Someone might want to look at Special:Contributions/YcOaDtA, When I brought it up in the IRC channel earlier someone said he might be a sockpuppet so you might want to check that also. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 07:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked for edit warring about an hour ago. Not sure about the sockpuppetry, but he certainly seemed to either be a dedicated new editor or a pointy older one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a block of my own, on Historikos (talk · contribs), out of concerns that I'd been too much "involved" for taking this action myself. This user had just broken 3RR over an issue where I was indeed involved, and then just after reporting him on WP:AN3, I discovered he had also been making serial copyvio image uploads, and I blocked him for those. Probably a bit hasty decision. Could somebody else please step in and have a look at the situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One or more anon users at the article talk page for Copernicus keeps posting irrelevant material (for example [1]). This is a violation of article talk page guidelines, in particular "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." and "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)". Additionally, the nature of these posts is that of trolling, with pretty much an obvious purpose of re-starting old edit wars and reverts that that article used to be plagued by. Following the last round of edit wars, a consensus compromise was worked out (no mention of nationality in the lead and a balanced nationality/ethnicity section, without undue weight given to the topic) and it should remain in place. Extremists on both side of the issue (like the Polish editor who keeps inserting "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer" into its lead) are basically trying to destabilize the situation again and spark another edit war. Since the comments currently being posted are 1) irrelevant and 2) have a destructive rather than a constructive purpose, they should be conscientiously deleted. I, and some of other editors have done this. However, user Matthead has been restoring the irrelevant posts and adding in his own irrelevant commentary. Matthead has gotten in trouble for edit waring on this kind of topic in the past. I would appreciate it if an administrator issued a warning to Matthead and made a comment on the article's talk page about the proper article talk guidelines. Thank you.radek (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just there. The IP's edit history today only shows a lot of problematic edits changing the history of where Danzig/Gdansk was located. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Radek apparently had no problems with previous talk edits of another IP: Special:Contributions/99.225.147.123. Speaking of "problematic edits changing the history of where Danzig/Gdansk was located": We have the Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, which states "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively", to avoid edit warring about the city's background in countless biographies. See Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet for somebody who mainly edits bios of clearly German persons in such a way, since at least 2003 [2][3].-- Matthead  Discuß   02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those should be removed as well, though they are at least on topic - a very useless topic that has taken up way too much time and constructive effort but at least on it. They're not about some school in New York or whatever. Does this mean that we have consensus here, Matthead, to remove all the stuff from "Copernicus was German according to German Wikipedia" on down to the end?

As far as Space Cadet's edits, I have no idea what his edits are. Looking very quickly at some of his/her more recent edits of "clearly German persons" I see "diplomat of the city of Danzig (Gdańsk)." [4], "Fahrenheit was born in 1686 in Danzig" [5], "Sahm ... was a German/Danzig politician." [6] - so I don't see any evidence of your accusations.radek (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Radeksz above calls the fact that my post about the Buffalo University New York using the Polish version of history from Poland Ministry irrelevant material and problematic.

USA University of Buffalo State University of New York's use of Poland Ministry Material

The very puzzling fact, that the United States school system uses material from Poland's Ministry of Education , such as the internet websites [http:/info-poland.buffalo.edu/] or [http:/wings.buffalo.edu/info-poland] from the University of Buffalo State University of New York in a very propagandistic way might come as quite a surprise to many people.

According to Buffalo University, N.Y. Nicolaus Copernicus (the Prussian Mathematician- Prussus Mathematicus) was born in "Poland" [7] and the long history of Danzig is disregarded and merely described as Gdask Poland [8]. One can only wonder about the reason for the US University Buffalo to use Polish Communist era propaganda, without identifying it as propaganda. The site is pretty explanatory. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Almost all of encyclopedias in the world(besides few German ones and I believe a couple of sources from XIX century) name Copernicus as Pole born in Poland. Actually. We have been over this before and even a scholary study was presented with this information.--Molobo (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, the world will be glad to learn 20th and 21th century new wisdom, taught to students, such as at the Buffalo University New York:

Nicolaus Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Poland. He is a famous astronomer. An astronomer is someone who studies the stars, planets and solar system. Copernicus lived over 500 years ago! He was born in the year 1495[9]. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

I am writing this message to ask if the administrators would be willing to look at the issue of the user, TylerPuetz. Whilst in IRC (#wikipedia-en @ Freenode) this morning (29th November), TylerPuetz has openly admitted to writing what I and other users in the room to be an exceptionally rude email to user Cwii. The email has been removed from CWii's page by Darth Panda, but I have retained a copy of said email if any administrators wish to view it. The essentials of the email were that Tyler was "ecstatic" that CWii's RfA failed, and that he wished CWii would leave Wikipedia.

Myself and other users consider this to be a deplorable thing to have done. Your comments on this behaviour would be welcome. A copy of the IRC messages in which TylerPuetz posted this will be made available to any admin not present in the channel who wishes to review it, by email only to prevent breach of the public logging rules. Thanks for your attention, its appreciated. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote Tyler himself, "God, I thought that joke would be obvious". Sorry for the mess, this can be ignored. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am will not comment on this any further. That is all. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through and linking the usernames you mentioned. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Admins. It appears Tyler was indeed having a joke with us. However, he did not make that obvious until after I had logged this complaint. For me, trying to spot a joke is pretty hard unless its practically plastered up in front of my face. Still, please ignore this report. It was initially made in good faith. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesson: Don't ever put IRC shit on AN/I. John Reaves 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with exceptions for egregious cases involving onwiki actions. This is not one. // roux   08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, this was a Good faith report. While I may not agree with what you say, John Reaves and Roux, however, I will defend to the death your right to say it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think JR's comment was actually aimed at Tyler. Orderinchaos 14:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't joke like that. Sorry about that. --Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves Just so you know it wasn't an IRC issue. It was being discussed on IRC but the actual issue was onwiki. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A dial-up address range is reverting valid edits on this template (hist), saying it is "vandalism", when clearly the edits are not. I believe that removal red links is a perfectly valid edit to clean up templates, however this person thinks otherwise. I am unable to warn him/her because of their dynamic IP (They wouldn't see the warning), and reverting it back would violate the 3 revert rule. Kyosuke Aoki∙♫talk∙^contribs♪ 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I rolled it back and watchlisted it ... unfortunately, the edits are too spread out for semi-protection to be a valid option at this point. Blueboy96 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all the edits are originating from *.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net. While the WHOIS gives Level3's entire /8 netblock, maybe it's possible/feasible to rangeblock any IPs whose hostnames match the above string? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit drastic though. Is it just possible to block the range from editing, but allowing them to register? And thanks Blueboy for watchlisting it. Kyosuke Aoki∙♫talk∙^contribs♪ 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 is engaging in making nonsense contributions to a straw poll at Talk:Ireland#Another arbitrary section break. The purpose of her "contributions" appears to be to undermine my (and another IP's) contributions. She has accused me of being a sock for an unstated user.

The substance of her nonsense is to sign out and post "Very very stong !vote" after I had posted "VERY VERY strong oppose". After another IP posted "Strongly oppose" she again signed out and posted "Strongly Post Another !vote". I removed the first of these nonsense posts, to which she responded by restoring the nonsense with the comment, "if said IP deletes material again it will be removed compleatly from this thread with extreme prejudice". She has admitted to making the nonsense contributions at her IP's talk page.

While the nonsense itself is trivial, the purpose of the nonsense - to undermine the contributions of others by WP:POINT - is serious IMHO. I'd like the nonsense edits removed and Sarah777 reminded not to disrupt discussion and to behave civilly. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So speaks an IP who has twice recently grumbled about having been forced to vote on this same proposal in the past, not least attacking people in a knowing way, and doing pretty much what he is accusing Sarah of doing. Goes with the territory. If anyone wants to visit the RM though please do!!! We are desperate for serious support. The need to finally sort out Ireland has become a clear policy matter now - we simply have two Irish state articles, Republic of Ireland and Ireland - both being linked to as the modern state. This RM is for making Ireland a disambiguation page, but there are other routes too. Ireland is hardly Wikpedia's finest hour, and lack of involvement is one of the problems! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Matt means. Why would it matter that he grumbled about "being forced to vote"? If he didn't want to vote, but did because he felt strongly about his position, how does that void his complaint about having his contribution undermined? Also, Please give specifics (with diffs if possible) about how he has done the same thing. General accusations of dirty hands are not useful. I'm neither dismissing nor accepting your position, Matt, but I think the Administrators will need more to go on to consider your thoughts. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a recently created IP, editing with obvious knowledge on a highly controversial page and who has admitted editing before but has not declared under what name. Personally I think the IP should amend his/her vote to a sensible one (then Sarah can remove her comment) and declare under what name(s) they previously edited. Complaining here is an indication of disruptive intent. --Snowded TALK 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly the disruptive beheaviour here comes from this IP who (1) admits he is a participant under a regular name (for years it seems); (2) takes it upon himself to twice delete the contributions of another IP by a regular editor (mine); (3) appears to be voting twice (at least) and (4) gives a totally POV reason why he wants the status quo, referring only to his political opinion and ignoring any consideration of Wiki policy and standards in the matter. My action was clearly not (merely) pointy as I felt the need to highlight the action of this (and other) dubious IPs whose Socking and multiple-voting appears to have escaped the attention of the numerous watching Admins. Also, as alluded to by User:Djegan I thought there was a policy against IPs voting in these polls (resulting from the GH/Wikipiere issue)? Sarah777 (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I pointed Sarah777 to a thread that would explain the situation (and the accusations of sock puppetry) twice: first here and then here here.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "think the IP should amend his/her vote to a sensible one". My !vote paid particular reference to the role of policy and the history of the dispute. I explicitly avoided stating other reasons for opposing the move because these had already been discussed. What can be more "sensible"? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh....here and here are the same place! And not very helpful; the last editor to call you a Sock turned out to be a Sock; and you, an IP, deleted my IP twice. I explicitly avoided stating other reasons for opposing the move because these had already been discussed. Nope. You gave the real reason you opposed the move and it was 100% political; nothing to do with Wiki policy or practice or the need to dab or improving the project. Pure desire to prevent RoI being called Ireland (its WP:COMMONNAME) for political reasons. Sarah777 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated the link, Sarah777, thanks.

Sarah777, you logged out and inserted nonsense onto the page. That's sock puppetry and vandalism for the purpose of making a point. It was done deliberately in order to undermine the contributions of another by way of uncivil behavior.

As I have already requested, if you have genuine concerns about sock puppetry on any page please take them to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and desist in making personal attacks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a proponent of mandatory registration, I would prefer the IP to delete his -vote(s)- from that RM proposal discussion. I would prefer the IP to creat an account, but that's his/her choice. Anyways (IMHO) IP accounts should be barred from 'voting' in such Polls. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Efforts to reform this user have reached a dead end: his last valid talk page looked like this, with Kanonkas and I trying to explain what being unblocked would entail. His response has been to use his talk page to host albums he plans on making[, and he recreates them after removal. Time to take away his ability to edit his user pages, methinks.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One 13:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that this user actually is not doing anything wrong here, and admin told him to do something like this per: this edit Therefore, I am going to allow this user to edit their talk page again as it seems they were following an admin's instructions. The Helpful One 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the situation. He created his bogus page over and over. He was blocked. I dealt with him yesterday trying to get him to understand what he was expected to do, see here. He blanked that entire discussion, and is now using his talk page to create album articles about albums that he himself plans on home-recording some day in the future. There is no need to allow this to continue.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand now,  Done. The Helpful One 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty on this so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. I originally blocked Ad.sell for placing fake block notices (using {{test5}}) on other users' pages, something I discovered quite by accident; I told him he had to stop or be blocked, and he chose the latter. Since then, he's been vandalizing other pages via his IP address, 99.155.212.135, which I've now blocked for the third time, this one for a full week. I've asked Rlevse to do a checkuser to make sure I'm not catching anyone else in the net, but assuming that's not the case, how long would be appropriate for the block on the IP address? His vandalism is mostly limited now to users' talk pages, although the fake block notices could certainly scare off a relatively new user. Thanks. If anyone needs me today, I'll be in the drawing room with Elizabeth. Mr. Darcy talk 15:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if the IP address is static or not, but if any legitimate editors get caught up in the block, we can unblock their specific account with a blockexempt action. A week seems about right. Just increase it if he returns. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP has been static for five days, so a block of a week seems about right. You don't need a checkuser to tell you the collateral for an anon-only block, as you can see it for yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • IP's are kind of a judgment call. I've seen school IP's blocked for many months due to persistent vandalism. A static IP, a week seems good; then progressively longer if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • My instinct said it was static, since the same user showed up there after 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, but I figured it was better to be safe than to risk blocking a legitimate user down the road. I'll continue with one-week blocks if Ad.sell returns. I must say I find it very thoughtful of him to edit anonymously and sign his comments with his blocked username. Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Ramu50. This user has had a history of, let's just call it intentional ignorance, and incivility on a number of templates. See here, here, here, here, here (where I blocked after he continued messing with Template:Nvidia which was specifically being argued about at ANI), and the second half of this latest one. I originally warned him about adding Small office/home office to Template:Linux here was enough. Playing games like the meaning of the slash in FOSS (not based on the article but personal interpretation) and this response to a fairly reasonable request from User:Ahunt for a complete explanation of what Ramu is doing were enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Block endorsed, per the threads cited above and the numerous warnings on his talk page. Blueboy96 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, especially based on his repsonses [10]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. I warned Warren about his comment but I wonder if anyone else would consider protecting his talk page. If he is not submitting requests to be unblocked, his rants are inappropriate. I would prefer a 24-hour or so protection only, so that he can request again if he calms down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Ramu50 had a long history of troublesome editing due to his lack of knowledge for the topics he chose to edit, coupled with an explosive temperament. He should not be allowed back until he matures enough to understand that constantly attacking editors that disagree with him is not acceptable. Pcap ping 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin, but here goes: About a month ago, a consensus was made here to turn List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees from a list, into table form. CMJMEM has made numerous attempted to change the format afterwards with "votes" and canvassing users to vote. He was then blocked for a week for being disruptive. After returning, he continues to go against consensus. He reported User:Wrestlinglover to User:JodyB, here due to Wrestlinglover reverting CMJMEM's edits and explaining once again to CMJMEM the consensus, here, here, here, here, and here. CMJMEM attack Wrestlinglover, here. Again, he is just off a block and still being disruptive. I've gone to his talk page before he was blocked, and he would repeatedly remove my threads, which is why I haven't tried to go there this time. iMatthew 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not even know he tried to report me.--WillC 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

check my edits since i have returned.i made two bad edits witch i apologized for after i realized it had already been talked about.since those two edits i have tried to discuss it on the talk pages and avoid an edit war.CMJMEM (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this user a-lot lately, he has zero care for Wiki rules, guidelines or any thing like that. He want's to edit war and demands another re vote. I think this user needs to be dealt with, as he is very disruptive. SteelersFan-94 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this user is a troll. If he keeps it up, top men at Wiki need to think about blocking him again.

What do you get for a second block? 10 days? Whatever it is, if he doesn't behave himself, he should find out.

Vjmlhds 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that all of these users are those actively working around him, and know him. This really needs a review by an un-involved admin, but not just yet. I'm awaiting a checkuser. iMatthew 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an admin's opinion on this? I'd like it to not go into the archives. I think that more disruption should result in a topic ban on wrestling. iMatthew 18:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Florentino Floro is now editing under the name Village_Idiot_Sabant. For reference, this is at least his sixth sockpuppet, and he has previously claimed that he has had at least a dozen. His previous ones were Juanatoledo, Judgefloro, LUIS_Armand_and_Angel, and most recently, Laa_Careon and Lux_Lord (which he used to spam Jimbo's talk page). He's also edited anonymously several times to circumvent his block. It's patently obvious that this new one is him, as every article he's reverted so far is something which we previously removed his contributions from due to notability issues. His username is also an obvious alias--it's taken from a blog Floro has linked to several times before he was warned to stop. --Migs (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into the contributions and I'm convinced by the evidence that it's Floro. Plus there's the troubling added issue of him attempting to impersonate someone else. I've blocked the account. TheCoffee (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've rolled back every change that was spurious to the relevant article. Some looked OK - others may wish to examine those. Black Kite 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bakutrix (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly engaged in nonproductive edits on the article Bakugan Battle Brawlers including removing several {{fact}} tags for information that he is in a dispute with involving another editor. Several warnings have been issued to him which he keeps removing from his talk page. This morning, he posted this threat[11] if I continue to interfere with his edits to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I executed an indef block based on that one threat, and noted so when advising the editor, when I saw this on AIV. If they retract that comment in an unblock request then they may have the tariff varied or lifted. If they do come back it might be useful if they would expand their areas of editing, so they may not so quickly get into policy violations over their editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if indef is called for at this point, but he still keep blanking his talk page. My impression is that he is a teenage fan who doesn't know about Wikipedia's policies and treats it as MySpace. However, it is also clear that he doesn't want to take the time to understand Wikipedia's policies either even after he has been referred to them repeatedly. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thought the account was of an immature editor, but I was unwilling to block for a stated length as I considered they would quickly resume the same behaviour as before. If they show some evidence of consideration by apologising for the comments then we have some material to work with. If they don't then the project is better of without them - until they grow up, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP User:79.176.111.104 was blocked for six hours because he used controversial material in the Hank Paulson article. The user also threatened to shut down editors' activity. After he was blocked, the IP user called the blocking admin a "bully." In my view, the IP user should be blocked longer. Your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that six hours is not long enough? Perhaps you could take the time to reply to the IP user's questions and get them contributing constructively, instead of pushing for a longer block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So, briefly... Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) is the indef blocked user. He figured out that that you can edit anonymously, and returned as Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, who has been repeatedly blocked for abuse of editing while indef-blocked. Apparently his DHCP has renewed, and he is back as Special:Contributions/76.83.246.11. I hope it is not suggested that WP:SSP is in order, because WP:DUCK. Same edits to the same types of articles, same grammar and writing style. Same ISP for that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 48hr. Not sure how long his DHCP lease is. WP:DUCK applies here. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. If his last IP lease is any indication, the lease is at least a month (Oct 12 - Nov 28) Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if at the end of 48hrs he keeps this up we can move to something longer. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• He's pretty persistent, if you check out the other talk pages (Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), as well as the original IP). I was actually getting ready to fill out the SSP and CU forms; do you think I should continue do that? In the past, with this person, it was mentioned that those kind of documentations are useful to maintain a clear history, even tho almost everyone agreed with the duck assessment. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that is necessary. I would say that a checkuser is not necessary--his habits seem pretty clear and we don't need technical evidence to figure out who he is. The SSP might be in order, though you are more likely to see that sit a while without action (WP:SSP is often backlogged). In my opinion it is sufficient to drop by here with a link to this discussion (or AIV if the vandalism is obvious) when he makes a sock/changes his IP. Unfortunately it seems like he's given a pretty wide range of IP addresses, so a rangeblock is likely out of the question. That means that most of the methods of dealing with this guy will be labor intensive. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, he answered the question himself, so I guess the point is moot right now. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear he wants attention. WP:RBI should apply. I'll look into protecting his talk pages on the indef accounts. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• He ultimately just wants his video-remix group (the youtube poop) to have an entry here in Wikipedia. Without dragging things out interminably, this is the edit which earned him an indef block. Thanks again for your speedy help on this one. I guess you can mark this resolved. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. The main ones are protected (already). I would ignore anything he puts on his talk page, revert his article contributions and ask for his socks/IP's to be blocked and their talk pages protected should this continue. As for the "main goal", that usually changes for spammers etc. once they get restricted to user talk space. Then in morphs in to whining to all and sundry. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[Upon further review, the offensive comment by Raven in Orbit was quite serious, referring to established good-faith editors as "pedo POV-pushers". I've re-edited the section heading that Flyer posted to add the topic area for clarity in this report. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)]

User:Raven in Orbit has continued to be a hassle on the Ephebophilia article. In the past, he has tried to edit the article by‎ likening the term to pedophilia and going as far to dispute valid sources by saying that the sources have to exactly say that ephebophilia is not pedophilia, and then placing unneeded citation or POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the sources are clear in stating what ephebophilia is (seeing as it is not the same as the sexual attraction or preference to prepubescent children; pedophilia) and editors experienced on these two subjects (like myself) have told him this. He has tried to consistently alter the article so that ephebophilia comes across as a mental disorder, against other editors telling him that it is not and explaining to him how dangerous it is to allow people to be confused in thinking that a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old could possibly be the same thing as a sexual attraction to a 7-year-old... However, now that an editor, editor Legitimus, has edited the article so that it relays information that ephebophilia could be considered a mental disorder in very rare/specific instances (though is still not the same as pedophilia), Raven in Orbit still does not seem satisfied. While I was conversing with Legitimus about getting the article just right regarding this information, which included a little humor, Raven in Orbit proceeded to personally attack us. "LOL, yeah! You pedo POV-pushers are really having a good time here! LOL, cool! Glad you people like Wikipedia! Hehe, LOL!" he said.

This editor has basically called me a pedophile before, but this time I could not ignore the personal attack. I am tired/frustrated by these little rude quips/personal attacks he leaves in his edit summaries against me while editing this article, when what I am doing is making sure that this article stays factual and this subject stays clear from being confused with pedophilia. I did respond in a calm manner to this personal attack of Raven in Orbit's on the Ephebophilia talk page, once again explaining to him that these two subjects are not the same thing and telling him that I would be reporting this, but I have no doubt that he still does not quite grasp these two subjects and will most likely still be a problem when editing the Ephebophilia article. Some administrative assistance would be much appreciated here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Flyer's request. That talk page comment by Raven in Orbit (talk · contribs) is highly offensive to editors working on the topic. I don't know if a block is needed, but a clear and direct warning from an administrator would certainly be appropriate. I've had no interaction with User:Raven in Orbit, but in addition to his offensive talk page comment Flyer reported, I previously noticed him post at least one other personal attack against Flyer in an edit summary on that topic: [12], and another edit summary that was generally offensive to all editors working on that page (and to the experts cited in the article): "what pedos?". User:Raven in Orbit recently edit-warred (though not past 3RR), to insert the word "obsession" even though it is not supported by sources and every time he inserted that word it was reverted by at least 4 other editors - while not one other editor supported his use of the term: [13] [14] [15][16] [17][18] [19]. His behavior in general is not extreme, but on this topic is bordering on disruptive. The insult he posted today was way over the line. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a more detailed warning here. I saw the discussion earlier but was just hoping someone would have used {{uw-bv}} instead. The warning templates are nice, but we can't just go on automatic here. Flyer, as a word of advice, you would have received a quicker response if you shortened your comment. A simple "Raven called me a pedo-POV pusher and only got a basic incivility warning" with a diff would have caught the eyes of a lot more admins. No amount of background would justify that comment nor is needed. Sometimes there truly is addition by subtraction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not known that he received a minor warning about it before I reported him here. But, anyway, thanks Jack and Ricky. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I know i'm not an admin, but here me out. You probally remember Simulation12, the so-called "kindergartner" who's recently been blocked for indefinitley. Ever since then, i've been keeping a close eye on PBS Kids aricles in case Riley tries something sneaky, like using a sock-puppet account. I noticed someone named "Marcellusb" who also edited children's articles. Most of his edits are unconstructive and/or vandalism. I know that it's a long shot, but i think he may be Riley. He keeps creating useless articles and creating pages that are just copied from pre-exsisting articles. I have no clue what to do, i've already contacted Gladys, so i'm hoping that someone may come up with a solution (AKA Block him).(Elbutler (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Marcellusb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the lazy. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Can you post some diffs of Simulation12 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)'s edits that match this editors? Likewise, can you post some diffs of this user that are clear and obvious vandalism or deliberate errors (I'm looking through the contribs now). Protonk (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... i can't find anything similar (beside creating non-imporatant articles for Martha Speaks), i was so sure. But the edits are still disruptive. Elbutler (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait! this edit by Marcellubs, is similar to this edit by Simulation12. Elbutler (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a pretty tenuous comparison. I'd AGF for now (Trust but verify, of course), it isn't outside the realm of possibility that there are two users who create disruptive/test pages on PBS entries. If you think of some more obviously disruptive edits then bring them here. If I'm missing something obvious (like a string of obvious vandalism), then feel free to say so. :) Protonk (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered a cool tool. Only one article has shared edits between the two users. May not be a sock. Or if it is, it may be a sock designed specifically to get around a ban, not edit identical articles. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Gladys has been asleep all day (I'm on vacation, I can do that!:) and just now logged on to edit. I'm not 100% sure this is Sim12; in fact, I'm not even 50% sure. There are some similarities, but more dissimilarities, IMHO. I'm definitely not dismissing ElB's concern, though; I say we watch and wait. (Though it does strain credulity that two separate editors would be creating trivial articles about "Martha Speaks"--if only because it's easily one of the crappiest PBS Kids' shows I've ever seen, nearly as crappy as "It's a Big Big World". Seriously, PBS has kinda lost the plot.)GJC 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP editor 98.23.200.247 (talk · contribs) has the same modus operandi as banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs), to wit:

• fascination with New Mexico Activities Association, New Mexico politics, New Mexico high schools, New Mexico population figures (see long series of edits at New Mexico
• many edits required to get it right
• no edit summaries
• use of copyvio images e.g. Diane Denish
• deleting maintenance tags without actually making improvements: example

How about a block on this IP? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some reasonable overlap between this IP and the known socks of this user. I leave it up to an admin more familiar w/ this user to block this IP, but I'll nose around a little more. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm very familiar with this user. Tan | 39 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having a problem with the Glamour (charm) article. The article in question is about a glamour which is an object or item that gives the wearer or owner the appearance of style or glamour, for example sunglasses or a Ferrari. It's an admittedly slightly archaic meaning of the word, but I have found a reliable source for that particular usage, which is quoted in the article; and there was no other article in the wikipedia that covered glamour in that sort of sense at all. Even so, the article is still very much only a stub.

Unfortunately, User:ChildofMidnight basically doesn't like that particular definition, and keeps rewriting the disambiguation page description so that it doesn't match the definition given in the article, essentially so it misrepresents the article, as well as making it overlapping with other definitions which are already linked from the disambiguation page and are covered in different articles.

I really don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't see how his edits are benefiting the wikipedia, and he just keeps making what I can only consider to be weird edits.

I could sort of understand it better if he was actually editing the article or even discussing it on the talk page there or whatever, but just repeatedly modifying the disamb page like this to misrepresent the article is kinda weirding me out.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should try discussing this on Talk:Glamour (disambiguation) and User talk:ChildofMidnight before making such a big deal out of it. I've gone ahead and notified ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) of this discussion - something you should have done yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

this is what is caled a content dispte and not reall y what WP:ANI is here for. Smith Jones (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceedjee has been struggling, against a clear consensus view of many other editors, to remove the category Zionist terrorism from the article Irgun. He has demanded sources which explicitly use this phrase, insisting that those who refer to the Irgun as Zionist do not call it terrorist, while those who call it terrorist do not specify that this is "Zionist terrorism". In the course of this, he has made personal attacks on User:Peter cohen[20], [21]. When I removed one such attack from my own talk page[22], he immediately reposted it[23].

When I provided several sources confirming the usage that he objected to,[24], he responded by refactoring my comments to make it appear that I was haranguing and shouting at him, and he mocked me, including questioning my ability to contribute to Wikipedia because I am the target of a notorious vandal and wikistalker.[25] After I objected, and posted a warning notice about refactoring comments on his talk page, he sent me a hostile email, demanding that I withdraw the warning.

In response, he has just posted a comment on my talk page, including my name and email address[26], followed by a string of hostile comments -- all of which I have now removed. Since he is clearly aware of my harassment by the serial vandal, this posting is at best irresponsible, and could even be seen as encouraging the vandal to harass me by email.

I request that action is taken to restrain this editor's aggressive behaviour towards other editors. I would also like to know how I can have the disclosure of my email erased from the page history. RolandR (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on WP:RFO to get rid of the email diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just seen that he also, without explanation, posted my name and email on his own talk page[27], though he later removed this.RolandR (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Report that to oversight, as well. And it seems obvious to me that Ceedjee deserves a block for WP:OUTING. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit clash) Ah, I had been just thinking of putting together a case myself. Very briefly on the minor issue of the posts against me, Ceedjee keeps claiming that I haven't provided sourceds despite these posts of mine [28],[29], [30], all of which are replies to his own posts on the article talk page and thus not buried somewhere he was unlikely to notice them. However, I can live with the posts that he makes against me which are rather unintersting compared with what the JIDF were saying.

It is when Ceedjee starts talking about Roland's stalker [31] as part of a WP:POINT-scoring exercise that things get beyond the pale. As far as I know, User:Runtshit is the most eprsistent vandal on the English Wikipedia and is expected to reach 1000 identified sock accounts by the middle of next year. The vandal also appears to be active elsewhere on the web (see conversations I've had with Roland on his talk page). Yesterday, as soon as I noticed Ceedjee taunting Roland about Runtshit on the article talk page, I posted [32]. However, today I noticed the additional material on Roland's talk page. And please note that if the email address is being WP:Oversighted that Ceedjee has also WP:OUTed Roland on his own talk page. [33] --Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Ceedjee (talk · contribs) for one week for outing RolandR. This is not something which should ever be allowed, especially on such a contentious subject where the threat of violence in real life is ever present. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this to oversight. But they have removed only two of the references, leaving more in page history. They have not responded to my follow-up request. And I have received another hostile email from Ceedjee, using his real name, and stating "you and your friends are just fanatics : http://www. (address hidden) poor little guys". Can anything be done to stop him? RolandR (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It can take a while for them to reply, but make sure you link all the revisions for them to delete. IS he sending you emails from Wikipedia? Have they been sent since I blocked him? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have listed them all, twice. But not all have been deleted. The email was not sent through Wikipedia; it came from the same email address as emails I had earlier received through Wikipedia, but signed with a name, not Ceedjee. It was sent after he was blocked.RolandR (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ceedjee "outed" RolandR, that certainly warrants some sort of sanction, however, Ceedjee in general is in my experience a very fairminded editor. If he has one weakness it's his lack of facility with English, which sometimes makes it difficult for people to understand what he is trying to say.

From what I've seen, Ceedjee has been trying to remove Irgun from the "Zionist terrorist" category because he thinks the terrorist categories are a breach of wp:terrorist, and I happen to agree with him. Whether his approach of trying to rectify the problem by removing articles from the categories in question is the best possible response is questionable, but I believe he has done it with the best motives and with wikipedia policy in mind. "Outing" is of course a serious breach of confidentiality, and if he has done this it would indicate to me an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement, but please let's not use this one apparent breach to mount an opportunistic attack on someone who as a general rule is a useful and productive editor. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have received a further long hostile email from Ceedjee, in which he describes me inter alia as "pathetic", "psychotic", suffering from "mental disease" "a terrorist, a manipulator and a liar", and also states that he has been in contact with User:Einsteindonut about my identity. This may not in itself be an offence against Wikipedia regulations; but it is unarguably uncalled for and unacceptable behaviour. And it would certainly undermine any argument of his that the Irgun shouls not be called terrorist. I'm not responding to any of his increasingly hysterical screeds; but I'm concerned about possible disruptive behaviour on his rreturn after the block ends. RolandR (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can take any action regarding alleged off-wiki attacks, because they are unproveable. I'm not sure what this alleged "outing" consisted of exactly, but Ceedjee seems to be implying on his talk page that your identity is available online outside Wikipedia, so he may have assumed that referring to it did not constitute a breach of confidentiality.

Regarding the content dispute, if I'd known things were getting this heated I would have followed up my posts on the Irgun talk page yesterday, but I think perhaps the best solution would be to start thinking of some alternative category names that do not breach wp:terrorist. Renaming some of the existing categories to conform better with policy should have a much greater chance of success than attempting to delete them, which has not achieved consensus up to now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia sometimes acted on the basis of off-wiki activity. However, email is tricky evidence and could be liable to allegations of tampering. If Roland wanted to take this further, I would recommend getting the ISP to hold info as they would be a more independent source. Contact with ED is interesting because ED is now a long-term blocked, block-evading individual connected with an anti-Wikipedia attack site (though interestingly they haven't yet seen fit to withdraw Ceedjee from their lis of hated editors.). There's also the question of whether Ceedjee contacted ED or visa-versa. For all we know from what's been said here ED could have sent the JIDF's file on Roland to Ceedjee unsolicited.

With regard to the outing,it involved listing Roland's surname (which is well known) and an email address for him (which I certainly did not know.) These appeared on both Roland's and Ceedjee's pages. Obviously the oversight people were sufficiently concerned to act on it. However, what should also be noted as evidece that it is not altogether innocent is the post (linked above) where Ceedjee attacks Roland for being stalked by the Runtshit vandal. As for the content dispute, it is best discussed on the article talk page. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And there was no possible legitimate reason for posting this; indeed, Ceedjee did not even offer one. He simply posted my name and email, in bold letters, on his talk page. Since, as Peter notes, he had previously taunted me for being stalked by a persistent vandal, I can only see this as encouragement to harass me by email. Though so far the only person doing this is Ceedjee himself. RolandR (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just recalled this earlier disagreement over validity of sources, in which Ceedjee accuses me of lying and appears to endorse the attacks on me, using them as an argument against my ability to edit. He then apologises for this, and for not assuming good faith. So his latest behaviour is not "an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement", but part of a pattern of personal attacks on editors he disagrees with -- see also his remarks about Peter noted above, his dispute with User:IronDuke and his attack on User:Eleland. This editor has difficulty in assuming good faith when anyone disagrees with him. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of editors who "have difficulty assuming good faith" on the I-P pages, practically everyone who edits these pages gets a little testy from time to time. What is apparent from even the handful of edits you provided however (which go back twelve months), is that Ceedjee gets into disputes with both camps, which I think is testimony to his independent viewpoint. He's still about the only editor on the I-P pages whom I have been unable to pigeonhole as either pro- or anti- Israeli/Palestinian, if you ask me the I-P pages could do with a few more such editors.

Having said that, he does appear to have stepped out of line on this occasion, but please let's not try to spin this into something more serious. Ceedjee is far from the typical I-P nationalist/POV warrior, he is usually a thoughtful contributor. Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone who may be interested, I have raised an issue on the Village pump (policy) that deals with some of the problems at the core of this particular dispute [34]. The issue is important to the credibility of Wikipedia, and I hope as many users as possible take a look, and comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you've now Forum-Shopped to the Village Pump bears no relationship to this one and it's worrying you'd think that it does. PR^talk 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New IP user refuses to go to talk page to discuss his POV edits and violation of 3RR. Several editors have issued warnings, especially for continued POV & 3RR edits at Polygamy. In my opinion, the user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and, from his comments (and who he is, based on who he claims to be - I googled the name he stated), believes he is editing an academic or professional journal. He's now reached the maximum good faith we can allow and a gentle block would be in order, since he does not react to requests to take discussion to the talk page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing really extreme or fringe about the material which keeps getting censored. It's simply a matter of unpopularity. Pertinent scholarly well researched information is valid as a reference link, even if the conclusions are unpopular, the research and the citations of John Judge at ratical.org are valid, educated, academically sound, professional and scholarly investigative journalism. Just because there's a link to some harsh accusations that scrutinize subjects that people find offensive or unpopular means nothing of their pertinence to the article. Mosedschurte is whining because he's exposed as a censoring gatekeeper again and again. My2sense2wikip (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My2sense2wikip (talk · contribs)

This user continues to add the source John Judge at ratical.org, which espouses the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources.

Despite explanations to him about Wikipedia policy on the matter, he has repeatedly added it several times, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.

He also promises to continue with this behavior, stating "These edits here won't end. I promise you."

In addition, he has repeatedly engaged in uncivil dialoge, such as "stop being a liar" and "There was government complicity with Jonestown and you clearly have an agenda to discredit The Black Hole of Guyana by condemming it as fringe."

Finally, the user admits that the reason he keeps adding information about relatives of the author Deborah Layton to the article for the book Seductive Poison (information not relevant to the book, but perhaps notable to the author's life) is that he thinks that the redirect of the author's name to the book article is some kind plot to drive book sales:

"If someone had an entry article about Deborah Layton that didin't automically relocate to this article I would include these entries there and to this article . . . Someone who made that automatic re-direct probably had an agenda to plug this book and divert people away from her personal background."

Also note that an IP user (69.22.221.46) made the exact same edit as My2sense2wikip just 27 minutes before his repeated additions here. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's been blocked for edit warring. I want to take this moment to remind you strongly that you were edit warring as well. It takes two to tango, as it were, and you continued to revert his changes just as he continued to add them. He is blocked and you are not because he was inserting the material and he logged out to revert you as well. I haven't checked to see if the subject of the article relates to a living person and so would be excempt from WP:EW, but if it is not please remember that it is better to leave a page in the "wrong" version and seek some assistance than to continue to revert. Also, do not mark edits like his as vandalism. I know they are unconstructive and belligerent, but WP:VANDAL specifically notes that non-vandalism edits are not to be referred to as vandalism. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I stopped after I realized I'd also reverted quite a few times and started this entry, which I should have done in the first place. Re the EW point, the article itself isn't on a living person, but it is also the target of a redirect of the author (Deborah Layton), who is still alive. That's actually what the addition was about. The one vandalism undo was an error I made clicking the wrong link (I clicked it while viewing the revision page instead of the usual undo from the history page).Mosedschurte (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. You clearly didn't have ill intent and it would be unfair of me to block you as I did him. I just want you to be very cautious around this in the future. As for the vandalism thing, I understand. I have seen plenty of established users mark non vandalism edits as vandalism and I feel it is important to point it out when it happens. Hopefully this fixes the problem for a while. If you think you can find any socks this editor might have created (as it seems that IP is his and has been for some time), bring them to this thread or (preferably) to the suspected sock-puppet noticeboard and we can deal with them swiftly. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I ran across this user when I reverted one of his edits and placed a warning on his talkpage. In response, I received this. Well, needless to say, that kind of thing immediately lands a user on my "watch this guy" list, and so when his edits pop up on my watchlist, by and large I try to check them out. As you'll see from his talkpage, he makes a lot of questionable edits [35] [36] [37] [38] [39], and doesn't seem overburdened with clue. I'm doing my damndest to AGF and not to call it vandalism, but I'm also out of ideas, in terms of how to make this kid a better editor. IMHO we're rapidly reaching the point of decision; do we let him keep making bad edits and follow him around with the broom and dustpan, or do we stop him from editing, since he doesn't seem to pick up advice? What do you all think? GJC 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• If he's not a kid he's doing a good job of faking it. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• At 153 edits over the last month he isn't too much of trouble to clean up after (solely in terms of volume, of course). I'd say steer clear of the nuclear option for now. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If not a block, what would you recommend? I mean, 153 edits doesn't seem like a lot, unless you're the one who ends up fixing them...and he just happens to be hitting all the articles I have watchlisted. What do you suggest? GJC 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a firmly-worded suggestion to seek a mentor? Of course we must be welcoming and accommodating to new users, but in return we do expect the gradual acquisition of Clue^TM. If that's ignored, I'd suggest we have little choice but to encourage them to go and find another website to play on. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an SSP report for user:Diva industries that has been sitting untouched for a few days. A new sock has just shown up, user:Shato, doing the same pattern of linkspam. I've added it to the report, but I bet nobody notices it. Can something be done to prevent the spam from accumulating? Is there a possibility of blacklisting http:skeptiko.com, the site that is repeatedly being spammed by this guy? Looie496 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Shato has apologised and asked for some advice on their talk page. I've left an explanation - TBH, looking at some of those External links sections I can see why they thought their link was appropriate too :P Hopefully that will be the end of the spamming, but please re-report if not. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has been editing Yom Kippur War battles recently. He keeps adding unsourced material. I've given him a warning today over Valley of Tears, [40] which he ignored and kept adding unsourced information into that article and others[41]. His talk page (permanent link) shows that he was warned about this many times before, including a final warning in November[42], yet he continues. Looking through his contributions, it doesn't look like he ever used a ref, an edit summary, or an article's talk page. He also created a few new articles: Battle of the Sinai, Battle of Syria and Kilometer 101, three quasi-articles with no references (among other issues), which should probably be deleted or turned into redirects, but it seems to me like it would probably lead to a lame edit war. I believe admin intervention is due. Thanks in advance, Nudve (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected all three of those articles to Yom Kippur War - they were completely unsourced and better covered in the main article anyway. Regarding the editor, they do seem to have a case of IDHTitis, but I'm reluctant to block at this stage; despite the lack of sources no-one's yet accused them of making it all up. However, as a last chance to obtain some clue, I've suggested they find themselves a mentor, so the ball's in their court... EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Philip Baird Shearer made a drastic edit of Talk:Roma people [43] without explaining the reason for removing threads, WikiProject banners, etc. This may have been a failed archiving attempt, but, since it was not explained in an edit summary, I have felt obliged to revert it as suspected talk page vandalism. —Zalktis (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly an error, explained minutes later. No time was given between posting on his talk page and coming running here. Please assume good faith in future. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I have apologised on PBS's talk page. —Zalktis (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please block 90.201.74.222 from again putting back unsourced material in BLP Franklin Foer. VRTS ticket # 2008110610005047, user talk page warning, article talk page explanation, 222's threat to keep putting back unsourced material. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-01t12:09z

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit-warring, and threatening to continue to do so; given their reverts you could also have taken this to WP:AN3. Page semi-protection may also be an option if this continues from other IP addresses (drop a note here or at WP:RFPP). EyeSerene^talk 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Unblocked. Thatcher 16:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in July as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss, which I was responsible for as checkuser. He has been in contact with me since, and claims innocence. There is undoubtedly a sockpuppet user who has been persistently reverting and harassing Rjecina (talk · contribs). This person edits from a particular residential ISP and a university in a certain city. While investigating Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss I found that PaxEquilibrium edited from the same university. However, the university only has two outward-facing IP addresses that are massively shared, and PaxEquilibrium only had 3 total edits from there. In addition, he posts from a different residential ISP in that city, not the same one as the harasser. He claims he is the victim of a Joe job (See the accounts PaxPaxicus, PaxVendetimus and ToxToxicus, for example). On review I think there is at least room for doubt, and Pax has been calm and polite in pursuing his unblock request. He has appealed to Arbcom but has not received an answer either way, possibly they are preoccupied. I propose unblocking. He can be monitored if necessary. (And Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium will have to be renamed to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PaxPaxicus or something.) Thatcher 13:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock. I always knew him as a decent contributor and was surprised when I heard he'd been indef'ed for sockpuppeting, something that just didn't seem like him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo Rlevse, should be fine to give the user a new chance in the spirit of good faith. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For users which are not knowing this case I must say about my surprise with finding in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss, because I have never dreamed that Pax is behind this attacks. On other side this unblock demand for me is very funny and I am afraid that wiki community will became victim of this user joke.

We are having good faith but second time we are having claim that his account is victim of another user [44] !? For me is very hard to imagine that he is somebody victim because few of puppets in question are 2 years old accounts. Somebody has worked in silence 2 years only to block Pax (example 1 year old accounts User:Roramaster user:Roremaster). Has anybody noticed that after Pax blocking we are not having anymore problems with Belgrade IP ?

Second problem is that we are having 2 checkuser cases. First is PravdaRuss and second is behind accounts user:PPNjegos, user:NICrneGore, user:Anti-Note. He has been blocked because of puppetry in this second case (17 July) and banned because of PravdaRuss (30 July)

For me 3rd problems that for me it is not possible to agree with you Fut.Perf. that Pax is decent contributor. I will agree with you that he is decent in many articles but there is number in article where account Pax has been edit warring against all other users (articles Pagania, Podgorica Assembly and Creation of Yugoslavia).

Reason for creation of puppets: Pax style of work in articles which are very important in his thinking has been very simple: He will write POV versions with explanation that article is not finished and he will finish job in near future (Creation of Yugoslavia, Podgorica Assembly, Pagania). In my thinking Pax has started to create puppets after I have started to delete his POV versions [45] [46]. --Rjecina (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not writen about 1 small thing. In discussion with you Thatcher Pax has not spoken truth... Claim that he has not edited from Belgrade University (or has edited small number of times) is false. We are having many older Pax statement that he is editing from university in question. When he has first time "lost" his account Pax words has been "The IP adress that I use (174...) is not only used by me but by the entire Internet Computer Center of the Electro-technic University as well" (user page of user:HRE). Now he is saying I am rarely using university IP ? Are we on wiki so naive that we will believe his today words and not his earlier words ??--Rjecina (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what IPs he uses. The doubt arises because most of his recent edits (recent at the time of his last block) are from a particular residential ISP that is different from the residential ISP that is responsible for most of the harassment accounts. Clearly "PaxPaxicus" and PaxEquilibrium have access to the same University; that alone is not proof of anything as all edits to Wikipedia from that University come from two IPs. I feel that the use of different residential ISPs raises some doubt. It would be as if someone in New York City used both Time Warner Cable and Verizon DSL. It is not impossible, but it raises doubts. Thatcher 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdented) Like the others I support the unblock. Even if he was guilty before, giving him a chance to turn over a new leaf is always a good idea. And in this case, if there is any trouble Thatcher or another checkuser will know where to look.Bucketsofg 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the PravdaRuss checkuser case, Thatcher's comment and the evidence given above by Rjecina and it seems that the sock case is not at all persuasive. I support an unblock. If Pax resumes editing, it seems likely to heat up some of the Balkan debates but I see no policy ground to continue the block. Pax and Rjecina have conflicted on some articles like Creation of Yugoslavia and Podgorica Assembly, but Pax's total reverts appear to be few in number. If Thatcher talks to Pax any further, perhaps he could get him to list any alternate accounts he might have used in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this unblock and can only repeat what has been stated above. I've known Pax as a level-headed, polite editor for quite some time now and have a really hard time believing he should have been a sockpuppeteer. —Nightstallion 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem here that I'm not quite sure how to handle. docartemis (talk · contribs) has had an account since Oct 2007, and during that time has done nothing except add external links. Until today the total number of edits was 9, but just today there were 18 more edits, all adding links to podcasts hosted on http://docartemis.com. The website is owned by Ginger Campbell, M.D., and the podcasts actually appear relevant to the articles, so I don't think this needs to be handled harshly, at least at the start, but on the other hand I don't think the links can be allowed to stay. I bring this here because it seems delicate enough that it ought to be handled by an admin. user:JHunterJ has left a message on the editor's talk page concerning this, but I think something stronger needs to be done. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See how he responds to the warning before considering him a spammer. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait too, this may get handled editorially. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what to do here, so I'll ping this here notice-board-thingamajig. The above user is on the very edge of disruption. They add information about "new" episodes for various cartoon articles. Most of the episodes are non-verifiable, and most (if not all) of their edits have been been reverted by numerous people. They're contributions are not constructive, nor are they being communicative (messages on the user talk page have been unanswered). Notification of the discussion has been placed. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Isn't there a serial sockpuppeteer that does exactly this? Will have a dig in the archives. CIreland (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel or Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. This case doesn't appear to match either of those very well though. —BradV 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

csloat has been engaging in disruptive editing on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 since October 25, 2008. After a month of disruptive behavior, administrative intervention is required.

• His first edit was a POV contribution with a section title name that drew a conclusion that the source material did not. The first diff, and a later edit which sourced it. This initial contribution was also incorrectly placed in a section which lists events chronologically. The result of this edit was a long heated content dispute which was ultimately resolved satisfying everyone involved to some degree. In the interest of keeping this brief, I'll just say that csloat's contribution to the consensus was hardly constructive and he exercised no compromise whatsoever. Upon request, multiple specific incidents can be diffed.
• Repeatedly reverted deletion of libelous material only supported by biased media outlets. Here, here, and here. The content is no longer in the article. Again, contributions related to this on the talk page were hardly constructive.
• Insistence on using pejorative terms. Related to this first contribution, multiple sources have been found showing that Muslims find the term "jihadist" offensive, so general consensus on the talk page determined that "Islamic extremist" is a more appropriate term. His only "proof" is links on Amazon and pretentious comments. Yet again, no real constructive contribution to consensus. A few examples here, here, here, and here where he claimed the argument was "conceded" after a mere 20 hours of inactivity on the talk page.
• Removed factual information from World Opinion section, claiming that a source which drew no conclusion drew a conclusion. First collection of edits here, and more here where he also unilaterally restored the "jihadist" term. He then switched his tactic to tag abuse, applying a totally-disputed section tag which claims neutrality and factual accuracy are in dispute. After applying this tag abusively multiple times, and being warned that it was not the appropriate tag to apply, I finally warned him on his user page, indicating this would be his last warning. The warning was for a mention on the Vandalism noticeboard, but considering all of his incidents I think a disruptive editor report was more warranted. He shortly after removed the warning, calling the warning an abusive lie, (similarly to how he removed a 3RR warning calling it "incorrect" in the edit summary) and then reapply the inappropriate tag yet again -- at the same time restoring the pejorative "jihadist" term (he's done that a lot to say the least).

There's more evidence available if needed related to these incidents, but I think in this brief report there is enough to indicate disruptive behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is all a content dispute. The dispute got disruptive because Amwestover refused to abide by typical Wikipedia policy which allows the use of such tags as the NPOV tag and the Totally-disputed tag to warn readers that the material they are about to read is disputed. I chose to employ the tag in order to avoid an ongoing edit war with Amwestover. The other editors on the page have been more reasonable and have tried to talk the issues out; Amwestover has instead chosen to personally attack me over and over, and to edit war over the tag. His removal of the tag is extremely unjustified - even if he feels that I am wrong in the content dispute, he should leave the tag up and attempt to resolve the dispute in talk, as I tried to do. Instead, he bullied me in talk and kept removing the tag without addressing my arguments on the talk page at all. Then he posted a phony warning on my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism. I removed the warning and warned him on the article talk page to stop being disruptive. I see he has now escalated his disruption to the AN/I page in the hopes of getting me sanctioned. It is inappropriate to attempt to resolve a content dispute through sanctions.

If anyone would like a fuller explanation of the reason I felt that the term "jihadist" is appropriate on the page or the reason that the totally-disputed tag should stay on the page until the dispute is resolved, please consult the talk page (read the last sections in order rather than just the comments cherry-picked by Amwestover to make me look bad), but I don't feel that we should extend the content dispute over to AN/I so I will not address them here. Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Often a tactic that csloat used was diversionary arguments instead of addressing the actual issue, of which this is a fine example (and the subsection below, too). Since any content disputes that may have related to csloat's edits have been resolved, this is clearly about his disruptive editing behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content disputes have not been resolved; that was the point of the tag that you disruptively kept deleting, Amwestover. Again, I'm happy to discuss them, and we will no doubt continue discussing them on the talk page of the article, but the only relevant issue for AN/I is your disruptive behavior, as outlined below. csloat (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've created a subsection here so that Amwestover's userlinks are easily accessible to admins. I am certain that if this incident is investigated it will be Amwestover, not csloat, who is found to have been editing disruptively. My actions have been focused entirely on trying to add factual material to the article. There is some dispute about whether the material belongs in the article -- I have tried to address those disputes civilly and have bent over backwards to compromise. But I feel it is disruptive for Amwestover to continually portray basic content disputes as "libel" issues or as "vandalism." It is also disruptive for him to lie in warnings to my talk page, to constantly insult me on the article talk page (the NPA violations flow in nearly every post he makes to me), and to waste everyone's time with an AN/I report that is obviously lacking in any basis whatsoever. csloat (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys seem to be arguing over a quote from Washington Post. That's a content dispute. I don't see what admins could do here (besides locking the page, which they've already done). Both of you need to follow WP:DR. Did anyone consider drafting a WP:RfC on this issue? Pcap ping 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content dispute related to Islamic extremists supporting McCain on the internet was solved several weeks ago. All productive editors involved contributed to the consensus and the compromise which solved that content dispute. Speaking of which, csloat did not participate in the consensus or compromise which resolved this issue whatsoever, other than to voice his opposition to any suggestions which differed from his original edit. No, this report is about his disruptive editing habits on the article and talk pages, which goes beyond this particular issue. If you believe that more evidence is necessary, please let me know. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"libelous material only supported by biased media outlets" [47]. The outlet would be MSNBC. Yeah, I find the material very marginal, so I would argue it should be removed per WP:UNDUE, but you'll have a hard time getting someone blocked for this. Pcap ping 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this report is about disruptive editing rather than content. Disruptive editing can involve the content of someone's edits, so I mentioned that where I felt appropriate. Since I organized the report around the content issues, I'll make an effort to reorganize the report around each aspect of his behavior that is disruptive in order to make a stronger case. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you also need to be less aggressive in editing, and avoid edit warring over contentious material. I know it can take a long time to find consensus on politically charged articles, but insisting on every minor point will aggravate editors holding the opposite POV. If you guys cannot come to an agreement, try WP:3O first. This is all I'm going to say here; I put a {inuse} tag on an article, and I need to get back to it. Pcap ping 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it taking a long time to reach consensus; my problem is with an editor falsely proclaiming consensus when there is none and then removing legitimate warning tags that are meant to help dispute resolution. I also get annoyed with an editor completely misrepresenting what is happening in the dispute when I have participated in good faith (and, contrary to his false statement above, I have attempted several compromises). I would be all for an RfC if that's what it takes to settle what should be extremely minor issues here. Anyway I hope this will encourage Amwestover to follow WP:DR rather than removing tags or filing phony AN/I reports. Have a good day. csloat (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I happened upon JARIAN (talk · contribs) via a report on AIV. This user was blocked for three days in February for disruption. He's returned twice since then--once in August and again in November. In that time he's created several articles that appear to be hoaxes (but to my mind, escape being G3'd by an eyelash) and inserted apparently false information into articles. He's also edit-warred by way of IP 97.89.6.61 (talk · contribs) and moved his talk page "because I am getting tired of complaints."

I decided he needed a month-long block to rethink his behavior--the only reason I didn't indef him was because, as mentioned above, those articles he created don't appear to be blatant hoaxes. Please review. Blueboy96 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stretched the block out to indefinite, because he's been creating very subtle hoax articles, and linking to them from multiple articles. He's engaged in an active campaign to damage the encyclopedia by introducing non-obvious false content. We have no need of this nonsense. It's going to take me a while to go and undo his contributions.

If there are any Checkusers about, it might be a good idea to have a look for other accounts in the sock drawer. This is obviously an experienced editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh...he's been tampering with MADtv season summaries to insert references to his imaginary actors. I've deleted the actors' articles, but the removal of the junk that he's added is slow going. He's edited both as JARIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and as the IP 97.89.6.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Any article-space entries that come up in the "what links here" for Tisha Williams, Kevin Barrymore, Eddie Mitchell, Jeremy Wayne, Judith Foxworth need to be cleaned up. What a twit. (I've cleaned up links to the struckthrough articles already.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Mitchell leads to a huge number of red-linked names at Home Improvement. They all look like nonsense since I can't seem to find them at IMDb (yes, I actually stopped once I saw Q2 listed there). Does this go any further? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those were all added by JARIAN while logged out (diff), under his already-identified IP address. For now I'm going to say that I think we've got them all...but I've filed a Checkuser request to be sure: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JARIAN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse the ramping up to indef. A classic case of gaming the system, in my mind. Given TenofAllTrades' evidence, the results of that checkuser ought to me mighty interesting. Blueboy96 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And he was operating at least one sleeper account as well. Good grief. Blueboy96 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This page has been full protected for 3 months in apparent contravention of Wikipedia standards. From the wikipedia protection policies: "Brief periods of full protection are used, rarely, when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article." In this case it appears it is not autoconfirmed accounts editing the article. Also 3 months could hardly be considered "brief." Also note, (again from protection policies)"Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of such for high-trafficked articles does not usually provide a basis for full-protection." I hesitate to say this is an abuse of power, but it certainly appears to be an overreaction. This article should not be protected, or at the most -extreme should only be semi-protected. Yofton (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC) — Yofton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The wikilawyering on our rules as to when and where protection is used is one thing. But the rules as written allow for variation. You can, and should, argue which changes you need to make on the talk page of the article; or even argue for unprotection - but not on the grounds that we're not obeying our own rules. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If the new user has concerns, he is free to go to that article's talk page and propose some ideas. It's also worth pointing out that full protection was only applied on the 29th, due to persistent vandalism. Prior to that point it has largely been only semi-protected, and in fact wasn't protected at all for 11 days preceding, until the siege by various sockpuppets of User:Pioneercourthouse forced the issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse protection. The article is the target of continuous sockpuppet disruption.  Sandstein  07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The unbelievable persistence of the single-issue sockpuppets is what forces us into this result, in my opinion. Full protection is a desperate remedy, but it is needed in this case. If the article were not being so strongly attacked, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Inviting Yofton to join in discussion will probably have no useful result, just as with the prior warriors on this topic. Anyone who keeps trying to insert the same few sentences for two years probably feels very strongly, as shown by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pioneercourthouse, which names 30 sock accounts. But this person doesn't feel strongly enough to make a convincing argument on the article's Talk page, one that includes a proper reference. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecton seems perfectly reasonable given the single-minded disruption of this person. As evidenced in the checkuser case linked above, semiprotection was circumvented by a few accounts to further disrupt this page. At this point, since this issue has been around for two years, it may be time to get the ISP involved... — Scientizzle 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I make a comment about how an article should get unprotected and I automatically get labeled a "sock" on my userpage? I really don't appreciate that. I wonder if the Pioneer Courthouse Square "vandal" got pi**ed after he was treated poorly by Wikipedia editors like I have been. Ever thought that might be driving his "vandalism?" I glanced through the discussion history on Pioneer Courthouse Square and it seems that at various times he/she has been willing to work with the community but they have treated him like s**t. Stop treating me poorly just because I suggested a page ought to be unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yofton (talk • contribs) 23:48, December 1, 2008 — Yofton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At least this one's not writing in fake broken English. It's kind of sad, though - I was hoping he could find a citation for his ongoing claim - that the homeless in the Square are mostly harmless, except for the occasional murderer. It was kind of funny the first time, but it gets old after awhile. He nees some new material. "A funny thing happened on the way to Pioneer Courthouse Square - I met a guy wearing one shoe. I asked him, 'Lose a shoe?' He answered, 'Nope. Found one.'" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, quack. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Ducks, that is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I boldly closed the AFD as a speedy keep (as a non-admin, obviously) due to the nomination being done by a banned editor. I closed it as such as I thought it was within WP:NAC as well as clearly within the speedy keep criteria to do so. As expected, one of the users to sided for deletion does not agree with the outcome ([48]). My rationale (I am echoing from my talk page response) is that banned editors are not supposed to edit and are to be reverted on sight, which includes banned editors AFDing articles. I do not think ignoring the rules is wise here as it sets a bad example in regards to banned users; it doesn't matter how constructive their edits may happen to be. Banned users are not supposed to be editing in the first place, and it undermines the work and tough decisions made by those who have decided to ban those users.

If the consensus among admins feels that I was incorrect in the AFD closure, then feel free to revert the closure. MuZemike (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to side with Ironholds here. From WP:SK:

“

The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).

”

In this case the consensus was developing despite the nominating user's status and should not be interfered with. After all, things created by banned users are not automatically deleted but may be kept if that is more useful to the project. Regards SoWhy 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing for how many cases we actually have written policies. I agree with SoWhy (and thanks for digging up that policy bit.) Any objections if I just re-open the AfD? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do it! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy does not quit. Just to bring everyone up to speed, User:Ragusino got blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation by Tiptoety [49]. He completely ignored the block and continued to edit and harass with his IP, which resulted in an extension to one week by EdJohnston [50], and again to one month [51]. After that he immediately proceeded to harass me on my talkpage by posting his "detective nonsense" and reverting my edits (see history [52]). I gave him some time to give up on his own and, when that failed, reported him here on WP:AN/I [53]. Jayron32 then semi-protected my talkpage for 24 hours [54] which apparently does not deter this guy as he duly resumed his harassment [55] once the short-term protection expired.
I feel a block extension would not be overkill, and may deter him from further harassment. As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting sick of his messages and I hope someone will find the time to semi-protect my talkpage, preferably for a longer period this time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:50 (archiving comment) Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani (talk · contribs) was recently warned by an administrator about personal attacks aimed at User:Jaakobou. After he complained about the warning, three additional uninvolved editors, including 2 administrators, stepped in, and voiced concern over Nishandi's behavior in this matter. ([56], [57],[58], [59]). Apparently displeased with this outcome, Nishandi has taken to using his personal space to write a critique of his critics, in what appears to be an attack page. Though presented in the form of a "ballad", his critique nevertheless continues to accuse User:Jaakobou of off-wiki canvassing, gaming the system and administrator shopping. I believe this is inappropriate use of user space, and have asked Nishandi to remove it but he's refused. NoCal100 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that has left me slack-jawed. It might be grossly inappropriate etc etc etc but this has got to be the most impressive attack page I ever saw. Truly speechless. – iridescent 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who ever saw a ballad made up of sonnets? The guy ought to be trout-slapped for playing fast and loose with our literary genres, surely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially as his iambic pentameter is all over the place. I mean, honestly. Black Kite 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• NoCal100, what is the interest of scrutinizing Nishidani's userspace that closely? You should see some of the crap I have in mine. Nishidani's "attack" is part of an archived usertalk page! If it had been a separate page called User:Nishidani/Ballad about bad people you might have had a point; but hidden away in an archive? Who would even have seen it, to be offended by it, if you hadn't brought it to this noticeboard? I'm not saying people can have whatever they want in their userspace, there certainly are limits; but please try to cultivate a higher degree of tolerance for things like a sarcastic sonnet cycle in a discreet corner. It seems Nishidani feels stalked by you.[60], [61] Please walk away. (Incidentally, have you told him you've put the issue on ANI, as courtesy requires?) Bishonen | talk 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

The interest is in keeping Wikipedia a place where editing is done in a collegial manner, vs. one where an editor may abuse user space to baselessly attack another editor, after being warned by 3 administrators about just such behaviour. I would have thought it obvious. NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody once said insults in rhyming couplet should be cherished forever. I agree, you should at least try to cultivate a sense of humor. — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Geogre said that. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Just so that I'm clear on this - it is ok to accuse another editor, without evidence, of off-wiki canvassing and forum shopping, so long as it is done with rhymes? NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Bish's reply. If having potentially abusive messages in your talk archive were a blocking offence, pretty much every user on this site would be blocked. If it weren't for your coming here, no-one would even have read it. – iridescent 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree- frankly, I'd be proud to know someone had gone through the trouble to write a ballad to complain about me. Walk it off. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you still haven't informed Nishidani, NoCal100. Never mind, I've done it for you. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Wow - I wonder how many hours it took him to write that fine piece of attack literature. It ought to be preserved if only for the sake of art. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I wished to stay neutral in this, but it appears that there is a gross misconception here which should be cleared up—this "ballad" is indeed archived, but it's from yesterday, so it's kind of fresh. I think Nishidani should just strike it out and the case should be closed. But somehow I have a feeling that this is now what will happen (*sigh*). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's fresh. If it had been a month old, NoCal100 would presumably have taken it to ANI a month ago. Did anybody here suggest it wasn't fresh? It's still in a discreet corner of the userspace, that's the point. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

So, It is ok to have an attack page, as long as it is under an Archivenn page in user space? NoCal100 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hope to someday piss off another editor to the point that they spend that amoung of time writing poetic odes to my rottenness. Awesome.GJC 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done

I have to say, it seems a shame

That every misguided new-article creator

When warned for incorrect capitalization of proper names

Will cite Gladys j cortez, Wikipedia administrator – iridescent 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than editors commenting about how they, personally, would be honored by such a tribute, I would like an administrator to answer my question, while specifically addressing WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10. Those guidleines seem fairly clear, and have no exceptions for rhyming content, or content filed under an Archivenn page, as far as I can see. NoCal100 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All right then, I'll bite.

• Have any of the editors being "attacked" complained about this?
• Has anyone other than yourself shown any sign of being upset by this?
• If it weren't for you reading the last post in a talk archive would anyone even know about this?
• Has a single person among all the people posting above, other than yourself, got any problem with this?
• Is this really the most incivil thing you've ever seen in userspace?
• Do you really think continuing to waste the time of the multiple administrators who don't see a problem here by continuing to flog what is obviously a dead horse is starting to cross the line from "raising a legitimate concern" to "refusing to take no for an answer"?

Seriously, let it go. – iridescent 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, I would like an answer that specifically addresses WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10, which is a wikipedia content guideline. Whether or not this is the worst example of attack pages is irrelevant, and to answer your other rather pointless question, yes,Ynhockey has indicated that he thinks the offending remarks should be stricken. I am trying to get a straight answer to a content question - is it appropriate to have attack pages in user space, if they are in filed under an Archive? NoCal100 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The section of the userpage guideline WP:UP#NOT is titled "What may I not have on my user page?" (emphasis mine). An archived talk page is not the user's userpage. —Travis^talk 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, even if you do want to argue that WP:UP applies to user talk archives, see at the top of WP:UP where it says "guideline, not policy"? See where it says "with the occasional exception"? Aside from yourself, every single person here has agreed that this is one of those occasional exceptions. If this is so offensive to those editors he has named, I'd like to think they're perfectly capable of complaining about it themselves. Incidentally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't even a guideline, but a personal essay by (now indefblocked, incidentally) User:VigilancePrime representing his own personal opinions. – iridescent 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect - I have already pointed out another editor who thinks the comments should be stricken. Be that as it may, I have taken this to Wikipedia talk:User page, to see if indeed, as you seem to think, WP:UP does not apply to archived pages. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look at the very first line of WP:ATTACK. It matters not whether anyone complains; they may not have seen it. It still creates a poisonous atmosphere wehich I suggest we could well do without. Throwing one's toys out of the pram is bad enough, but doing it loudly should not be tolerated. --Rodhullandemu 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I boringly agree with Rod, resist.
Destroy my wikienemies in rhyme?
Those whose offences make me wish to mock
Or to create exposes of their sins
I leave them to the fates they weave themselves
The bored frustration bringing Wiki sin
Appalling poetry a case in point
To every man comes, like the need for pie.

(i.e WP:NPA policy exists.) Sticky Parkin 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While speech is somewhat free, it seems,
That does not liberate thy dreams
of insults and of criticisms
couched in whatever witticisms.

Here we live with one and another,
fighting vandals as did "your mother",
and although it may seem prosaic
we are still parts of one mosaic.

Cooperation is our avowéd aim,
but dissent isn't quite the same;
Whether you're interesting, or bland,
you must fit in, or be banned.
--Rodhullandemu 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's times like this that make me wish BJAODN was still around. :P bibliomaniac15 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"An attack is an attack is an attack is an attack." -- Gert Rude Stein. (E.g. what purpose does the page serve?) IronDuke 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Although not necessarily the correct response, Nocal100 could have rejoined Nishidani's well-written poem with one of his own, filled with aesthetically pleasing but devastating, asteistic retorts to Nishidani's points, and then immediately archived it as well. If only more editor conflicts would evolve in such a manner. Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Inquiring minds would like to know: How did you find this? By tracking Nishidani (talk · contribs)'s every move trying to catch him "out"? Or by meandering over to Wikipedia Review, spotting the topic, and then attacking? Either option doesn't make you look good :) Its discreet, its well written, QQ :) Jacina (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AGF lately? The incident which is at the root of this whole thing was discussed on AN/I some weeks ago, with my participation and Nishandi's, and was not resolved to my satisfaction. I came to comment on it on Nishandi's Talk page a couple of weeks ago, and found it conspicuously empty, and noticed he had taken to immediately "archiving" every comment made there. Just so that I'm clear- your are of the opinion that attack pages are ok, so long as they are "well written", and placed in archived pages? And as you ponder that, those same inquiring minds would like to know how you know that this topic is being discussed on Wikipedia Review. NoCal100 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All I know is, the amount of times I go hunting through archives is practically nil, barring the archives of this page ;)So what I see happening is 1. Nish makes the post, 2. WITHIN 24 hours its on ANI? By someone with an axe to grind... well well well... But ok AGF you're doing this for the good of the wiki yeah, well I'm the man on the moon then. I don't see how its "for the good of the wiki" to push into public eyes something that someone may have found in two years time if someone hadn't been tracing Nish's moves closely. I also don't see how its "for the good of the wiki" to cry wolf, when obviously someone is ranting, and doing so without trying to cause drama. Jacina (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There once was a page on the Wiki
Whose location was a point very sticky
It was parked in the 'chives
Yet affecting the lives
Of editors both mad and not-picky

So the issue came down to one point
Does the archive allow one to annoint
One's writings 'gainst others
(including some mothers)
Or should they be purged from the joint.
►BMW◄ 12:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As the fair damsel in distress,
Who Nishidani meant to protect,
I plead for the masses
To not bray like asses
Calling for his head

To prosecute a knight
for his fingers flight
over the keyboard at night
just does not seem right
particularly when his rhyme is much better than mine, or yours.Tiamut^talk 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While attacks shouldn't be condoned, I think Nish did go out of his way to make it discreet. A block isn't necessary I don't feel, just remind him to strike it out and remind him that though he took care to make it as pleasant and unobstrusive as possible, perhaps the same level of thought could be better put into moving forward. Certainly just because one attacks in a clever fashion it should no be totally ignored. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is asking for a block? All I want is the offending attacks struck out, or a clarification from the community that attack pages are ok if placed in archived pages. NoCal100 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words: let them remove any actual names (or shortforms/semblances thereof) and any Wikilinks to any actual editors, and the poem is fine - venting in its own way. If not, someone remove the entire page for them. ►BMW◄ 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I may lack the Wisdom of Solomon (I can't figure out why he had 700 wives and 300 concubines - why not one wife and 999 concubines or 999 wives and one concubine?) but I believe that I have provided a wise solution to this problem. [62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.2.26 (talk)

Yes, but it appears to have been reverted, as outsider edits to other users' talk page archives are likely frowned upon. Seems like much ado about thing, really; a creative venting of frustrations shouldn't be met with a reactionary "OMG NPA NPA!". If people around the project were a bit more relaxed and developed at least a slightly thicker skin, we'd probably have more time to, y'know, edit, with less time spent on...this. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:AGF No Cal ton? I see you have tucked away, a nice little user page of your own 86.128.120.234 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF rears its ugly head again. Account User:NoCal100 seems to have been created for the purpose of... well, not stalking obviously, but reverting the edits of User:Calton (note that ton is slang for 100). NoCal100's response to questions about that has varied from "AGF" to "go away". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Frank Dux article has been under a barrage of edits from single purpose accounts, presumably to censor any criticism over his history. It's bad enough that we've had to apply for semi-protection three times, but now there are legal threats arising from ip accounts. I'm at a loss over how to deal with this level of meatpuppetry. Any help would be appreciated. Djma12 ^(talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the IP is saying that "Wiki" *slap* "Wikipedia as well as Jimbo Wales are in the wrong" rather than "I am going to sue you." It seems more like normal disruption rather than a direct legal threat. I would recommend that the IP "put down his Dux." *rimshot*. MuZemike (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPLT seems to apply. Toddst1 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 here as it is the perception left by the IP that is most flagrant. IP is a pest and this is one part of his arsenal - I have also semi-protected article for a month but willing to give it much more if IP or friends return.--VS ^talk

Despite several comments [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] indicating to User:Thunderbird2 not to edit closed archived RfC pages the user has continued to do so [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. We don't allow closed archived RfC/U pages to be edited with new content after the close date because they are meant to reflect what went on at the time they were closed and not what some users think should be happening months after the closure. Otherwise we would have the situation where one user, like Thunderbird2, would be able to keep an RfC open forever by adding fallacious content every month. The recent edits by Thunderbird2 to the RfC are part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing documented in the open RfC. Since the user doesn't appear to be taking notice of the comments on his behaviour and continues his disruptive pattern I'm asking for some help in dealing with the behaviour, such as a block or very stern warning from an admin that User:Thunderbird2 will be blocked if the behaviour continues. Fnagaton 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comment Arcayne, I hope the user listens to what you have to say. Fnagaton 07:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the edit history of RichHandsmGuy (talk · contribs) - virtually all of his edits seems to be reverting to article versions (sometimes those versions are over a year old) of Rassmguy (talk · contribs). Sockpuppet? team editing? I'm going to take a look but some eyes would be helpful and maybe if it is disruptive - a block to prevent further damage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK clearly disruptive - virtually all of his edits revert article back at least six months and in every case seriously degrade the quality of the articles by reverting clean-up work, removing sources etc. The guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great and as far as I can see the edits have been rolled back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? claims that it's a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be written to be somewhat automated. However, this particular task ("revert to the last version by me") would never be approved for a bot. In any case, an indef block seems reasonable for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspicious, too. Why would another unrelated user make that edit? -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now trying to get unblocked on the basis that it's a autoblock of a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy (talk · contribs) has posted two unblock requests at his talkpage - the first is on the basis of "I know nothing about this" - but what's odd is that he's posted a second on the basis that the first one was declined - but nobody has edited the page in-between his edits to decline the request? huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised by his 11 year old daughter who doesn't know any better." As compared with the average adult troll. That's an interesting twist on the "evil roommate" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Returned today as Handllrich (talk · contribs) reverting to 69.122.210.59 (talk). DoubleBlue (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of an issue here, and some insight might be helpful. Tool2Die4 (talk · contribs) has been removing the reference tag in the Terminator film article, calling it stale. Old it might be, but as the need for citations didn't magically evaporate, I at first reverted the [removal as a well intentioned mistake, and suggested discussion. It was reverted by Tool again (1), which prompted me to head to his UserTalk page and request he use article discussion to make his point. His fun-filled reply to "not be a dipshit" was prefaced by a pretty uncivil post in article discussion (2) and again revert out the tag with an equally unfriendly remark(3).
The user doesn't have a lot of edits here, and I am exercising restraint in not biting the user's head off, as I genuinely feel they want to add something helpful. That said, it is clear that the user isn't going to listen to me, so perhaps someone else might step in, and help them get back on track?
I think this goes a little beyond dancing along the electric 3RR fence, and further interaction on my part would have prompted the user to likely break it (the user was very recently blocked November 16th for 3RR, and in April for the same sorts of aggressive edit summaries in evidence here). I'd recommend a block, but mentoring might be of more use. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? You're a pain in the ass, and you know you are. Accept it, and move on. Tool2Die4 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support block - Per the comment above mine, it is obvious this editor will not get a clue, or provide any useful contributions. At least in this moment in time. Maybe a block will wake him up to that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i can't believe someone would make such a big personal attack like that one right in front of a whole bunch of admins, but i'm more than sure that as soon as he 24 hours expires, that he will start will his disruptive edits again. Elbutler (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still thinking the user might benefit from mentoring, and probably less caffeine. If he can spank his Inner Child into behaving, he might turn into a pretty good editor. That said, I appreciate the time-out for the user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone redirect Tongue splittling back to Tongue splitting? I made a typo in my initial attempt to revert page-move vandalism by a Grawp sock (see above), and cannot figure out how to undo my own error. Thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Moved back and cleaned up all the redirects. Regards SoWhy 11:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if an admin can take a look at good faith editor Monegasque. Placing biographies into categories, the problem is that the user's basis is the surname of the article subject ONLY. That's it. If the person has a Welsh surname (or it sounds like it could have originally been Welsh), they are categorized as a Welsh American. If the person's surname is English, they become an English American. It doesn't matter if the person had one, single English descendant 200 years prior. The surname could have been a stage name or a married name - doesn't matter: they're an English American. This might seem innocent, but it is categorizing not based on fact or referencing - merely the subject's surname. Several folks have kindly mentioned similar observations on the user's talk page, but the user's tireless work continues. An admin's kind words of clarification would be very helpful because a ton of misinformation is being sprinkled around in Wikipedia daily. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"a stage name or a married name"... That quite simply isn't true. I have systematically checked for stage names and married names. "or it sounds like it could have originally been Welsh"... That isn't true either. I haven't been working on a "sounds like" basis. I have only mentioned the family background in cases where the name is unequivocally of Welsh/Irish etc origin. I have also systematically excluded surnames used as anglicized versions of corresponding Scandinavian/German/etc names such as Anderson, Johnson, Nelson, Miller, Smith etc. "It doesn't matter if the person had one, single English descendant 200 years prior"... Anybody should understand that in the U.S., where descendancy from a single country is very much the exception and found almost exclusively among people of fairly recent immigrant background, a characterization as an English/Irish/Welsh etc American does not constitute a claim of exclusive descendancy from this or that country. Anybody who is familiar with Wikipedia articles about persons born in the U.S. knows that it's not uncommon for a person to be characterized as, for example, both Irish American" and "Italian American". In some cases a third and fourth characterization as "Dutch American", "Swedish American" etc may be included. It's clear that according to Wikipedia practice, partial descendancy does count and a mention of (partial) descendancy is normally not understood as a claim of exclusive descendancy from any particular country. Monegasque (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing a biography based on no evidence other than the person's surname seems like a waste of article space. Lorrie Morgan became a Welsh-American solely due to Monegasque's belief about the nationality of her surname. Reliable sources to justify these assumptions about nationality are not being added anywhere. 'All people named Morgan are of Welsh descent' seems unlikely to be true, and is not even claimed in our article on Morgan (surname). EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer unilaterally moved the page Big Ben from Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster despite no clear consensus and against established policy.

Please see:

• Talk:Big Ben#Requested move
• Talk:Big Ben#Questioning the move - abuse of admin power.3F
• Talk:Big Ben#Brilliant move
• User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Big Ben move despite lack of consensus
• User talk:Chillysnow#Big Ben

This matter has already been discussed on the relevant user talk pages, and I raised a case at the Mediation Cabal. However, PBS refused to get involved.

Subsequently the content of the Big Ben page has been changed making a request to move the article back to its original name less relevant; however what remains is PBS's original unacceptable behaviour. I request this matter be investigated and the appropriate action taken. His behaviour has already caused a valuable editor to leave in disgust. Chillysnow (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

actally, moving pages an be done by any editor, although it srequires consensus unless the move is really really unconroversial. i dont know much about the issue but its not an abuse of admnstratve behavior. Smith Jones (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he might be making a similar point here, although there is no abuse involved. Although I disagree with him in that specific case, I see the broader argument.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS made no use of admin powers in this matter, so he cannot be accused of admin abuse. If you disagree with the move, take it up at the talk page of the article in question, or pursue dispute resolution methods, including request for comment. There is no action for admins to take here, since this is purely a content issue. That one of the disputants happens to have the admin bit does NOT make it admin abuse automatically. Solve this as you would solve any dispute with any other editor, admin or not... (and here is not the place to solve disputes like this). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While the move may be controversial, there is no abuse of power here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There was an abuse of admin power. The page move required WP:RM because of an existing redirect, which only an admin can do. Having used his admin power to do the RM, despite the balance of opinion on the talk page at the time being 8:5 against it, he is now saying that it can't be RM'd back to the status quo for another six months. He is abusing admin powers and wikilawyering to get the article name he wants. This is a clear, obvious and blatant abuse of admin power. He knows this and this is presumably why he refused mediation. This admin has a history of bad faith actions and he should clearly lose his admin rights permanently IMHO. --Harumphy (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With his attitude (always making excuses for himself and not addmiting he's wrong) he should not have admin powers. It makes him too dangerous. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 09:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) was blocked by me in February for "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption".

• EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia
• Other relevant ANI threads, in reverse order: [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]

At the time of the block I said that I was open to the user returning under the mentorship of a strong editor. The user is now requesting a mentorship and unblock. On his user page I wrote, "Please comment on the behavior that caused problems before. What did you do wrong then that you won't do again?" Here is his response:

• I got blocked for writing "Holohoax" during a heated discussion in which User:Boodlesthecat was involved (who, probably, will be blocked soon, for being a trouble user fishing for problems: Proposed mentorship for Boodlesthecat). During my almost one year block, I've had time to cool off, and reflect on my blocking incident. I've come to understand that, Wikipedia is, to some extent, fiercely opposed to free speech. In the words of User:Avruch on my talk page: “Wikipedia isn't a government, you do not have a right to free speech here”.^[85] (as if questioning and/or doubting the Holocaust was allowed by some governments). There is of course a double standard in all this. Wikipedians (mostly of Turkish descent) who question the Armenian Genocide and Assyrian Genocide, don't get blocked (and neither should they be blocked, either, because it shouldn't be a thoughtcrime to be of a different opinion on any historical event). This indicates that Wikipedia is fairly politicised as an Encyclopedia and in no way allows neutral editors on the Holocaust article. But I can't recall ever having edited the Holocaust article, and I'm not about to start any time soon, because it simply doesn't interest me enough. Looking back, at my so called "behavior", I think it was obvious that I needed a break from Wiki, and that I perhaps had gotten too emotional on the discussion pages. I've had my break, and it's been almost an entire year. Aside from that, in all my chutzpah, I think you owe me an apology for blocking me indefinitely. I also think it's your responsibility Will, to mentor me, if you can't find anyone else who wants to mentor me. You being the one who blocked me indefinitely, it's only fair the task should be up to you, because you seem to be the only one who is requesting this. What I won't do again is to raise any critical thought, opinion or dissidence against the Holocaust. This is apparently forbidden here on Wikipedia, and chances are you will get blocked indefinitely for it. I really ought to boycott Wikipedia on general principle for this, and many established Wikipedians who understand the importance of free speech in this day and age, very rightly so, protested against my block. Now, all that being said, I promise to behave this time around, because I'm interested in contributing with high quality edits on several population genetics entries here on Wikipedia (I've been reading lots of genetics related articles on PubMed Central as a good waste of time, and frankly it's a annoying me that I can't improve some sections that are lacking in quality). EliasAlucard / Discussion 08:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not inclined to mentor him and in light of this response I am no longer sure that unblocking, even with mentoring, is a good idea. Is there a consensus for unblocking? If so, should there be a mentorship or other constraints? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, no. No unblock, no mentoring. He doesn't seem at all to get it. Dayewalker (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no. He's not saying he will change his behaviour, just his targets. dougweller (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I completely agree with an absolute no. The point seems to have passed him by...at very high speeds. We don't need to dump the same problems on another area of the 'pedia. Shell ^babelfish 10:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, no. Lack of clue on an epic scale. // roux   editor review 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No unblocking. Mentoring exists for people who show genuine promise in changing their behavior. This guy just wants an excuse to continue his POV crusade... Absolutely not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Nice WP:SOAPBOX. And they want to focus on "population genetics"?? Isn't that what causes ethnic cleansing to begin with? "I promise to focus not on the result, I promise instead to focus on the cause". Um, no thanks. ►BMW◄ 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, paraphrasing: "Screw all you fascist pigs; that being said, I promise to behave this time around". Your first act of mentoring should be showing him how to better fake sincerity. Kuru ^talk 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Just piling on here, an unblock seems to be an unwise idea. — neuro^(talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If somebody could clean up after Whimperingcoward (talk · contribs), it would be appreciated: I have an early meeting to go to and don't have the time. Acroterion _(talk) 11:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, apart from my typo (see below). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Acroterion _(talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See our latest visit from our little friend. He started moving pages with only 1 edit. How could this happen? Didn't we implement, like 2 months ago, a new 10 edit minimum on autoconfirmation? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's probably deleted edits, as the internal edit count is 11. MER-C 12:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed almost exactly ten deleted edits. Kuru ^talk 12:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That should maybe be fixed. That means someone can make a completely useless easily deletable article then is treated as autoconfirmed. Maybe it should require 10 edits which aren't deleted? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would really make much difference. A completely useless deletable article at least gets them on someone's radar. 10 completely useless edits to the sandbox will still get them past the basically worthless autoconfirm barrier. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why pagemove should be taken out of autoconfirmed and moved into a separate pseudogroup. 50 or 100 undeleted mainspace edits would pretty much nail any gr*wp-style pagemove vandalism. New users have almost zero need to move pages anyway. // roux   editor review 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true. Pagemoves occur pretty frequently for new articles where they fail to capitalize the name or something similar. Still, they can presumably ask in such cases. Or alternatively, one could have around 50 or so mainspace edits for pagemoves unless one was the starting editor for that article? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He Who Shall Not Be Named would figure out that dodge pretty quickly, I think. Make it 50, and instead of deactivating the move tab for non-autoconfirmed leave it live, but instead redir them to the pagemove requests page, or tell them how to use {{helpme}} or something. Should be trivial to program, I think? // roux   editor review 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How would that dodge assist a potential vandal? I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:Abuse filter is more likely to fix that sort of thing more than a new autoconfirmation threshold will. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't assist, but he'd figure out pretty quickly all he needs to.. wait. Ignore me, I misread something you wrote. Protonk, that's great.. but until the abuse filter actually happens, something to prevent pagemove vandalism is a good thing. // roux   editor review 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my guess is that a bug request started now would probably take longer to wind through than the 3-4 months that it is going to take to test and deploy the abuse filter. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I know i'm not an admin, but here me out. You probally remember Simulation12, the so-called "kindergartner" who's recently been blocked for indefinitley. Ever since then, i've been keeping a close eye on PBS Kids aricles in case Riley tries something sneaky, like using a sock-puppet account. I noticed someone named "Marcellusb" who also edited children's articles. Most of his edits are unconstructive and/or vandalism. I know that it's a long shot, but i think he may be Riley. He keeps creating useless articles and creating pages that are just copied from pre-exsisting articles. I have no clue what to do, i've already contacted Gladys, so i'm hoping that someone may come up with a solution (AKA Block him).(Elbutler (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Marcellusb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the lazy. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Can you post some diffs of Simulation12 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)'s edits that match this editors? Likewise, can you post some diffs of this user that are clear and obvious vandalism or deliberate errors (I'm looking through the contribs now). Protonk (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... i can't find anything similar (beside creating non-imporatant articles for Martha Speaks), i was so sure. But the edits are still disruptive. Elbutler (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait! this edit by Marcellubs, is similar to this edit by Simulation12. Elbutler (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a pretty tenuous comparison. I'd AGF for now (Trust but verify, of course), it isn't outside the realm of possibility that there are two users who create disruptive/test pages on PBS entries. If you think of some more obviously disruptive edits then bring them here. If I'm missing something obvious (like a string of obvious vandalism), then feel free to say so. :) Protonk (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered a cool tool. Only one article has shared edits between the two users. May not be a sock. Or if it is, it may be a sock designed specifically to get around a ban, not edit identical articles.Protonk (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Gladys has been asleep all day (I'm on vacation, I can do that!:) and just now logged on to edit. I'm not 100% sure this is Sim12; in fact, I'm not even 50% sure. There are some similarities, but more dissimilarities, IMHO. I'm definitely not dismissing ElB's concern, though; I say we watch and wait. (Though it does strain credulity that two separate editors would be creating trivial articles about "Martha Speaks"--if only because it's easily one of the crappiest PBS Kids' shows I've ever seen, nearly as crappy as "It's a Big Big World". Seriously, PBS has kinda lost the plot.)GJC 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What you see above you, is a copy of the previous discussion. Why did i re-add this? Because Cellubs is on the move again, and starting to show more Sim12 characteristics. He often uploads images without explaining where he got them from (a common thing that Simulation12 did) and today he left this on Protonk's talk page (When Riley's page was deleted she first came to me, insulting me). I don't know wether or not it is Riley, but that personal attack deserves a temporary block. What do the rest of you have to say? Elbutler (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Checkuser indicates  Unrelated. Thatcher 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This IP user was blocked earlier for repeated edit-warring and ignoring requests to follow accepted procedures. Now that the block has been lifted, he's doing exactly the same thing as before (see Polygamy's recent history). Sadly, his edit summaries suggest he simply does not understand why reasonable people should have a problem with his editing style. Richwales (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis has made four substantial changes to the order of the Ireland talk page in the last 24 hours, they are listed below. Related discussion can be found at Talk:Ireland#Note_on_article_discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• 15:39, 2 December 2008
• 15:18, 2 December 2008
• 06:01, 2 December 2008
• 20:52, 1 December 2008

Myself and another editor reverted these changes, and other editors on the page (in the RFC section I believe) also asked him to stop his confusing changes. The page order he is trying to alter already complies with WP:TALK, with sections ordered in the chronological time of posting. This is just a basic convention anyway, but with the recent major change in the page to a dab page, and subsequent admin actions such as protections, and the existence of an open RFC, following this convention is even more important, and edit warring over it is even more disruptive to people newly entering or re-visiting the page at this time of rapid discussions.

Matt Lewis states without diffs to have had admin approval to do this. Without looking I suspect this merely related to allowing protected edit requests to be refactored as new bottom sections, not approval to move entire discussion sections, changing the apparent chronological position of an RFC and other discussions surrounding recent events.

Could members of the admin corps investigate all of the above and advise anybody who has misunderstood WP:TALK accordingly. Or not, y'know, DGAF and all that.

MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The current page version is in Matt's rearranged timeline, and an admin has recently restored the Ireland page and moved that page back to Ireland (disambiguation). MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee will be excited to know I am taking a 1 week wikibreak (decided before this silly report by him). I cannot edit with this contentious editor acting entirely against the spirit and progress of Wikipedia as he is doing. I hope someone here will tell him exactly what he is doing by preventing these to be seen: 1) edit requests for a locked page 2) a live poll and seriously pressing debate on the main dabs of the Ireland dab page (for heaven's sake! I mean - for heaven's sake!). He simply (and openly) didn't like the recent Ireland page Moves (that made Ireland a dab page), and he doesn't want us to sort out the pressing issue. There can be no other possible explanation - and I know him to well anyway - he is notorious. An admin once advised me to move urgent stuff to the bottom of the page - that is all I have done, nothing else. He (and first an IP yesterday) 'edit warred' it - not me. And what is he doing now? Trying to get the poll creator into trouble. Over 10,000 people visit 'Ireland' (now a dab) every day. I'm just knackered trying to help the situation, and am taking a break.

I'd like to make this an report against him disrupting progress, as I am sure the policy he says he has is nonexistent. The stuff he says above about breaking chronology is just silly (nothing at all to notice), and 'the other editor' was an IP who announced to us all that he is 'resetting his router' and will be back. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy is WP:TALK, pointed out to you several times, but common enough to make any claim of not knowing it exists look quite odd. Read the sections sepcifically on layout and refactoring. Accusations of motives (which apply equally if you flip the coin) are not responses. Personal attacks are not responses. Claiming your are just doing the right thing and ignoring other registered editors complaints, or worse, just dismissing IPs contributions on principle (maybe this is your way of accusing me of socking?), are not responses. Making it appear in here as if nobody else (registered users) told you to stop, when the page will show otherwise, is not a response.

I am glad you are taking a wikibreak, but if as has happened before you simply return with the same mindset of how to interact with others who disagree with you, this achieves nothing. And finally, as said above, this admin advice you supposedly recieved allowing you to edit war over this, is not being diffed, but I am sure admins will agree, any advice on appending edit protect requests to the bottom of a talk page is not in any way shape or form equal to being a green light for moving entire (active) sections which predate other (active) sections to a position which makes them appear newer than they are. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of any comment from admins, per my above comments about timely restoration and adhering to WP:TALK, I am going to restore the page. I will contest any subsequent ban handed out for doing this given the lack of anyone being interested here, given the fact this is only my 3rd total revert, and given the fact that as Matt Lewis has now been banned for two weeks and he was the only active objector (either in reverts or comments), I do not now consider this action to be edit warring through an onging dispute, or even one that is undergoing discussion. Here goes nothing! MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How does wikipedia deal with this kind of vandalism Terrorist Osman Khan blowed the shit out of this motha fucker. It is hard to tell whether it is just vandalism or sympathy with Mumbai terror attacks. Docku: What up? 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"It's hard to tell if it is vandalism"? Er… – iridescent 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant "just vandalism" or vandalism out of sympathy with terror?? Docku: What up? 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism, it doesn't matter about the motivation. What is your point? — neuro^(talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if we have a system to deal with people who are explictly supportive of terrorism and have expressed such views in wikipedia? I am not claiming I have seen any. I know one might argue it is not within the scope of wikipedia to deal with such things and our job is just to create an encyclopedia. Docku: What up? 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter why the vandalism occurred. People aren't blocked/banned/sanctioned here for opinions, only for behaviour. // roux   editor review 18:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were to be out that I supported Al Quaeda, but didn't let it affect my editing, it wouldn't be a blockable offense. Opinions don't matter here, as long as you follow WP:NPOV. — neuro^(talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bright line exception to that - pedophillia. But for political topics, that's basically true.

In this case, appears to be lame native english speaker vandalism not serious advocacy for terrorism anyways, so ... *shrug*. And they're at a school in New York State, so a schoolblock is appropriate (and being done now...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for newscasters to use that kind of language when reporting on a situation? No. Would it be appropriate for an encyclopedia to document a situation in such a way? No. So if someone did comment on the ARTICLE (that's article mind you, even though a comment like that in any wikispace would probably be blocked) in such a way, its inappropriate...and therefore not encyclopedic...and therefore vandalism...and therefore leads to a block. I think that puts the point across.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I created my monobook.css and now it gave me an style for Wikipedia. But i don't like it so can some administrator help me and delete it? ROGERCHOCODILES 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Rogerchocodiles

Go here and remove everything and save. Sorted! :) — neuro^(talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has begun vandalising articles by moving articles to titles (usually pure gibberish) and all with the closing line {Got HAGGER? {can't figure out how to do the symbols}). Some examples included the North American video game crash of 1983 and Sarah Palin.

Whimperingcoward's "contributions"

WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy is well known as 'Grawp'. He has already been dealt with, see above. :) — neuro^(talk) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef at 10:56 this morning. Black Kite 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Admins, if you did not ever edit in any article related to Scientology you should have a look at this. I am not interested in Scientology much but I got attacked instantly when adding a scholar reference to Dianetics some days ago. Now I am suspected to be the "sockpuppet" Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup of a banned editor by User:Cirt. Admin Cirt is busy adding a lot of content to scientology articles himself and IMHO seems to do this to discourage me to give my opinion. Something does not seem right here. Shrampes (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Something indeed does not seem right here. I welcome admins to look into the case page at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup and this relatively inactive user's sudden interest in WP:AE. Please direct further comments to the WP:SSP case page. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not much to look into here, why not just leave it to run it's course? If you are really innocent, it will be just fine. — neuro^(talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

neuri, I couldn't care less about this most ridiculous "sockpuppet" allegation. I complained about witch hunts and I got one. So that one is only a red flag for how some users are treated in and around the scientology articles. No, please look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Scientology_and_related_articles. I don't think this is a standard Wikipedia dispute handling but purely arbitrary. Maybe I should alert the ArbCom? Thank you. Shrampes (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This delightful but blocked individual is insisting on doing naughties on his talk page. This will not do. Would someone kindly lock down the page? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety ^talk 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:PantsOnHead passes the WP:DUCK test as the same user. Requested blocking on IRC. — neuro^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Srkris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first block in the log on December 2006: "Repeated incivility and probable copyright violations after final warning. Persistent and frivolous charges of Wikistalking after administrator explanation that no Wikistalking has occurred." Srkris recently returned to editing and has recommenced with this problematic conduct in November 2008 - some examples specified below:

• Uncivil edit summaries:
  • (Mitsube - clueless reverts)
  • (Undid revision 254810541 - if you are clueless, stop !!!)
  • (Ever heard of linguistic periods? They merely represent stages of the development of languages. Stop your clueless reverts.)
  • (rv Dbachmann, you are clueless about extant Vedic vs historical vedic of the early vedic period.)
  • (ever heard of metrical and other restoration of vedic?)

• Uncivil commentary:
  • Suggesting a professor who is an editor is incompetent
  • You missed the wood for the trees, that's all I pointed out. Ultimately I got blocked for trying to protect referenced content from being removed. I have no wish to come between your edit wars. Have fun.
  • Dbachmann is also then your Voice of India worker, look he enlarged it first. Have fun reverting. The professional linguist User_talk:Dbachmann#Persistent_vandalism_of_Sanskrit_page said something in your talkpage, remember? Atleast I'm trying to contribute content with the good intent of improving the article (like I did to pronouns section, compounds section etc) much of which were repeatedly reverted in bad faith by you-know-who. Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles. Need I then go into the question of who is disruptive and who's not?
  • Diff of Srkris warned about incivility
  • It is obvious who has behavioural problems (perhaps from childhood). I had to indicate the consensus that was reached a long time back to not include images of current musicians because of POV concerns raised by the same editor then who makes these POV inclusions of images now. Talk of adamancy, hypocrisy and pure stupidity. Kindly dont edit unless you really understand what's written at WP:NPOV. Just because DKP is your favourite artiste or her grandmother doesnt merit an exception for wikipedia. - unsupported accusations.

• Frivolous charges against more than one user:
  • [86]
  • [87]

• Wikihounding me by editing on pages I've edited or created, where he has not edited before:
  • [88]
  • [89]
  • [90]

This is similar to the disruptive and uncivil behavior of User:Sarvagnya, who although was found not to be a sockpuppet, engages in similar unacceptable behavior. Srkris has also been disruptively warring on multiple articles, including Sanskrit (which he was blocked for recently) and related articles, as well as Carnatic music. He fails to comply with content guidelines or policies, or similarly on conduct issues.

It appears that the only purpose here for is to use this site as a battleground against multiple editors and persistently engage in misconduct. Whether this is through direct violations of policy, or POV pushing, it's simply not unhelpful for this project. This, and more, may also be evidenced in his contribution history.

I request that Srkris be banned from editing Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ec - You upload copyvios, somebody calls you on it and you want them banned. Sweet! Sarvagnya 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use/copyvio images are an area of concern for me (I nominated some images Ncmvocalist had uploaded for deletion when he mentioned this issue to me) but the issue is still a serious one. Srkris has been persistently attacking Ncmvocalist and others despite warnings- poor image uploads from other editors have nothing to do with it. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy vivo violations does not mean that one has to violate civility to point them out.Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ec- Maybe antagonism, team tagging and browbeating with uninformed reverts like the one mentioned here has something to do with it. Sarvagnya 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep this discussion orderly, please raise copyright concerns in a different thread. I fail to see the relevance. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. but if you're happy to accept random links as evidence of "wikihounding", you might as well bear with me while I point out that there's been no wikihounding whatsoever in the three links Ncmvocalist has dumped above (under "wikihounding"). Unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and there's plenty of it in Ncmvocalist's message above. I have not yet heard what Srkris has to say, but I've heard what Ncm has had to say and I see quite a few holes in his accusations. Sarvagnya 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do address any shortcomings in the presentation. It would be more effective to do so, however, if you parse individual instances with diffs and explain the background, rather than making broad assertions. Durova^Charge! 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, can someone tell me exactly what it is that is remotely ban-worthy in these following diffs Sudarshan has laid out in his complaint?

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

And similarly, please tell me what is ban-worthy in these diffs - that Ncmvocalist has laid out and rather imaginatively labeled "Wikihounding".

[96]

[97]

[98]

And pray tell me, how is this frivolous?!! "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is what we teach in kindergarten around here! Sarvagnya 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a problem. The editor had very low activity from January 2007 until September 2008, and the behavior itself hasn't changed. Badly out of step with site standards, demonstrates no receptiveness to feedback. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fact Srkris continues to attack other editors and behave in a completely inappropriate way, despite warning after warning, block after block suggests to me that he is not going to change his ways. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course, provide this link to a WQA report filed today by Srkris against Ncmvocalist. ►BMW◄ 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please note the diff I used under frivolous charges. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to the WQA report, please note that I suggested that this be brought to AN/I. To me it seemed clear looking at the evidence presented that this was an entirely frivolous report with no justification whatsoever and seemed to be abusing dispute resolution processes to make a point. Having taken the time to review this editors past history it would appear a number of editors and admins have tried to educate Srkris about wiki processes and the standards of behaviour expected. That seems to have failed, his contributions seem to be unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive. Justin talk 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I presented a very strong case to do the same just a few weeks ago, however, Srkris did get banned for something different. Right now, he is engaged in edit-warring with me in the Sanskrit page and has intimidated me several times. Srkris repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 even this is something he inferred from my mention of that in another talk page. However, when I replied back and asked him to mind his own business and stay away from my profession, in a rightfully intimidated tone, he jumps on me by reporting at the [99] board. Now he takes one extreme step further and in spite of having gotten me banned for 12 hours, looks at my routine and wants it extended further. Now those who have dealth with Srkris really know that he is here only to push the Aryan-Sanskrit supremacy agenda and out on a rampage against all Wiki processes and guidelines. He has no place in Wikipedia and his continue presence after six blocks is only a failure of the policies and guidelines. Now Srkris is going to come back here and start going on the frivolous offensive against write everyone and try to get Ncmvocalist or myself banned elsewhere by intimidation. That is also being recorded here. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, some of the comments that both of us, Ncmvocalist and I missed mentioning:

• This is for the Sociolinguistics professor - look who first..

• Sudharsansn the sociolinguistics professor

• The professional linguist said something in your talkpage

• Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles

Within a day, he has brought up my profession four times. Now this is extremely inappropriate. First, he peeped into another userpage to find about my mention of being a Sociolinguistics professor. Second, he brings it up in unrelated talk pages. Third, he brings it up to degrade one's profession and makes it look as though Wikipedia is a place only for people like him, who should actually find themselves a job at Voice of India, and not for academics. This is extremely uncivil. If any of you even remotely understand how irritating it is to have some disruptive, uncivil editor repeatedly talk about one's qualifications!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Sanskrit -

“

Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again. This is your last civility warning, before it is reported and you get blocked once and for all... -- User:Sudharsansn

”

Wow! Wow. And you're complaining that he called you a "sociolinguistics professor"?! Wow and good luck. Sarvagnya 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please turn down the heat and let's have a reasoned discussion. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history through the talk pages, this seems to be the style. Goad editors into making a comment, then complaining of incivility, quoting the involved editor out of context. Look at the complete history Talk:Sanskrit#region. I speak as a completely uninvolved editor who stumbled on this when I noticed a post on wikiquette alerts. I've also noticed that Sarvagnya and Srkris seem to act as a tag team, I believe a check user has eliminated the possibility of sockpuppetry but there does seem to be a strong indication of off-wiki co-ordination. Justin talk 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So there's been a formal wikiquette alert? Any other dispute resolution? Durova^Charge! 03:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I know that you are very concerned about your POV buddy Srkris without who you would feel very lonely in several edit wars involving the two of you pushing a blatant agenda, including your presence here backing him by trashing me. I have been blocked for 12 hours for making that comment, so I cannot be prosecuted for that again and again. The point, however, is the fact that Srkris is literally goading people into making comments and then, as Justin has suggested, quote them out of context and get them blocked so that he can unobstructedly continue with his usual thing. I had requested for a checkuser some time ago, between Sarvagnya and Srkris and apparently it got cleared. However, it becomes evidently clear that both of you are indeed working a tag-team, perhaps, offline coordination. It is time such disruptive coordinated POV behavior gets penalized. Otherwise, it is seriously pointless to have pages and pages of guidelines and policies. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So any two editors who disagree with you on a talk page are in cahoots? And may I point out to you that stuff like "POV buddies" is uncivil and borders on a personal attack. Cease and desist. This applies to Justin too. Sarvagnya 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you 'cease and desist' templating the regulars with meaningless warnings for policies they havn't breached. Really, there is no point to it. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(add) I wanna jump in on this n all, I've just seen Justin's talk page. Your multiple accusations of "personal attacks" remind me of the sort of amateur tricks used by trolls, IPs and POV warriors. I also realise by your logic this too will constitute as a "personal attack", I suggest you re-read WP:NPA, especially (and somewhat ironically) the part that says; "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack". Ryan4314 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you don't really need every single admin to come and tell you that what you are doing is simply nothing more than POV pushing by forming 'swat' teams, and defending the team members, do you? Your cooperation with Srkris, coordinated POV pushing (and several others that I don't even want to start talking about) and even your very presence here, out on a rampage against anyone saying anything condemning behavior that is very similar to yours (an example) is definitely dubious. If POV buddy is uncivil, then even your 'cease and desist' is very, very uncivil. The very fact that you are out on a rampage against all those who shun such blatant violations of Wiki policies and guidelines, by frivolously branding others of violating it, proves many things. I would recommend that this case be taken up by Srkris, involved editors and the admins. I am quite certain that no one here needs tech-support and I don't want to help you in diverting attention and hijacking this thread from focusing on Srkris's behavior. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the two open cases at Wikiquette Alerts, the aforementioned citations provide no evidence of personal attacks or slander, or any depreciated terms. What the administrators have seen thus far, and have commented on, is clear misrepresentation of not only notices, but edit summaries. Calling one a 'troll' is not a personal attack; it is an approperiate term used to describe the editing patterns of a particular user. As someone else noted, the assertions of stalking are nonsense. On Carnatic, Ncmvocalist first edited the page more than a year ago; ditto with Chemblai. One should note that the OP has accused others of vandalism where none exists.

These frivolous reports are becoming tiring, especially when users such as Neon white (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) believes that this is an "attack." I suggest that the OP and others involved back away from the article and take a break; Ncmvocalist has performed no ills here, and while his characterizations may have been off, they are by means not a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Ncmvocalist and Sudharsansn. Skris has promoted a strange anachronistic and nationalist slant on the history of Sanskrit and Indian cultural influence. User:Srkris often doesn't use sources. He has also been caught attributing things to sources that do not appear in them. Further he revert wars to advance his agenda, without properly using sources, or by deleting properly sourced material. He also thinks his knowledge is greater than it is, and was caught incorrectly declining a simple nominative case adjective in the first line of the Sanskrit article (he changed it to something incorrect, on his own authority). Other users seem to have lost interest in dialogue with him, for these reasons. Mitsube (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is, I hope, no need to dig into my past edits to prove that I have been blocked for edit warring etc; I know I have been less than perfect in the past, and I dont need to be reminded that I have already been chastized for that. To know why Ncmvocalist has raised this issue against me, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. This is apparently his mode of retaliation for my complaints against him there. Sudharsansn & Mitsube have ganged up with Ncmvocalist above simply because I represent their "common enemy", so to speak. So reporting my actions here from 2006 is the only thing Ncmvocalist could do with the hope I would be blocked for the same edits again and again. I dont think wikipedia works like that, though.­ Kris (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone has pointed out elsewhere, this is called WP:DRAMA. Nmvocalist is not bringing up incidents from 2006 but the ones that went unnoticed and unpunished. This whole ganging up business is mere nonsense. Your complaints against Ncmvocalist, Dbachmann and myself in the Wikiquette noticeboard are basically attempts at goading other editors, quoting them out of context and of course reading between the lines. The complaints against Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann have been unanimously accepted as frivolous charges with the intention of creating a fuss about nothing. For example, it is fairly obvious that a troll does not mean the hairy creature that eats goats and is indicative of frivolous edit patterns and accusations. However, you called tech-support from Sarvagnya and he is right there backing all your incivility while, understandably, going on a rampage against frivolous issues. Even your attempts at 'defending' your position are merely frivolousness and not to mention, going on an outright rampage against the editors here. It is very ironic to see you write about the way Wikipedia works. What most seem to know is that Wikipedia should not work the way you intend it to, it is not a mouthpiece of your ideas or POVs and is guided by a set of policies and guidelines which you utterly disregard. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We understand that everyone loses their cool now and again but the concerns brought up in [100] againt yourself were valid so i dont think that is a good example to use as abuse of process. In most edit waring and entrenched dispute, there is fault on all sides to some degree. As i stated on the alert, i believe this editor has some good contributions to wikipedia that are not disruptive and it is this particular dispute that has become 'entrenched' for those reasons i believe involuntary mentorship would be a good solution. --neon white talk 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the overwhelming majority of his edits I have been compelled to observe have damaged the project. I don't know what contributions you are describing as "good." Mitsube (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You might have to go back to earlier this year but there are edits that do not look disruptive to me.[101] --neon white talk 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like blatant customer support. If all you can bring up to substantiate your claim about good edits is one single edit, ignoring ALL the other disruptive POV edit-warring and other aforesaid behavior, then this is exactly just an insurance policy. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That was just one example there are many edits around that time and earlier that do not seem on the face of it to be disruptive. I'm not suggesting ignoring the recent behaviour, i'm suggesting that we can see that the editor did at one stage make some good edits and mentorship would allow oversight of any future edits. --neon white talk 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite's backing of Srkris's meaningless complaint is exactly what is being explained as a frivolous charge. To call someone a troll does not indicate a personal attack and this has been pointed out by several other admins and editors in the sections of this same page in which Srkris has framed frivolous charges against other editors. Trolling indicates editing patterns and NOT the hairy creature from Norse mythology that eats goats and smells awful. Just because you or Srkris cite something as a personal attack does not make it one. It has to be accounted for as a personal attack and consensus gained to establish it. Srkris cannot unilaterally establish consensus that it is a personal attack.

Srkris repeatedly talking about my profession in the disparaging sense and mapping that to what he considers as 'incompetence' thereby degrading me, my profession and my professional competence is what called goading someone. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The compliant showed very clear evidence of personal attacks and you were blocked for 12 hrs as a result. I think everyone is more than aware of User Srkris' behaviour but regardless you still need to maintain your own and not react in kind. --neon white talk 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am contesting the block because I was not even using Wikipedia during the time I was banned. Even otherwise, your baseless backing of Srkris by bringing my behavior into question is pointless. Even assuming that I was indeed 'uncivil', in spite of being quoted out of context, I was given a 12 hour ban and it is over. That has no relevance to the behavior being discussed here. Quoting my behavior or that of the other editors here does NOT absolve Srkris, at all. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not 'backing' anyone and regardless it would be my choice to do so should i wish. I'm pointing out that at least one of the WQAs had very valid points. and am repeating the advice at Wikipedia:NPA#Responding to personal attacks. --neon white talk 07:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• To whatever admin wants to take this up: I have closed the frivolous WQA alerts filed by this user. Gaming the system is unacceptable and diminishes our mechanisms for good faith dispute resolution and decorum issues. Some kind of sanction is certainly in order. Eusebeus (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only replies I see are a series of frivolous charges against all the editors who have all raised valid issues, that have had consensus as genuine issues from several other editors, making a big fuss out of nothing and able customer-support backing all the frivolousness and drama. Seriously, nothing else. In fact, the best policy that describes it, amongst some other relevant ones, is gaming the system which falls under WP:POINT. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To make things clear, this report against me was filed in retaliation after I reported the incivility of Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann and Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist. Those were civility issues which were arbitrarily closed by Eusebeus saying that the same is being discussed here, and that I am involved in gaming the system by raising those WQA alerts. This ANI report itself was not existing when I raised those alerts. I wish the WQA alerts filed by me are reopened without prejudice to this ANI discussion. ­ Kris (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree I called some editors clueless, but that was not in a pejorative way. I genuinely still believe they are clueless about the articles in question when they were making those edits. I did not intend to make any personal attacks.
• The WQA alerts that I raised against those editors' incivility are all well founded, if you see those diffs. This ANI report was raised against me much later, so it is not me that is seeking to game the system. ­ Kris (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? On the WQA, I went through every single diff you provided and commented on their lack of uncivil activity. As such, no, I'm sorry, but they were quite sadly not "well-founded". The ANI was raised to bring admin attention to your unfounded complaints - I believe you had ample time to review your actions and withdraw before creating additional issues. ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• After I reported Sudharsansn for incivility, he was banned once. Again he was incivil, and I reported him again, no action on that yet, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sudharsansn. You dont agree he was uncivil?

• Dbachmann calls me a troll. You think that's not an insult? Yeah yeah i know you will repeat that it represents a pattern of edits and all that judgemental crap, but it is a pejorative and an insult (to most people). That is uncivil and was also reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann. You think this is also not uncivil?

• Ncmvocalist follows me around (WP:Stalk) and makes disruptive edits immediately after I edit some articles where his earlier content contribution is nil. This was reported as stalking at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist.

• Thereafter Ncmvocalist starts this ANI asking for my ban. One admin closes the WQA reports I filed against Ncmvocalist and Dbachmann accusing me of "gaming the system by raising counter-allegations". I have repeated that this is the retaliation filed against me, and it is Ncmvocalist, Dbachmann and Sudharsansn who are gaming the system, not me. ­ Kris (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious WP:DTTR, the addition to my Talk Page [102], nicely illustrates the way the two editors in question have been abusing wiki processes to be disruptive and to intimidate other editors. Again the tactic seems to be generate heat and noise to distract from the central issue, that being two editors apparently working together to push a POV agenda. Further to the comment above, it was the clearly frivolous and abusive nature of the WQA that caused me to suggest that the issue was raised here. Note this was the suggestion of a completely uninvolved editor who had merely looked at the dispute. Justin talk 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are suggesting that I be punished because someone else supports me? Thanks very much for your conspiracy theory. ­ Kris (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this is the issue that needs to be resolved and all the allegations and counter allegations of incivility could be dropped as they are going nowhere fast. --neon white talk 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to what Neon White has said above, he (an admin that has worked on related edits before) has already earlier warned the users of incivility even before I raised the WQA, so the subsequent instances of incivility I reported at WQA were not on frivolous grounds. These comments by Justin above are the kind of conspiracy allegations I am being levelled against for quite some time, and based on which I am sought to be blocked. ­ Kris (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See above regarding the unfounded calls of incivility ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You see again now. ­ Kris (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history of Srkris, the discussion here (and his responses), it is clear that this is an ongoing problem. Evidently, there has been a lack of receptiveness to feedback, his behavior is badly out of step with site standards, and has not changed since 2006. Gaming the system is unacceptable and diminishes our mechanisms for good faith dispute resolution, and his repeated frivolous charges can no longer be overlooked. Srkris continues to attack other editors and behave in a completely inappropriate way, despite warning after warning, block after block, and this suggests he is not going to change his ways, even on content issues such as POV pushing. Given the sheer long term nature of this disruption and the variety of misconduct, and the multiple topics (as well as articles, and contributors affected by it), I put forward this proposal: "Srkris is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 year." Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Skris has done more harm than good so far, it is true. I still don't see why he should be blocked for a full year immediately. Block him for a month. If he doesn't get the message, block him for two months after that, then for four months, and after that, if he still doesn't get it, for a year. I have the impression we often fail to make use of the tool of block length escalation. There is nothing wrong with placing a moderate block in order to push home the message "you're not helping. Think about it. No, do". Some people will reconsider their attitude. If they don't, they can always be slapped with a longer block still. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the message has been emphasized over six times with the latest one being a perfect indication of the fact that things just wouldn't change. Uncivility, stalking, sockpuppetry, most importantly, repeated instances of ALL of these after bans, there you go, one has a picture perfect frame of repeated violations of most of Wikipedia's policies. Any attempt at prorating this would only lead to similar long pointless threads, that would essentially ignore all previous blocks and behavior. Srkris would only come back and ask for all previous behavior to be discounted by going on a rampage against the admins and editors concerned. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 11:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Per Dbachmann William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see that viewpoint Dbachmann and William, but perhaps 3-6 months may be a better alternative? I feel 1 month is at the other extreme, given the extended duration of these problems, as well as what occurred after the first block in December 2006 - something that was completely unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I believe I have caused more harm than good only to the above (except Connolley) editors who were intent mainly on edit warring as a method of pushing POV, not to wikipedia. It makes no surprise for me that the very same editors have now ganged up to get me out of "their" way. Way to go. Banning me for life would be the best remedy for the above editors to push their POV unchecked, any less would satisfy them on a pro-rata manner. All the above editors (again except Connolley) have been warned and/or blocked for their incivility earlier, reported by me. No surprise that they are strongly supporting this ban request raised by Ncmvocalist. ­ Kris (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist and Sudharsansn (probably also Mitsube who hasnt commented so far) will keep bumping this request for ban again and again till their objective is achieved, and that wouldnt surprise me either. This whole ANI report against me was made as a retaliation for my reports against these editors at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dbachmann, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ncmvocalist amd Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Sudharsansn, who want me banned now ­ Kris (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I am going to be blocked/banned, I request that I be banned for life. Not only would that satisfy the above editors no end, it would also save me a lot of time knowing that wikipedia is not for me. ­ Kris (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Can you please stop this whole 'drama queen' behavior and let admins and editors vote? You are not garnering any sympathy by playing the 'victim mentality' card and constantly repeating 'oh-prosecute-me-I-am-so-poor' trick since your behavior does not really correlate to that anywhere!! Everyone who has voted so far are endorsing a ban, the only point that has come up seems to be the prescribed length. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment As much as I hate to use the banstick, I sadly now believe that should any ban/block of Srkris occur, we will likely see an increased level of problems/complaints from a certain supporter (who unfortunately borders on meatpuppetry (and no, that's not uncivil)). In my original WQA reply, I stated that at the time I did not recommend additional admin action against Srkris. Unfortunately, both Srkris and their #1 supporter then took turns taking potshots at me throughout the WQA. Yes, I have a tough skin, but at this point I see that at least one (if not more) actions will need to be taken. Everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, and perhaps a little break might just give some people new focus on how to do so. ►BMW◄ 12:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry??? LOL you guys are now paranoid, aren't you? ­ Kris (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to bring that up too. Sarvagnya would go on an open rampage against all the editors who voted against Srkris by disruptive behavior and thereby bearing grudge. This is becoming a serious issue here, the whole problem of having tag-teams overrun Wiki policies and guidelines. While I am obviously not recommending anything for Sarvagnya, I am just writing this for it to show up on the record. I will let the community decide what would best preserve the policies and guidelines. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support 3 month ban لennavecia 13:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an outright ban but would support a topic ban on the grounds that all evidence of disruption is related to a particular set of subjects. Taking a break from these and the POV pushing might help. I would like to see the editor involved in unrelated topics away from the editors that he/she has found communication has been difficult with. If, however, it becomes apparent that these problems are not restricted to certain editors and subjects then further action would need to be considered. I think this is a better way of dealing with it, we are at least attempting to help the editor rather than simply dismissing them as 'bad editor'. --neon white talk 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Read this ­ Kris (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment:All the admins here strongly recommend a ban of some form or the other, so to keep picking on Ncmvocalist and me is totally pointless. What you have posted here is again merely diffs from this same thread. All this is just an attempt to keep the thread growing longer until one fine day everyone gets tired of this behavior. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support He shows no more receptiveness to feedback than he did two years ago when I first blocked him, which is unfortunate because we do need more contributors in the area. Reluctantly supporting: problematic behavior occurs on too many levels to consider a topic ban, unfortunately. Blocks and formal dispute resolution have been tried without success. Politics is not a substitute for policies. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Srkris' incivility has been no worse, in fact, much less worse than those of his opponents on the said pages. Surely calling someone "clueless" cannot be wrong when calling someone a "troll" isnt. Surely calling someone a "sociolinguistics professor" cannot be wrong when calling someone a "drunk going berserk" isnt. Sarvagnya 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just so that you know, this is called as comparing apples and oranges!! Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 17:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's called tu quoque. Sarvagnya, you are free to initiate a separate request for administrative action if anyone else's behavior is also outside policy. Also both Sarvangnya and Sudharsansn, please note that under banning policy, partisans to a dispute do not count toward consensus on whether to ban. It's the opinions of uninvolved Wikipedians that matter. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant comparing the 'worst' of my insult with the 'best' of his, Sarvagnya was comparing 'clueless' and 'troll' and they are not counterparts. But yes, tu quoque too, I guess. However, I am quite certain that Sarvagnya would be raring to go on a rampage against the editors who have raised issues, hunt them down and try to ensure that he gets one of us banned for 'some' thing within the next one month. As I mentioned, this kind of tag teaming and customer support behavior is much more serious and I am only waiting for Srkris to come back with renewed vigor to do what he has always been doing disruption. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? And precisely what makes me partisan? I was not even a part of the discussions at Talk:Sanskrit or any of the other pages here. Except for my input in an AfD where Kris sought it, I don't even remember the last time I interacted with him. And thanks for pointing out that partisans votes don't count. William should now have a good time explaining his block. Sarvagnya 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I dont belive in banning anyone outright but giving people enough chance to reform would be ideal goal to aspire to, 3 to 6 months to cool off would be good for all.Taprobanus (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support As a non-involved editor, I'd support an escalating block starting with a month, and escalating for one, two, six months if the same behaviours reoccur. Normally I'd be very reluctant to suggest use of an extended block but the response of Srkris to comments about his behaviour appears to be to try and deflect attention to other editor's behaviour rather than recognising that his own behaviour is a problem. As I noted earlier selectively quoting an editor's behaviour following a period of extensive goading is purely designed to deflect attention from what he must recognise is an inappropriate manner for editors to interact. I'd also reluctantly have to suggest that the same sanction is applied to Sarvagnya. His own incivility is just as bad and there certainly seems to be a suggestion of meat puppetry. I must admit to a similar suspicion myself based on the way these editors seem to collude; there certainly appears to be some off-wiki co-ordination. Justin talk 17:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Simple civility issues are dealt with by blocks, not bans. Many of the above people seem to not understand the difference. Additionally, Sarvagnya has a point, perhaps this situation needs to be looked in to as a whole, rather than targeting one editor. However it certainly must be made clear (through blocks preferably, Srkris knows what he is doing) that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Prodego ^talk 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I'd accept that the wording could have been better we are talking now about an escalating block for disruptive behaviour not a ban. Possibly a matter of semantic but some people don't see a difference between the two. Justin talk 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment'Exactly, i knew the difference and I opted for the 3 to 6 months.Taprobanus (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: for wikilawyering and attempting to game the system. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's unusual behavior, constant complaints, and wastage of noticeboard bandwidth suggest he is unlikely to settle down to easygoing collaboration with others any time soon. As Durova's comment indicates, the problem has been going on for two years. If a short block were likely to produce reform, Srkris wouldn't have a block log that looks like this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - to be fair, all but one of those blocks were from a two-week period two years ago. // roux   editor review 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support three-month block per Durova. Mitsube (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this discussion clearly favours a block, the question is over length. To crystallise this, I've blocked Kris for 1 month. This is the low end of suggested periods and will disappoint some; I don't pretend to have the final vote here so if anyone else feels the consensus is for more, you should increase. This comes with a note that Kris will be watched closely after the block expires with a low incivility trigger, and subsequent blocks will get longer William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am supremely confident that Srkris will come back with renewed vigor, team up with Sarvagnya, hunt down all the admins who have voted against him and ensure that they all stay off his Indo-Aryan 'domain'. He will pounce on everyone, accuse them of incivility when there would be none, engage in more edit-wars with Ncmvocalist and myself, use this thread as a shield, complain of harassing, raise one complaint every day, make threads longer with tu quoque's till everyone is tired and ultimately try to get everyone opposing his POV off Wikipedia. One month is simply at the other extreme end of a life block. Everyone except Dbachmann endorses a ban longer than one month, so the minimum number in this vote has been taken and applied. I can see this becoming a much more serious issue seeing Sarvagnya's comments in this thread. The majority of the votes are in favor of blocks between 3-6 months with blocking for life coming next, followed by one month and followed by oppose. I don't see this one month ban likely to settle down to any collaboration with others any time soon. Anyway, I'll let the community decide. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a bad solution - I was tempted to block for longer myself, but don't feel strongly enough to adjust the length. Let's see how this pans out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, a wise middle ground. And apologies if any of my comments seemed out of line to any editor. Please bear in mind: Wikipedia processes are geared toward consensus, not win/lose. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus clearly seems to point towards a longer block period, a minimum of three-six months according to those who have voted here. All those who voted for the block, except one, have stressed on three-six months, so this is actually not the consensus, just a singular opinion. My only concern and certitude is that this will continue. A permanent edit ban is just as ridiculous as a one month block, both of them are extremes, not middle-ground. Anyway, as I have said, I am presenting my opinion seeing how Srkris has only come back with renewed intensity and repeated behavior after ALL the previous blocks including one just about a few weeks ago, in spite of being reminded about that. All this has happened right after that block. I will let the community decide. Thanks. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment After reading over this discussion it seems to me as an uninvolved admin that consensus favored a longer block period. Thus, I have extended it to three months starting today. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see here and the user's talk page as to why. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I think the block's appropriate in this case, though I could see a case where a phrase like this wouldn't be a death threat (e.g., if the target were a death row inmate vying for a commuted sentence). Regardless, good block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the user name it is likely a vandalism only account (Shorten the first name to a general nickname and say it quickly). Only edit prior to this edit was vandalism. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should also be sending the userid for deletion anyway, after all "Doctor Bend Your Man Over" is really not appropriate for Wikipedia. ►BMW◄ 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't delete a username. :| — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You knew what I meant LOL ... I typed too fast, and this computer doesn't feature my usual options. ►BMW◄ 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User block noted on the talk page. LOL. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this user is clearly no relation but there is at least one Dallas media personality who uses his actual name on the air (I've personally seen his driver's license) and that name is Benjamin "Ben" Dover. The bio on his website is interesting reading. - Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note -- this was a sock of User:Madman C, who is apparently returning to his old obsessions. Email me if you want details. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Article: Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User in question:Wikidemon (talk · contribs)

There has been a long and protracted discussion, including an RfC, on how to best present Rashid Khalidi's involvement with the PLO, and the controversy that recently arose again due to the Obama campaign. What is very frustrating is that there are a group of editors, one in particular listed above, who I feel are using WP:BLP as a smokescreen to justify improper WP:POV whitewashing of the article by deliberately removing reliable and verifiable sources.

After discussion of the issues that concerned them, the article brought reliable and verifiable secondary sources by experts in the field, which covers WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV in almost every way that can be thought of. Blanket deletion followed anyway.

Lastly, even after requesting that Wikidemon use the talk page to discuss these last edits, I get templated with a BLP warning violation.

At this point, I would request that other uninvolved admins please look at the history of the article and the reverts to determine if this is actually (slow) POV edit warring and information suppression as opposed to good-faith efforts to best reflect what seems to be an important point about this person's life. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bogus report. I will respond in a minute.Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The user has not reported you, they are in fact doing the opposite - checking whether they should. — neuro^(talk) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what he's asking for here, and there is certainly nothing ripe for administrative action. It's a content dispute, and the editor is the one proposing language that was not agreed to or even discussed via the RfC on the article talk page. That material includes an opinion blog used to source a claim that the subject of the article is lying about his past, so I would say we have some BLP matters to discuss on the talk page. I've asked him to tone it down, stop accusing editors of things, and explain his proposed edits. Either he can go that way or claim here we have a problem that needs to be handled by administrators, but it's hard to do both at the same time. Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

BennyQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user with virtually no activity until the last few days, has taken it upon himself to foment a revert war in various political articles by replacing "he or she" with just "he", refusing to explain his actions. Disruption 101. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned 3-4 times now. (check his talk page history, he deletes these warnings, as is his right, but he has been warned). Given that he has not done so since his most recent warnings, lets see how he responds. This has a certain dirty sock smell to it, but I can't place this guy in a specific sock drawer. Lets see if anyone can place him, and if not, then lets see if he behaves after this, or continues his crusade. Lets at least WP:AGF this pending the appearance of evidence to the contrary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What does the Manual of Style say? Some find it tedious to replace the generic or unmarked "he" with "he or she." Compare to Spanish, where the default is the masculine, for male or mixed groups, replaced by the feminine for female groups. Edison (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor claims, via a message on my talk page [104], to have stopped after being pointed towards the MOS and seems to have made some constructive edits at Beauty and Naturalistic pantheism. I think Jayron32 is right on the money about WP:AGF, it seems to have been a misunderstanding of style. Although, I must confess, I also prefer the masculine pronoun when writing but that is a product of my rigidly Victorian education. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above, response to Edison). The MOS states, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral_language and at WP:GNL, the prefered form is to use gender neutral language in whatever form is most convenient to the particular writing. The problem here is that he is replaceing an accepted gender neutral form -"he or she" - with a non-gender-neutral one - "he". If the form "he or she" is awkward to the writing, then it should be changed to an equally gender neutral phrasing, and not to the masculine-only form. Again, the user has been warned, and has not resumed problematic behavior. Unless and until they do, we should assume good faith here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(post EC reply to lobot). Sounds good then. Marking this as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself: I was unaware there was even a page on gender-neutral terms in the first place. I took a look at it and read it over, so I stopped making the pronoun changes. I might be a grammar Nazi, and I was bored with myself, so I made the changes. The reason I deleted the warnings from my page was because I didn't consider the notes significant enough to keep, since I stopped.

On a more humorous note, you classified me as a "guy." Isn't that gender-biased? BennyQuixote

Maybe, but it's not in an article. And girls call each other "guys" all the time anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hynkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It must be a full moon or something. Here's yet another editor devoted to weirdness and attitude, but nothing of any apparent value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to barge in an already-resolved matter, but the user's image is already taking over 80K of space. Shouldn't that be removed? MuZemike (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gookey.jpg nuked by East718. Can't see any other image uploads, have removed the ASCII "art" from their talk page. All done, nothing to see here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

207.172.55.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I recently warned this user in regards to this edit. He then replaced the message I reverted and left three messages on my talk page. He was blocked by User:Euryalus and had one unblock request denied. He has now left an apology on my talk page, under a different username, User:DrakeLuvenstein, here. I have no idea what needs to be done, so if any admin could look at this it'd be great. \ / (⁂) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user \ / is referring to, first I would like to extend a apology to both him and the user I called and idiot, second I would like to say that I love wikipedia, it has changed my life, so far I have done some minor edits such as fixing misspelled words and reverting vandalism, today though I decided that I should start contributing more unfortunately I got blocked. I fully understand why I was blocked and that it was fully warranted, I would just like to say that I am sorry and that I will never violate wikipedia's rules again, if one of you admins could please unblock me it would be greatly appreciated, though if you think I deserve the punishment I will not argue and wait until the end of the block, thankyou (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

(If you're not aware of this issue, please see here for a recap)

Looks like I ticked off "The Network" pretty good. They're now attacking Tampa, Florida and letting me know [on my talk page] that they're back. They've also attacked Benjamin Franklin Bridge, as they started to do before Thanksgiving. Have we found out if that picture can be locked yet? EaglesFanInTampa 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How depressingly childish from people so privileged. Still, a week's semi-prot on the two articles will give the rich boys time to get bored and move on to urinating in public or whatever these fraternities do in this day and age. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree they need to get a life, I don't think a week-long semi-protect will work (or else I would have gone to WP:RFP); just look at the histories of Camden, New Jersey and Cooper River (New Jersey) after their weeklong blocks were removed. I personally believe that the pic needs to be locked, like was discussed in the previous thread out here on ANI. I know that locking pics is usually reserved for penis and poop pics, but let's be real; what articles, other than the ones now, really need a pic of the 1906 San Fran earthquake? It's not a generic smiley, or even a bombed-out landscape in some unknown land. We know when and where it is, so shouldn't that be enough to restrict its insertion? EaglesFanInTampa 23:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has bumped the protection up to three months. That should give them plenty of time to get bored. As for the misuse of the image... well, I don't think you'll get anyone to agree to blacklist a non-offensive free image, but point yourself at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list for instructions on how to try to get it blacklisted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I say that the pic needs to be blacklisted: Tampa Bay Rays diff. Now it's just getting stupid. While I think it's actually pretty funny (and actually kind of proud) that I've aggravated them so much they're coming after me now, they're finding articles unrelated to Camden, New Jersey and just dealing with articles related to me. Obviously, a semi-protect on Tampa Bay Rays is now needed, but am I just going to have to go in circles every time something gets attacked? If I could just get some admins behind me in blacklisting a pic that doesn't belong anywhere but on pages related to the 1906 San Fran quake, this may makes this stupidity end and let me get back to real edits. EaglesFanInTampa 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're going to use other pics (mainly because they're reading these postings - most likely from "My Contributions": see diff here) to try and continue (but it looks like one single rogue IP doing all the damage User:12.195.103.2, so we should start by blocking that one). Is there anyway to semi-protect my "My Contributions" so IPs can't see it? I've asked the orig pic be blacklisted, so I'll go from there if something happens after a.) this IP gets blocked, and b.) the pic be blocked. EaglesFanInTampa 20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Isn't this starting to tread into Wikistalking? EFIT is being followed around just so they can disrupt his work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I just blocked the IP for a week for harassment. This IP geolocates to Tampa, which is a little disturbing, although we are probably talking about some nerdy frat boy who can't get a date, rather than someone intimidating. We will probably have to play whack-a-mole for a while, and EFIT's user page and talk page might need some form of protection. Horologium (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also semi-protected User talk:EaglesFanInTampa and Talk:Tau Kappa Epsilon after more harassment from yet another IP address, this one in Hialeah. Horologium (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "bumped the protection up to three months. That should give them plenty of time to get bored" - they've been doing this sort of stuff for over a year (e.g. [105]), and were impersonating me in February this year (User:Sonmo, User:Sommo), and following me around to unrelated articles and vandalising... So although I live in hope that these kids will find something better to do with their lives, perhaps we need to consider more long-term solutions - investigating open proxies, contacting the university/universities involved. I believe it's only one user, who's pretending to be backed up by imaginary friends, so open proxies makes sense to me. Somno (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Somno. I've twice semi-protected Cooper University Hospital for a month, and both times they've come back to it shortly after expiry. Hesperian 11:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the wildly diverse locations being used by this campaign (some of which are hotels and others which are likely internet cafés), I wonder if there is less here than it appears. Can anyone verify whether we have a set of open proxies? Horologium (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You know? I never thought of it until now, but that makes sense. I mean, the latest one harassing me started off by saying "South Florida", and just because the school in Tampa is the University of South Florida doesn't mean anyone here calls this area part of SF; anyone here would know it as Central. Yeah, minor, I know, but it's a thought. That would make sense how they could corroborate each move so quickly. Sure, we live in a digital, up-to-the-second society, but did you really talk to your frat brothers from other states that often enough to plan a coordinated attack? I know I didn't think that far in advance. EaglesFanInTampa 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An image is being repeatedly put into the article Cat litter. IMO it is advertising. I've now removed it three times and another editor has also removed it. CBHA (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reported the IP editor as a probable spambot. --GoodDamon 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that was the world's greatest cat litter. I'll have to go out and get some now - and I don't even own a cat. (Or vice versa.) However, a more appropriate photo might be a cat litter box, with "before" and "after" photos, if you get my drift. That would dispell any questions the casual reader might have about the product. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's too funny. World's greatest cat litter indeed. Some cat litters are just born great, some achieve greatness through hard effort, yet others have cat litter thrust upon them. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ewww... Can I pass on the cat litter thrusting, please? --GoodDamon 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Thrusting"????

I actually use this litter for my cat! seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's sad is that I might actually go buy it...cat has been having issues with Tidy Cat. --Smashville^talk 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you definitely don't need is a cat with litterbox "issues". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now everybody at work wants to know what I'm laughing at and I have no way of explaining that doesn't sound insane. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do like I do and tell them to read it for themselves.--Alf ^{an unsweet and tough shameless thing} 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better than me having litter box issues... --Smashville^talk 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you glad that the penalty box in Nashville isn't called "the litterbox"?? Might be sponsorship time to raise some $$$  :-) ►BMW◄ 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On Saturday night, I blocked HPJoker (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for grossly incivil comments toward Atlantabravz (talk · contribs) and Bwilkins (talk · contribs). Well, this morning 74.50.119.142 (talk · contribs) left incivil remarks in a similar vein--and in the very same section--of Atlantabravz' talk page. I initially reset his timer (it had 12 hours to go, no less!) and was about to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message when something made me check out his history. Not one constructive edit from November 22 onward--instead, mostly a raft of uncivil comments on user talk pages. Given this track record and what appears to be a social networking approach to the project, I ran it up to indef. Please review and/or endorse. Blueboy96 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - To an extent. Maybe an indef is a bit too much, but it does pass WP:DUCK... hm, I probably would have suggested 6 months or something. Maybe I'm just too lenient. — neuro^(talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - On second thought, I am too lenient. Endorse fully. — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm involved as a "victim", so I'm not commenting. I certainly endorsed action. Length might depend on his willingness to to an proper, polite, properly apologetic unblock request. ►BMW◄ 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Irgun article.

Because of some problems in the editing of the Irgun article, that resulted in a user being blocked, I took a look at the article content. The first thing that attracted my attention was this, in the lead, saying: Initially, a central part of their efforts included attacks against Palestinian Arabs,[2] but it increasingly shifted to attacks against the British. A check of the source, a book by Joseph Telushkin, showed that the source cited actually read: The Irgun, a militant group -- originally founded by followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky to retaliate against Arab terrorism, and which later to forcing the British out of Palistine... The source can be read here [106]. By selectively leaving out Joseph Telushkin's statement that the Irgun was founded to retaliate against Arab terrorism, makes the material now in the article seem POV, and I thought this rather minor and obvious change would be simple. This is my original change, correcting the material [107]. The reverts that followed are [108][109][110][111][112]. There might be a couple I missed.

The talk page discussion of this is here [113]. As can be seen, the issue has been discussed at length. The reason I brought this problem to AN/I is that it is not an editing dispute, but an intentional violation of WP:VERIFY, which clearly states: The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Distorting a quote, , as has clearly been done, violates a foundational WP principle, and is not subject to majority vote by editors claiming consensus.

• The larger problem, involving controversial articles, such as this Irgun, is a subject I raised in a thread on the Village pump (policy) [114]. I hope that anyone interested in the subject will comment. Some new ways of dealing with the issues involving controversial articles might actually help reduce volume on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Distorting a quote, , as has clearly been done, violates a foundational WP principle, and is not subject to majority vote by editors claiming consensus" Whilst this is true, whether it is 'distorting a quote' is open to consensus. — neuro^(talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neurolysis, it is a short quote, and if core content is left out, Telushkin's view that the Irgun retaliated against the terrorist attacks of Palestinian Arabs, then his meaning is virtually inverted. The standard is that The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Denying that makes a farce of WP:VERIFY. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed an editing dispute, and it is unfortunate that Schosha has resorted to little more than "no, you're wrong" responses throughout. The article is not using this citation for a direct quote from its author, it is merely being used for a brief blip of factual information regarding Irgun's formation. It is equally unfortunate that this user does not believe in the dispute resolution process, as he has been seeking commentary at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV depends on a balanced cross section of editors showing up seeking input on bypassing DR, to have controversial articles subject to either some sort of special rules or deleted outright. I really do not see a valid rationale for this coming to ANI. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, you still have no explanation of why you are supporting material in the article that inverts the sources intended meaning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't believe that it does any such thing? We are well aware of how right you think you are, but I don't see many others that are convinced. And really, this should go back to the article's talk page rather than here. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a content dispute. I've just stuck my head out with a new version [115] which removes from the sentence the value-laden terms used by each side of this dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think making the sentence more unintelligible solves the problem, you have done a good job of that. But it still does not represent the source cited correctly, and is a distortion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean it doesn't follow the dource by saying that the good guys are militants and the bad guys are terrorists. Well there's enough people changing the article it will be interesting to see which wrong version gets protected. Or whether the other side are prepared to accept my version, given that you're at three reverts for now.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored my earlier edit, which I think accurate represents Joseph Telushkin's views, which are in the source [116]. If you find what the source says unacceptable, please explain why? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen, if the source says the Palestinians are to blame, that is what the material in the article should say. Otherwise it is WP:OR, and notWP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of lopping out the disputed source entirely, and noting the text with a {{cn}} tag, so we can find a better and more neutral replacement. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is astounding the exertion that is necessary to get such a small change made to an article....when editing with these guys. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't even know what this means. The most recent change I made today includes none of the text that you have been edit warring over for days. Tarc (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tark, wrote that "I don't even know what this means." Tark, I hope you don't mean that, because I have worked on the assumption that you are an intelligent editor. But to make it simple, it took me days of edits, discussion, and this trip to AN/I, to accomplish a very small change to the article; a change that could have been done in a few minutes. Since the issue was WP:verify, all the reverts, and lame excuses, by you, Peter cohen, PalestineRemembered and RolandR, still do not out vote WP:verify, and I hope that you soon figure that out. Since the problematic material is now gone from the article (accomplishing the minimum change that was necessary), there is nothing further at argue about on that account....but the remaining, now unsourced, material is subject to eventual deletion. On the plus side, it was a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that there is only one post in this thread by someone who is not involved in the discussion on the article talk page? SHall we go back there and stop boring the locals wiht our little wikidrama?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter about moving it back. Though frankly I think "attacks" is the most NPOV way to describe their actions since it's not likely any significant number of of their actions were nonviolent seminars, protests, sit ins, etc.! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that discussion had been moved away from the talk page. What I brought here is the issue of WP:verify, which is (as far as I know) a valid issue to bring to AN/I when that is violated in the article, and the issue can not settled on the talk page. As far as the word "attacks" being used to describe such Irgun activity, I do not have any particular objection to that, as long as Telushkin's description of those attacks as retaliation to Palestinian Arab terrorism is also included. Cherry picking of which words and phrases to use, in this case, not only violated WP:verify, but also WP:OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The source (Telushkin) describes the actions against the Arabs as retailation, and so should our article, so long as we use that as a source. Removing it all and throwing in a CN tag is childish, the equivalent of 'if i can't have it my way, no one can have any [then throwing the food/toy on the floor].' Let's avoid such immaturity, shall we? ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed the reference and may reinstate it later. As for retaliation, the current paragraph reads The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[1] Over time the focus of their actions shifted from the Palestinian Arabs to the British.[citation needed] SO retaliation is in there already.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a slow-mo editwar going on at WP:DoTTR between Bstone and Dbachmann. I'd appreciate if someone could jump in. // roux   editor review 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, input is appreciated. No, it's not a "slow-mo editwar" at this point. I have asked Bstone to comment at Wikipedia talk:Do template the regulars (you will note that I am the only party bothering to edit this talkpage so far) -- and if he chooses to negotiate at this point, an actual edit-war can still be avoided. If, instead, he refers yet again without discussion, I will agree the edit-war stage has been reached. I have no idea why this is being posted at "AN/I". "Attention all admins, a page has been reverted twice, and there may soon be a discussion taking place at a talkpage"? How is this ANI-worthy? --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see Bstone on that page... am I missing something? — neuro^(talk) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's Wikipedia:Do template the regulars (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Do template the regulars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not WP:DoTTR as stated by the reporting user. This is the first time I've come across Bstone, btw, and my mind boggles to follow what else he's been up to. This is a minor issue by comparison, the recreation of a page that has been userified as a result of mfd here--dab (𒁳) 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the page I was on... :/ — neuro^(talk) 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) oop nevermind — neuro^(talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I grabbed the acronym on the page. And I brought it up here because I edited the article in the past (reverting vandalism from a sock, but still) and figured it would be better to get someone completely uninvolved to look at it. Bstone is not engaging on the talkpage; the two of you are just reverting each other, two days in a row so far. Sorry if you disagree, but I felt it was best to get someone other than myself to look at it. // roux   editor review 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

why do you reply to a note I left on your talkpage on ANI? I'm sorry, this is weird. As I said, I don't object to people looking at this at all, but I am concerned that for the purposes of ANI, this is just spam. I feel you don't have a concept of "slo-mo edit war", and you don't have a concept of what this page is for: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. No, the two of us are not "just reverting each other", we have been exchanging opinions via edit summary. This didn't work, so I took it to the talkpage. Hello? This happens about half a gazillion times every day on Wikipedia. If Bstone now refuses to communicate, we may be on the brink entering an edit-war, something that happens perhaps only a tenth of a gazillion times daily. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because I didn't particularly feel like fragmenting the discussion. Care to keep making judgements about me? This isn't spam; I acted in good faith to try and head off what looked like was turning into an edit war. I am terribly sorry that you don't agree, but the two of you are just blindly reverting each other and being snarky in the edit summaries. Yes, you're trying to engage on the talkpage, Bstone isn't engaging. Fine. But all I was trying to do was get an uninvolved admin to take a look and if appropriate let you both know to cut it out. You're welcome to keep making judgements about what I do and do not know, and you're welcome to keep being wrong about them. I know exactly what this board is for, and in my opinion my post was well within those lines. You don't. That's your prerogative, but I would very much appreciate it if you stopped with the low-grade sniping. // roux   editor review 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this is amazing. Truly. I undid the gentleman's major edits of the essay based on the fact that I disagreed with them, as I stated in the edit summary. I then went to take a shower and when I came back I see that I am subject to an AN/I thread. Talk about drama. There was minimal effort to discuss on the essay's talk page and exactly zero effort to talk to me directly. Rather it was immediately brought to ANI. Talk about drama! Bstone (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. I wasn't trying to create drama. Please re-read what I've written above: this was a good-faith attempt to get a neutral eye to look at the situation and decide whether or not something needed to be done. That is all. The two of you have pumped up the drama quotient here. // roux   editor review 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is not causing drama here, it is Roux. Do not accuse him of doing such a thing, he has in fact done exactly the right thing in bringing it up, so stop it and deal with the matter at hand. Accusing others of causing drama only causes more drama, let's just get this over with, shall we? — neuro^(talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

roux is acting in good faith, of course, but the fact remains that this should never have been posted to ANI in the first place. Why? Because that sort of stuff isn't what ANI is for. If we permit the posting of random trifles such as this one, the usefulness of this board will be down to zero in no time. This is a noticeboard for actual incidents that require actual admin intervention. We need to keep the noise down. Accusing me of "low-grade sniping" for pointing out this fact in all civility isn't very constructive. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself am concerned here, and I don't know what precisely I can do to help, as this appears to be an on-going problem. Apparently some user here, at one time or another, had a bout with the admin Gwen Gale. Since after Gwen ran for ArbCom, various IPs have tried to out here again and again, some have been blocked for years as a result. I am bringing this here so that more admins know about it, and will hopefully watch Gwen's userpage and talk page to prevent further attemps, and maybe do some blocking. Below can be found the current list of IPs who have attempted to out her, transcluded from my userspace:

List of Users/SPAs/IPs harassing admin Gwen Gale(listed in order of appearance)

• 173.45.64.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.250.250.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 208.94.243.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.103.143.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.64.61.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.123.162.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.190.147.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.14.177.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.253.164.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.164.200.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Acacheuntousury (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TouchyEcruSauna (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ARaucousChutney (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.252.125.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the thread because 1/ it was unnecessarily dramatic and sort of ironic, and 2/ this doesn't qualify as "outing" because the personal info was introduced by Gwen Gale. Other than that, I'm in agreement. There is an apparent group that's making a point to harass her. لennavecia 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the best option we have here, since this person is using an anonymizing service and open proxies, is to play "whack-a-mole". At least it lets us ferret out more anonymizing and open proxies! Oh well, lets just keep more admins eyes on this, and continue to revert, block, and ignore. This person is a troll, and the less direct acknowledgement of their activities here, the better. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The last IP on the list was blocked by me for a short duration. If that is a proxy that should be shutdown for a few years, someone please do so. This is not my area of expertise. لennavecia 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I will keep there userpage on my watchlist and if I see a IP matching it I will report it here or to one of the above admins. SteelersFan-94 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please also be on the look out for any IPs adding suspicious questions to her talk page. So far this list has continued to increase.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also indef'd a couple of registered accounts that have attempted to harass her. لennavecia 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there were any such accounts. Would you care to list them so we can keep track of things?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just added a new IP, User:75.164.200.81, per the IP's edit to Jimbo's talk page, which I have reverted just a few seconds prior to this post.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• IF these are open proxy services, that is one thing. If they aren't have we considered a checkuser to see the (almost certain) likelihood that these IPs are being used by a current editor? Protonk (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have the conflict of interest and other issues involved in this matter been dealt with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dare I ask "what issues?" and how (more like if) it is relevant to Gwen being harassed ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't; the editor's privacy is best respected. The issues will be resolved decisively through normal channels. Skomorokh 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you've asked and a suspiciously new account has answered it in a somewhat slanted way. That post has now been dealt with. One thing to point out is that the existence of a serious breach of COI is only alleged. Not only has the person to edit material on a subject rather close to themselves, but for it to become a problem they have to do so in a slanted way and be actively resisting remedies when the issue is raised. I've not noticed any real, current, non-banned, non-blocked user pop up and make the claim that this is going on. Large numbers of users were quite happy to openly complain about some of Gwen's recent blocks or vote against her for Arbcom. None have thought it appropriate to come here and use their real user name in doing so. This makes me,and others, think that the person making the complaint has an ulterior motive (such as being currently subjected to a current block.) Meanwhile the COI issue is sorting itself out nicely somewhere in the background.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)(slight ce later --Peter cohen (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps I have not had enough caffeine this morn, but after spending the past hour looking at all the stuff in question, I am having a really difficult time getting my undies in a bunch over the various allegations made by these IPs and SPAs. Her rants about Wikipedia from 2005 are just that: the blowing off of some frustrated steam from nearly four years ago. On internet timescales, that sort of ancient history is like complaining about the bad table manners of the neanderthals. Likewise, while the Wyss concerns were enough to derail her January 2008 RfA, in just four months Gwen was able to reassure the Wikipedia community enough that her May 2008 RfA garnered 84.5% support. Sure we all have bad days and make some questionable judgment calls that later turn out to be pretty rotten, but that is just part of being human, right? Are there any Wikipedians who do not make mistakes? Additionally every admin worth their salt (well, except for the ones who only want to play it "safe") have made some controversial decisions that have no doubt totally pissed off someone ... but that does not mean they are "bad" or "untrustworthy" admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of the basis for the accusations, does anyone have any objections to me taking this to RFCU? Protonk (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • None here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • sent to "IP check". I'm not sure if that is the right place to go. Wikiepdia does have many process and policy corners. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For all who care, I regarding the SPA that just posted here, he/she also just sent me an email, an email which I shall quote below after I finish this post. Also, can someone please indef block this SPA, and remove it's ability to email?

Acacheuntousury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daedalus, I hope you'll take a few words of wisdom from someone who's been around WP for years (and years). You obviously have the best of intentions, but you are digging yourself a very deep grave--you should have *never* reverted Jimbo's page, he does not take kindly to that, and I would recommend undoing that revert at your earliest convenience. I encourage you to seek input from other Admins about this if you don't believe me. For better or worse, Gwen has made some errors and you need to just let these things play out without getting overly involved. I suspect that Jimbo already knows about this and so your attempt to keep it off his talk page is only going to exacerbate the problem, not alleviate it.

I do not honestly wish to get any more of these types of emails from a lying SPA who thinks we were all borne yesterday. As a side note, I am changing the log I have on my userspace, to reflect SPA accounts like this one, any accounts found by CU, and any IPs who have the same agenda.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The users I have blocked are TouchyEcruSauna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ARaucousChutney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user noted above on Jimbo's talk page is probably a sock of ARaucousChutney, from comments he's made elsewhere. لennavecia 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that these three editor's names are anagrams. لennavecia 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They should both be on the RFCU. IF you see any more you can probably just append them to that request. (Edit conflict)--on a good note, you using the word "anagram" made it much easier for me to get back to this section w/ ctrl-F after the EC than it would be otherwise. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Added the new accounts to the list above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall once seeing talk of a list of indefinitely blocked IPs. If such a list exists, could someone point me to it? I may take a crack at using my awesome checkuzer powerz to whittle it down. Thatcher 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• You need to be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Block review. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• You want Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely-blocked_IPs MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange case. I stumbled upon a nanostub created by this user during NPP and it seems that this isn't his first on Slovak footballers. He's created several since October, has done little if any to expand them beyond a declaratory statement and has never once acknowledged the concerns of others. Would someone please look into this and discuss the matter with him if appropriate? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a great problem... Yes, these are fairly poor articles, but it does sound like the people in question are notable. Additionally, this, while being a rather brief article, doesn't seem to me to be anything like an WP:CSD#A1 candidate, if you read the criterion. Certainly he could be encouraged to expand these articles, but he doesn't seem to be doing anything specifically wrong. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears Orangemike (talk · contribs) has deleted at least one of them as A1. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like one I just tagged, too. Trouble is, other users have tried to tutor him, but he's ignoring everyone. I'm of the "quality over quantity" school of thinking; while the subjects are notable, anyone researching such an esoteric subject such as this knows who these people are. What they need is more info on what they did, who they played for, lifetime stats, etc. I don't want to get the guy in trouble. I'd like to see him do better work is all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long, ongoing dispute regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles between User:Gavin.collins and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject (prominent members who have been involved in the dispute recently include User:BOZ, User:Drilnoth, User:Shadzar, and User:Webwarlock) for approximately the past 14 months.

Problems: The issue started because of Gavin.collins's tagging. He often tags articles with templates such as {{notability}}, {{context}}, {{in-universe}}, {{plot}}, {{nofootnotes}}, {{Primarysources}}, {{Original research}}, and {{unreferenced}}, typically adding multiple tags at once. Examples include (although there are many more, as seen in his contributions): [117], [118]. Some members of the project have come to believe that he also does not read the articles he tags. For example, he made the following edits within a 1 minute period: [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128] Gavin has stated that he reads articles and then tags them all at once[129]. Some users have found this difficult to believe because he often applies almost identical tags to all articles (in the ten samples above, he added four tags to each, three of which were identical on all the articles) and because a quick look through his contributions shows that the tags are typically added at a fairly constant rate of one every few minutes any time that he is actively tagged, with only some larger clumps of successive edits like those listd).

Disagreements have revolved around which tags are appropriate, whether sources are reliable secondary sources, and whether uncited content is original research or simply unsourced. The primary focus of his edits over the span of the dispute seems to revolve around placing tags on D&D articles rather than attempting to help resolve the issues (with a secondary focus on discussion on Wikipedia policy and guideline talk pages relating to the same concerns he has on the articles he tags); as there are only a few active members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, the sheer volume of this tagging places an excessive burden on these few editors.

At this point, unfortunately, the high volume of tagging for a small group of editors to handle is only part of the problem. Gavin seems to be quick to accuse others of vandalism[130], Conflict of Interest[131], and of "hiding something"[132], with little or no evidence. There have been large amounts of edit warring (visible on most D&D articles, including [133], [134]) and unproductive discussion, which oftentimes gets rather heated on both sides (evident by the following: [135], [136], and most of the archives at WT:D&D, most notably [137], [138], [139], and [140]). Attempts at reasonable discussion between Gavin and WikiProject members often result in no conclusion, compromise, or consensus, as Gavin seems to be resistant to any view but his own (example: [141]). He has also admitted that he knows little of RPGs, but that is probably due to the "poor quality" of the articles he's been looking at.[142] An attempt at mediation seemed to pause the conflict rather than end it.

He also rarely, if ever, answers direct questions that he can't answer by citing a Wikipedia policy or guideline.[143], [144].

Gavin's arguments have also spread beyond Dungeons & Dragons articles and to areas related to what he is arguing for, such as at WT:FICT (for examples, see the entire discussions that took place around the following edits: [145], [146], [147]) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth, if two people have tried (and failed) to resolve this with him (which I suspect may be the case), then WP:RFC is the place to log a request for comment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the only problem being that one has already been done. Granted, however, that discussion was before the RfM and his slight change of tactics. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the wrong place for this sort of thing, then we can basically copy the complaint into a new RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there have been many attempts at dispute resolution; most recently my own attempt at discussion here. But the members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject have exhausted nearly every step of dispute resolution, starting with talk page discussions,[148][149][150]. A third opinion was sought twice and giventwice. A request for comment was also opened, resulting in a 36-8 endorsement favoring the basis of the dispute. Lastly, a request for mediation was opened. We can open another RFC, but it has had little effect on his behavior, historically. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing that seems to have changed as a result of the RFC/U was its main focus: deletion. He hasn't nominated an article in several months that I'm aware of; when at one point we were talking about a high volume of AFDs and PRODs, he hasn't seen fit to approach that avenue recently. However, as far as I can see, all of the other issues (presented as secondary) from the prior RFC/U remain. If we were to do another RFC/U, these issues would have to be presented as primary concerns, rather than secondary. I'd like to see what, if anything, can be resolved through this current avenue before bringing about another RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that another RFC, even with a different focus, would be the right course of action? With everything that's been tried (per COS), I personally don't think that an RFC would help very much at all. Based on the sheer amount of discussion done attempting to reach a consensus after the previous RFC that did practically nothing, I think that an ArbCom has to be the next step. Now believe me, I don't want to get involved in an ArbCom anymore than anyone else, but I think that this dispute needs to be resolved soon, and more discussion, RFCs, RFMs, 3rd opinions, etc., won't really help us get there.

Why do I think that it needs to be resolved soon? Well, Gavin hasn't really changed since he returned after the RFM, and things are getting worse. The discussion surrounding his edits have caused one user (User:Shadzar) to leave the WikiProject. The debates on particular articles has gotten longer and more heated by the day. Since he returned from the RFM, my experience on Wikipedia has gotten much worse, to the point where I'm not working on D&D articles as much due to the unpleasantness of working around him. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this AN/I resolves nothing, then an RFC/U is probably the right thing to do... but I have to share your pessimism about what it will achieve. If Gavin weren't so aggressive, I honestly couldn't be bothered with any of this. I agree that an ArbCom might be the only way to bring some sort of resolution, becuase you are right that no amount of discussion has dissuaded Gavin from his current course of action. I don't know what else to do and would appreciate some guidance. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section at WT:D&D regarding a possible RFC/U because, although I don't really think that it will change much, it really is the correct next step, going to ArbCom only if and when the RFC fails. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• If any of you wish to discuss a particular article with me, I am open to discussion, which I feel is the most constructive process for both sides. However, using the Administrators' noticeboard to voice your dissatisfaction with me is I think a waste of admin time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• We have, over and over again for 14+ months now. You have shown over and over again you have no interest in working with us unless we seek outside intervention. Frankly I am ready to leave en:Wikipedia all together unless something is done. Web Warlock (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Web Warlock, Role playing games and Dungeons & Dragons Wikiprojects are not "editorial walled gardens", so your threats to leave because you disagree with the views of another contributor is misplaced. As regards working in collaboration with other editors, I think I have contributed to the substantial improvement of the article Kender, so I think your criticism is actually groundless. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one but you has ever said that. And unless you were dragged into it you have yet to contribute anything other than cutting and pasting tags on a subject you know nothing about. Web Warlock (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I do not consider the projects to be in an "editorial walled garden". If you read my original post here, you can see that the problem now more is the simple unpleasantness of working around you because of your accusals of COI, bad faith, vandalism, etc., than your position on the notability of topics. The articles need work to establish notability; but you are going about it the wrong way. Looking for sources to articles before just tagging them would be a good start. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, prior to today I have never heard ANY WikiProject referred to as a "walled garden", editorial or otherwise. Now unless you can give proof to your accusations, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is not an accusation, just a note. When I first started becoming aware of the situation, it came across to me (at first just a third party) that Mr. Collins was wikicrusading. After more looking into it, it seems more 50/50. Some of the articles he tags are legit, but when you're tagging at such a high volume then of course some have to be right. I think Dan Willis is an example of bad tagging. How many other articles on wikipedia are barely 3 paragraphs and require 12 sources? Mr. Collins has repeatedly denied the consensus, and even went as far as to describe the photograph as promotional. I just want an outcome where A)the articles are being improved (which is the whole purpose of the wikiproject), B)no one on either side is wikicrusading, and C)That all users, Mr. Collins included, don't come across to future newcomers (such as I was) as being acting in bad faith. Not saying he is, I don't now think he is, but as a newcomer it appeared so. Hooper (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your position completely. I just started edit a little over a month ago, before Gavin.collins returned after the RFM ended, and when he started his tagging again and I found out about all of the older RFCs, RFMs, and extensive arguements over articles for no apparent reason, I assumed bad faith. Now, though, I think he's really trying to help -really trying- but just doesn't really know a better way to help out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he's acting in bad faith. However, his good-faith contributions are starting to cross the line into disruptive, and his general unresponsiveness to criticism isn't helping to defuse the situation. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Jeske. I couldn't have said that better myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe that he believes that he is acting in good faith, and that those who disagree with him are acting in bad faith, which explains most of his reactions towards us. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look to be going anywhere fast, probably because (despite advice to the contrary) the complaint goes beyond "things which require administrative intervention" and into "laundry lists of complaints about an editor" territory. I'd recommend another RfC. I would also strongly recommend dropping all the general complaints about said editor's attitude towards our notability guidelines (which really, really aren't going to be resolved with an RfC) and the canvassing of fiction-friendly members of WP:DND to that effect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I want to give this another day or two, and see what Gavin does during that time, before starting an RFC. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you had a serious complaint about me, I would have thought you would have started an RFC long ago; wanting to "give this another day or two" seems to me that your complaints may be trivial, and that you do fishing for reasons to find fault with me rather than discuss the issues about individual or groups of articles. I have a different opinion from yours about how D&D articles need to be cleaned up, it does not follow that I don't "really know a better way to help out" at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a serious complaint, not about your tagging now as much as your other disruptive edits and argumentative tone. We haven't jumped into an RFC or ArbCom because that isn't a step to be taken lightly; we'd rather try to resolve the dispute outside of such a situation. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, posting sarcastic "quotes of the week" on public policy talk pages about people disagreeing with you isn't going to endear you to anyone, and it doesn't speak to wanting to work better with others. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm going to start drafting the RFC/U soon, and that'll certainly be on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the extending by Gavin Collinsof this thread to [Talk:WP:AGF#Quote of the Week] inappropriate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd completely agree even if I wasn't one of the people he was quoting. We plan to use that info for the RFC/U. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Well I want to mention here a fact that i have noticed on Wikipedia n is disturbing a large population f the world. And the fact is that an article about Prophet MUHAMMAD ( PBUH) shows his pics as well which is extremely disturbing for all the muslim population in the world who visit and see this article in wikipedia. It is so as in our religion it is not appropriate to make a sketch of our Holy Prophet and even impersonification in any form is not allowed. I dont know if any one before me has discussed this fact here or not but i as a regular user of wikipedia and as a responsible citizen of this world requests you to kindly take out all small pictures n sketch which some one has posted on wikipedia and are representing ( and thats a mistake n offense for large number of muslim population and may create a big conflict ) Our Holy Prophet. I hope you will care for emotions and will respect our religious facts and will take it out so that we may continue using wikipedia once again with more ease. more to hear a good news soon from you. Thanks.

Kindest regards, Nuktaa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuktaa (talk • contribs)

We have discussed this ad nauseam in various places on Wikipedia and have decided as a community that Wikipedia's no-censorship rule overrides all. We respectfully request that, if an article on Wikipedia offends somebody, they avoid visiting that page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuktaa, please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ as this may help. Pedro :  Chat  09:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how difficult it would be for our devs to provide an ignore list for the casual reader? One that pops up so you can add various names, places, whatever, so you can be sure that you will not be perturbed by accidentally reading about them... If possible, could they trail it with a test subject of Kenny Rogers being made unavailable for anyone in Cornwall? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor raised some concerns on my talk page regarding the FAQ. It seems unnecessary to have the "other offensive content" section with the links to blasphemy, gruesome images and, in particular, pornographic images. That seems highly disrespectful. Consider that this is still basically the talk page of Muhammad, and the page is meant to address concerns by those who are offended by the images in the article. Is it really necessary to basically take a position of "Hey, if you think those images are offensive, check out what else we've got..."? I'm all about keeping the FAQ pretty much as it is as far as explanations go, but do we really need visual examples of how we're not censored? Can text not achieve the message? لennavecia 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We're best off keeping that section. One of the frequently-made accusations back when this subject blew up originally was that we were specifically descriminating against a particular group, singling them out for offensive content in a way that we didn't do for other groups. The "other offensive articles you might like" section helps to counter that accusation by providing the truth: we set out to deliberately offend virtually everybody in one way or another across our encyclopedia, because that's what encyclopedias do. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought the same as Jennavecia when I saw that page - I understand the need for an explanation and think the existing text does a good job, but the "look who else we offend" section seems egregious. EyeSerene^talk 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Redvers, but that's a terrible explanation. Why can this not be explained without linking to images? Luckily the section is not named "Other offenseive articles you might like", which is just further disrespect. Perhaps best to instead link to previous discussions about it, where such images may be linked as examples given during debate. However, linking these blasphemous and pornographic images on the talk page of Muhammad's article is highly disrespectful, and I'm neither religious nor easily offended. لennavecia 13:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the explanation is correct. Those offended by some pictures of their prophet are most likely thinking that there is a anti-muslim bias and the section specifically tells them two things: 1.) were are not censored, nowhere and 2.) "hurting feelings" is not a valid reason to delete things.

Noone forces anyone to click those links and we could just rename the page to Wikipedia:FAQ for people who think we are discriminating against one particular group if someone really thinks that just because it's on that particular FAQ it's wrong. But "disrespectful" is not a term I'd use to argue rationally and I see no logical reasons why those links should be removed, because they are very useful to prove the point. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not to be a jerk, but how come we are telling this guy to see our iron clad censorship policy when we don't have a problem telling the scots that we'll delete/blank articles on request? Protonk (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Because showing the images of Muhammad does no actual harm on this planet. Articles on current court cases can have very real and non-negligible effects in the real world. // roux   editor review 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. It does harm to millions of muslims who may see it. And it is against the law in more than a few countries. Further, we have received numerous good faith requests to take it down because it has caused personal grief and dismay in editors. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it did kind of result in some people being killed. That's harm, right? Protonk (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't cause actual harm, whereas influencing the trial of a rapist and murderer does. I'm not going to get sucked into hair-splitting; there is a significant difference between removing an image which may cause offence to some, and temporary hiding of information which can undermine the judicial process. // roux   editor review 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't hair splitting. Who are we to say that laws and customs about images of Muhammed are silly but laws and customs about scottish juries are not? A whole part of the defense behind posting those pictures is that we don't redact content upon request. IF we do, then why aren't we doing it for muslims, who have a good faith reason...unless we think that reason is BS? Protonk (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Roux on this one. If we make censor Wikipedia for one religion, we are not leaving the rule intact. Also 'harm' is the wrong word to use here. 'Percieved harm' may be more correct, as actual harm definitely does not occur in this circumstance. Whilst I can understand the offense perhaps caused by this, we cannot go around censoring every little thing that somebody does not like. Admittedly the Muslim population does not equate to 'somebody' so much as a big group, but the principle is exactly the same. We do it for one group, we'll have to do it for every group. Simple. — neuro^(talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that line of reasoning would cause you to agree with him. We did it for the Scots, just now. Why aren't we doing it for the Iranians? Or the Saudis? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What Neuro said. 'Being offended by' is worlds away from 'can cause a miscarriage of justice'. // roux   editor review 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And "there is information on the internet" is, in fact, worlds away from a "miscarriage of justice". Protonk (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, snark. I'm done with this discussion, cheers. // roux   editor review 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

??? It's not snark. A scottish police officer literally asserted that they would have to declare a mistrial based on the existence of a wikipedia article of a defendant and we said "Ok, we'll delete it". Protonk (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

← (Unindent) Except, it's not really deleted, as very little gets actually removed from the database. Further, once the trial is over, the article can be put back up. Really, this is apples and oranges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just covered up because a government that has no jurisdiction over wikipedia asked us. Whether it is temporary or not is irrelevant. Whether it is "deleted" (it was) or written over by a dev is irrelevant. If we censor material upon request we censor material upon request. No one said that permanence had any impact on things. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk is right. I missed the Scottish debate here but I would have been in favor of undeletion. The very idea alone that an article here, that just reflects sources already available to anyone, could influence a court trial while newspapers and radio/television can't is absurd. As Redvers said above, anything can be controversial to a person that is offended by it. If we decide that one article is to be censored while others aren't, that's when people will really be able to accuse us of POV-censoring.

You have to ignore what those cases are about - (possibly?) influencing a jury versus showing pictures of someone who some people think should not be portrayed. In both cases noone is forced to read those articles, yet deleting (parts of) them without a reason in policy/guidelines/US law is censoring. Saying there is a good reason to do so might allow you to find consensus for such actions - but it does not change the nature of the thing. To quote a comment about the now-soon-gone Bush-administration: "Torture is torture, even if you call it 'enhanced interrogation techniques'". Same goes for censorship, it does not change to be censorship just because someone says it's not. Regards SoWhy 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We've taken down BLP articles about subjects at their request before. We've removed sections of articles and entire articles based on IAR. This isn't odd, or out of the ordinary and it's temporary. By your definition, all deletions are censorship. Well, I guess Wikipedia censors all the time then. Let's not blow this out of proportion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, okay, so while this is debated, can we also establish why it's necessary to have porno and Jesus in a jar of piss on the talk page of Muhammad? Kthx. لennavecia 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a talk page of Muhammad, it's a FAQ on why we do not censor articles that feature Muhammad amongst other things. And the links are there to avoid having tons of people here complaining about POV-censorship that only applies to "Western hemisphere bad things". They are examples and yes, as with many things here, people may be appalled by them. But, I cannot stress it enough, it just links them. Whether people choose to click on them or not is their choice. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a subpage of the talk page of Muhammad. So actually, it is "a talk page of Muhammad". You still haven't explained why words cannot accomplish the point. لennavecia 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we called the page Wikipedia:FAQ regarding topics of Islam, it would be no difference. The place of a page does not indicate it's meaning, at least not alone (foe example essays in userspace are not worth less than those in Wikipedia-space). Point is, noone included the text of the article or the pictures in that FAQ - it is just additional text, just easier than saying "we got a picture called XXX, look it up yourself". They are examples that prove the point much better than any text ever could: Someone reading the FAQ who is already thinking Wikipedia has a pro-Christian/anti-Muslim-bias may not accept a text that tells them it's not so - but they might be convinced if we give them examples that in fact we do not censor anything. As I said above, noone has to click those links. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any Muslim editors out there from the middle east able to clarify for us if it's an offence for you to view images of the Prophet? I am concerned that we might be causing harm by allowing you to have the opportunity to view those pictures. If someone can point to a legal code that shows it's an offence (don't worry about which country you are in - we are now moving to a system where we apply local legal codes to articles), we can go from there? You might have to get an official of your govt to make a request for you but I am sure we will seriously consider it - as we have for other countries and their legal systems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of BLP section title vandalism on the Philip Pullman article inadvertently created a BLP-violating edit summary for the vandal fighter's edit...need an admin to delete it, although the edit itself was good...thanks, Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, this looks like garden variety vandalism to me--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a BLP concern, at least in my opinion. If any oversighters see it then sure, but I wouldn't go out of your way for it. — neuro^(talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is revert warring across perhaps a dozen and a half articles I created up to (but as of now not exceeding) WP:3RR on a style dispute. His edits (adding the adjective "American" to the first part of the first sentence in each bio, and in many cases deleting more specific statements of residency and scope of professional work), were in my opinion clumsy and degraded the articles. Giving him the benefit of doubt on the close cases I selectedly reverted about half of the edits. So far so good, that's how BRD/consens works.

Now the problem. Without discussion the editor simply reverted his changes back. I asked him to stop and self revert, he refused. I reverted some back myself with explanation. He reverted his changes back in, going up to WP:3RR (for example, here[151][152][153]) claiming that because he is acting per the MOS my opinion does not count.

At my insistence he brought the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Nationality in the lede of bios. The discussion is new but there is already a difference of opinion on the subject of how to describe nationality, and a fairly strong sentiment that this is a case-by-case decision for editors of each article. Undaunted, and after many warnings by me to stop edit warring, he just expanded the edit war to other articles I edit, continuing that I need to get consensus to stop him. Check out these edits,[154][155][156][157][158][159] which are occuring after the informal dispute resolution on the MOS talk page in full swing. So he's edit warring while participating in dispute resolution, not instead of dispute resolution. Plus, he's going down a list of my articles, and no others, so whatever his intentions it feels a lot like harassment and wikistalking.

We've dealt before with contentious editors who make mass article edits and edit war to enforce their positions, claiming that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to them because they know the WP:TRUTH about the guideline. A quick check shows that this editor has been blocked three times in quick succession last month for edit warring against consensus on what he considers style matters, the most recent on Barack Obama - I hope he did not follow me from there.

I do not wish to edit war, but I need a way to engage in reasonable editing. You may or may not agree on the style edits but as a behavioral matter I'm completely boxed in. If I do nothing he makes bad edits to articles I've worked on. If I revert the worst of them he will edit war up to 3RR (I wonder if he would break 3RR but I'm not about to find out - that's what ANI and consensus are for). He won't wait for consensus or discussion. And he's doing it to all of the bio articles I've worked on.

Could someone please warn him to follow process rather than edit war and/or deal with him if he continues? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks rather inappropriate. Tom has very obviously followed Wikidemon to a number of articles just to make a point. Grsz¹¹ 23:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to find out from him what it was, exactly, that provoked this methodical and most likely retaliatory behaviour? If it's — excuse me — tit for tat, addressing the tat might discourage the tit? — Writegeist (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While that sounds like a promising approach, I doubt it will be productive. Asking for an explanation would be tantamount to asking for an admission that this is a cmpaign of bad-faith edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

The user name rings a bell but I have absolutely no recollection of dealings with this editor. Although blocked for revert warring on Obama-related articles he does not all seem connected to the sockpuppeter and allies who disrupted the page so much. Looking through his talk page and block history the only prior interaction I can find is a warm and fuzzy 3RR caution I gave last month.[160] There is something curious - he's a prolific good faith editor with more than 10,000 edits and only a single block over a period of nearly 3 years. Yet in the past couple month he's been accumulating one warning after another for edit warring all over the place, and three blocks in short order. Running out of civility perhaps? Anyway, although his wikigaming and stalking is bad more or less by definition, I have no reason to question his motives. He's probably just trying to spiff up the encyclopedia, and doesn't react well when I disagree.Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Running out of civility perhaps?" Or meds? — Writegeist (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Many things more serious than this have been deemed "content disputes" - i am quite surprised to see editors above reacting as if this were clear-cut vandalism or something. I for one find inherent value (and common sense) in mentioning a basic thing such as nationality (not ethnicity, not regional identity) in the lead of an article, and, on wikipedia in general, so does the majority of editors. In fact, I would advise not just using the nationality in the lead, but linking to the article ("American"). Just who would find this problematic but people who imagine that there's America and then there's the rest of the world? What's more, in those cases were said editor replaced a (whimsical) exception with the standard version, what prevents his scandalized adversary (-ies) to change to a compromise version that would feature both tidbits? What exactly prevents Albert L. Farr from being an "American residential architect, based in San Francisco", instead of the two incomplete versions that are not in fact contradictory? Dahn (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say this enough. Edit warring a bunch of articles simultaneously en masse in response to one's personal view of the guidelines is a very bad idea, as is the attitude that consensus does not matter when guidelines are at stake. If you look at Threeafterthree's blocks and warnings, most are for this very sort of thing - edit warring rather than accepting consensus on things that are relatively trivial stylistic matter. The last one, that got him blocked for a week, was changing Barak Obama to Barak Hussein Obama II in the infobox, or maybe it was the other way around. I forget which because I was totally uninterested in the issue. The problem wasn't that he is right or wrong, because both of them are legitimate names for Obama. The issue was that he kept reverting despite article probation and the efforts of the dozens of other editors to find and respect a consensus on the matter, thereby causing lots of wikidrama, wasted time, and instability to the article.

Wikipedia is all about editors with different opinions working collaboratively. If you look at the attempt at dispute resolution one editor was solidly behind me in principal, one was solidly behind Threeafterthree, and a third said it is a case by case decision with no clear answer (which supports my position). So we had a split result in the hour or two before he started edit warring the exact same issue on a new set of articles.

I do not own any of the 100+ articles I started or the hundreds more to which I have contributed. Many have been greatly improved by the work of other editors. Others have been vandalized or degraded and I pitch in to fix any bad edits. At least half of Threeafterthree's changes were for the better or at least acceptable and I left them alone - I reverted the ones that did not make sense to me. At that point he should have attempted to reason, or work with me, or discuss the mater. Instead he simultaneously reverted up to 3RR on every single article, a dozen or more of these, then instead of respecting a dispute resolution process opened up a new front on the same matter on a new set of articles. If you say that's a content dispute, what am I supposed to do? Revert him again until we are both at 3RR? Then we'll have a contest on the 3RR notice board about which one of us will be blocked, and likely we will both be. Let him have his way because he's more stubborn than me? That's no way to edit an encyclopedia. The only reasonable outcome I can see is to tell him to stop and follow reasonable BRD, collaborative editing. He won't, which is why I came here. Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find these edits to be bad in any way. User:Threeafterthree appears to have made good faith edits that he believed would improve the articles and which followed the guidelines at WP:MOSBIO. User:Wikidemon changed them straight back, apparently believing, against guidelines and (in my opinion) common sense, that inserting the individual's nationality in the lead of a biographical article was unnecessary. It then developed into some form of edit war, with both reverting the other. Maybe it should have been taken to some form of conflict resolution earlier, but for Wikidemon to accuse Threeafterthree of edit warring is, I'm afraid, laughable. It was Threeafterthree who made perfectly acceptable and sensible edits and Wikidemon who reverted them. To then accuse him of edit warring is disingenuous in the extreme. May I say that had I spotted an article without a nationality in the lead, I would have done exactly the same thing. I would also, had I been in the mood and given the vociferous nature of the reversions, have checked the editor's contribution list to see whether he had written any other articles in the same way. That is not stalking or harrassment; that is good editing to bring articles in line with guidelines. It seems to me that this is a simple disagreement in which one editor is in line with guidelines and one is not; oddly, it is the editor who is not who is reporting the other for edit warring. Wikidemon's apparent claim that the guidelines are ambiguous is simply not true - the first section of WP:MOSBIO sets out quite clearly that nationality should appear in the lead paragraph - it is therefore not in any way POV to add nationalities to the lead paragraph. And, incidentally, the fact that Threeafterthree has been blocked in the past is utterly irrelevant - this is an entirely different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The mind reels. I do not know where to begin. Let's make it simple. Don't edit war and don't systematically go after another editor. Threeafterthree was doing that and it is onerous, tendentious, and disruptive. My version of the edits I selecively reverted is better and more in line with guidelines. You and Threeafterthree are free to your own opinion but again, don't edit war and throw policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW out the window just because you are convinced you are right. Calling me "laughable", "disingenuous", and beating the drum that you would wikistalk me too are all counterproductive. Threeafterthree's recent block and warning history indicates a pretty serious problem. If we ignore or encourage it, it's going to get worse and from my experience watching editors on comparable paths the outcome will not be pleasant. Wikidemon (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I usually don’t like to spend this much time or space on disputes but I must in this case. I will try to provide some background. I find biographies very interesting and do quite a bit of editing to make sure they comply with MOSBIO. My first block was due to a group of coordinated ip editors adding “Jewish-American” to approximately 800-1,000 bios a few years back. I reverted 100s of these and had a misunderstanding with an admin. Recently I have ventured into Political articles, which can be quite contentious, and admittly broke 3rr, which I am sorry for and will try hard not to repeat this mistake. I will admit that I probably could have dealt with Wikidemon better but it is very frustrating to be reverted by a user who seems to have taken ownership of articles and takes it personally. All I can say is thank god for user Necrothesp’s input and voice of reason. He has articulated my position perfectly. I feel that I am following a very well laid out and thoughtful MOS but I am the one being brought before this court and I am the one getting slammed. Also, the joke above about being on meds is totally uncalled for since this actually is the case. The number one thing I like about Wikipedia is the transparancy. I am sure that if you spend only a few minutes reviewing this, you would not get the full picture, but if folks were really willing to spend a great deal of time review contributions ect., they would see that I do try to follow policy and work with other editors. Have I had disputes with others? Of course, but it usually takes two to tango. Anyways, this will be my last post since I have decided to retire since this type of drama is not good for my health and will defer to the community. It is user’s like Necrothesp that renew my faith that I am not totally crazy, just slightly :) Please feel free to revert any edit I made recently and best to all. Cheers! --Tom 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: "My version of the edits I selecively reverted is better and more in line with guidelines." In what way? Care to provide some evidence? Which guidelines are your edits in line with? You are very fond of accusing others of edit warring (now you appear to be accusing me of it too simply because I disagree with you!) and being in breach of guidelines, so maybe you'd like to actually back up those claims. Because as far as I can see this is a pure case of a difference of opinion. I suggest you calm down, stop throwing accusations around, and provide some evidence to back up your claims that your edits are "more in line with guidelines". I'll provide some, from WP:MOSBIO: "The opening paragraph should give:...Nationality". Pretty unequivocal and unambiguous. You've contributed plenty of good stuff to Wikipedia, you seem generally reasonable, so I'm not sure why you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Threeafterthree's perfectly sensible edits. Nationality is an important piece of information to put into the introduction. The guidelines say it is. Most editors do it. What's the problem? Accusing Threeafterthree of edit warring and of stalking and harrassing you because he added something perfectly standard and sensible to some articles you've created seems a bit of an overreaction to say the least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not care to discuss that here because that is a content issue. The point is that there is a reasonable content disagreement. Of the three outside editors who commented you were the only one to back Threeafterthree's position. Another backed mine, as I said, and a third affirmed that this is a case-by-case stylistic choice. It's undeniable therefore that Threeafterthree did not have consensus for his edits and that there was a legitimate difference of opinion. You seem to misunderstand the guideline and the role of guidelines in constructing articles. In some cases Threeafterthree's edits were fine, as I said, and more accurately conveyed the nationality of the subject of hte article. In others, they degraded the articles and made the information more murky, so I reverted or reworded his edits. Keep in mind that there are other style guidelines that apply as well, there is an overriding style guideline about what a lede is and what it is for, and these are only guidelines after all and the point is to present information in a well-written encyclopedic fashion that is useful to the reader. All of this is the subject of reasonable editorial discretion. That kind of thing is to be discussed on a case by case basis with the the articles in question, without edit warring, using the collaborative editing process, with due attention to WP:BRD, among other things.

The claim of ownership and ongoing attempts to disparage me as an editor indicates an attitude issue on your part (Necrothesp) that needs some work. Claiming that I "like" to accuse other editors of edit warring is a low blow, and particularly immature. What are you doing, going through my contribution history for evidence to use against me? If you're looking for conflicts between me and other editors on AN/I, most of the people I have dealt with here or who have brought me here turned out to be sockpuppets or long-term trolls and are now long gone from the project. But please, don't try to disparage me personally as an editor merely for trying to deal with a situation. It is awkward to toot my own horn but I believe I am a reasonably good, and very productive, Wikipedia editor. When someone goes through an editor's entire contribution history to make mass edits on stylistic matters that are the subject of reasonable disagreement, then edit wars to enforce them, then whatever the motivations he is harassing that editor. Wikipedia is full of stylistic choices, such as using British versus American spellings, or different citation formats, and most of the style guidelines, essays, and norms on the topic say that where things are a matter of choice you should give some deference and respect to how the editors who have actually written and maintained an article choose to do it. You should not dive bomb large groups of articles to enforce your personal view of style. The "bee in my bonnet" is that another editor was mass edit warring on a bunch of articles I was working on, to try to enforce his particular stylistic choice. Going up to WP:3RR on a single article is frowned on and whether or not blockable by itself should not be used as a tool to resolve differences. What part of WP:EW do you not understand?

A little later today I would like to go through the articles that Threeafterthree degraded, and intelligently, one by one, evaluate the best way to present each person's cultural and geographic context. I would appreciate if I can do that in peace, without drama, and without being hounded by other editors making a WP:POINT about the MOS. If you don't like wikidrama, do not create it.Wikidemon (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Threeafterthree has had the good grace to leave the debate, I shall do the same. I see no point in further debate with somebody who has just accused me of not understanding what are perfectly clear guidelines and of going through his contribution history to find "evidence to use against" him. You are getting far more heated and aggressive than you ever needed to be and you really do need to calm down when dealing with those who disagree with you. You brought this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, yet you do not seem prepared to listen to an administrator's opinion unless it tallies with your own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have unretired :) Nothing like a good night's rest. Also, I do want to attend my first Wiki meet up in Providence on the 13th. I will not, however, edit these articles for now. Cheers, --Tom 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Threeafterthree cited running out of meds as the root of his problem (my educated guess was right!), so we must be glad that with his drug supply now apparently restored he's at last getting his rest, if it means he will no longer pursue Wikidemon from article to article to undo W's edits without explanation and/or in total disregard for consensus; and we must trust that Threeafterthree's undertaking to refrain from editing Sarah Palin et al. (wikidrama is bad for his health) implies a longer period of absence than proved the case in his "retirement." Not to mention his stated resolve to "defer to the community." — Writegeist (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Its more rest than meds, I am still waiting for a refill. Please stop with the nonsense about total disregard for consensus since is that what Wikidemon seems to be doing here. --Tom 18:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we done here? Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. But will anything be done? — Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further action at this point. Everyone has had their say. I've fixed several of the articles to balance various style objectives and generally unmong things. Assuming nobody is going to edit war over that there will be no disruption to avoid and no call for administrative intervention.Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist is there something you want "done"? Also, turkeys are done and people are finished, so the question should be are we finished? --Tom 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, sadly, "done" is le mot juste. Goodbye. Oops, no, I fear it's "au revoir." — Writegeist (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-opening because I think more discussion needs to take place, given new info available.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the edit history of RichHandsmGuy (talk · contribs) - virtually all of his edits seems to be reverting to article versions (sometimes those versions are over a year old) of Rassmguy (talk · contribs). Sockpuppet? team editing? I'm going to take a look but some eyes would be helpful and maybe if it is disruptive - a block to prevent further damage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK clearly disruptive - virtually all of his edits revert article back at least six months and in every case seriously degrade the quality of the articles by reverting clean-up work, removing sources etc. The guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great and as far as I can see the edits have been rolled back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? claims that it's a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be written to be somewhat automated. However, this particular task ("revert to the last version by me") would never be approved for a bot. In any case, an indef block seems reasonable for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspicious, too. Why would another unrelated user make that edit? -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now trying to get unblocked on the basis that it's a autoblock of a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy (talk · contribs) has posted two unblock requests at his talkpage - the first is on the basis of "I know nothing about this" - but what's odd is that he's posted a second on the basis that the first one was declined - but nobody has edited the page in-between his edits to decline the request? huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised by his 11 year old daughter who doesn't know any better." As compared with the average adult troll. That's an interesting twist on the "evil roommate" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Returned today as Handllrich (talk · contribs) reverting to 69.122.210.59 (talk). DoubleBlue (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm un-archiving this discussion because apparently this problem is either bigger/more complex than first thought, or completely unrelated. The IP for this user has now been blocked(as in, today) for 3 months, following massive disruption, past and present. I am re-opening this discussion so we can come to a conclusion on how long this IP should be blocked. Yes, 3 months seems like a good number, I'm just afraid that once those three months are up, we'll have another sock farm on our hands.

Below you can find the IP check request, which either unearthed a massive sock farm, or a bunch of unrelated sock farms. Most of them were blocked before the IP check request for disruption/ sockpuppeting. Since the page at the IP checkuser request might be archived sooner than later, I am transcluding a version below that I first copied from this page, to a page on my userspace.

• Handllrich (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 69.122.210.59 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The user at the top is a bot, which has been blocked indef. The bot was reverting all changes to any articles the IP edited in to the last version by the IP. If no other accounts are connected to this IP, I would suggest a block at least of a year, or longer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks more complex than might be expected at first glance...  Likely matches include:

1. Rassmguy (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Handllrich (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. RichHandsmGuy (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. RCAT120 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. GenHosts (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Gwenne (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Lastvers (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. Dremen (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
9. AbbST (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10. Ceetton (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11. Cizerex (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12. AdoraShe-Ra (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13. MDwww (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14. Primegoodie (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15. Rwws (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
16. Lliaa (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17. Landings (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18. Arcanne (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19. Lestml (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20. Stratrep (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21. Promnowe (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22. Bellrem (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23. TheBoneWoman (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24. DlsHouse (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25. Crommorc (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Most of the above were already blocked; went through, so it should be all of them, now.  IP blocked for good measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it seems that not all of these socks are connected.. well, I honestly hope they aren't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a direct copy of [161]. I'd db-copyvio it, but I think USA military publications may be public domain? Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% on if this the correct place to post this, but via the following link, shows all sites from that domain are public domain: http://www.robins.af.mil/main/disclaimer.asp

Michellecrispycritter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which revert an edit and edited the userpage of a long term editor, Michellecrisp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is a socketpuppet of Darwinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which is a sockpuppet of PublicSafetyOfficer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Bidgee (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

uw-uhblock. Buh-bye. Horologium (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

it's probably been raised before but on a long article there's big blue nothing down the left column of the page. Why not use a floating frame so that the stuff always there on the left column at the top comes down as you browse. Mccready (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The village pump is the 3rd door on the left. MuZemike (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, some of us hate floating frames, at peak usage times the Wiki is slow enough as it is. L0b0t (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please semi-protect the article Fabian Núñez. There are a few anonymous users who are inserting POV information about the arrest of his son. Thanks. Dems on the move (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RFPP, I do believe. :) — neuro^(talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done in any case. Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuebie and User:Caspian blue appear to be gaming the system in the three revert rule by Caspian blue acting as a meat puppet in a revert so it appears kuebie has reverted the same amount of times as me.

It originally started as a dispute on original research and direct copying from a source, however, i have deleted original research and i rewrote the passage (the source is reliable anyway), but User:Kuebie appears to be a nationalist korean bent on eliminating any mention of chinese influnce on korea.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected for 7 days. Please pursue WP:DR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The seemingly newbie who is very knowledgeable of Wiki rules (gaming the system?) not only violated 3RR but made such false accusation in order to get out of his various violations. The user gave me a insulting message[162] and even made a threat with lying[163] Then he even comes to make this bogus report. According to his logic, another editor who reverted to his preferred version should be his meatpuppet. This is a 3RR report on him and the other.--Caspian blue 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue falsely accused me of editing the article Korea. I did not touch that article.

You do not even remember your own writing. plurals: "learn how to spell plurally. Koreans not korea."--Caspian blue 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

you claim i reverted back to the original version. i did not. i rewrote what i added and there was nothing wrong with it, but it was still being reverted.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-read my edit summary on the article. When you were edit warrring, your content contains "original research". You make this hoax report and lied like above.--Caspian blue 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

you said it had "dubbioius content", it didn't reasd original research, and i was accised by kuebie of "copying directly from the source" in his reversion of my last edit. my content was not "copied from the source" in my last edit on the article.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is clearly with kuebie and has his POV

Caspian blue's name calling and incivility.

• Note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kuebie reported by Caspian blue (Result: ).
• All I did was trying to stop the ongoing edit wars between you and Kuebie, and I did not immediately report you to AN3 from good faith. But you rather choose to be disruptive and personal attacks.--Caspian blue 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see this.

User:Number 57, an admin, reverted six times to change the word Palestine to Palestinian territories, once after the filing of the attached 3RR report. User:Spartaz, invoking the need for fairness, gave the editors who reverted those edits, most of whom did so once each, warnings from the I-P arbcomm case, and decided not to block Number 57. Note that the only editor who violated 3RR was Number 57, no other editor came close. Note too that Number 57 rejected all requests to engage in discussion at the talk page.

Please review the link above. I think this decision sends a terrible message. If you're an admin, you can violate 3RR and nothing will happen to you. If you're a regular editor who decides to revert an admin once, you get a warning that you may be blocked in the future for disruptive editing. Also, the page has been protected for 48 hours at Number 57's preferred version, rewarding his reverting. Is this right? Tiamut^talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that three changes to the article (Hummus) were largely to remove a section of text which turned it into an anti-Israel attack article.[164] It is also an admins' responsibility for ensuring that policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are implemented, hence the usage of proper (rather than propagandist) terminology. The fact that an article about a foodstuff has been turned into a place to detail anti-Israel rants is, frankly, ridiculous. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And what you fail to recognize is that there is no excuse for violating 3RR. You did not recognize before I filed the report and you still don't recognize it now, likely because you were not blocked for your actions.

To others reading this, I should mention that Spartaz asked that readers be directed to the 3RR section, linked above, and his talk page for his rationale. He is busy now and will not be able to respond directly here. Tiamut^talk 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Number 57 should have asked other people for help rather than edit warring. However, the page is now protected, and User:Spartaz seems to have warned all the involved users to stop edit warring. So I don't see a need for additional admin action at this time.

The root issue here seems to be the inclusion in the article on Hummus of polemical material about Israel and Palestine. I have pre-emptively added Kosher salt to my watchlist in case the dispute spreads to that article.— Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry Number57 but if it's not listed under Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions, you are breaking the 3RR, even if with good intentions. No matter what one thinks of Tiamut's editing, it is as he says: It broadcasts a terrible message if others who revert in good faith are punished and you are not.

I understand why you did act like this but going alone versus multiple editors is not a good way. You should really try to avoid such edit-warring, because being an admin does not mean the rules that are very strict do not apply to you. I would not suggest any sanction but a fair warning like anyone breaking 3RR gets on their first violation. But Spartaz is correct that even admins can and will be blocked if they break the rules. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the recommended action for next time I find such nonsense on an article? I've seen plenty of stuff reported to ANI over the past two years with almost zero results, hence my lack of bothering to come here to ask for help. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to find a neutral way to rephrase the material. If you can't do that, in a last case, remove the material once. Either way, explain your thoughts on the talk page. It the material is reverted, ask either at WP:ECCN or WP:POVN to get some uninvolved editors to look into the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not above the law, of course. As with any police force, we need to watch the watchers. See: User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)What Number 57 reverted six times was the word Palestine, and not that other material, which by the way, I did not add, but merely copy edited and restored after it was deleted. To pretend that he is on the right side of a content dispute evades the issue, which is his violation of 3RR to pursue his POV that Palestinian territories is more appropriate terminnology, against what is outlined in the source cited (which says quite clearly "Palestine"). Tiamut^talk 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted this as well [165]. Neither of you is "right" and, in the end, the literal wording of the source isn't a determining factor. Nobody should be edit warring over this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did restore the word Palestine once. What you see in the rest of that diff is my attempt to copy edit down the material added by another editor that Number 57 removed. My requests to Number 57 to discuss the matter on the talk page, were ignored. He instead accused me of "bad judgement" on my talk page. I'm not perfect no, but I tried to de-escalate the situation. Number 57 continued to revert after I asked him to discuss and another editor warned him against edit-warring. All of this is in the link posted at the top of this section. I find the lack of recognition between the differences in my approach and that of Number 57's to be a bit weird. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already said, and again: Number 57 should not be edit warring there. If you tried to de-escalate this in the past, that was a great idea. Are you still trying to de-escalate it now? The post at the 3RR board has been resolved, and no admin is likely to overrule the resolution that Spartaz decided on. If another incident arises with Number 57 (or anyone else involved in that edit war), the resolution may be different next time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)::::Asking for a decision to be reviewed to see if it was implemented fairly is "escalation"?

When one editor reverts six times while most of the other editors involved revert him each once, should everyone be treated equally? When he continues to revert after the 3RR report is filed, does he show any indication that he understands that the behaviour he was engaged in was wrong?

Having been blocked by User:Spartaz over a year ago for making 3 reverts in 24 hours when other parties were involved, and no one else was sanctioned, I find this decision doubly weird. True, he overturned my block, but only after other editors protested.

In august last year I had been an admin for a month or so and, I'm glad to say, I have mellowed a great deal since then and am not really at all block happy as an admin these days. I cringe about some of the blocks I issued as a new admin so, if I got it wrong then I'm very sorry. I have learned that 3RR is a very blunt instrument and doesn't deal with the underlying causes of disruption. I acted to deal with the underlying cause in this case (the importation of Israel-Palestinian arguments into a new article) and while I'm sorry for the fact that you are unhappy I genuinely believe I acted in the best interests of the project. This isn't the first time that there has been a complaint that I didn't block someone for a 3RR and it won't be the last. I accept that there was some inconsistency here compared to my block of you but please remember that over a year has passed, that admins do mellow and are also human. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, even though Number 57 made 4 reverts in 24 hours and two others just thereafter, one of which was made after I filed the 3RR report, Spartaz's response was to issue warnings to all the other editors involved, protect the page at Number 57's version, and then give him a warning too, citing the need for "fairness", and the not singling out any one editor.

Can you possibly see why someone with my experience might find this to be a rather odd outcome?

However, if you think everything was dealt with fairly and well here, I guess there's no point in beating a dead horse. Just my Palestinian paranoia, and all that jazz. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Spartaz. I now understand how your approach to 3RR has evolved and accept your decision was made in good faith. I was very peeved when Number 57 continued to revert after I filed the report, and disappointed that it did not elicit a strong reaction from you when in my experience, it would have previously. But I think you are right to believe that the message has now been delivered, and your solution seems like a wholly workable one. My apologies for wasting everybody's time. Tiamut^talk 17:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I think either outcome of this could have been totally justified. I think Number 57 did break 3RR as the POV edits he reverted, while they were indeed highly POV, weren't over the line into outright vandalism. That being said, he was clearly acting in good faith to preserve a neutral article: the edits he made were, I think, correct except for the fact that he made too many of them. A 3RR block would have been justified at the time, but the edit-war stopped anyway and blocks are not intended to be punitive or used to make a statement. Certainly Number 57 should make an effort to enlist help in these cases in the future, though. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. The reversions were to information that appears to have been at least equal in spirit to vandalism. ►BMW◄ 15:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now replacing the word Palestine with Palestinian territories six times is somehow akin to fighting vandalism? The wonders never cease. Tiamut^talk 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: As someone decided to complain on my editor review, that rather than read clearly and discuss their concerns with me on my own Talk page, I want to clarify: some of the edits (as noted above) served to completely reverse the meaning of certain phrases. Reversion of those potentially inflammatory changes is valid, as this is, in my opinion, equal in spirit to a vandalistic act. I'm pretty sure that was obvious to most, based on the follow-up. My apologies if anyone misread. ►BMW◄ 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me which participants are on which "side" so I can comment appropriately. I never keep track so that would help. Thanks, --Tom 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Peace between all homo sapiens regardless of race or belief. ►BMW◄ 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

From one chickpea dish to another... It's all happening at Falafel now with yet another new id. Either there is an Arab version of the JIDF out there or someone is payign with sockpuppets.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 got blocked for 3RR while he was a sitting arbitrator. Admins aren't above policy either. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins are charged with upholding policies and guidelines. No person, least of all an admin, should be going around edit-warring. It's an inexcusable abuse of power, pure and simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We've just had a fresh Grawp attack - the usual MO by Hope of the Future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I've now blocked. Assistance with the cleanup is requested. Never mind, it's already been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird account. Some legitimate work in August and now typical vandalism. His sleepers are getting more complex it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General questions: How many pages are moved each day? How many of the moves are by admins versus non-admins? How many of the moves are legit versus vandalism? If page-moving were made an admin-only function (or maybe an "admin and rollbacker only" function or something), what would be the impact? If all of userspace were automatically move-protected, what would be the impact? Just thinking out loud here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of pages that get made each day with simple mistakes in the title, such as a lowercase second word if the article is about a person, or a title that includes honorifics, etc. Maybe instead, an article autoconfirmation period; if the article exists for more than 10 days or gets edits from more than k users, it can't be moved except by an admin? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that combined with a pagemover flag--the way our rollbacker flag works. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like how image renaming permissions work, I guess. I still think the pressure of renaming new articles would require an exception, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What about a page-move speed limit? There should be little need for most users to move more than one page on any given day, so we could require at least a few hours' delay between moves. There could be a pagemover flag to remove the speed limit. --Amble (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as outlined it would prevent fixing a move that gets screwed up, but with a small tweak… Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a rate limit. One every few hours would be daftly restrictive, though -- Gurch (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the current rate limit? It must be rather generous, since Hope of the Future was able to move six pages in one minute. I think most ordinary editors (like me) rarely move pages, and wouldn't mind a limit of one move per few hours, but would be annoyed by having to go through an extra approval process to move pages at all. --Amble (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

8 per minute. (Administrators are, surprise surprise, exempt from this) -- Gurch (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, it scares me that you even pose such a question -- Gurch (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? BLP-outrageous pagemove vandalism that winds up in permanent logs has become a serious problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the answer to that would be turning on the single-rev deletion feature that has been sitting around for a year or so, then the page move vandalism could be deleted from the history by any sysop without straining the servers. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a link to any prior discussion of this. Also, does it cover logged items as opposed to revisions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See m:Revising_history#Looking_forward, it would easily cover the page moves since those are in the article history and based on my understanding of the software, could be applied to any log entry type based on setting (delete, block, userright, etc). It is already turned on at test-wiki for the basic model and appears highly configurable. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We should also see this as further evidence that WP:Abuse filter should be pushed with a little more urgency. Although the single rev deletion option would be nice. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP's original concern... it raises questions about who or what Grawp is. I have long held the personal belief that Grawp is not a single individual, but likely a group of people who may or may not even know who the original Grawp was. By using a combination of compromised accounts, and spreading the faith /b/ style, any number of people who just want to goof on wikipedia can do so by being Grawp. The Grawp attacks may have become something of a meme rather than a single disruptive person; anyone old enough to remember the "Meow Wars" that nearly brought down the Usenet in the early 1990's will understand how a diffuse group of unrelated troublemakers can be both very specific in the nature of their attack while still being completely uncoordinated. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)