but the point is that mathematical logic doesn't necessarily extend into history. Anybody who has read the Sherlock Holmes stories knows that there is always that alternative case scenario that none of us would have thought of. Hence one cannot insist on a point of view as regards the details of a historical event, without any sources, simply based on the argument that it is the only logical conclusion. Likebox's conclusion is certainly plausible, and it is clearly a conclusion which has been circulating around sufficiently for sources to be writing defensively against it. But it is not the mainstream conclusion.

And there is another important factor to be considered. Whereby I could tolerate mathematical logic that is 99% certain, and where there would be no adverse consequences in the real world if the argument turned out to be wrong, the situation with the Tasmanian natives is that if Likebox's conclusion is wrong, which it might well be, it would be a terrible injustice to have such a serious allegation against the Tasmanian whites being broadcast on wikipedia. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

There are some matters regarding which, in the absence of certainty about the truth, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, and the question of the Tasmanian natives is one such example.

Likebox should be given some more time to consider the issue of proportion and real world consequences before any sanctions are administered. David Tombe (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Likebox is evidently a top class mathematician. It would be nice if his mathematical physics/mathematical contributes reflected this. However, having taken Ising model as an example where Likebox was the major contributor, there are so many faults with this article that it his hard to know where to start. The omission of the Onsager-Yang solution, to which standard textbooks on statistical mechanics are dedicated (McCoy & Wu, Huang, Drouffe & Itsyksohn, Baxter, etc), is one of the glaring omissions. User:R.e.b. and I have gradually been adding the material on Onsager's formula for the spontaneous magnetization of the two dimensional Ising ferromagnetic model. David Tombe should be far more careful what he claims, considering the unreliability of Likebox's contributions. It's Lars Onsager and C. N. Yang that are Nobel laureates, not Likebox. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning Onsager's solution is hardly a problem. Were there any real errors in the article in the sense of flawed statements? Because I can also complain that there is no derivation of the solution for the 2d Ising model (which is quite easy to obtain, not very difficult as the article wrongly claims, it is just that the derivation by Onsager is rather complicated). Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you've written seems extraordinarily ill-informed. The sources mentioned above, not even included by Likebox, spend chapters on this. The solution is not easy to obtain. It requires the Szego limit formula for Fredholm determinants, material that I added some time back when I rewrote that article. The formula for spontaneous magnetization has not been added yet as I am rather busy at the moment in RL with a finishing Ph.D. student. Perhaps, Count Iblis, you should look at the material in McCoy & Wu to refresh your memory (or learn for the first time) before making cavalier suggestions about the Onsager-Yang formula and the Szego limit formula. Szego's result is at graduate level (there is a proof in his book on orthogonal polynomials, his book with Grenander and in McCoy and Wu). The main complaint is that the other material added by Likebox to the article is quite unreliable and/because unsourced.

The main point here is not the brilliance of the contributors - this might be reflected in their choice of material to add - but that good and readable sources are provided so that other users can check the correctness of what has been added. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The solution for the free energy is almost trivial to obtain. E.g. you can transform the model to a closed packed dimer model and then use Pfaffian methods. This is something a first year University student should be able to understand. Not surprising, as we're dealing with a (more or less trivial) free fermion model. Anyway, you did not explain what errors Likebox made. If the only issue is that he did not include Onsager's solution, then I can repeat my complaint that the article does not give a fully fledged solution of the 2d Ising model. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to spontaneous magnetization. This material, just added by me, is highly non-trivial. In the article, I had to redefine the Onsager lattice model even to state it: that's one error by Likebox. Without entering into detail, because I don't really have that much time to spend on this, what Likebox has put in the article is a very poor version of what's in standard textbooks and the literature. In particular the section immediately after what I've just added reads like an essay. It's completely unsourced - a free-ranging personal reflection on free quantum field theory. Mathsci (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been given time. Nearly two years. How much more time are we to waste on this? Especially when he has said outright that he plans (planned) to continue his disruptive tendentious edits. (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Probation gives admins discretion in what type of sanctions they can impose, and what types of misconduct is considered disruptive. This does not; moreover, admins can and should block as appropriate (in escalating duration) for all of the above through policy already. I'm not seeing the point in enacting this as worded, even as a final warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox's restriction seems reasonable. Also, while there are indeed some top class mathematicians around Wikipedia, Likebox is not one of them. He knows his way around some textbooks (as do a lot of us) and he is a smart guy, but "top class mathematician" means something different. Dana Scott once quoted someone as saying that every student who learns about Gödel's incompleteness theorems either gets over it or else goes on to become an expert in mathematical logic. Likebox clearly hasn't gotten over it. Maybe he will become a logic expert someday. By the way, if you want to see the most heartbreaking page on Wikipedia, look at the long discussion at User talk:OdedSchramm and imagine how frustrating it must have been for Prof. Schramm, a real top class mathematician. The mainspace biography Oded Schramm explains why the talkpage discussion ended abruptly when it did. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of research into Tasmania and I looked at more of the wiki pages in question. I don't see any evidence that Likebox broke any rules. If he had broken rules on the scale that is being alleged here, he would have been indefinitely blocked long ago. This does rather seem to be another case of trying to handicap a person who can argue a point. My advice to Likebox however is that he needs to realize that there are times when there is no advantage in pushing the truth. That seems like a strange thing to say, but there are situations where the truth can do alot of damage if it gets into the hands of liars. I see the danger of opportunists turning purported truths against elements living today in the 21st century, by applying 21st century values to the actions of 19th century frontier region pioneers who lived in conditions which we cannot fully comprehend. And they probably went through six months of hell on a sailing ship to get there.

Whether Likebox has the truth or not, I don't know. We probably can't accurately ascertain the truth. But it's clearly a case in which he should settle for what the majority of the sources say and leave it at that. It's clearly a topic for which it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. David Tombe (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe: Its bit much to claim that those presenting evidence against Likebox are misrepresenting the truth. "broken rules on the scale that is being alleged here". It takes a bit of judgment to determine when an editor is acting disruptively, being difficult and tedious is not a black and white issue. Right now Likebox has posted more to my talk page than any other users talk page than his own [69] and based on that experience I would say he is tedious to deal with. However not everything is gray and Likebox has been blocked several times for 3RR. Furthermore most editors are not especial liturgist and indefinite blocks are exceedingly are slow to emerge. The only sure way to obtain a quick indefinite block is with soak puppetry. Perhaps you are right that based on the evidence Likebox should get a indefinite block but I would be happy if he just started behaving better. The rest of what you its not especially strange. To say we don't traffic in "truth" but rather WP:V is very basic Wikipedia policy. The sooner Likebox realizes this the better he will do on Wikipeida.--OMCV (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing my comments about the Ising model, I agree that some fairly severe restrictions on Likebox's editing of all mathematics and mathematical physics articles is called for until he starts following sources. Possibly he needs a mentor with some knowledge of the material. Most of the section on the 2-d Ising model and Onsager's solution (via the transfer matrix method) is an undigested and poorly presented version of the original article of Onsager and Kaufmann. It is completely unsourced. Count Iblis writes that this material is "trivial". That is certainly not the case. Even the people at the very top of the subject of exactly solved models in statistical mechanics like Rodney Baxter take 40 pages to explain this material. It would be fairer to say that Likebox (and perhaps Count Iblis) does not understand it sufficiently to explain it to others. Neither of them has mentioned the problem of sources.

On the other hand by now there are perfectly good textbook treatments by Huang, Itzykson & Drouffe, Baxter and McCoy & Wu, none of which have been followed or referred to. The passage is written as a kind of vague, delphic, half-understood essay. It is some of the worst mathematics writing I have seen on wikipedia. Even as a summary, the expository style falls far short of the authors I have just cited. Until he stops inserting undigested original research into WP articles like this, I don't believe his contributions will be useful to this encyclopedia. If Likebox learnt how to follow a source carefully and meticulously, none of these problems would arise. User:YellowMonkey by comparison did an excellent job on largely the same material in square lattice Ising model. Perhaps somebody like YellowMonkey would be a good mentor. Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that all aspects of the Ising model are trivial. But many aspects are, such as obtaining the exact expression for the free energy for the 2d Ising model. I made that comment as a response to your allegations that Likebox omitted Onsager's solution. I replied by saying that I could make similar comments to your edits. Why does the article not give the derivation for the expression of the free energy, which is not difficult at all? So, when you are criticizing Likebox, you are violating this guideline.

The Ising model can be easily solved using quite simple combinatorial techniques (developed by Kasteleyn, Temperley, Fisher, Montroll and others in the 1960s I think) instead of using transfer matrix techniques, so why doesn't the article say so? And if you use transfer matrix techniques, then it should be stressed that via the Bogoliubov transformation it is also quite simple to diagonalize. Onsager's method is in fact a very complicated method. Can I get this very relevant information from the article? I don't think so. Count Iblis (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing scientific articles

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*Note WP:AE#David Tombe now live. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Michael C Price recently made a statement at Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles. That statement read as follows,

Look at the recent David Tombe/Speed of Light fiasco. When challenged to debate the physics, he resorted to Nazi insults and was banned. Problem solved. --Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This statement is essentially a downright lie on two counts. Anybody who followed the recent arbitration hearing will know fine well that the actual physics was seldom brought up, and on the few occasions when it was brought up, I made my position quite clear. One arbitrator who actually understood the physics misattributed who said what. And when I contacted her both on her talk page, and privately by e-mail to clarify the fact that she had misattributed the positions, I got no reply. However she eventually turned up at the decision stage, in the full knowledge that my position was the same as her own, and she proceeded to support the motion to ban me from physics articles. It takes a very special kind of person to do something like that.

The second aspect of the lie is that Michael Price's statement has implied that I resorted to "Nazi insults" as a means of avoiding having to debate the physics. Apart from being a total downright lie, what does he mean by "Nazi insults"? The term "Nazi insults" could have a widely interpreted meaning. Let's see an example of one of these so-called "Nazi insults". Let's have it all laid out on the table to be viewed objectively by unbiased observers, rather than have the lies proliferating in the mists of time.

The truth of the matter is that I was banned from editing physics articles for the very reason that I did actually debate the physics. It was probably the first case in wikipedia history of somebody getting topic banned and put on probation indefinitely for talk page discussion.

It was Michael Price who was in fact unable to debate the physics. And his statement above amounts to baiting, in that he knows that I can no longer legally debate the physics in order to prove him wrong about his statement above.

Does wikipedia have a policy for dealing with editors who make dishonest baiting statements about other editors that have recently been sanctioned? The recent arbitration hearing exposed alot of kinds of bad behaviour which don't appear to be catered for by wikipedia's rules and regulations. In particular, I noticed what I would term the authority scavenger syndrome. That is where an editor, who is not actually an administrator, behaves like an administrator and persistently interrupts other peoples' dialogues in order to read out the rule book. This kind of editor rides on the back of authority in order to bully and bait other editors that appear to be down, and in a weakened position. Wikipedia needs to introduce strong regulations to clear this kind of nuisance out of the system. David Tombe (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My quoted statement is accurate. Many other editors complained about Tombe's refusal to engage. Note that the banning for Nazi insults occured within the ArbCom proceedings themselves: ArbCom finding on uncivility per David Tombe --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is nowhere near accurate. Who are the other editors who complained that I had refused to engage? Show me where I resorted to "Nazi insults" in order to avoid engaging. And show me one of those "Nazi insults". All you have done is shown an excerpt from the arbitration hearing which lists four of my edits. None of those edits in any way back up what you are saying here. If you think that they do, then copy out one of those edits within its full context so that we can all see whether or not it contains an insult, and if that insult represented an attempt to avoid engaging in the physics debate. David Tombe (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on anything else at the moment, the "Nazi" bit would come from this reference to Goebel, which I guess ArbCom assumed was a mispelling of Goebbels, a famous Nazi. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here also: [70] Last time I checked, Goebbels was still a Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, Amost certainly yes. And how do you define the insult within the wider context of the discussion? Who was insulted, or why did anybody perceive themselves to have been insulted? And was that statement made in an attempt to avoid engaging in the physics debate? And what about the other three edits in question? David Tombe (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrots, The statement that you produced was not made in an attempt to avoid discussion of the physics. You have got as far as making a connection to the word 'Nazi' and you have chosen to freeze on that, without giving any consideration to the context. You have totally failed to show that Michael Price's statement is true, if that's what you were trying to do. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to debate the physics by David Tombe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No Michael, Anybody who checks out this material will only find evidence that I did debate the physics. Where is your evidence that I resorted to "Nazi insults" when challenged to debate the physics? Your statement is a lie unless you can show evidence that I indulged in "Nazi insults" as a means of evading a challenge to debate the physics. You will need to show where I was asked a question about physics, and where I responded with a "Nazi insult" in order to evade that question. And you are not going to be able to do that. Your statement above is a downright lie, plain and simple. David Tombe (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to let others check the link and judge for themselves whether you "debated the physics". There are plenty of other examples of you refusing to debate -- and of editors complaining about this, as I indicated earlier, both at the ArbCom thread itself and at the SoL talk page. As for this leading to Nazi insults, since you don't even accept that you made any, I guess no example I give is going to persuade you, is it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. In order to stop this harassment, I would just ask any admin to promptly act according to wp:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Enforcement by block. DVdm (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, Don't guess anything of the sort. If you have an example, then show it to everybody, and we'll take it from there. All you have to do is show an example of where I evaded a challenge to debate the physics by indulging in 'Nazi insults'. You have made a serious allegation, and you are obliged to back it up with hard evidence. I am meanwhile maintaining that your allegation is a downright lie. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been shown two diff's where you called people Nazis. Trying to put conditions on the circumstances in which you called people Nazis is splitting Herrs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrots, Just for the record, you obviously didn't read the two diffs. Show me where I called anybody a Nazi in either of those two diffs. Nobody was called a Nazi in either of those two diffs. This is another case of gross misrepresentation of the facts. David Tombe (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Goebbels was a Nazi. You compare people to Goebbels, you're calling them Nazis. And from what I've observed, that kind of behavior seldom turns out well. Editors who call other editors and admins Nazis already have one step out the door. So you can either straighten up and fly right, or you can shoot your own Messerschmidt down. That's up to you. But apologizing for calling people Nazis would be a good start in the right direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrots, Who was compared to Goebbels? If you read the edits in question, you will see that in one of those edits, somebody's actions were compared to an effective tactic that was employed by Goebbels and for which Goebbels is famous for having stated this tactic in a speech. Somehow, you seem to see a greater evil in the allegory than in the tirade of lies that led to the allegory being made in the first place. If you were in any way concerned about the tirade of lies, you wouldn't really be very concerned about this allegory. I think that this is a case of playing on words to try and make out an injury in order to mask an injury. An unbiased observer would not find any fault in either of the two edits that you have produced. I'm seeing opportunist senationalism here. David Tombe (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So you stand by your words and continue to compare other editors with Nazis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrots, You are clearly too biased to be able to discuss this matter in a rational fashion. You obviously didn't read what I wrote above, and as such I am ending this conversation now. David Tombe (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing editors to Nazis, and you're calling me biased and irrational? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrots, You seem to have established a misguided basis for judging between right and wrong. Here's a question for you to think about. Supposing somebody behaves like a Nazi. What do you consider to be the greater evil between,

(a) The Nazi behaviour itself, or

(b) drawing attention to the Nazi behaviour? David Tombe (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. As a concillatory gesture I'm quite happy to amemd my earlier statement to:

Look at the recent David Tombe/Speed of Light fiasco. When challenged to debate the physics, he refused. Subsequently he resorted to Nazi insults and was banned. Problem solved.

Happy? --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you all are looking for arbitration enforcement. It's thataway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, I looked at the arbitration enforcement link which you supplied, and I can't see how this is a case for arbitration enforcement since Michael Price wasn't sanctioned at the hearing. But he has grossly misrepresented the grounds upon which I was sanctioned, and I figured that this was a case for AN/I. It's hardly likely that I would have been banned from debating physics for refusing to debate physics, and the issue of the so-called "Nazi insults" was totally unrelated to physics or to whether or not I refused to debate physics. The so-called "Nazi insults" related to the ongoing campaign of lies in which it was being alleged repeatedly that I had been engaging in disruptive behaviour. The arbitration hearing cleared me of the allegations of disruptive behaviour, which I knew all along were lies. This is a simple case in which a warning should be delivered to somebody who has been misrepresenting the facts of the arbitration case to the discredit of one of the sanctioned parties. David Tombe (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourced informations being erased on Brazil

Hello. The last days the History part of article Brazil was all erased by user Lecen, without any justification, and replaced by new texts, which are really biased. The new texts from this user show his personal admiration in relation to Monarchy, the Empire of Brazil and Emperor Pedro II, and his personal negative view of the Republic. I tried to discuss this issue with the user on the talk page of article Brazil, but the user was rude with me and seemed not interested on discussing. I reverted the article to the original History part that the user erased, which is small, direct and sourced. However, this user is reverting me, and posting his biased changes once again. I know that Wikipedia does not allow an user to erase sourced informations, as he did. He may be free to add new informations, but not to erase them. Moreover, besides the biased posts, his new texts are too long for an article which is about Brazil as a whole, not about only History.

Please, take a look there. Opinoso (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1. You have both reverted 3 times on that article. If either of you reverts one more time, you are in violation of WP:3RR and can be blocked. Bring this matter to the talk page of the article, edit wars are not allowed. I have left a warning for each of you.
2. You haven't notified Lecen of this post, which is a requirement for this board. I've done this for you, but remember the next time you place a notice here.
3. You are clearly in a content dispute, which is generally handled through discussion, and failing that, dispute resolution. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. The only problem that might require administrative action is a block for either of you that continues to war, or perhaps protecting the article to stop you two from any further edits until you resolve your problems through discussion. -- Atama頭 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the original History part of Brazil article was completly erased by user Lecen. He gave no justification for this attitude. That article has been writen for many years, after the hard work of many users. He cannot erase the work of other people. I reverted to the original History, and he reverted to his biased new text. Is he allowed to erase the work of other people without any justification? Opinoso (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is! As are you, as am I. The entire point of this encyclopedia is that it's free for everyone to edit, and that includes replacing other people's work in an attempt to improve an article. In this case, he's replacing sourced information with information from other sources. You clearly disagree, which is why you two need to come to some sort of compromise. Nobody is allowed to own an article no matter how long they have been editing it, or how much work they have put into it. -- Atama頭 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please block User:Bloccati as requested?

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. -- Atama頭 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloccati (talk · contribs) is requesting, nay, demanding to be blocked. Could someone please oblige? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He claims to be a sock of an indefed user: [71] 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardblock ?

Resolved

There is a notice on the talk page that 75.61.55.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is hardblocked, but that IP just vandalized Alex Wolff. I'm not an admin; can someone look into this (and the socks related to the IP, per the notice)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a 1 year block which has since obviously expired. Shereth 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the note with {{uw-vand3}}. Further vandalism can be dealt with thru the regular channels or by posting here again... –xeno^talk 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to another user?

Resolved

Texas Longhorn Cow Patrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) redirected both their user page and their user talk page to those of GossamerBliss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not sure what to make of that. It could be a sockpuppet. It could be someone with malicious intent wanting their warnings to go to someone else. I don't know. Tckma (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A first thing before assuming malice is to simply ask. - Altenmann >t 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A second thing is to look into user contributions, whether the user is a villain. In fact, Cow Partol has no contributions at all, to they could not possibly "redirected both their user...". An explanation of the phenomenon is official user name change, with all data moved to another account. - Altenmann >t 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like a renamed user -- note page history. Appreciate the heads up, though; that's a potential point of confusion or trouble, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Second Opinion - Administrators interpretation of consensus RE: RS status

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Join or be banned? → WP:ANI#Dealing with IP editors in this area

Resolved

 – Second opinion given by DGG at the appropriate page. Anon still doesn't accept it, but that's another story. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin has directed[72][73] another editor and I in disagreement[74] with an interpretation here. I also am in disagreement with the interpretation. Here is a link to the RSN discussion:[75] - and the admin's disputed (so far %100 disputed by both sides in the article debate) interpretation:[76]

AHS is not a Reliable Source and we cannot ignore this by making an unsubstantiated assertion that a particular author has self-published through them. No evidence exists that AHS allows independent manuscripts to be produced under their imprint - quite the contrary - AHS is clear as to their bias and goals and notorious for the lack of accuracy and scholarship, hence the unreliable status of works produced under their direction. Further, the author has a long history with them and acts frequently as quoted point man in various printed attacks on traditional Irish history academian's. No finding has been made giving the author a unique status endowing him with presumptive RS status, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he, an amateur historian working with his local history club, - or his quite recent and limited output - are generally perceived as reliable.

Indeed Murphy's work has been highly criticized as unreliable - he was a co-author of the Coolacrease book in which he and his fellow amateur historian club members that wrote the book were described thusly in this report here:[[77]|"Coolacrease book has numerous axes to grind"]:

"You will have gathered by now that Aubane is not a local historical society in the conventional sense. Indeed, its story is at least as interesting as that of the Pearson murders, and certainly much more so than a controversy over the rights and responsibilities of documentary makers. The Aubane Historical Society is another of the many successors to the British and Irish Communist Organisation (BICO), a Maoist-influenced, formerly Stalinist micro-group formed in the 1960s in London by one of the Coolacrease book’s contributors, Brendan Clifford."

...

"And then, just as everyone else started making peace, BICO cried foul. In its Aubane guise, it decided to occupy the ideological space vacated by Fianna Fáil in about 1957. The unionists had ceased being unionist, so why should BICO/Aubane defend them?

"What others see as a new maturity in Irish nationalism, BICO interprets as a betrayal of the independence movement. The good guys now are Islamists, Sinn Féin, Robert Mugabe and Casement forgery theorists. All that remains of the old BICO is the vigour with which those who dare to disagree with them are denounced."

In short his work has been specifically criticized for it's political agenda, poor accuracy and lack of scholarship. Remarkably, the only evidence we have regarding Murphy's area of study as a student is a phone call from a Wikipedia editor asking him. His work at Aubane is not a Reliable Source - and he is deeply intertwined with his group acting as a leading member introducing new club "findings" and leading in the groups attack against its critics.

There is in short, no basis in policy, in the facts, nor in the discussion itself, to have found Murphy uniquely endowed as a presumptive Reliable Source. Not even Stephen Hawking is allowed that privilege here. NOTE IP ADDRESS CHANGE FROM HERE:[78] 99.135.174.186 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is the quote from that you are using? BigDunc 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link - it's Ireland's The Sunday Business Post. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[79] This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Answer my own question it is from Steven King who was a former adviser to David Trimble and is his main speechwriter, nice and neutral, not. Also can I point out that Murphy wasn't a co-author, he was only a contributor. So unless his contributions have been singled out (they haven't btw) the criticism of the book can't be assumed to apply to him. BigDunc 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) Self-published sources are allowable under certain conditions, as described by Elonka. 2) There is no requirement that sources themselves have a neutral point of view; we just require that when points of view are added to pages on Wikipedia they reference said sources.

Whether the source is reliable or not, I leave to others with more time and interest. This isn't an empirical subject like, say, physics, so it's hard to believe that entire publishers can be deemed inherently unreliable. They're not meant to be "relied" upon, they're meant to convey a point of view. But I don't see any improper admin action requiring an AN/I thread. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AHS, and works by Murphy, were the subject of a chaired Oxford University professor of Irish history's book titled "The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making It Up in Ireland." Aubanes response is here:[80]. Reliable Source's, almost by definition, do not have books written attacking their credibility by leading members of Academia calling them liars in the title....-99.135.174.186 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kafziel I don't see any improper admin action requiring an AN/I thread. BigDunc 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But then again, BigDunc, you are an involved editor - and it is at the Admin's direction. -`99.135.174.186 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to rehash the entire WP:RS noticeboard discussion here. That's why I posted a link. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the interpretation has found additional detractors here and at the talk page and no supporters. But indications are that this may not have been the appropriate venue. As the admin has made a de facto binding declaration in the most officious manner possible based upon a universally disagreed reasoning which itself was driven by what I take to be a complete misreading of both the RSN discussion, its findings, and the Policy upon which it is guided - what is the appropriate venue? -99.135.174.186 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another User:Garydubh sock; one possibly not a sock

Two related issues... 1. This section refers. Another sock has shown up, User:Daunty, and although it's been doing the same as the other Garydubh accounts, been reverted, and marked as a probable sock (quack!), it doesn't appear to have been blocked yet.

2. Note that its quite possible one of Garydubh's points is actually valid, and merits further investigation. Namely, from his COI contributions about his company's product, it's quite easy to establish his real-life identity. User:Secretary-whbtc claims here to be the secretary of a Wexford boat club - also easily identifiable as a different individual. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Given an earlier oversight incident, I've run a check and Daunty (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to be a sock of Garydubh (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 10:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. Is it possible to do a CU to see whether Secretary-whbtc and Garydubh are different? If they are, then the former should be unblocked. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've indeffed Daunty and updated the userpage tags. AGK 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is likely that Secretary-whbtc and Garydubh are in fact different people, but that does not prevent a block of either for meatpuppetry. As Secretary-whbtc was indeed blocked for meatpuppetry, and has so far not requested unblock, I would advise against an unblock at this time.  Sandstein  17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein - perhaps he does not know how to appeal an unblock - you saw his comment on the article discussion page - don't assume that everyone knows everything about your wikipediia - what's more you already know that he is not a puppet of any sort - you have private e-mails which were sent to you 4 days ago to prove otherwise - you are a very dishonest person. Remember that what goes around comes around - and well done Bastun for trying to fix your mistake but I think on here things get lost in rules and exaggerated terms which in the context of written discussion are given too much credance - "sock puppets, vandalism, block evasion" - get real guys!!!!!! Daunty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.239.21 (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates that the Secretary-whbtc (talk · contribs) account is  Possible - Alison ^❤ 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison can you explain what your comment and symbol above means???Daunty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.239.21 (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP as a  Confirmed IP of Garydubh (talk · contribs) - also Ostantun (talk · contribs) - now confirmed and blocked - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What it means is that your repeated abuse of multiple accounts has gained the attention of a checkuser, who can determine with accuracy who-owns-which account - Alison ^❤ 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Daunty" text above has also been edited by 72.11.138.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), could that be checkusered too to find any additional socks?  Sandstein  21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Think your checkuser is wrong - Garydubh and Secretary are not related in any way - forget it and stand back and check the detail yourself - ask Sandstein - he knows the truth already and looks like Bastun is begining to realise it too!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.138.79 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again - no unknown, underlying socks. Yes - I said the account was  Possible, which it is. You already know why - Alison ^❤ 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No I don't know why Alison - but Sandstein knows why not - can someone please ask him - note he has become very vocal here to ensure the block stays - is he afraid that someone will finally hear that he is in possession of e-mails that show clearly that GaryDubh and Secretary are unrelated and Secretary's entry was not prompted or encouraged by GaryDubh. This has been said hear numerous times - is anyone prepared to investigate with Sandstein - its just a question to him - simple!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.138.91 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardblocked IP range 72.11.128.0/19 for one month - block evasion only by Garydubh. No other accounts/edits on this range. Keep avoiding the block so I can keep closing the loopholes. It's all good ;) - Alison ^❤ 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So Alison - do you see your role here as the "IP Blocker" or the dispute resolver??? Time to take a look into what this is all about - Secretary made an entry into an Article on Irish Postcodes and he was blocked because someone assumed he was GaryDubh - Garydubh wrote nothing into the article and he is blocked to. Sandstein has private e-mails which tell the truth - is there someone going to try resolve this? Keep blocking the IP's there's lot's more - but that will not resolve this issue - are you going to be bold enough to start the solution???Inthelookingglass (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• COUGH* HalfShadow (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way all - "Abuse" is a despicable act that happens in the real world - thankfully not here - using a differnt IP address is not abuse it is a function of the internet - suggest you try keep it real!!!Inthelookingglass (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of services is something that happens all the time here - look it up. No, I've no interest in the dispute here - too busy and I'm just the IP blocker - but you're providing a useful service in exposing open proxies and wide-open VPN gateways. Someone else can look at dispute resolution if they like, but there are only a finite quantity of checkuser resources here (and I have a lot of RL stuff going on today) - Alison ^❤ 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, since Garydubh's socks continually ask me to comment on these private e-mails, they were submitted by a person claiming to be Garydubh to OTRS ticket 2009102310050555, and were what led me to comment on this matter in the first place. They purport to be an e-mail exchange between the two persons who are claimed to be Garydubh and Secretary-whbtc and concern the content dispute that triggered this. I do not see how these e-mails matter here. They do not support an unblock of Garydubh, who has by now half a dozen socks and will remain blocked for that alone, and they do not at all not really discredit the assertion that Secretary-whbtc has been acting as a meatpuppet for Garydubh, which was the reason for the block of Secretary-whbtc.  Sandstein  22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked that ticket and concur. While I cannot say for certain that the accounts are related, I agree that it's certainly possible, especially given the internet service used by Secretary-whbtc (and that's all I can say). Hence my not committing to anything stronger than that - Alison ^❤ 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lads/lassies you are losing the run of yourselves - this started because Secretary wrote an insert to the Irish Postcodes article on an independent solution. He has been blocked because it is assumed that beacuse he wrote the article he has a relationship with the compnay that developed the solution - where does that leave wikipedia? The e-mails and his unblock notice make it clear that Secretary and GryDubh are not in any way connected and Secreatry has ceratinly gained nothing by his effort to contrinute to wiki You don't realise how wrong you are and what eejits you are making of youreslves and your processes and CU's and rules - you have discredited wikipedia - I implore you to Unblock Secretary - GaryDubh lost interest in contributing long time ago (18 months if you check)............ Bandstein (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New user, only edit to this page, asks for Secreary to be unblocked... could someone indef the obvious sock above? A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!}

 Done - also the other one, and the /24 range of open proxies, and the other Singaporean misconfigured server - Alison ^❤ 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Roger Davies for accepting that the evidence I (User:Secretary-whbtc) presented showed that I was innocent of the charge and was a fit person to contribute to Wikipedia. However, I cannot let the occasion pass without passing comment on the way in which the whole incident was managed by Wikipedia and the lessons one might learn from it. I refer these remarks particularly to user:blueboy96, user:sandstein, to a lesser extent to user:alison and least of all to user:bastun who seemed to realise that I was not a sockpuppet.

I was originally charged with sockpuppetry and blocked even though elementary checking showed that this was false. This was then amended to 'apparent meatpuppetry' and this carried the same sentence - indefinite blocking. This was a totally disproportionate reaction. Deleting my content, even a short term block would have been understandable and would have left me in a better position to defend myself but indefinite blocking, apart from making it difficult, was highly demotivating. I just wanted to walk away from Wikipedia and was only persuaded to appeal by my family.

The 'quack test' is a very blunt instrument. It was used avidly in the middle ages by the prosecuters of witches and heretics. It should not now be used to support indefinite blocks.

Could I respectfully suggest to Wikipedia administration that the following lesson be learnt from this episode: indefinite blocks should be used sparingly, particularly for suspected crimes. There are more than enough tools in the Wikipedia armoury without having to drown people one suspects of being witches. Secretary-whbtc (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image delete tag up since October 18

Resolved

 – Deleted. Gabbe (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[81] and [82] should have been deleted by now. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with talk page

Resolved

The talk page at Talk:Ergodic theory is entirely contained within a beige box. Please fix this. Thanks, 71.182.247.220 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it temporarily by removing the wikiproject banners, which were engulfing the page for some reason. I'll try to get the banners to display correctly. Equazcion (talk) 23:37, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this seems to be an issue that could affect many talkpages. Has anyone at least investigated the cause? 71.182.247.220 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the culprit has been found. 71.182.247.220 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem was {{WikiProject Systems}}. I think I fixed it. Equazcion (talk) 23:51, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

That did it on my end. Thanks for the rapid response! 71.182.247.220 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion (talk) 23:57, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Swinger98

Resolved

 – Indef blocked for repeatedly violating WP:BLP. Evil saltine (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Swinger98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- WP:SPA, no edits except to disparage George Soros, unresponsive to warnings. Probably a throwaway account that should be indeffed pending a good explanation from the editor. Note that I'm reverting edits on claim of BLP, so let me know if you think it's not an WP:EW exception and I'll stop. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Swinger correctly desribes the ultra-conservative views of Soros activity. However such description must be (a) described as an opinion of certain circles and (b) referenced from analytic sources, rather than from ramblings of a random anti-Sorosist.

Since the user doesn't respond to multiple warnings in the talk page, I agree that the next logical step would be blocking, according to your final warning. - Altenmann >t 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. If they're legit and want to work together instead of edit war they can always say so on their talk page and I'll be happy to work with them. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Welsh-language placenames

Yes, yet again. Recent background (and my own within it); and the latest crusade. Over to one of youse. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Jeni has already reversed the crusade, except for Oswestry. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Skinmeister reverted again and has now been blocked for two weeks. Note there is already a lengthy block log there. Wknight94 ^talk 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He's left an ill-considered response to his block. If a consensus exists, a link to it would be far more persuasive here than repeated 3RR violations. -- llywrch (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Abductive Uncalled for Behavior

Resolved

 – for now. Moving full protection up to 3 days. Appeal at request for page unprotection. I also suggest moving to our third opinion folks for assistance with your dispute. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was having issues with User:Abductive continuously undoing my changes to the SBA 504 Loan Page, so I decided to talk to him about it on his discussion page, however immediately after I asked how my page was considered spam, he began getting very immature and biased against me for some reason. I would appreciate it if this matter could be resolved so both the SBA 504 Loan page and my User Page Christopher G. Hurn are not deleted. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Abductive's edits look fine to me...some of his comments to you were a bit uncivil, but nothing that warrants more than a minor warning. Per Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest, you should not be editing an article about yourself, or inserting links to your company (as you did on SBA 504 Loan. While the article Christopher G. Hurn is marginally notable, I don't disagree with the speedy deletion as the article is entirely self-promotional and would require a rewrite from the ground up to be appropriate. Please read and observe the conflict of interest policy going forward. MirrorLockup (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Background info is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 19. Abduct, who I notified, rewrote the article from scratch, but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place. (I'm off now).--Tikiwont (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Abductive calling someone "spammer scum" is a personal attack and was definitely unacceptable (I'd go farther than just "uncivil"). At the same time, yes you are spamming, trying to advertise your web site, and that's also unacceptable. -- Atama頭 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This user has created two self-promotional articles, Mercantile Capital Corporation and Christopher G. Hurn, but unsatisfied with the traffic to his webpages, he spammed up an article of SBA 504 Loan to the extent that it was deleted even though it is a notable topic. The program is administered by the federal government and wonderful non-profits who help people for free, and this human makes money be taking advantage of people, using Wikipedia to assert legitimacy and insert himself into the process. He is interested in only one thing; keeping his links on Wikipedia so he can make money. Baiting me on my talk page is part of this goal. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem in deleting all the links to my website on the SBA 504 Loan Program wiki, the only reason I had them there was so that people could be educated on the topic, if you check both of the links they were for 2 resources on my website that I had put there, figuring if anyone else found others they could place them there also. Ill go ahead and take them off, however with the Christopher G. Hurn Page how is that page any more promotional than any other Biographical page? The first page I looked up after I saw the request was Richard Branson and his page seems to be just as self promotional if not more.

Thanks for the speedy response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This user keeps replacing his version of the SBA 504 Loan with mine, the most recent time he called my refs spam. This, I am certain, is in order to make the Wikipedia article resemble his webpages, and hide the fact that the topic is covered in a "For Dummies" book, and it doesn't need a for-profit intermediary (him). Could somebody block this IP for disruption? Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All I said was I would remove my spam ref's that went to my website and I removed them both, then expanded the article with information taken not only from my personal knowledge but from the SBA's website also. Please next time read carefully before you try to criticize me, also I would appreciate if you would stop removing my post, your "For Dummies" book is outdated, with some incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's the COI, you see? The point of Wikipedia is not to rely on personal knowledge, but published sources. The reason you fear the "For Dummies" ref is that people who read the article will figure out that they can navigate the SBA and the non-profits on their own, with just a little more research. So what, when they go to get the loan they find out that they can get slightly more money than Wikipedia says? That it is even more pro-business than Wikipedia led them to believe? Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the moment (24 hours) I've protected this to avoid any further reverts. Please let know here in case you see any other action fit (as I am now really off) and use the talk page of the article for further discussions.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy being uncivil and edit-warring

Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I got into a back-and-forth on George Orwell when he deleted some information from the infobox. I explained that Template:Infobox Writer demands that one "insert the persons place of death if known as: town, city, state, country" in this case, "Camden, London, England, United Kingdom." Radiopathy was insistent on deleting "United Kingdom" and in the process of his reversion he labeled my edits trolling, made this edit apparently sarcastically, claimed a non-existent consensus (he never posted to talk), and called my edits vandalism. At this point, User:Daedalus969 stepped in, including posting to AN/I about Radiopathy's behavior. By the time it was done, he had his Twinkle privileges revoked and voluntarily stopped editing Wikipedia for several days.

His last edit for several days was to try to restore Twinkle, even though he had been explicitly told that he was blacklisted from it. When he returned to editing a few days ago, he commenced deleting "United Kingdom" from infoboxes in which it is specifically required, and did the same at George Orwell again, initially hiding this under the aegis of removing POV (which he did in addition to deleting "United Kingdom.") I reverted and posted on his talk asking him to please stop, as the last time this happened it was disruptive. He reverted again. I reverted this and told him on his talk that if he didn't stop, I would post to AN/I. He reverted, calling my edit "disruptive" and was reverted by another user. Radiopathy reverted this with another apparently sarcastic edit (deliberately choosing the longform name of the United Kingdom and including smaller sub-districts.) I reverted a third and final time and came here to post to AN/I. He reverted that labeling it sarcasm. He was reverted again by an anonymous IP, which he reverted again claiming that it is a sockpuppet.

He has tried to get me blocked before and has requested intervention again claiming that I am a sockpuppet from Alabama (apparently the IP that reverted him most recently.) Needless to say, I am not that anonymous IP.

In addition to the obvious 3RR violation, I am posting this to AN/I because Radiopathy deliberately ignores the guidelines as written at these infoboxes, choosing to not post on the talk pages there or for the associated articles, appealing instead to the feelings of British users to convince me to ignore the use of "United Kingdom." He insists on using deliberately provocative edit summaries and name-calling (the latter example being later stricken by the user.) He also has falsely labeled others' reverts as vandalism on several occasions (one of the conditions for which he had Twinkle privileges revoked) and in my estimation shows no attempt at consensus-making (even when he claims that consensus has been reached without any such discussion.)

I hope that someone can intervene here to stop this pattern of editing, name-calling, excessive reversion, and inappropriate edit summaries. His sarcastic edits are in bad faith and do not enhance Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum As I was writing this, he got blocked for edit-warring at George Orwell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I blocked Radiopathy (talk · contribs) for 55 hours for edit-warring at George Orwell in response to this 3RR report. The user has been blocked for edit-warring previously hence the block was longer this time. If another admin want to unblock temporarily in order to allow participation in this thread, or wants to modify block for any other reason, they are welcome to do so without further consultation with me. Abecedare (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Resolved

 – all ips blocked or inactive Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The following IP addresses have been used by a single editor to make disruptive edits.

• 76.172.176.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 216.100.93.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The edits are not obvious vandalism, such as the inclusion of nonsense or profanity, but rather, they are edits that go against policy, guidelines, and consensus. Multiple editors have reverted the edits, and some have tried to engage the editor in talk page discussions to resolve the issue. The troublesome editor has never responded; he/she simply repeats the edits. The editor was blocked for disruptive editing on the first IP address, evaded the block by going to the second IP address, was blocked again there, and evaded that block by using the third IP address.

Here are some selected edits.

1. Sur la Mer article; user persists in changing text in the article from "Sur la Mer" to "Sur La Mer" when article naming and lead section conventions instruct editors to use lowercase for articles ("la" vs. "La") and to use the name of the article in the first sentence. See: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]
2. Instant Karma!, Power to the People (song), Get Back, Happy Xmas (War Is Over), Hey Jude, and other articles; user persists in modifying infobox to indicate that the single was issued from an album when the song was originally released as a non-album single and was only added to the album as a bonus track on a CD-era re-release. See: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]

I recently requested a block for the latest IP address, but admin Toddst1 declined the request and said the edits were not vandalism. I don't care what we call this behavior (vandalism or something else), I only know that cleaning up after them is tedious and frustrating. The user refuses to discuss anything with anyone, persists in making many disruptive edits, and has evaded multiple blocks. Help! — John Cardinal (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

216.100.93.128 (talk · contribs) might not have been obviously vandalizing yesterday, but s/he was today - blocked 2 mos. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

76.172.176.45 (talk · contribs) is already blocked and 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since his/her Oct 25 block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He/she is back on 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs), see: [103]). Only a single edit so far, but the pattern has been that there will be a rash of edits shortly, many confusing, half-done changes, 98% worthy of reverts. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months for block evasion. Thanks for catching that. All 3 IP addresses tagged as socks of each other. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

63.232.20.2

63.232.20.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contentious editor, claiming to be someone else, continually restoring personal attacks. Not sure which woodshed to take that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

hum, so he's not that "MARDYKS" character, he's just pretending to be a blocked editor ? that doesn't look like a very smart strategy. --McSly (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for disruptive editing. However, I'm going to bed, so if consensus develops to shorten/lift the block, feel free. TNXMan 03:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a User:MARDYKS or User:Mardyks. I do see people removing edits from 63.232.20.2, claiming the user is evading a block; might be related to 67.164.149.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked for block evasion, and 97.123.59.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), not blocked. I do see some problematic behavior, but if that's the full story it seems that circular blocks are being levied. I could be missing something, so will ask User:Shii for some insight. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are some IPs of Mardyks: User:Shii/Mardyks One is what you listed as blocked and the other one is quite similar to one that was blocked. He's been harassing people on Maya-related articles for a while but nobody asked for admin intervention until just recently. Shii (tock) 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't bother with IP vandals at WP:ANI any more because it's very hard for admin to do anything about them, I understand that. Mardyks is vaguely entertaining in a trollish sort of way, if Wikipedia were a forum I'd probably bait him to get him to say more and more preposterous things... talk page is not a forum though and this would not be appropriate. As it is not, and as he treats it as a forum with his posts I find myself cleaning up his silliness on a regular basis. If something can be done... like an IP range block on annonymous editors on maya related talk pages... I'd support it. As a note Mardyks was the one who directed me in how to find out that he was a blocked user... then denied being a blocked user a few minutes later... Honestly he's a bit of a clown.Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats regarding article Conor MacNeill

Regarding the article Conor MacNeill, there has been many IP addresses vandalising the article to remove the fact that the person in question is from Northern Ireland, and replacing it with Ireland. Several claims that the actors requesting that they wish to not be from Northern Ireland (see the history) and others to correct the country. Yesterday I protected the article to prevent these roving anons from continuing to do such editing since it is pretty much the only editing happening at the article.

However today I get an email from a user, User:Fireflies09 who is a brand new user with no edits, asking for me to remove the block so they can take over the editing of the article from then on, and that this would be much easier than having to go through user proceedings. Email available on request. Signed by someone with the same surname as the subject in question and (PR Representative), and from his email address. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; if they want to discuss changes to the article, they can use the talk page. I'd point them towards OTRS as well, if they want to pursue other routes. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What looks fine? My protection over their edits or their email? Canterbury Tail talk 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The protection looks fine. As noted above, talk page may be used to discuss issues. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction

Resolved

No admin action needed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I closed this AfD earlier. Further to a note on my talk page please could an administrator review my closure and reverse it, if found to be wrong.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fairly clear consensus to keep: "no consensus" would be stretching things. Good close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I'm the cause of this post, because I posted about it on the closer's talk page, but in fact I don't dispute the consensus of the debate nor do I wish it to be overturned. I do, however, wish to discourage NAC's in debates where the criteria of speedy keep isn't explicitly met. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:NAC merely requires an editor familiar with AfD and an unambiguous result. I do think both applied here, and I think NAC goes a little beyond just "speedy keep" grounds—particularly given the declining population of admins with which we're currently faced.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DPR#NAC states "Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions...Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Since this was neither, there's nothing to discourage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a good close. However, you probably should let an admin next time make such a close. Of course, your alternative is to go for RFA again :) MuZemike 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good close. No issues with invoking NAC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Valid close. Although if a NAC is likely to cause conflict, might want to wait... Xavexgoem (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between endorse and weak endorse – no point in pro forma overturning with these admin endorsements, but I don't wish to encourage NACs of AfDs falling outside "near unanimous". Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Long term vandal

I am really tired of cleaning up after this vandal. I request an edit filter, and while it blocks some of his edits it does not block all of his edits. Thirty of my edits in the last half hour were reverts and reporting this vandal's latest IP. His ISP (Bell Canada) has been completely unresponsive. If his IP is not blocked for a long enough period of time, he returns on the same IP address. If the IP is blocked for a long enough period of time, he manually reassigns his computer an IP address. The only way in the past that I have been able to prevent this vandal from editing has been to block large swaths of his ISP's access to Wikipedia. The following IPs are all that he has used that has been tracked with the edit filter and visible from edits prior to the filter's implimentation:

List of IPs going back nearly 12 months
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
64.228.129.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 70.48.112.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.70.155.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (triggered the filter, made no other edits) 70.48.112.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 206.182.134.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (returned to IP after block expired) 70.48.113.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (returned to IP after block expired) 64.228.131.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 70.48.115.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 70.48.114.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 70.48.115.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 64.228.130.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 64.228.129.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.70.153.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 99.225.167.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 64.90.250.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 72.137.197.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There's a clear range he's editing from ith only a few random outliers. If we cannot adequately control this vandal, then in the past I had blocked his IP ranges for six month blocks. It worked because there was surely barely any vandalism to these articles when the ranges were blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a few exemplar diffs of vandalism that didn't get caught by the current filter? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Any of the edits by 64.228.129.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.48.112.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since he can't put the text blocked by filter 213, he's taken to whitewashing articles of content relating to Saban Entertainment (as he's always done), but has also begun blanking unrelated articles of unrelated content, changing ages and other numbers. I don't think another abuse filter will do much of anything here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a few rangeblocks? Cirt (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks could work, but it would also affect users with good intentions on this major ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Portsmouth&Southsea

This "new" user has been removing maintenance tags from several articles without making any attempt to improve the articles first. I suspect that the inclusion of the failed FA candidate Hampshire County Cricket Club and the name of the user points to a clear Hampshire connection here. Could you please investigate further and revert aas necessary. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Portsmouth&Southsea hasn't been informed that they are being discussed here. Secondly, no communication has been attempted with P&S. As you say, P&S is a new editor. Therefore they are expected to make mistakes. Bringing this here as a first port of call is very Bitey . Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

P&S has now been informed of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my cynicism but this is not a new user. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thattaway. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

English Defence League

A couple of days ago, we closed the discussion on this noticeboard regarding the POV tag at English Defence League diff. I laid out concerns that should be addressed on the talk page. Editors are still preventing inclusion of the tag. The recent edit summary was actually offensive "BNP/EDL supporters will never accept that the article is NPOV". I'm from Seattle and could care less what the group does but it looks like POV from editors who are entrenched in their beliefs has skewed the article to the point that negative media accounts about the group are more neutral than the article. Before, I was told to include reasoning for the tag. I have now done so and it is still not sufficient. There have been ongoing disputes but the editors that stick around more are influencing content. I don't even attempt to edit the mainspace since the last time resulted in a pretty swift revert and an editor had the audacity to tell editors to stop editing the page until it was discussed further (even though he has been a driving force in what I consider the POV problems). I also tried a POV-check tag before to see if was completely wrong but that was not acceptable. What is the next step?Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After repeated requests the above editor finally produced reasons to justify their NPOV tag. Those points have either been addressed by other editors, are not NPOV argument, or do not have agreement from other editors. All within 24 hours. At this stage the media accounts are the only reliable third part sources. We now seem to have the common problem on controversial current news articles in which anything negative about the group (in this case EDL) is qualified, compromised or tagged. When that fails ANI or other notice boards are used. Regardless of location or intent, Cptnono has de facto being attempting to structure the article towards the PR position taken by supporters of EDL. Its not surprising that persistent (and largely isolated) assertion of this position is producing a reaction from editors with a history of monitoring far-right sites in the UK. --Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Again this is a content dispute, and the editor had been told previously that WP:NPOVN might be a more appropriate venue, if they actually waited for some discussion. Most of his points had already been addressed or were minor, such as slight rewordings or wanting to remove "far right" (this is well supported by exponential WP:RS). The next step would be to read WP:NPOV and realise that the article should not present the minority position of the EDL as fact - wikipedia is not an extension of their website. Verbal chat 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not OK that the tag is being removed without fully addressing the dispute. It needs to be returned until the content is fixed. And yes, I am editing in a way that looks pro-EDL. This isn't because I like them it is because I am trying to fix the horribly unneuteral and information used out of context. I am asking you to stop alleging that I am pro-EDL. I have offered one example of an edit that was anti-EDL. I also provided a reference on the talk page when an editor disputed a line criticizing the group. I am not on a side.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sides, a few editors at EDL watch and have commented at the BNP page. I have read about EDL for a couple months in the news but BNP was completely new to me when commenting. I made a list after reading the article and seeing Talk:British National Party#POV?. I would love to hear feedback over there. I guess you could argue that I have pointed out neutrality issues on both articles but my only response would be that they should not have become the messes they are in the first place. I know you guys really don't like them but it doesn't mean we should be writing rap sheets.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of websites, major British press provide the required commentary and we don't need either groups sites if they are unduly self-serving.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was originally on the "wrong side" of this argument, and having raised an ANI about editing behavior last week, I want to chip in my opinions. I am not a technical expert in NPOV. I live in England, follow media coverage and know what I think about EDL. I have spent many hours replacing unsatisfactory sources for the assertion that EDL is "political" and based on that a consensus was reached between some of the protagonists here, namely Snowded and Verbal on that particular aspect. I would add here that I do not see EDL as overtly political, but with a reliable source finally mentioning the word directly in the context of EDL a consensus on the opening sentence was finally agreed. I have committed probably 50 edits over the last few days improving links, tidying structure etc. and one other editor has also made similar sensible minor alterations. I see the contribution from Ctpnono as largely impartial guidance on content policy. He has provided a list of concerns which I have began to work on. Those have not been disputed. There is an issue with perceived neutrality, leaving the tag at least until we have worked through the list provided seems sensible. I do not agree with them all, but they are sufficient to warrant discussion. I have reverted the last removal of the flag because of the edit summary "BNP/EDL supporters will never accept that the article is NPOV" which amounts to WP:Bait. Well I've taken the bait. I do not understand the resistance to the tag as I said at the previous ANI. Although some of us are satisfied with the consensus, we should be using that as a basis for improvement, not assuming that we have reached a de facto standard. Maybe we could substitute the {article issues} tag? Leaky Caldron 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There are further questions arising and likely POV appearing in the article. Some editors reject the use of the term "international" in relation to separate organisations in England Scotland and Wales, and also reject any reference to the the well-documented links to Israel. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus lay the question: If there continues to be disagreement over the content of the article-in-question, should a PoV tag be added? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The neutrality also goes both ways. One of the first things I mentioned was that "claim"n was used in a way that could make the media's position look less favorable than the EDL's. There are also ongoing discussions about other issues. To pretend there is not a dispute and not to let the reader know about it is wrong.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it looks like you're the sole person disputing the POV. That does not generally suffice for keeping a tag in place when consensus is that it's not necessary. Instead of fighting to retain the tag, discuss the issues you believe to be POV on the talk page. I'm not seeing anything for admins to deal with here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are issues relating to weight of evidence and interpretation of available sourcing which many editors disagree over. This is a sensitive quasi-political article. It is dificult to verify all of the claims about the organisation. Even if they look and sound like a particular thing, and the support that, the organisation itself publicly deny some of those claim. If you have interpreted this saga as simply being one editor out of sync. with the rest, then, with respect, I would ask you to examine the talk page issues in greater detail. Leaky Caldron 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence says otherwise Leaky - you are doing the right thing, editing the article dealing with issues which are brought up. You also were a key part of achieving a compromise over the "far right" issue wheras our friend is, as stated, the only one arguing that the article is POV. --Snowded ^TALK 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is true if the NPOV concerns are confined to "right wing". Ctpnono has expressed a need for a qualification of the sources and might be the only one holding out for that. I wrote the above shortly after the "political" issue was raised yet again. With editor support hopefully issue that will not arrive back at this noticeboard! Leaky Caldron 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll buck the trend and say that usernames, like user pages, exist to serve encyclopedic purposes, not to turn Wikipedia into Myspace. Usernames intended to titillate or provoke any sort of reaction and which result in any sort of disruption, are more trouble than they are worth. If a slightly-questionable username has been in use for a while and is backed by a good editing record, let it slide. If it's a new account and someone has an issue with the name, tell the user to pick another name. Egregious offensiveness should not be the criterion. Usernames are for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the user. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher G. Hurn Page Deleted

I am wondering why the Christopher G. Hurn page was deleted, the reason says ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: vanity page) however, there was no more advertising than Richard Branson Donald Trump Bill Rancic and numerous other individual wikipages, yet Christopher G. Hurn was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.161.66 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the deletion policy for guidelines WP:DP. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-Admin snowball AFD closure

Resolved

 – AFD reopened by User:Backslash Forwardslash. Feel free to comment at the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Treelo Closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags sighting no policy. A few problems with this, one as I can tell no policies were cited in any of the keep votes. Second, if the same was done for this very similar AFD which I cited [105] the result would have been keep for that article. AS far I can this is plain and simple totally against policy, AFD are debates not votes. To close it early for no reason and simply say there was no other chance for any other outcome is very bad form. Ridernyc (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, it was going to be WP:SNOW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

that's what the first 8 hours of the Macgyver AFD would have resulted in if it was closed early. And no I don't have to admit anything. Ridernyc (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better I can close it as an admin as WP:SNOW. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As the spudhead who closed the AfD I closed early because there wasn't a debate being had, the nominator didn't even give a reasoning beyond it being cruft and the MacGuyver nom at least stated some policies it didn't fulfil whereas this seemed like a pointy deletion nom based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I did suggest to take it to WP:DRV if the closure was premature as I can't see what an admin can do with this that differs. treelo _radda 17:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DPR#NAC, the close was fine. Per WP:NAC, it was fine. Per WP:SK, while WP:SNOW is not a valid reason for a "speedy keep", it's valid for an early close. The language "its use is discouraged" would give me pause in doing it, but I don't see any policies or guidelines that were broken. -- Atama頭 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion policy clearly states debates are open for seven days, There are also several policies which state we discuss and debate we don't count votes. Even WP:SNOW say it's best to use discussion and debate. As far as I'm concerned the only time snow should be used in AFD is when it is clearly a bad faith nom. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do. I wouldn't have done it. I've personally only done one non-admin close of an AfD, and that was when a disruptive editor nominated an article for deletion as a grudge just before he was blocked. But what was done was certainly allowed. If you think that all AfDs are open for 7 days you must not have much experience in the matter. By default they last that long, but early closes happen all the time. Like others have said, DRV is the best place to bring this up, that's what it's for. -- Atama頭 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridernyc has a point here in that there was really no airtight, clear-cut, non-debatable speedy keep reason. I don't see any horribly bad actions here by anyone, however. Ridernyc, I'd say your best recourse at this point is to take it to DRV. Tan | 39 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It was snowing. A snow close isn't a speedy keep close. It is a somewhat "bold" (scare quotes because we are bending the meaning of WP:BOLD) decision to prevent the community from wasting time on a discussion with a foregone outcome. We have become quite allergic to snow closes in the last year (something I see as a lamentable fit of proceduralism), but they still happen and should still happen. Unlike a SK close, which is just a trigger letting anyone step in, a SNOW close is a risk on the part of the closer. In this case I think they chose wisely, but nothing prevents closers from choosing poorly. I think it was a reasonable close and a review of it at DRV would endorse it. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

again every similar AFD has turned into a huge debate, and while the Simpsons might be popular enough to survive. Other similar AFDs have closed as delete when the vast majority of "votes" were keep. While I was only one so far to say delete, I also saw no valid arguments that would stand up to a few more deletes. Both the MacGyver debate and this debate about the Saw movies [106] had similar no policy keep arguments presented, both could have been snowballed, but both ran there course and ended up deleted. Ridernyc (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO such an early close (<12 hours) by a non-admin who edits other List of X in TV series articles extensively was a bad call. Remember that early comments at an AFD often reflect opinions of people who have the page watchlisted. I assume good faith of all involved, but we should be mindful of letting process run the course and trust that uninvolved editors/admins will reach the right decision. If I hadn't just edited the article I would reopen the AFD and let it run for at least another 24 hours. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so speedy? It doesn't seem urgent, to me. It could well be that the discussion would lead to a "keep" decision, but closing it that quickly with a small handful of like-minded comments seems to risk steamrolling. If a more thoughtful nomination is put together, as could probably be done with comments here, re-opening the discussion to allow for additional comments seems fair. Eleven hours is a bit quick to declare total consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against it being relisted if a better rationale for deletion was used this time, I have no personal opinion one way or another regarding the outcome of the article (even if Abecedare reckons I might do through what articles I edit somehow) but still feel WP:DRV is where a relisting decision should be made, not here and certainly not on the whim of some admin who thinks simply overturning it through a few undos is fine. treelo _radda 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's better for non-admins to ignore policy on a whim then? Why have another long drawn out debate that we seem to have been trying so hared to avoid them? Ridernyc (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that an early closure is "ignoring policy" is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest that you drop that line of reasoning, since it is demonstrably false, to do otherwise is disruptive. -- Atama頭 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Show me the policy that allows it in this case. IMHO this AFD comes no where near any of the reasons given anywhere for early closure. Ridernyc (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that WP:NAC says that WP:SNOW closures are inappropriate. So I've struck out my reasoning above. What Treelo had done was, in fact, against policy, and could have been undone by any admin. (On the other hand, DJSasso volunteered to close it as SNOW, and was within his rights as an admin to do it.) So you were correct. -- Atama頭 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a procedural note, the AfD has been re-opened. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why the AFD still needs to be open. This is why we have WP:IAR for. Just close it and move on; there are better things to work on and whine and complain about. MuZemike 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"National knee high sock day is on June 11th"

Resolved

 – original edit was vandalism, has been reverted – User:Ramdrake (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Found this gem while reading the Sock article. I'm not aware of such a day, and a Google search turned up nothing more that WP and other 'pedias which source back to Wikipedia. However, the most disturbing part seems to be that this also found its way into MS Encarta. Now, unless someone can confirm that they are aware of such a day, I find this one suspicious. Also, not sure where this question goes, so if someone can think of a better place to bring this up, I'll be glad to transfer this to the appropriater board. National knee high sock day??? eek!!! --Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we know for a fact that Encarta took it from Wikipedia?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we absolutely don't, however the wording is the same. Could be WP is copied from Encarta in this instance... but I still don't see a single independant ref confirming that this day indeed exists (e.g. in which country?) It's just bizarre.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's vandalism, and was added by this IP edit in June. I've removed it. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was interesting to see how many sites had copied that bit of sillyness verbatim, though. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Now what about "National Death-Ray Unicorn Day"? Hey, a guy can dream... HalfShadow (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Amiteli - spam disguised as citations

Resolved

Blocked 1 week

Amiteli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user just added a bunch of "citations" to various game articles. The citations were actually referral links for topsites. I've reverted them all, but since the user has made no other contributions, I'd say someone should probably just block it as a vandalism only account. My experience with these kinds of accounts is that they generally lay low for a few months and they try and plaster the link in a bunch of other articles. The site in question (can be found in the contribs) could be blacklisted as well as I can't find anything redeeming about it.--Crossmr (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Amiteli has not edited since the final warning was issued. Let's wait and see what happens next. Also, Amiteli has not been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Amiteli now notified. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That kind of thinking doesn't generally apply to vandalism only accounts, and as I pointed out, they might not edit for awhile only to come back and plaster 20 more articles. This was deceptive editing, attempting to hide top site referral links as citations with no other contributions.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of the page make it clear that the other party has to be informed, and that discussion should have taken place first. The warning tag you placed is sufficient for now discussion-wise. Further vandalism merits a report at WP:AIV or flagging up here. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He's still spamming, just thought I'd let you know. Eik Corell (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not any more he isnn't. Blocked 1 week. If he won't reform after the block expires it'll be indef next time. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:71.126.126.46

Resolved

 – no issue Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

71.126.126.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for almost three years. It was meant to be a 31 hour block. I just found this IP while following a link from a page I was editing and thought that it should probably be brought to someone's attention. Knowing my luck though, I've managed to post this in the wrong section, even after looking for the right section for 15 minutes. Thanks for dealing with this anyway. Shanman7 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP isn't blocked, just has the old tag and hasn't edited since the block.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok... I just didn't see any unblock line in the "block log" part of the info on the IP. Sorry. Shanman7 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Admins correct me if I'm wrong, but if the block expires it doesn't show the unblock.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It does not show the unblock unless an admin unblocks before the original block expires. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(After this much time, I ought to know better than to edit the bottom section at AN/I!) Such a line will only appear if an unblock is done or altered manually; if the block just expires, no log entry is left... it's an understandable point of confusion, though. Certainly an accidental three-year block would have been unfortunate! There's no harm done, here, I think. Thanks for bringing an apparent problem up for attention. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a hint, I generally look at the contributions page for an editor to see if they're currently blocked because the block log confuses me too at times. If you don't see a pink box saying that they are blocked, they aren't blocked. -- Atama頭 02:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image at User:Lanternix/Userboxes/Tintin

A user insists on including a non-free in the userbox at User:Lanternix/Userboxes/Tintin. I have reverted and tried to explain. Could another admin look at this please. The policy, WP:NFCC#9 is possible to misinterpret. Rettetast (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images, and left a notice on the user's talk page. Anyone more familiar with syntax can prettify his userboxes. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User 150.101.100.194

Resolved

 – long-term vandalism warning issued. Block on next. Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this user's contributions, you will see that all 20 of them have been vandalism. This includes the eight made since they were blocked for 31 hours on October 18, 2009. Clearly the block did not work. I would suggest that a longer block is now appropriate. HairyWombat (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a manner for WP:AIV--SKATER ^Speak. 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But that says "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." I judged that a single warning was not sufficient. HairyWombat (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The general practice is to give 4 warnings, and when the last one is ignored, to then request a block. Take a look at Wikipedia:Warn for info. Equazcion (talk) 02:23, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

So do that then. I am not an administrator. I have brought this matter to the attention of people who are (and in the forum that seemed the most appropriate). My contribution is now complete. Bye. HairyWombat (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any editor (even unregistered IPs) can revert a vandal and issue warnings. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Typically, if they've been warned once or twice already, and keep doing it right after the warning, just go ahead and take them to WP:AIV. If they have a number of edits, all of them clearly vandalism, the odds are good the admin will put them on ice for a day or two, for starters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Small incident about swine flu information

Resolved

 – Deleted post readded in altered form to Talk:2009 flu pandemic by country. Gabbe (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for this letter.

Article in EnWiki '2009 flu pandemic by country' regularly print newest data. We have no such article in russian and are using information from english article in our work.

Today we have new data about swine flu in Russia. I had tried to add information with internet link for administrators of '2009 flu pandemic by country' in Discussion part of this article. Information was deleted by user Zhang He (with reason: Unsorced). Then I asked Zhang He in his own page, why my information was deleted? if there is any my fault? He had deleted that question with reason Suspicious behavior.

I think it is his small mistake about my actions. It is also little strange because National emergency in USA was declared by USA President. And now in Russia we also have deaths and rapid spread. And administrators of article '2009 flu pandemic by country' need to change many tables and maps.

Initial text for information was: - == New data from Russia == - - Two women diagnosed with swine flu have died... - More than 1,300 confirmed swine flu cases across Russia as of October 26... - http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091027/156601587.html

If you think it is important information for EnWiki, would you please to inform administrators of '2009 flu pandemic by country'

Sincerely. Andrey from Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.89.74 (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Zhang He (talk · contribs) for an explanation on his/her talk page. I'm not sure the information you provided belongs in the article, but since you seem to be acting in good faith, your question warrants a proper response in my opinion rather than a revert. Gabbe (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Success and inspiration to you and to Zhang He in your common work.

Andrey from RuWiki --213.79.89.74 (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Leatherstocking indefinitely blocked

I have just indefinitely blocked Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Additional openly available technical information was located overnight by other Wikimedians which identified that an IP address that Leatherstocking has used before ( 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ( see [107] for an example of him taking credit for that logged-out edit ) is in fact not on the US East Coast as had previously been indicated, but is in fact in California and is a business DSL connection with customer ID information of "American System Publications", which is a Lyndon LaRouche organization.

Leatherstocking has repeatedly denied that he is a person associated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization - [108] [109]. Based on those representations and a lack of other technical evidence to the contrary, I and other administrators have assumed good faith about his Wikipedia contributions and believed that he was an independent person in this matter.

Recently udpated geolocation information is available at: http://www.utrace.de/whois/64.183.125.210, http://www.utrace.de/ip-adresse/64.183.125.210.

Behavioral evidence and now technical evidence connects Leatherstocking with the LaRouche sockpuppets, including the Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sockpuppet farm.

After being notified of the apparent connection, I went digging through contributions, other technical resources, and anything else I could find which might contradict the apparently solid new information. I was unable to find any information which did not match the sockpuppet pattern and new technical information.

Based on the totality of the information available at this time, I am placing an indefinite block upon Leatherstocking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that Leatherstocking is a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky. Is that correct? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. This is a single-purpose account with a link to the LaRouche organisation, which group has been responsible for some of the longest-lived edit wars and POV disputes on Wikipedia. There are several arbitration cases aroud LaRouche. So this could be a meatpuppet, a sockpuppet, or just a disruptive POV-pushing SPA, but the action in all three cases is about the same. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don' think being a LaRouche supporter or organization member is a blockable offense. Lacking an army of truly neutral editors willing to edit these article, we need both supporters and opponents. I'd rather have them fighting and get neutral coverage in the end, than let the LaRouche opponents take over. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lying about being a LaRouche supporter over and over again, pretending to be an uninvolved editor trying to balance criticism on the LaRouche articles, while subtly working to integrate LaRouche propaganda into the articles, that is a blockable offense. He was recently called on a deliberate deception where he pretended that some foreign language references were third party reliable sources, and then it turned out that they were recreations of LaRouche publications. Yes, I'll admit to being a little bitter because I've been asking people to WP:AGF with Leatherstocking for months now. That good faith was wasted and misplaced. -- Atama頭 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing in the same manner as HK is a blockable offense, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Until we implement biometric registration, we'll never be entirely sure that two accounts are being operated by the same person. But there is enough evidence here to deduce that Leatherstocking is HK, or at most someone very close to him. There have ben at least 50 HK socks in the past, several of them using the same "I'm not a LaRouche member, but I just read a pamphlet and came here to learn more" line that Leatherstocking used a variant of. The sharpest evidence is that LS followed the same strange editing schedule as HK. LS had detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, which is typical of sock behavior. LS had the exact same POV as HK, and championed the exact wording of text that HK had originally added to articles. LS tag teamed with other HK socks, in a fashion typical of past sock collections. (HK likes to use three or more socks at once.) They edited from the same small geographical area. And so on. LS has been "quacking" very loudly and we should have investigated this more closely in the past, but the IP information was either accidentally or intentionally misleading and so previous investigations were cut short.

If, despite all the evidence to the contrary, LS is a different person than HK then we have another problem. Earlier this year the ArbCom found that there had been a pattern of sock accounts using Church of Scientology computers to edit Scientology-related articles. Because of that longterm disruption the ArbCom passed a remedy banning editing from CoS-owned IPs. If there is a team of editors sitting in a LaRouche office pretending to be uninvolved and editing LaRouche topics aggressively, then that's a serious problem.

LS was an aggressive editor. In addition to edit warring he filed numerous complaints against other editors trying to have them blocked, banned or topic banned. HK is a senior administrator of Wikipedia Review who has created special subtopics there to house his diatribes against editors he fights with. He's also used that forum to gain sympathy for his editing and to depict himself as a put-upon underdog. Let's remember that Lyndon LaRouche's following is a fringe movement, and their views are widely considered to be fringe or extreme as well. On Wikipedia we should depict all significant views using the neutral point of view, but we should not give fringe views excess weight, nor depict them as mainstream views. We don't need HK's socks in order to write NPOV articles on LaRouche topics.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get too picky and choosy about context here. As someone who frequents Wikipedia Review, I would observe that my perception is that HK on WR is viewed as something of a 'crackpot' who has, to my mind, a valid beef about neutrality on disputed articles, but who also went about things in 'not the acceptable way', as well as being as guilty of offences against neutrality as those he accused. I doubt anyone would say he was either seeking sympathy, or even attempting to. In fact he himself stated as much in the last few days, when SlimVirgin tried to categorize his opinions as some WR "groupthink" positioning, and stated that even he believed most there presumed him to be a loon. But nonetheless, many there believe that there are some fundamental issues with neutrality, particularly as they relate to BLP, that are far from resolved, in a general sense. I would tend to agree. Achromatic (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for how HK is regarded on WR. If there are NPOV or BLP problems with articles then let's address those directly in an honest manner. There is no topic on Wikipedia that requires the involvement of banned users in order to achieve compliance with best practices. I invite any editor in good standing to read the LaRouche-related articles carefully and raise any issues on the appropriate talk pages. That's how things should be done - not through deception and teams of sock accounts.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go as far as suggesting that if a Wikipedia-clueful (or openminded and willing to learn and take it gently and slowly) LaRouche related or affiliated person who is able to be clearly identified as not being Hershelkrustofsky (who has abused so many times and in so many ways that a permanent ban is entirely appropriate), wants to come to Wikipedia, openly declare who they are and their affiliation and COI, and then engage in reasonable discussions to identify issues which they believe are improper under Wikipedia policy (or basic human dignity or intellect) with the article, then they'd probably be welcomed. None of the groups who we have taken collective actions against has been banned from ever participating, as a group, even when we've blocked IP ranges for the groups. Some members, and abusive on-wiki behavior, are banned. But that's not the same as everyone is.

If you lie and use subterfuge, you are automatically suspect. If you sockpuppet abusively or edit war or attempt to whitewash or suppress content, you're suspect. But if someone new comes here and agrees not to do those things, it would be a good thing.

There are procedures in place for identifying onesself to the Wikimedia Foundation, privately, in some cases of unblock reviews and other abuse cases where being able to tell who someone is in real life matters.

The key problem here has been, and remains, that Hershelkrustofsky is (or was) a very bad Wikipedian, and a terrible representative of the group on Wikipedia. And yet he's apparently the only one who's come forwards. If the group wants to be taken seriously they need to find someone who does not live near him, work for him, share any IP connectivity with him, who's willing to be honest and up front and straightforwards. HK will eventually figure out (or be forcefully enough told) that his actions have largely contributed to the LaRouche movement's bad reputation online (in general, and on Wikipedia in particular) rather than helped it. When he steps back, and the LaRouche organization has a reasonable, constructive, and open representative here, the problems should die back to a dull roar and they are more likely to get effective long term changes to balance out areas which may be unbalanced now.

Hopefully the time for that will be sooner rather than later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly a good block and an overdue one. Re "I'd rather have them fighting and get neutral coverage in the end" (Apoc2400), that's not the way we do things here. We all have the obligation to edit neutrally, and those editing tendentiously in areas of wiki-conflict should get diminished AGF because the amount of gaming of the system constantly taking place in those areas. Also, the best-informed opponent of the Larouchies on Wikipedia was Chip Berlet (User:Cberlet), who left the project in 2008 after endless conflict with them. His departure pretty much removed any hope of reaching neutrality through edit warring, not that the concept ever really made any sense. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:74.248.93.105

Can you check out User:74.248.93.105. All their contributions is removing text from article's.--75.26.49.127 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you found any removals that are actually invalid? The few I have checked were perfectly reasonable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked 6 diffs, and the romvals i saw were all valid too.YobMod 11:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting indef block of POV warrior User: Magyar nem ember

Resolved

User indeffed, then socked and indeffed again, phrase blacklisted

Per:WP:U and WP:COI. This slovak person (see userpage) created his/her account with the following disruptive and offensive name "Magyar nem ember" (in Hungarian) which means in english: "Hungarians are not human".

His first edit was a comment in slovak on a user' stalkpage with the "comment O maďarskom útlaku/The Hungarian suppression". See history.

Edits today: Article: Matthias Bel, changed sentence "Bel was born in Nagyócsa, Kingdom of Hungary (today Očová in Slovakia). His father was Matej Bel,[citation needed] a Slovak[citation needed] butcher while his mother was a Hungarian noble Erzsébet Cseszneky from Veszprém." to "His father was Matej Bel, a Slovak wealthy peasant[3] and butcher[4], while his mother was a Hungarian noble Erzsébet Cseszneky" (a slovak source) with the comment ""correcting Hungarian POV pushing". His next step was to request the deletion of article Erzsébet Cseszneky (the hungarian mother of Matthias Bel) because "...she is not notable at all... and ...the language of Matej (Matthias) Bel's was "Slovak".--B@xter⁹ 09:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the user over the user name issue. Suggest we wait to see if any appeal / change of name request is made and deal with any editing under a new name as and when it happens. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)

Resolved

 – Can't say I'm happy with the resolution but I accept nothing is going to happen. Dpmuk (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting this here rather than the edit war notice board as the arguments used by the other user (Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)) seem to take this beyond a simple edit war and into other areas - it hinges quite a lot on whether consensus has been formed and related issues. Following a previous thread here I started a thread at the Village Pump and other users then changed this policy based on their interpretation of an RfC, changes which I supported. Francis Schonken obviously disagrees and reverted these changes (largely made by other editors). I reverted this once and left an explanation on the talk page stating that I thought a consensus had been reached (his original edit summary made no mention of the fact that he thought consensus hadn't been reached so I don't think I was out of line to make one revert based on my opinion that consensus had now been reached). I'm not going to revert again as I'll definitely be in edit warring territory. Relevant discussions are:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#RfC: Should we allow article titles that differ only by capitalisation?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• User talk:Dpmuk#3RR
• [110]

Don't know how best to take this forward so if it's the opinion of an admin that no admin action is necessary then I'd appreciate some more advice. Dpmuk (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Forum shopping? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

...and not the first time on WP:ANI either..., seems like complainant did not learn much from answers received at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly forum shopping. I'd already linked to my previous thread above - I'm trying to be as open as possible. Personally I think several of Francis Schonken's actions have been out of order and that they've miss understood how wikipedia works on at least one occasion and so think this may now need admin action (I agree it didn't previously - that thread was looking for advice). I've deliberately not listed them here so as not to inflame the situation. A neutral admin can then look over both our actions and act as they see fit. If a reviewing admin wants my specific concerns listed then I'll be happy to do so. Dpmuk (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, a textbook example of forum shopping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this from the archive and added it back here as no one has yet commented on the actual reason for the thread - all the discussion that has taken place is about the definition of forum shopping. I suppose it's possible that people thought this was being dealt with due to that conversation. Dpmuk (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think admin action may be needed. Just to make that clear. I despair sometimes. It would appear that as I tried to be neutral and not spell out my problems no admin is interested in the problem. Yes this isn't simple but I believe it's important and needs an admin's eyes on it. If admin's disagree post and say as much - I may be wrong. However, if I am wrong I will lose a lot of faith in this project given the important issues I think are involved here. Dpmuk (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything an admin can do here. Changes were made, an editor reverted, now you all need to discuss it on the proper talk page. Failing that, go through dispute resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only presume that you haven't read everything linked to above. There was an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision) as the issue could also affect Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) I posted a note on that talk page to point editors at the RfC. It makes no sense, nor is there a requirement, to hold two separate RfC about the same topic just because they are on different pages. At the end of the RfC there was a clear consensus about what was allowable and what wasn't. I made some changes to the policy on this basis. User:Francis Schonken then reverted because they didn't like my wording. Following advice I then got wider consensus and a couple of other editors came up with a new form of words which I accepted. User:Francis Schonken then removed the whole lot again because in his eyes there is no consensus. In my opinion this is clearly edit warring - there's certainly a consensus to include something and just removing it wholesale is edit warring. I have no problem with them changing the wording as consensus for that is slightly less clear but there is a clear consensus for the basic idea.

Further I would point to User:Francis Schonken comments both in the edit logs and on the talk page which, IMO, make it clear that they don't want to discuss the issue believing there is no consensus. It seems crazy to me that a single editor can disagree with a clear consensus, without giving a valid reason, and have their version of a page remain. It makes a mockery of the whole consensus process. Dpmuk (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest I do now - hold an RfC to see if the previous consensus was correct. That seems a dangerous road to go down - what happens if someone disputes that consensus, do we leave the page as it is while we hold yet another RfC, the whole process could go on for ever. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you're not an administrator, so to date not a single administrator has replied. Dpmuk (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr.

I can only assume other Admins aren't replying because RfC is not the last step in the dispute resolution process, and AN/I isn't any step in the resolution process. You're in the wrong place, and it shouldn't take an admin to point that out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, speaking as an Admin (& that with about $3 will get you a cup of yuppie coffee at Starbucks) I'll say this: you two are arguing over (1) something that involves the Manual of Style that (2) concerns whether capitalization is important enough to create a new article, & which (3) in many instances can be painlessly handled by one or more redirects. It is these kinds of tempest-in-a-teacup battles which have reduced the importance of MoS to somewhere slightly above a deleted comment of a banned troll. In other words, no one cares either about this feud -- or what MoS says about the matter. Take this back to the relevant Talk page over at MoS & continue your argument there -- or figure out what you two can agree on & persuade the rest of us that what you two agree on is a productive way to handle the matter. Do that, & maybe the two of you can change how MoS works & restore some respect & influence to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has left me completely disillusioned with the whole wikipedia project. I will happily accept that the issue itself is a small one, although one I think it was worth getting some clarity on given that I'd seen it discussed in several different places. I also do not agree that non one cares given that several people commented. However my concerns always has been, and still is, with the process of consensus building and that's the reason I brought it here. If an article is recreated after a deletion discussion decided delete it is speedied. I don't see the difference between that and a closed RfC but it would appear that from the discussion here anyone can ignore the consensus formed at an RfC and revert to their hearts content with no danger of any come back. To me this makes the whole RfC process pointless if the consensus formed there can be ignored. There has to come a time when ignoring a clear consensus is no longer a dispute but rather is being disruptive and that in my opinion is what's happened here - hence the reason I brought it this board (I know ANI is no part of the dispute resolution process). Yes the issue itself is small but I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm also intrigued as to what other steps are possible after RfC -WP:DISPUTE appear to list none (except possibly mediation if both parties agree).

Finally I brought it here because I thought an editor was being disruptive. Others obviously disagree but that's no reason to be so mocking. Dpmuk (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You brought it here because you thought another editor was being disruptive, which would have been fine. The problem lies in that, when others pointed out your mistake, you wouldn't listen. And when the conversation was closed and archived, you opened it back up. And when still others told you this wasn't the forum for it, you wouldn't listen because they weren't administrators. Now Llywrch and myself, both administrators, are also telling you this doesn't belong here, and you launch into some anti-Wikipedia diatribe. If the process is too stressful for you, find something else to do. In time, someone else will come along who can take care of it. If, on the other hand, you actually feel this is important enough to warrant resolution, then go back to the talk page and keep discussing it. Ask for mediation if you need help. This has nothing to do with AN/I. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am letting the issue itself drop but have several issues with what you just said. This conversation was never 'closed' before it was archived. At the point of archival no administrator had commented on my actual request - yes there had been some replies but they seemed more to do with the definition of forum shopping and looked to be overspill from the thread originally above this - when I asked for clarification as to whether I was forum shopping none was forthcoming. Thus at the point of me bringing it back I was under the reasonable impression that they had been no reply at all that actually concerned the problem. The editor (User:HandThatFeeds) who first replied doesn't appear to have understood my request. I accept that maybe I didn't word my original request in the right way and didn't say I thought it was edit warring but I got the impression that this editor seems to have thought it was purely a content dispute and not that my request was about behaviour during the dispute, hence I made a request for another editor to look at it and asked for an admin to as I thought admin action was required. I make no apologies for renewing my request at that point.

If instead of me re-opening this thread you are referring to me starting this thread after my thread of a few days ago then there had been significant events in between - namely other editors had edited the relevant bit of the process - and so I thought the situation had changed significantly enough to warrant bringing it back here (although I appear to have been mistaken).

My "anti-wikipedia diatribe" as you put it was more intended as a closing statement by me explaining why I was letting it drop and my feelings about the process although I probably didn't make this clear. I was not expecting any administrators to take action - I possibly erred in not marking the thread "resolved". I am still not "anti-wikipedia" and still think it's a brilliant resource however I think admins should be willing to enforce consensus but the impression I get is that often they will not do so. If it's community consensus that you don't do so in such situations (which it appears to be) then I have no choice to accept that, however it's not an environment in which I can work as I feel it is essential that once consensus it obtained it is acted upon and that discussion shouldn't continue ad infinitum just because one editor disagrees. Consequently I have decided to refrain from editing wikipedia for a while, possibly forever. Dpmuk (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several kinds of pages here on Wikipedia. There are content pages, & if the wording there is disputed as you described above, Wikipedians (not just Admins) need to address it because it disrupts the reliability of the encyclopedia -- although users can simply compare the different versions & arrive at their own conclusions on the subject. There are policy pages, & if the wording there is disputed as you described, Wikipedians need to address it because it disrupts how our procedures function, & are usually a symptom that someone is trying to insert unwanted content -- although Wikipedians can simply rely on common sense & WP:IAR in those cases. Then there is the Manual of Style, which has been taken over by a small group of people who act under the misconception that the Manual of Style is policy & squabble over it accordingly; this is your case. However, it doesn't matter what this section says because not only do most Wikipedians ignore the MoS but many don't know that it even exists. In the first two cases, we are required to enforce a consensus. In the case of the MoS it can only express a consensus if one exists; in your case, the evidence suggests that it does not. The sensible thing to do in this situation, Dpmuk, is either to accept that there is no consensus here and move on or see if this disregard for your attempt to find a consensus is part of a larger pattern. The people who follow WP:AN/I have only a limited time & often look no further than to examine specific complaints; anything involving squabbles over the MoS is guaranteed to elicit either a yawn -- or a hasty exit -- in most parts of Wikipedia. You are welcome to fix that response, or explain that there is more to this conflict with another editor. -- llywrch (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian edit warring on the London Victory Parade of 1946 article

The story is well known, the Polish Arm forces in the West were excluded from the parade victory because the British government didn't want to anger Stalin and instead send invitation to the puppet communist authorities in Warsaw which refused to participate.
user:Varsovian keeps deleting this info because he says "that the Poles were invited" coz he found some old program of the parade or something. I have tried to discuss things with him on the talk page for nearly a month however it turned impossible to do so because he completely ruined the talk with lengthy rants in which he constantly dances on the border of trolling. (For example saying that things like that the sources which are written 50+ year after the event are not reliable, that the article should have only info on which every source agrees and similar nonsense). Please note I don't even object he adds his (IMO wrong) view into the article however I think that the fact that the Polish soldiers/airmen/pilots who were not invited to the parade felt betrayed and that some respectable authors think they should have been invited, something which is sourced, should be in the article too. But Varsovian just keeps removing this for month: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120] and so on and on and on... it's too tiring to list all his diffs. Anyway today he yet again removed sourced material [121]. He has already been blocked [122] for this edit warring but seems he didn't learn the lesson.
Due to his obsessive views and the lack of will to accept a view different than his on POV into the article, it is completely impossible to work with user:Varsovian on that page and I'm forced to ask a topic ban for him there.
I'd also note that me and at least 3 other users (2 of them are admins) suspect that user:Varsovian is a socket/meta puppet account created to provoke certain users because he appeared on that page from nowhere and exhibited knowledge for wikipedia procedures in far exceeding those of a typical new user which he claims he is. Loosmark (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Question - if a programme exists from the time stating that the Poles would take part, isn't that a verifiable source for the statement? Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. We simple don't know under what circumstances was the programme printed/made, or what exactly does it say (it maybe refers to the invitation given to the communist authorities in Poland I don't know). In any case I don't oppose having this programme in the article. Loosmark (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed one version of the story. Unfortunately it is not the version put forward by a number of serious sources. Among such sources are:

“An Army in Exile” by General Władysław Anders, leader of the Free Polish forces;

An article in The Guardian by Prof. Norman Davies (in which he states that not only were Free Polish forces invited but that the invitation was sent to General Władysław Anders;

An article by Rudolf Falkowski, former member of 303 Polish Squadron;

”The Poles in Britain1940-2000: from betrayal to assimilation'” by Prof Peter Stachura M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt., F.R.Hist.S.;

An article in Wprost by Edward Lucas (English translation by the author is here )

[123] The doctoral thesis of Dr. Mark Ostrowski;

The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them.”

There are also two entries from Hansard and but those are obviously primary sources (which are supported by the secondary sources). There is also the Official Programme of the Victory Celebrations on 8th June 1946 in London, which was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. Again a primary source but one confirmed by secondary sources. I could most probably arrange for a scan of the entire document to be posted on Wikicommons (the copyright has expired) but that will take a while. There's a scan of the cover here [124] and a scan of pages two and three here [125] (note that the scan shows precisely the same wording as [126] states).

Despite Loosmarks accusations, I am very happy to see alternative versions of this article. I wrote this one [[127]] which goes into great detail and contains 28 sources. Almost all of it was deleted and all 16 sources which do not support a certain PoV were deleted. I then proposed a completely neutral version which covered the parade in deatil but did not cover the debate as to which Poles were and weren’t invited (I proposed a new article for that), it too was reverted to include a statement about Poles being excluded [128]. I then proposed a third version which covered all the groups which were not invited, it too was reverted [129].

I have been trying to discuss the article but am faced with a constant barrage of insults and accusations from Loosmark and one other editor. Just one example: yesterday I asked Loosmark seven times to moderate his tone [130][131][132][133][134][135][136] he promptly told me “Stop trolling this talk page.” when I discussed the merits of a particular source [137].

I would further note that I am not the first person to notice the problems with this article. http://2ndww.blogspot.com/search?q=victory+parade is an post from some three years ago in which a British veteran who was actually at the parade complains about Wikipedia and “Polish nationalists. and perhaps others who are well-intentioned but ill-informed, persist in seeing the parade as a slur on them.”Varsovian (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them.” Yeah we went over this at least million times on the talk page. This source (Varsovian's!) for example just confirms what am i saying all along: The Polish Army and Navy representatives were NOT invited and neither were the majority of the Polish Air Force. At the moment I don't have time to check other sources he machined gunned here but I bet it's the same thing: the sources just don't say what he claims they do. Loosmark (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree that representatives of the Western Command Polish Airforce were invited, why did you say at the top of this section "the Polish Arm[ed] forces in the West were excluded from the parade victory because the British government didn't want to anger Stalin and instead send invitation to the puppet communist authorities in Warsaw which refused to participate."? Furthermore, why do you object to my removing sources which say that all Poles were excluded? I do not have a track record of claim sources say something other than they say, but somebody who looks at the history of the article and the sources linked to may well discover that a certain editor has a record of doing precisely that.Varsovian (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

See? This is exactly the kind of trolling I have indure for nearly a month. As I have already explained to you 1000 times I don't agree that the representatives of the Polish Armed Forces were invited, the Army representatives were not invited, the Navy representatives were not invited, the representatives of the Polish Air Force were not invited save for some few pilot who fought in summer of 1940. I have absolutely no problem with your point put in the article those few pilots who were invited but you keep axing out sourced material about the lack of invitation to the Army, the Navy and the majority of the Air Force who fought from 1939 to 1945. Loosmark (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So you "don't agree that the representatives of the Polish Armed Forces were invited" but you agree that some pilots from the Polish Armed Forces were invited (the exact number was 25 of the 89 pilots who flew in the four Polish squadrons and as we have established, that is a far higher percentage invited than other units). OK, that's clear. So why do you object to the removal of sources which say that all Poles were excluded? And why do you remove sources which say that some Poles were invited. Why can't you agree to either detailed discussion of the topic or to no discussion of the topic? Why must only one PoV (i.e. yours) be allowed in the article? I've presented three alternatives, you only one; I've written three different versions, you've written none: yet you accuse me of edit warring!Varsovian (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - On top of the edit warrings and attempts to disruption here is the example of the open personal attack during my conversation with user Varsovian yesterday on the same Victory parade talk page[[138]]:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such incivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

(Please note that user Varsovian removed entire conversation from the talk page)

User Varsovian was also recently blocked for similar behaviour and edit warring[[139]] as well as warned later here[[140]].--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not removed. It was moved to User talk:Jacurek because you wanted to talk about things other than the article. Any reasson why you don't mention that the thread was all about you assuming bad faith and trying to prove that I am a liar by asking me questions about which bus in Warsaw goes where? Any reason why you don't mention you linking my reply to Polite fiction? Would you like me to list all the times when you call me a troll or a sockpuppet?Varsovian (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian, if you'd stop pretending you are a new user when clearly you are not then people would find it easier to asume good faith. Loosmark (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF )and WP:QUICKSOCK. I would be grateful if you could at least try to refrain from saying that I am a liar. Thank you in advance.Varsovian (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this in entirely the wrong place? At the top of this page it says "What this page is not This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and also says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.", Loosmark wants a ban for me but it says "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard." Loosmark says I'm a puppet but "To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations." Jacurek says I've been incivil but "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Varsovian (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reported you here because you are edit warring, the other board is for the 3RR violations. I have not asked for admin action due to suspected sockpuppetry at this point. Anyway I see you are trying to derail this discussion into a mess similar to the talk page of the parade article. Please stay on topic and address why you keep edit warring to remove sourced material. Loosmark (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Times newspaper of June 1946 which states “Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them"

I'd interpret that as saying "representatives of the Polish armed forces were invited" - Airmen are part of the Polish armed forces, they were invited but declined to take part. This seems to be a content dispute ans should be discussed on the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mjroots, no offence, but please get familiar with the subject and examine talk page of the article were User Varsovian goes against 4 other editors for a month. This is not about a content dispute. This is about constant manipulation of sources, sources removal, personal attacks and edit warring by user Varsovian.--Jacurek (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That unsigned comment is from Jacurek (as shown here [141])Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, a few airmen can hardly represent the big Polish army which fought with the British everywhere Narvik, France 1940, Tobruk, Monte Cassino etc etc you name it. Again I have no problem with having your interpretation in the article however if the Polish soldiers who fought with the Polish Army for example felt that they should have been invited and some historians state the same, and both these are properly souced then I don't see why that shouldn't be in the article. If I try adding anything remotely similar to the article Varsovian just deletes it out. These things were discussed on the article talk page for nearly a month and it's useless because Varsovian keeps deleting everything that doesn't fall into his "the Poles were invited" POV. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't they? Exactly the same was considered by the USA as sufficient to represent their massive army.

I'm quite happy to have sources which say that Polish soldiers who fought with the Polish Army for example felt that they should have been invited and indeed myself specifically wrote that precise point into the article and gave a source supporting that view. What I don't want to see is just one side being presented or sources being given to back a viewpoint which they simply do not support.Varsovian (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of administrator attention is required? This looks like a normal content conflict - use a WP:RFC, or, if its only you two, a WP:3O request. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Normal content conflict? Riiight. In case you have missed it, the guy was already blocked for edit warring on that article and now continues to do so. Not to even mention that he basically concentrates 100% on that article and that a number of editors/admins suspect(ed) him of being either a sock or a meta. If that doesn't make all the alarm bells ring then I don't know what does. As for WP:3O and WP:RFC my experience with those is not positive, usually you have to wait forever and when somebody finally decides to comment it's some token generalistic advice which the other side is very likely to ignore anyway. Loosmark (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I've just looked at WP:3O and it says "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." Given that both Loosmark and Jacurek repeatedly accuse me of being a puppet and Loosmark has already talked in this thread about it not being easy for him to assume good faith towards me, I think WP:RFC might be the way to go. Although I personally would much prefer that Loosmark, Jacurek and I work through this together ourselves.Varsovian (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Attention is required among other things for example for this personal attack by user Varsovian:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such uncivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

Can everybody stop and let uninvolved administrator examine this complaint. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack by me: that is a verbatum comment from somebody who you called a liar (my assistant). BTW: there are two uninvolved administrators examining this complaint (Mjroots and Stephan Schulz): my reading of their statements is that we have a content dispute.Varsovian (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, can you please avoid bolding every second sentence. Thanks. I've looked over a bit of your discussion. Neither of you is particularly civil, and either claiming serious hurt from this discussion rings hollow. Why don't you all do something else for a week and then try a reasoned discourse again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok calling somebody an idiot as long as you claim it was "my assistent who called you so"? I am speechless. Loosmark (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to affect your writing, though, just the verbalization. This is not a good faith discussion or an example of civility. If you suspect Varsovian to be a sock, file an SSI. Your sarcasm is transparent. I'm not thrilled by some of Varsovian's remarks, either, but I see no use in singling out one side when all are similarly uncivil. The atmosphere seems to be thoroughly poisoned. That's why I suggest you disengage to allow the air to clear and/or ask for more input via an RfC. We have no deadline, and there is no particular reason the get worked up over this historical detail. Nobody is gonna die if its wrong one way or the other for a week. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea Stephan. I will step away first and can assure that I will not edit the article for a week if neither Loosmark nor Jacurek do. If they can not stop themselves from editing it, well, I'll still try to keep away for a week.

Also I'd like to apologise for the incivil language. I sort of got a bit annoyed that somebody was repeatedly questioning me [142] [143][144][145][146][147] in an attempt to expose me as a liar.Varsovian (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephan but this discussion is at the end of the endless conversations were Varsovian goes against an opinion of 4 other editors. But apart the discussion were he calls me an idiot indirectly can you examine the edit patterns (when you get a chance of course) of Varsovian and the Parade article talk page. I'm just wondering how uninvolved person would judge that because I'm loosing (maybe that what he wants :)) my mind already.--Jacurek (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Stephan, please note that the London Parade article was very stable until the sudden arrival of user Varsovian. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Which explains why complaints about Polish editors in the article go back more than three years....Varsovian (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would urge any admin who is even going to consider doing this to refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jacurek, and particularly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comments_by_Varsovian before even looking at this. Disclaimer: I am currently an involved party in WP:EEML. Now for my observation; being a party to this particular RFAr, I have put all of the mailing list members talk pages on my watch list, and it is Jacurek's which has raised some eyebrows with myself. Varsovian, without going into accusations which Jacurek, et al have raised against them, has attempted on many occasions to engage Jacurek in discussion relating to this article, only for Jacurek to remove any messages from his talk page without answering, whilst Jacurek continued to edit (revert) the article. It actually took some time for Jacurek to even come to the article talk page to discuss the issues. This looks like yet another team attempt to get rid of an opponent in a head 'em off at the pass attempt. I would suggest that this be closed off, and leave it to WP:AE to sort it all out. But in the meantime perhaps an admin could lock the article? Until such time as these editors take it to WP:RFC for outside comment. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudden arrival of troublesome user Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is sanctioned and has a very impressive block log is also very suspicious to me...until now he was not evolved in this conversation at all...--Jacurek (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My sanctions and block log have nothing to do with this. But I have observed this from a distance Jacurek for some weeks. And for the reasons I stated above. He called you an idiot. You called him a troll, etc. Get over it both of you. Also, the reason I say let WP:AE sort it out, is because of the same reasons I left on FPaS's talk page -- admins at WP:AE can sanction any side of a dispute, and it may be the case that both of you have been disruptive, and need to be removed from the article -- what is wrong with an admin locking the article, and you guys taking it to WP:RFC for outside comment, and both commit yourself to staying away from the article for a week or fortnight or whatever. Nothing wrong with that suggestion. Call it a voluntary sanction, seeing as that seems to be all the rage as of late :D :D There is nothing more that I can add to this, nor will I, except to re-state what I have suggested an admin should do. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Arriving at the bottom of the thread, there's really not much more to say than what Mjroots & Stephan Schulz have written above: (1) this is a content dispute which needs to be handled thru the usual method (talk pages, RfC, mediation, etc.), & (2) both sides should dial down the passion & try to extend good faith. Stick to the verifiable facts & look for a some common ground you can agree on about the subject. Otherwise all parties involved might be looking forward to long WikiBreaks. -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Was this one of Varsovians aims? [[148]]--Jacurek (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? If an editor is involved in sockpuppetry there is a process for dealing with it. The issues complained of here should really go to WP:RFC and the involved editors should let the RFC run its course - if it means they all take a month off the article then so be it. There is no rush. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What Mjroots wrote: I don't know either user, so I can't answer your question. Based on my Wikipedia experience (I've just passed my seventh anniversary here on Wikipedia), however, I suspect there was more to Loosmark leaving than the behavior or attitude of just one person. The bottom line of this matter is that we, who are reading WP:AN/I, can do little more than either participate in the discussion over the topic -- which is properly done in a RfC -- or lecture both sides about being civil -- which only is effective if both sides can distance themselves from the topic. Blocking someone or imposing editting restrictions isn't going to solve this problem; I wish it could. In the long run, someone will prove conclusively whether the Free Poles were originally invited to the 1946 London Victory Parade or not to the satisfaction of anyone who is not an expert in the matter. One has to learn that the facts will eventually emerge, to be patient, & that losing one's temper won't speed up the process -- although it might get you banned or burned out over the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this thread has outlived its usefulness, since the three parties to this dispute have immediately misused it for continuing their content squabbles. I'll only say here that I'm watching the editing of all three, and all three have already been warned under the WP:DIGWUREN clause. All three are sailing very close to the wind and may soon face sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, but if in fact V. is an account run by somebody else as many people think, (including you right?) don't you think that if you sanction "all three" this will be exactly what the alleged sock account wants? The sock usually does not care about himself being sanctioned but has some other agenda as in this case (in my opinion) to bother and get into trouble somebody else. But anyways I would like to get an advice from you how should I approach this whole thing about Varsovian. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, Varsovian was accused and cleared of Sockpuppetry before. If you have any new evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion on Varsovian's part, you can present it to WP:SPI. While I'm sympathetic to the frustration you feel, it's not going to help your own case to keep treating him like a proven sock when that's not the case, as no admin is going to single him out on an unproven change. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blank Edits with comments in edit summary?

Resolved

 – okay for now – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another U.N. Spokesman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be attacking User:Chris73 by making small-diff edits with an attack for the edit summary.

See, for example this diff.

I'm not sure how we deal with something like this. Tckma (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is still vandalism. WP:AIV. Already blocked, though. –xeno^talk 19:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however, as far as I know, even an administrator can't strike an edit summary from the revision history. For that, you have to go higher up the chain of command. I can roll back the edit and call it vandalism, but the personal attack is still there for anyone who looks at the page history. Tckma (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see what your question is. This can be RevDeleted or oversighted if it meets the oversight policy, or an administrator can selectively delete the revision. –xeno^talk 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary in question looks to have been hidden, so this seems resolved for now; feel free to report any further problems as needed. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't know, attacks on User:Chris 73 are almost always banned User:General Tojo. Please block on sight. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Need Advice

A day before, I tried to revert some edits (which seemed to be page blanking) in the article Anti-Shannar riots of Sivakasi. After that, I received a threat on my user talk page and the article talk page from two users using dynamic IPs. One is 59.92.115.219 - 59.96.142.55 and the other one is 122.164.189.25. Please advise me what I should do next. Axxn (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin has semiprotected Anti-Shannar riots of Sivakasi for 24 hours. In my opinion this could be lengthened to one month if the problem continues. Though the IPs are abusive and will probably need to be blocked, they seem to have a germ of a content issue about the article. (One of the IPs has argued on Talk that the statements in the article do not follow from the cited references). Axxn, you can make a request at WP:RFPP if you would like your own user talk semiprotected for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Magyar nem ember is back

Resolved

This blocked user (for disruptive and offensive name, see case above) is back under the name Magyar nem ember1 and started removing referenced content from article Hedvig Malina.--B@xter⁹ 12:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New username larted, article sprotected. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Larted? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

LART - Luser Atttitude Re-adjustment Tool. LUSER - concatenation of Loser and User. "To Lart" - to warn, block, ban, delete, etc etc. See also BOFH. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Luser attitude readjustment tool. Heh. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist the phrase? Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and done. Black Kite 17:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect employing Thai script

I would like to create ซอย as a redirect to Soi, however I am receiving an error message stating that only administrators can do that. I'm not sure why this action is restricted to administrators, however I would appreciate it if an administrator would create this redirect in my stead. Neelix (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite^Talk 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And the reason is that Thai and other unusual scripts have been used to create articles at offensive titles. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Moonbatssuck

• Moonbatssuck (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is on some kind of mission regarding 350.org, although I'm not quite sure what s/he is trying to prove. I'm not familiar with that article, but the user is repeatedly adding sarcastic comments on Ratel's talk page, and citing Ratel when removing content from Taxpayer March on Washington. I think Moonbatssuck needs a heart-to-heart. APK because, he says, it's true 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning left on user's talk page here. Tan | 39 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How am I being disingenuous? I only want Wikipedia to have one standard for these issues. I was giving Ratel credit for convincing me about this issue. When did Ratel says that he/she disagreed about the Taxpayer March on Washington edits? --Moonbatssuck (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2) Actually, I can see his reasoning; it's certainly less convoluted than that of the 350 anons. If inapporpriate activity during an event, not sanctioned by the organizers, is allowed in Taxpayer March on Washington, it should be allowed in 350.org. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about a content dispute. I don't have an opinion in regards to images being added to 350.org; I haven't read the article. This conversation is about a new account misquoting a fellow editor and leaving sarcastic comments on a user's talk page (Ratel has reverted three times. I assume Moonbatssuck is not welcome on Ratel's talk page, but that's just a wild guess.) If you see his reasoning for adding images to 350.org, Talk:350.org would be the right venue. Moonbatssuck is trying to make a point by removing content from an unrelated article. APK because, he says, it's true 18:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per the reasons and evidence I left on User talk:Moonbatssuck, this account is blocked indefinitely for (a) disruption, (b) importing a real world conflict into Wikipedia WP:BATTLE, and (c) derisive username combined with a campaign to attack and disparage other users due to their political views. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't an image added to 350.org, it was a statement about police activity at one of the 350-organized events. But perhaps this issue is closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user comes back and explains things, I may be willing to unblock them. At this point, I don't think a single purpose disruption account gets lots of extra chances, at least not until they choose to improve. Once the autoblock expires, the user can quietly get a new, appropriate username (Not {Group of Users}Suck) and edit properly, and we will all be happy. Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs) was blocked. I assume MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) is the only, remaining reincarnation. APK because, he says, it's true 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat should also get a username block. Conflict-promoting usernames are not helpful, especially combined with the user's other problems. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the account engages in bad behavior, that may be reason to block. I am guardedly hopeful this will not become necessary. The account name is no more offensive than User:WatergateScandal or User:NuclearWarfare. Like the Great Moon Hoax, these are historical, military or political concepts. On the other hand User:RepublicansSuckEggs would be unacceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a huge deal, I'll change the username. I don't think the current name says anything offensive to anyone (Moonbat) wouldn't be offensive, either. I took out any derisive verbs. Not worth being banned over -- but I don't know if there's a way to change username.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The username MoonHoaxBat alludes to the concept of global warming as a hoax perpetrated by moonbats, a political epithet according to that article. It's a red flag when associated with a user previously involved in editing disputes related to 350.org. It's not up to me whether any username is permitted, but in my opinion the admins should be stricter about dubious usernames than they often are, and not allow that one. Names like ProudRepublican or ElectMoreDemocrats or LegalizePot should not be allowed either, even though they don't actually denigrate anyone. We are all supposed to edit from the neutral point of view, and usernames should reflect that. Username changes are available through WP:RENAME. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews Ohare

Resolved

 – blocked for 24h Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC); then unblocked, keeping log at ArbCom if problem persists Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speed_of_light&diff=322563308&oldid=322559639 for a ban imposed only eight days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Remedies CrispMuncher (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what WP:AE is for. -- Atama頭 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict): This belongs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, not here. —Finell (Talk) 22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

belonged ;-) I've already handled it, logged it and everything. But for the future: AE. Xavexgoem (talk)

A nonsensical block. Brews should, of course, have notified another editor about the problem instead of posting it directly on the talk page. But that's a mere procedural violation. Count Iblis (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of remedy 4.2 is that he cannot even participate in discussions about physics-related pages. Your suggestion would have resulted in the same block. For better or for worse, he's completely prevented from directly or indirectly contributing to or commenting on anything physics-related until late October 2010.--Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me, he violated the remedy he gets blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor could have gone to a trusted friend to ask about it, even against his remedy. It was just a 404, after all... but the editor knows what not to do. He did it anyway. This is boundary-pushing, plain and simple, and that is very common for newly-remedied editors. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, straight-forward vio of the remedy - good block. Though yes, complaint should've been filed at AE to keep all arb matters centralised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur.  Sandstein  20:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A 404 from clicking a wikilink indicates a problem with the wiki software. It is good when such problems are reported, but that should be at VP/T or bugzilla.wikimedia.org rather than on an article talkpage. Apparent boundary pushing should be regarded with diminished AGF and generally result in sanctions, but in this case I'd tend to grant the unblock now that Brews has said he understands what to do instead. Also, saying that a link gets a 404 is sort of a level removed from discussing the contents of an article or related editing, which is what Brews's ban was intended to prevent. (add): Xavexgoem's response on Brews's talkpage is reasonable. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

← I've unblocked. The 24h escalation holds at ArbCom's log, so escalation will continue for repeated vios. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I got a similar 404 today, clicking on my own talk page, yet. Never got that before, so I'm thinking something was out of whack on wikipedia at some point today. "bugzilla.wikimedia.org"? I wonder how the average editor would know to go there. What he should have done, or at least what I would have done if the problem persisted, is to bring it here to begin with, and let the experts provide guidance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In your case it would be baseball_bugzilla, of course. (j/k) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I stepped right inta dat one, Doc! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with new pages

Resolved

There's a big wave of new pages coming in, a lot of them vandalism, and they're not getting patrolled fast enough. Would appreciate some help from admins/RC patrollers. Thanks- A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 12:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. I've been doing a fair bit of tagging and patrolling. Basket of Puppies 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too. BTW, there's now a backlog at CAT:SD :) MirrorLockup (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD now mostly clear. TNXMan 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing an SPI note?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for block evasion Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Awhile back, there was an SPI open for ObserverNY (talk · contribs) as puppeting with an IP. The case was closed in this edit, with a note that if the IP continues then it should be blocked. That IP just made this edit. Should I open another SPI for this? Seems like it's something that doesn't need a case for; it's a pretty clear violation. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Should I leave a note on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY/Archive or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to; I would think. NW (Talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Looks to be taken care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP has threatened to sue Wikipedia, stating that his lawyers "will be contacting you shortly"... [149] Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And now he has just threatened to sue me...[150] Also, I've notified him of the thread. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

They're now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator please review this edit pattern from an I.P.?

[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]

Maybe is just me being too inclusionist, but all those sources deleted in 5 months from an I.P. seem just wrong to me (Disclosure: The last two edits deleted some sources I added).

OTOH the user also did many good edits.

Comments, please. Randroide (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed text due to OR, not being notable and undue weight. If I have removed something due to lack of citations, than surely citations are required to show that it is not OR - I have not removed blatantly obvious statements due to lack of citations, but if the validity of something is disputed then citations should be provided. This is the way I edit, I remove things that do not belong here, the same as others hunt vandals, correct grammar, fix broken links - this is just what I do, and I see no problems with it. PS one of the above links is me removing comments from my user talk page, surely that is not seen as a problem, is it? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a problem needing admin attention here. If you disagree with a bold edit, revert and discuss. The it is an IP makes no difference, as long as it is not vandalism, which it clearly isn't here. Eg - the first link shows a deletion of a section - but the IP left a talk page msg 2 weeks earlier and a good edit summary, so deletion was not against any consensus.YobMod 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing well sourced data (First diff: Business week, the BBC and the Independent, all removed in one edit, for G*d´s sake) doesn´t seem like a good idea to me. People are not always online, and editors trust that sourced data will survive here. It did not. IMHO editors get discouraged and pissed off by this kind of edits.Randroide (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you just add your opinion to the talk page? Others did, and the info got improved and is still in the article - BRD worked. If you think the user is overzealous in removals, why not discuss this with him/her; admins don't get any magic discussion powers with the mop. Or you think the IP should be punitively blocked for these edits, days after the fact? I certainly wouldn't have made such large edits to established articles, but the talk pages and edit summaries make it clear that this is not vandalism.YobMod 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In June, I've voiced concerns at User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_41#Interaction that seemingly retired User:Sennen goroshi continued first as User:61.23.81.111, then as User:119.173.81.176 who edit-warred on my talk page [161][162][163][164][165] and some other pages. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead what did the admin concerned say to you when you voiced your concern? Something along the lines of they are pretty much unrelated as they are different articles/redirects. - so, if you wanna file a sockpuppet report, then do it. Your contribution here is not constructive. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwife

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Xdamr

Wikiwife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm correct in assuming that this account is a troll and should be blocked, right? If not, I'm really sorry for reverting all of its edits but Wikipedia is not the place for that type of thing anyway. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 02:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a vandalism-only account. Indef blocked and I think all edits now reverted. --Xdamr^talk 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL for a moment I thought there may be a Wikipedian swingers club that I'm not aware of. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot troll-on-troll action? Be still my beating heart. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwife emailed me. Can we please make sure their access to the email function is removed? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 03:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Email blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Fork

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

A fork of Chaand Raat has been created here. Please merge the latter article into the former one. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's not something you need an administrator for. You can do that yourself, see WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  06:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mizzoufan1 adding fight song lyrics to team articles?

Mizzoufan1 (talk · contribs) is going around and adding fight song lyrics to pretty much all of the university articles. Seems to me that this is a violation of WP:NOT#LYRICS. I left a note on their talk page, but they seem to have ignored it. I initially posted this to the Village Pump, but since the editor is still constantly editing, I thought to take it here. Is this type of addition something that should be allowed to happen? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a possible copyright vio (although I'm sure some are public domain by now), but also completely non-encyclopedic, especially when attached to the main article page for a college. Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#School_songs.2C_school_hymns_and_fight_songs says that fight songs should not be included unless we can verify their copyright status. I'd suggest removing the songs until we can verify that. Netalarmtalk 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides being possible copyvios, they're completely unreferenced. Small edits to the lyrics by other editors would be time consuming to verify. • Anakin ^(talk) 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more than fifty articles that were edited by this user, and it seems that this user is going to keep going. Would it be too much to ask for a temp block until this gets sorted out? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The cleanup would be easy if it is determined that the content is a copyvio - mass rollback of this user's edits. It appears that he continues to edit despite the message on his talk page. Should we issue warnings for uncited/possible copyvio? Netalarmtalk 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker left another message on the user's talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They are all copyvio, as they are copyrighted and by including the entire fight songs, it is a clear copyright violation. Should all be rolled back. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In my defense...I get these lyrics DIRECTLY from the school websites or the Athletic affiliate sites...I DO NOT know how to link them up (the links change almost every year for some of the D-1 School. Here is the deal...either put up all the lyrics (I have MS Word copies of everything if you need them) or DELETE them ALL! A Schools fight song is as much a tradition as anything else. have them put there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzoufan1 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the lyrics from the school website has nothing to do with their copyright status. Some schools will have their fight song posted and some won't, due to the copyright status. There's no way for us to know the current status unless you are able to provide them. Netalarmtalk 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. All I am adding is verifiable info. At the very least the schools that do have such songs should be represented on the Fight Song page. It makes it more interesting if you have a direct link to the lyrics. Most schools reference the songs as part of their tradition. I am just making it easier to access... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzoufan1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't with if it's verifiable or not, it's with the copyright status of the songs. Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted content. However, if you are able to provide evidence that the song is in the public domain, then it may be included. Netalarmtalk 04:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That and I am not good at the format used here...It took me months to figure out how to do the rudementary stuff I'm doing now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzoufan1 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

so you are all basically saying I can't post anything on wikipedia...I knew this was an elitist site...--Mizzoufan1 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. All everyone is saying is don't post something copied directly from another source (say a school website) unless there is a clear license regarding copyright. WP:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others explains the policy, with additional helpful links. Singularity42 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a brief review

Resolved

 – User on 3RR block, and SPI opened. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Left of Palin has been reverting edits without explanation on the article Susan Hutchison as well as Dow Constantine -- two local political candidates currently campaigning against each other for a November election. Left of Palin is only the latest of several SPAs and IPs from both camps to POV push on these articles. My initial invoIvement was to clean up a copyvio report, and I declined a request to protect it in August because of the limited amount of dispute at that time. It is probably a good idea to semi-protect the articles now during the election period. User talk:Left of Palin is also on the edge of edit warring. However, I am involved now, having spent some time neutralizing the two articles. I have also reverted edits from both sides, including twice with Left of Palin. My attempts to draw the editors into discussion have mostly failed -- I seem to be talking to myself at Talk:Susan Hutchison. I would appreciate a neutral pair of eyes to review the situation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There might be an innocent explanation, but it looks like we might have a small sockfarm on our hands; see User talk:Left of Palin#Use of multiple accounts (diff). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks make sense. I believe the explanation will be related to the original copyvio report -- which was eliminated by an OTRS permission from Hutchison's campaign website. I seem to recall one of them explaining that they worked in the campaign office. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's that possible sock account with the diff indicating they worked for Hutchison. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got a Kevin Powell. :) When things get too far to the positive side, I find a {{COI}} label & listing helpful. That's presuming, of course, that sock matters straighten out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And now User:Britishfilth

In the continuing tradition of user:AngloSHIT and user:Angloswine at Indigenous Australians. I can't really tell if I smell wp:SOCKs or if I am just hearing wp:DUCKs quacking, but I think this is the purpose of the newest account in the series. Is there any chance this account doesn't need to be blocked? And yes, SPI is thataway but.- Sinneed 05:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I've watchlisted the page, too. And don't worry about SPI; it's not necessary for the blatantly obvious. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked his latest incarnation, User:Breetishturd, and semi-protected the article in question. That should stop him, as these are all new throwaway accounts. If he gets whise and starts using autoconfirmed accounts, we can try full protection later. --Jayron32 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Mikhailov Kusserow up to the case again.

The last time I was online here, I looked up at my talk page and saw that a user warning, again with a box, was posted by Mikhaliov Kusserow. He told me that I was vandalizing Wikipedia again, as he'd posted in my old user, while I have never posted vandalism in Wikipedia! What is peculiar about this?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 10:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow notified of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kusserow placed vandalism templates on several users on the 29th, but he reverted no vandalism, which I find extremely strange. He certainly reverted no vandalism by 7107delicious, nor does the template specify an act of vandalism. Perhaps a word in his shell-like is required.

7107, it is confusing if you keep changing your nickname (you were Berlin Approach last time you were here). Have you settled on this one?Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all settled. Its just that, I get bored so quickly with signatures. Exactly. I don't see any reversions here, either by TW, Huggle, or a normal revert.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

trying to create new page.

I'm trying to start a discography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Johnson_discography and I get the following message:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.

What do I do now? If this is not the right place to post this, please direct me to the place that is. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarTango (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not appear to be blacklisted as far as I can tell. Please insert the content (Michael Johnson discography). –xeno^talk 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Though, he doesn't appear to have such a library to warrant a separate article. I've redirected it for now. –xeno^talk 14:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd spam

118.94.100.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sole purpose appears to be spamming this product: File:Rear kamagra100mg.JPG -by posting his e-mail address on its talk page: File talk:Rear kamagra100mg.JPG, and then starting posting gibberish on the ref desk talk page. Any thoughts on this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is odd maybe it's some weird spambot?--SKATER ^Speak. 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alerted user of this thread--SKATER ^Speak. 04:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted his edits (some of which have a personal e-mail address) and also warned him to stop it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The email address is in an edit summary of that talk page--an admin should delete the talk page, since there is no useful content there. The image itself is also not used anywhere in the encyclopedia, so it should be IfD'd or just plain deleted. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just blatant spamming (see the entry on Sildenafil (aka. Viagra) if you haven't found out yet...) Requested speedy of that talk page. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 08:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The image was posted on July 9, 2007, by a different editor Glowplug1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so before zapping it, any connection there should maybe be explored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that editor disappeared after posting that photo, and 2 years later (this past summer) he turned up with 4 edits. Hard telling what's going on there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Glowplug1 seems to be a legitimate occasional editor who contributed that photo for use in the sildenafil article,[166] where it ended up not getting used. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the image itself. It obviously can be used for spamming and the topic may be subject to it, but there's nothing wrong about having an image of the product IMO.--PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't have an article on that product.... Kamagra just redirects to Sildenafil, which is known in the whole world as "Viagra".... Oh, well, whatever. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would there be a fair use issue what that photo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The photographer released all rights to the photo, so that shouldn't be a problem. If you're talking about the drug manufacturer's copyright of the words on the package, IANAL but we'd have to ditch an awful lot of product photos if that were an issue (hmm, might not be a bad idea). Kamagra is an Indian brand of sildenafil which is sold a lot by internet spammers because it's less expensive than (Pfizer trademark) Viagra. I think it's not legal to import to the US because of some difference between the US and Indian patent systems, though spammers aren't bothered by such things. Anyway, using the photo is an editorial decision, and it looks like the sildenafil editors decided (correctly in my opinion) not to use it. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about the brand logo. I've seen before, where photos of branded objects have to have a fair use rationale. "Public domain" was not a valid rationale for a photo of a branded object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban requested

Resolved

 – 48h block issued. Warning given. --Xdamr^talk 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff and the one immediately before it and ban the person responsible. In addition, the attack proves conclusively that User:Portsmouth&Southsea is a sockpuppet of this individual, otherwise how could he possibly know that I have complained about P&S' edits? I have acted in good faith to stop someone pursuing an agenda and his reaction is quite simply that of someone who has been caught in the act. An indefinite ban is required as otherwise he will carry on in the same way and will resort to mindless abuse again when someone else challenges him. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the background to comment on the alleged sockpuppetry. But comments like this one are completely unacceptable and I have warned HampshireCricketFan (talk · contribs) for the incivility and personal attack. If such conduct is repeated I'll be willing to block the account. Abecedare (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my comment on your talk page, if you don't know enough about the "sockpuppetry", investigate it. Can I please have this matter attended to by another admin? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see that this user is also responsible for this edit. Why hasn't he been banned? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No editor should have to suffer this kind of very personal attack made by Hampshire cricketfan on Blackjack, admin Abecedare has given him an only warning template, I would say such an attack is immediately worthy of a block as it is a really awful attack. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support immediate block, length of time to be determined by blocking admin. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support immediate block, no editor should have to suffer such outrageous personal insults. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h for gross incivility. Indef seems a little over the top at the moment, but happy for a longer block in event of any repetition. --Xdamr^talk 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User started vandalizing using 86.168.169.64 (talk), which too has now been blocked for 48 hours. Abecedare (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, makes me think a little close scrutiny might be in order once this editor's block expires... --Xdamr^talk 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, he says that he's done with wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He said that he wasn't coming back, so he might as well be indef blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef out of the question for this single incident. Give it 48h, once all the drama has died down, and see how things are then. If merited, editors can always be re-blocked. --Xdamr^talk 23:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, very fair. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for getting involved with this complaint. It'll be interesting to see if he attempts a comeback. His problem was that he could not take the constructive criticism that he received when he prematurely (putting it mildly) nominated Hampshire CCC for FAC recently. I think he picked on me for his puerile outburst because I placed the recentism tag on the article, consensus among the reviewers being that recentism was its main failing; he twice removed that tag without trying to improve the article. I agree with Xdamr about scrutiny if he does return. Thanks again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

COI issues

User:Groundstar83 has stated, repeatedly, that he is David Winning. He has been warned repeatedly on his talk page that he should not make edits to his own article and other related articles, but he continues to redo articles and to make articles that he primarily copy/pastes from IMDB and that contain numerous copyrighted images. His edits are heavily self-promoting and COI, in particular those to his own article in which he has managed to bloat in over 100 IMDB links...I have left him a warning on his page for the COI, but I think some admin oversight may be needed as this has apparently been going on since 05 and he continues returning to repeat the same inappropriate actions? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonadmin here, could you provide a diff to where he admits he is the person?--SKATER ^Speak. 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[167] also from some of his talk page posts, it seems like he also claimed it when someone questioned his upload of all these images. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's saying he was actual the assistant director,[168] but its still a COI issue and considering his continued ignoring of multiple warnings about stealing IMDB content, I'm inclined to still consider this an issue needing some admin checking, especially with the huge glut of non-free images he has uploaded and shoved in dozens of articles. I'm also finding it interesting that he has claimed to be Winning multiple times, such as when uploading images of "himself"[169], but now he is back-paddling after being told not to edit any Winning related article.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, he blanked the Winning article[170], though it was reverted. As he seems to have created it anyway, would it be enough for a CSD or is he considered notable enough that it would need some other process? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't CSD these. If a subject wants his article deleted and the subject meets WP:N then the matter should go to AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that speedy deletion from an author's request (G7) is only done if nobody else has really worked on the article. Technically, an IP "created" the article (Groundstar83 was actually the third editor to edit the article) though he may have been the IP. But the article is over 4 years old and has had many editors contributing to it. -- Atama頭 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brandon Teena

Could some uninvolved folks take a look at Talk:Brandon Teena? We have a couple, possibly the same, user(s) determined to make a point about a murdered person's gender. This is a revolving issue on this article and I think there are simply seeing a conspiracy or something when there is not one. Or if there is one I certainly never got an invite. -- Banjeboi 03:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tgox1 (talk · contribs), is removing the rather obvious notes about gender guidelines from the talkpage. I have also notified them of this thread. -- Banjeboi 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I weighed in on the talk page, and also left a note on the user's talk page. The guideline in this case is clear; this is not really a content dispute, but a user who is choosing to ignore the manual of style in favor of her own personal prejudices. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLANKING by IP

Resolved

 – Please stop harassing this IP editor over this issue. At times, it may be inappropriate for some disruptive IPs to remove that template. This case does not apply.--Jayron32 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP 119.173.81.176 (talk · contribs) insists on removing the whois/sharedIP template from the IP talk page. I have explained to them why they can't remove per the policy but they removed it again (although they are at least being polite about it). WP:BLANKING is very clear on this topic, that any user may remove comments from their talk page, but that anon IPs MAY NOT remove sharedIP templates. Comments? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Provided link to specific section to IP user & added shared IP template. Netalarmtalk 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This guide to blanking [171] states that Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates.

I am not removing a shared IP header template, I edit using an IP, but it is not a shared IP. Since June 2009 this IP has been used exclusively by me and me alone - this is a fixed IP used only by myself. If someone puts a shared IP template on the IP talk page, they are mistaken as it is not shared and I will remove it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The shared IP template is designed for places such as schools/universities where large networks share the same IP address, or for IPs that are often allocated to different users making identification of a particular user difficult - this does not apply to me and once again - My IP is not shared. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that shared IP header template refers to the specific template, not whether the IP is in fact shared. The purpose is to warn that it is possible the IP could be shared. The wording of the policy is that it applies to the user talk pages of all anonymous editors. Singularity42 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible that my IP could be shared, I have a static IP [172]- they cannot be shared. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, IP user, would you consider creating an account so the IP header template would be unnecessary? Also, I've checked the IP and have been unable to determine if it is indeed static. Netalarmtalk 04:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the IP was mistaken about policy. I have replaced the notice. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia considered "the spirit of the rules" to be important. I use the same IP every time I edit, I don't edit using any other IP, no one else has ever used this IP to edit wikipedia. My IP does not change. There are no accusations that I am trying to game the system or get around an editing block by using this or any other IP. Wikipedia is somewhere that "anyone can edit" - does that include my IP, or yet again and I going to get treated differently because I choose not to make an account. Yes, it would be easy to make an account, but that is not the point. Look at my edit history and try to see if I have been gaming the system by way of my IP - I have not. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules are rules, and they're important. The tag lets other people know that the IP might be shared, and it cannot, according to policy, be removed, this is the agreement here. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

it is not a policy but a guideline. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The user is repeatedly removing it, it's unfortunate, but I'd recommend a block if they don't stop. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP is not shared, so the template is not relevant and continually putting on there is harassment and done in bad faith. Please stop. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Being an anonymous user, the IP template is required as stated in the guide. Netalarmtalk 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

actually, it states IP cannot remove it. would you be nice and remove it for them? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know your IP is static? Just because it doesn't change for long stretches of time does not make it static. My IP remains fairly constant, but because I'm hooked up thru a router, if the router is reset or somesuch my IP does change. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif has already had comments regarding their overactive interest in IP editors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irbisgreif#Friendly - I suggest that as my IP has been editing here for nearly six months there are no suggestions of gaming or any other abuse, so this is not required. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My IP is not shared, so the shared IP template is not relevant. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My IP is not shared, because it is allocated based on my router MAC address. I have reset my router, reinstalled my OS, used various different PCs while retaining the same IP 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

i think the ATTENTION template on the top of the page is not percieved as a nice gesture. did the 119.* IP do something to deserve the template. Please note that their talk page has WHOIS template on the bottom. it is far more appropriate for IPs that didn't abuse the system. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Look everyone, take a step back. If he says his IP isn't shared WP:AGF and believe him. Let hime remove the tag and move on. It really isn't worth warring over, let him go about his business and let this go. OTHER than removing this tag, what problems has this IP had in the recent past? I can't find anything wrong with his editing, so just let him be... --Jayron32 04:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. While I disagree with 119's interpretation of the guideline (as I noted above), the template is ultimately not necessary here, and forcing 119 to keep the template is making a situation volatile for absolutely no reason. Singularity42 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As an attempt to calm people down (including myself) I have archived my talk page with the Shared IP Template intact - it has not been removed, it has been archived, which should please those who are more concerned with wording of policies and wikiLawyering and it is not staring me in the face every time I read a message - which pleases me. Thank you to the above three editors who are speaking some sense (well I would say that, wouldn't I?) 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I am willing to put the template back myself if there is ever any suggestion that I am abusing my status as an IP editor to get around any blocks,game wikipedia,vote more than once,etc 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to most emphatically agree with the suggestion to step back and settle down. Blocking an editor for removing a template from their user talk page that they say is inaccurate? Someone please tell me that the entire first section of this post was a satire. If it wasn't, then a number of editors need to reexamine their perceptions of how and why we do things on Wikipedia. If there's some rule or policy or WP:BIGALLCAPITALLETTERSPAGE that claimed that User:119.173.81.176 should be blocked for removing that template from their page, then that rule or policy or whatever is wrong. Maybe it's not wrong always, but it's wrong in this case, certainly. Please, I urge you all to take this as an example of how not to apply rules and treat other editors, including editors who don't log in. Please. kmccoy (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - This whole conversation is happening often enough, with the same conclusion (sometimes with more unhappiness, sometimes with blocks and snarling, sometimes with less), that maybe we need an essay that says something to the effect that if an IP:

• has not been used for troublesome edits (broadly interpreted)
• or has not been so used for 6 months

and if

• there is no indication that more than one editor uses the address
• the editor objects to the template
• the editor states the IP address is static

then there is no need for the shared-IP template.

There is this huge encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles that need edits, and this recurring wikidrama distracts and costs us editors as people get their feelings hurt. Also, I say essay because putting this much junk in the blanking section seems unwieldy. User talk:Sinneed/ButImNotShared - just a thought. - Sinneed 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to write an essay, that's great, but I think that this idea is pretty clear in existing policies. kmccoy (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since several of these have been here with people snarling (at least one block), it seems that it is clear... just clear differently to different people.- Sinneed 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{SharedIP}} itself had no guidance on its usage, so I added a little. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly protest the use of the word "harrassment" in the resolved notation above. I was not "harrassing" anyone, I was attempting to ensure that policy was followed. If the decision is that the IP does not need to have the notice at the top of the IP talk page then that's fine, but the existing WP:BLANKING policy needs to be revised to reflect this change in consensus. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and revised the policy/guideline to reflect consensus. [173]. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to cover it. I understand your frustration, and appreciate your positive solution. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)