Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive296

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives



This user has vandalized the article Jacksonville, Florida numerous times (8 to be exact) - all in the past two days. He just blanked the page 5 minutes ago. He has been warned one too many times. He should be blocked. - Jaxfl 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, though, please report things like this at Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim[edit]

There have been several edit wars on this page in the past few weeks. The first one started at the beginning of August, where two editors (User:Intothefire and User:Arrow740) repeatedly made additions that were often irrelevant, badly sourced, entirely unsourced, and/or badly written. They were reverted by User:Tigeroo and myself (just once), among others - the reverts looked like this. In general the article had major problems (spelling, grammar, repeated links, inconsistent spelling, badly sourced POV material, etc.) so I made a good faith (attempt to fix the problems. Well that only sparked more reverting, where User:Arrow740 and User:Hornplease got into their own edit war.

Now the "incident" I'm reporting is this - apparently a sockpuppet has entered the picture. This revert war does not seem to be stopping any time soon (Tigeroo and I, among others, have justified our edits on the talk page, and User:Intothefire is at least attempting to discuss his edits with us, but Arrow740, for example, has made only 1 comment on the talk page and it wasn't particularly constructive ("Yes, he didn't put much effort into his edit summary this time. Arrow740 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"). Anyway this page might need to be protected - and I don't know what to do about the sockpuppet (first of all, it could be Arrow or Intothefire - how am I to know whom?). ugen64 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the characterisation of my attempts as an edit war: I specifically urged Arrow740 to contribute on the talkpage. A look at his edit contributions tells a clear story: this editor needs to be encouraged to stop reverting without discussion. It appears that over 80% of his edits are reverts, often using vandalism tools, and almost always without discussion. His user talkpage lists several interventions by different users that indicate that this is a pattern of behavior. Hornplease 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POINT violation[edit]

Darrowen (talk · contribs) just created an article, Indo-Aryan civilizations, as a reaction to the closure for Dravidian civilizations. While I agree that the closure for that article was poor (should have been 'delete' instead of 'no consensus'), Darrowen's article was obviously created in retaliation - "This page certainly has precedent if the Dravidian civilizations article is not a hoax.".

As the idea of such an article was in fact ridiculed by those who supported the deletion of Dravidian civilizations, I think it is easy to declare Darrowen's action a WP:POINT violation.

To get to the point, I don't want to bother grappling with Darrowen over deletion, so I'm wondering if anybody can just delete it for the POINT violation that it is. Thanks for any help dealing with this. The Behnam 04:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Query - positioning markup[edit]

Why do we allow "floating divs" in the first place? Is there any plausible use for them other than to obscure parts of the MediaWiki interface? >Radiant< 10:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Floating divs are everywhere - infoboxes, etc. The problem is absolute positioning. People use that functionality to do cute things on their user pages but, otherwise, I'm not aware of places where it helps the encyclopedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear about terminology, a floating div is typically a box that floats left or right of the main text. It moves things out of the way to make space for itself. This is a very useful feature. A floating div will not obscure other things. Absolute positioning, also known as layers, puts a div a set number of pixels away from an edge of the screen. This can cause the div to obscure other things. Here are the beans if you want to test this:
<div style="position:absolute; top: 200px; left: 200px"> <h1>Beans! Beans! Beans!</h1> </div>
Try this in your sandbox, not on a live page, please. - Jehochman Talk 11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so I used the wrong term :) the question stands - why do we allow this in the first place? I believe the MediaWiki software can filter out unwanted kinds of html tag. >Radiant< 11:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well it's used by a whole host of templates that put various icons and such up next to the article title (FA stars, padlocks, geographical coordinates etc). None of that is rely critical to the ensyclopedia, but are they causing a lot of problems though? I've seen them used to block out the toolbox on one or two userpages, but I generaly don't think of it as a problem. If someone is using it to be disruptive just revert and take apropriate measures if they are beeing dickish about it. --Sherool (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, good answer. Thanks. >Radiant< 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Can their use be restricted in software, to template space then? They are being used for spam and links which (being hidden) are on the pages, disrupt editors, and assist SEO, but are not always visible casually. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to Wknight94, there are (IMO) valid uses for absolute positioning when captioning various features on an image or diagram - see Broadwater Farm Estate or Hampstead Heath, for exampleiridescent (talk to me!) 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On Rambutan etc[edit]

  1. Rambutan has been disruptive in the past – Not completely untrue, as a user who has been in dispute with Rambutan, I can say that he has been unhelpful and unwilling to listen at times. However, he responded well to reason in the past, learned from his mistakes and has been willing to collaborate.
  2. Rambutan agreed to move on with the GFDL banner, which hovered over the GFDL links before he was blocked.
  3. It would be interesting to note that Rambutan had only recently nominated an article for deletion over which Phil Sandifer seems to have an active interest. See Judd Bagley and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judd Bagley (2nd nomination), soon after which Phil commented on the AfD page, and then commented upon how Rambutan was "deliberately" – [1] trying to make his talk page unusable. This petty dispute escalated and resulted in the non-admin getting blocked for a duration of one month(?).
  4. Phil Sandifer has repeatedly introduced material – [2], [3], which can be considered to be libellous on a permanent medium of information like an encyclopedia. On that very page itself, Phil Sandifer misused his admin tools to semi-protect the page to prevent the anonymous IP address from editing again. This was soon followed by the petty issue been addressed on Rambutan's talk page.
  5. Rambutan has been blocked many times during the months of June and July, majority of the blocks been executed by Phil Sandifer himself – [4]. The very first block made by Phil Sandifer (citing Removing talk page comments is disruptive.) was overturned by another administrator. This did not discourage Phil Sandifer from continuing blocking this user.
  6. I would strongly recommend other administrators looking into the dispute, to delve into the issue rather than making observations solely on what it appears on the surface. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, I implore Phil to stay away from Rambutan, and let other admins deal with him. This is not to say that Rambutan is in the right, just that Phil should focus elewhere. Will (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record I find this intervention in the block of Rambutan most disturbing, particularly given the very serious, and as far as I can tell absolutely unfounded, counter-accusations that are made against his blocker. Rambutan is categorically disruptive, responds badly to polite requests, and has been rightly blocked on many occasions. That Phil has fielded this disruptive behavior is no reason to treat Phil as the problem, when Rambutan is the author of his own very poor reputation. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Variation AGF personal attack in edit summary[edit]

CBDunkerson accused me of assuming his bad faith (no clue as to why) which I interpret as an inverse variation on the AGF personal attack described at WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. It's in an edit summary where only an admin can remove it, and I would like it removed, please.

Here's the diff of CBDunkerson's the over-the-line edit summary: "Response to assumption of bad faith and refusal to accept very clear statements of my position"
Nothing of the kind happened. For the AGF claim, I never assumed or mentioned anything about his good faith, or even thought about it. For the position claim, I did accept his constructive position that he was not going to answer the topic question, which was his only position in which I had an interest. I simply pointed out that his other statements of position were not answers to my question as stated.

This is one of those situations that gets worse with my every reasonable response, and I'd appreciate some help before the situation fulminates. He certainly isn't going to listen to my advice on avoiding NPAs generally, or as being especially disruptive in edit summaries. Also, given his demonstrated misreading of fact, I think it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here.†

The background is that I asked him an on-topic question which he refused to answer as stated, and then went off on a fevered tangent based on misreading my post for calendar month. When I pointed out his refusal to answer the question as stated, he claimed he had answered it repeatedly, which claim I find to be tendentious debating. Though I had civilly given up asking, he finally did answer the question as stated. That would have been the tedious end of it, except for the variation AGF PA in the edit summary where it can't be deleted by me. I would like to have it removed by admin, and Mr. Dunkerson reminded that Wikiguides apply to everyone.

†Mr. Dunkerson's debate style has most recently been aggressive certainty of his one-and-only rightness, while making repeated mistakes of fact and interpretation — suggesting to me that he needs new glasses and debate mentoring. This loose cannon behavior is that of a WP long-timer, admin, and a 36-year-old professional adult who ought to know better, maybe used to know better, but now doesn't perhaps due to admin burnout. Having read his RfA of 03 April 2006, the editor I encountered recently doesn't even seem like the same person as then received a (111/1/0) admin approval ratio. Milo 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I love the C-style comment in the header! - Alison 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not the best time to say that Allie? I think you're overreacting a bit Milo. CBDunkerson may be just a little frustrated about the debate... Doubtful it requires much admin intervention, so it may be best to talk to him about it first. Cheers. --DarkFalls talk 02:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Doubtful it requires much admin intervention" Oh? How you propose I remove the PA without admin tools? Milo 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
While it may be a little uncivil, I would not call that a personal attack that has to be removed from the page history. I can see that he was frustrated and the message was directed at a contributor not on content. I don't think it is worth it to remove it from the page history though. 1. No names are mentioned in the edit summary or text. 2. The attack (if it can be construed as one) is quite minor, its not like he called anyone an idiot or something. 3. The page has over 4000 revisions, deleting that one would require deletion/undeletion of the whole thing. I'd rather not crash the server now (I almost did it a few days ago with a page with fewer revisions). 4. Some of the comments made here about CBD are much worse than his comment about assuming good faith. "it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here." That seems a little underhanded and sneaky, talking about him behind his back. "needs new glasses and debate mentoring" - I would consider that a personal attack and do not see how it is really related to the topic at hand except to try to make CBD look as bad as possible. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We have now entered the stage known as blaming the victim. I'm the victim here, and I did nothing to deserve being victimized. CBD's edit summary personal attack came out of the blue.
"Some of the comments made here about CBD are much worse than his comment about assuming good faith." That's not true, not fair to me, and over the top. I'm asking for help and you appear to be angling to justify my victimization.
" to try to make CBD look as bad as possible." You are wrong. I stated exactly what happened, no more, no less. If he looks bad, that is due to his own behavior, not my cautious and accurate description of it.
"... The attack (if it can be construed as one)" ... "I would not call that a personal attack..." Allow me to Wikiguide cite this point: WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack." As I read it, CBD's edit summary says by Wikiguide interpretation that I PA'd him. WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack? says that "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."
"...that has to be removed from the page history." Hm, that's difficult for me to judge one way or another without standards. I'd appreciate addtional opinions and comparisons.
"No names are mentioned in the edit summary or text." Ok, that helps, and his edit summary is isolated from my last summary by five edits; but, they are obviously connected by the little-edited section name.
"its not like he called anyone an idiot or something" You say that because you probably aren't a philosopher. My position in the debate is primarily based on philosophy, and maintaining perception and reality of good faith is vital. What he said is much worse to one's reputation than being junior-highishly called an "idiot", though not as inflammatory which is probably your usual standard.
Milo wrote (02:31): 'needs new glasses and debate mentoring' - Mr.Z-man wrote (03:26): "I would consider that a personal attack" Those are certainly not PAs - behavior is commentable: WP:NPA#Initial options: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions"
"and do not see how it is really related to the topic at hand" They are directly related, as I'll explain. He grossly misread my "last June-ish" (obviously three months ago) for being June 2006 and made an emphatic point based on his error. That he might need new glasses is a perfectly fair and reasonable interpretation of his overt misreading behavior. His tendentious debating remark that he claimed to have repeatedly answered my question, when in fact he had answered his own contorted version of my question - that reasonably calls for debate mentoring, which is after all education in how to properly debate. Again, neither comment is a PA - again, behavior is commentable.
"Milo wrote (02:31): 'it would be unwise for me to post anything at all to his user page, even a notice that he is being discussed here.' Mr.Z-man wrote (03:26): "That seems a little underhanded and sneaky, talking about him behind his back." AGF - it was an hint for someone else to tell him. Really now, if I didn't want him (or you) to know, I sure wouldn't have told you that I hadn't told him, right? To the central point, one of the things I've learned about frequent communications with strangers at Wikipedia is that when they misunderstand you more than once, one wisely ceases communicating as promptly as is civil. It's too risky to do otherwise. Take my word for it that I can list the risks, but that's OT.
"The page has over 4000 revisions, deleting that one would require deletion/undeletion of the whole thing. I'd rather not crash the server now (I almost did it a few days ago with a page with fewer revisions)." Yeah, being a techie myself, I agree that is a problem. Sounds like a problem that should be submitted to development for dealing with large page histories.
So what do we have here? It's not practical for CBD's PA to be sliced out, and so far no admin here has the fortitude to tell another possibly myopic admin, while acting as an editor, that he shouldn't have attacked me, much less for absolutely no reason.
Y'know folks, access to small claims justice, and the cop on the beat to stop trouble in its early stages, is vital to neighbors getting along in the real world. Without small justice here, this is the kind of thing that causes good editors to leave Wikipedia in disgust.
So is there a just and fortitudinous admin in the house? Milo 06:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Milo, you continue to insist that I didn't answer your question despite my repeated statements that I did. That's the 'assumption of bad faith' I referred to in my edit summary... you are essentially claiming that I am 'lying'. I didn't really give you my answer, I was just pretending that I had. Or something. Now you claim that the situation was so dire (rather than an incredibly minor and silly squabble) that you needed to come here, not discuss the matter with me, and not even notify me of this discussion. That isn't assumption of bad faith on your part? Your refusal to accept that >my< opinion (which you had asked for) was really what I said it was, the various minor insults you have tossed my way, and your bad faith assumptions and actions are unfortunate, but not of any great concern. I'm sorry that you didn't like (or apparently heed) my mention of the need to assume good faith, but that is no more a 'personal attack' than your claims above that by saying so >I< failed to assume good faith.
We are entirely agreed that conduct rules apply to everyone in every situation... which is why I have responded to your insults and assumptions of bad faith with reminders that you should not be doing so. In brief; don't go about insisting that I'm lying to you (about my own opinion no less) and there'll be no reason for me, and other respondents above, to remind you of civility and the need to assume good faith. This was an incredibly minor disagreement which you have gone out of your way to inflate into some kind of notable disruption. There's no need. We disagree about whether spoiler warnings can be used without impacting the layout of articles. My original statement of that fact should have been the end of it. So why all this noise and bother? --CBD 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"your insults and assumptions of bad faith"..."So why all this noise and bother?" In a nutshell, the latter occurred because of the former - being your erroneous notions of non-events that occurred only within your misunderstandings (which I will prove), leading to your edit summary personal attack (as Wikiguide-cited above) on my philosophical character, which is important to me (for reasons stated above), and is situated in an edit summary apparently no one will undertake to erase.
"incredibly minor disagreement which you have gone out of your way to inflate into some kind of notable disruption." I reject your attempt to trivialize and smear as a disruption, my evidence-based complaint of personal attack in an appropriate venue. Personal attacks are taken seriously at Wikipedia, and WP:NPA thoroughly explains why. The PA is there, whether intentional or not you did it, and it is in an edit summary where only admins can erase it. Like it or not, that's an ANI case. However, much of the threadspace "noise" above was made in refuting Mr.Z-man's outrageous attempt to blame the victim, which was not your doing.
Disclaimer: I suppose that because of your professional career, it's personally important for you to be correct. Ok, I feel the same way, but I'm not always correct, and neither are you. I politely ate three servings of crow yesterday, and you should go on the same diet.
I want to make it clear that we are discussing correctness in the context of English language debate, not money or math. English language debate is obviously not your field, and my criticism of your demonstrated debate and language skills doesn't reflect in any way on your ability to be correct in your money and math professional field. Also, I'm not saying you can't improve at debate and language, and I hope you will, if only to future-avoid the unecessary kind of trouble you have caused me this week.
"Milo, you continue to insist that I didn't answer your question despite my repeated statements that I did. That's the 'assumption of bad faith' I referred to in my edit summary... you are essentially claiming that I am 'lying'. I didn't really give you my answer, I was just pretending that I had. Or something."
This seems to be your key misunderstanding. There are two problem issues with your view.
1) The first issue is that you still think that you originally did answer my question. I'm going to have to prove that you didn't, point by point. That will have to wait until I pull out the quotes and annotate them.
2) The second issue is your unbridled leap of inference that because I said you didn't answer my question, and you said you did, that somehow equals a charge by me that you lied. It doesn't, and that's a specific example of the general reason for the WP:AGF Wikiguide. From my view, you obviously believed you had answered my question, but I merely concluded that you were again wrong.
Recall your misreading of my statement of "last June-ish" (obviously circa three months ago) as meaning circa June 2006 . That was you setting a pattern of being wrong. It was obvious for me to conclude from your first wrong reading, that your claim to have answered my question, was you being wrong again. Not lying, just plain wrong. It turns out that your unjustified and incorrect leap of inference was wrong #3.
Are we done with that second issue now? Milo 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Godzilla Boy (talk · contribs)[edit]

User has repeatedly changed a section title inappropriately ("Kaiju UNLEASHED" in all caps and bolded, italicized) in Godzilla: Unleashed. He has previously been blocked for similarly disruptive edits to the page. Just64helpin 11:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note at his talk page to avoid such conduct. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He is still doing it... Just64helpin 10:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1 week block for disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:feline1 accusing me of witch hunts[edit]

cross-posted from User talk:Spartaz due to his recommendation

I noticed that you had blocked User:feline1 for making some rather rude comments earlier. He is now making some very rude comments to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott along the lines of claiming that I'm setting up sockpuppet accounts in order to start witch hunts. I asked him to stop harassing me at User talk:feline1 but he pleads ignorance. Can you please help? Nondistinguished 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

not blockable behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry I'd already started typing this before Spartaz replied - I may as well post it!) Am I allowed a say in the matter? :) It just seems to me that Nondistinguished is the same person as User:ScienceApologist, who I'd encountered before on the Immanuel Velikovsky article. I'd recognise his aggresive editing style anywhere, not to mention his penchant for 'wiki-lawyering'. He seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about deleting "non-mainstream" and "pseudosience" articles. Anyways, I cast my vote on the deletion of the David Talbott article, if the community majority vote the other way then I'm happy to abide by the decision. I've no interest in fighting about it!--feline1 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What's with all the ad hominems? Are editors allowed to simply spout their opinions regarding the personal character of other editors? I thought we were supposed to discuss content and how to best build an encyclopedia, not make personal accusations! Is this how the Wikipedia community responds normally? If so, then I want out. Normally I would simply ignore this kind of baiting, but in the case of an encyclopedia that works under consensus, such rude behavior can be very damaging to the project, I would think. Nondistinguished 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
AN/I is that way ---> Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Feline1 are you saying that nondistinguished is a sock puppet or new account of scienceapologist? --Rocksanddirt 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
/shrugs/I think it's their new account; reading WP:SOCKPUPPET I'm genuinely confused as to whether that's a considered Bad Thing or not.--feline1 05:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

MWWS - accusation of edit warring, trolling for duplicate tag removal?[edit]

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has accused me of edit warring and trolling for removing a duplicated NPOV tag from Missing white woman syndrome. The tag is also contained in the "multiple issues" box which is there to remove, rather than encourage, tag clutter. SqueakBox has gone on to describe the article as "dreadfully unbalanced", "badly sourced" and "referenced to pursue a POV agenda", despite a multitude of reliable major media sources represented in the article, and the efforts of various editors to clean up the article and remove unsourced information. I don't get any of this. If someone could help me point out to SB the fact that trolling and edit warring do not apply to removing duplicated maintentance tags, and that the article is indeed pretty well sourced, I'd appreciate it. Deiz talk 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing to me but I don't know why this needs to be discussed in this venue. Let's keep on his Talk page and the article's Talk page. No admin action required here. --ElKevbo 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think it does need some sort of intervention. Squeakbox has a history of accusing people of trolling, when they are doing or supporting something he dislikes. Case in point [5] he accuses an administrator of trolling simply because the administrator protected a page he was trying to speedily delete. Fighting for Justice 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(EC) He's flirting with 3RR and accusing 2 long-standing editors of trolling and edit warring over nothing. As you noted, he appears to be editing quite strangely and your observation that he is "not himself tonight" is probably pretty close to the mark. If he continues to be disruptive, rude, turn simple maintenance tag cleanup issues into "trolling and edit warring" and make bizarre accusations then I would ask an uninvolved admin to step in. Deiz talk 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I NPOV'd this article yesterday based on serious considerations. There is still a dispute so where is Deiz coming from removing the tag and denying the dispute without lifting a finger to resolve the dispute. I agree with El Kevbo that there is nothing for admins here, other than perhaps to point out to Deiz that there is a dispute so he should let the NPOV tag be until the dispute is sorted (and I went mention details here, the talk page is for that and he hasnt even tried to argue that the article is NPOV in aserious way). IU just ecd but nothing Deiz says in his latest edit changes anythiong, this article needs more than maintenance tags and I am at l;eastrt as long standing as Deiz, who is the only one opposing the perfectly reasonable tag, SqueakBox 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand which part of this you don't understand:
  • I removed a duplicate tag - It was tagged as NPOV twice. Routine cleanup.
  • The "multiple issues" box is there to contain multiple tags.
If you continue to assert that I entirely removed NPOV tags from the article you will continue to be knowingly misrepresenting the facts, which isn't going to impress anyone. Deiz talk 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV tags were not identical and I removed the blue NPOV tag when you pointed it out to remain with the orange standard NPOV tag which is the one one I want as I believe the article currently merits it. Why not just leave the orange NPOV standard tag that I placed there. I cant understand why you would wish to remove it as its just a standard tag, nothing controversial except to let our readers know the article is tagged as NPOV, and explained when I placed the tag. This is such a lame edit war and your blue multiple-use tag failed to give the same impact. THis article is POV as it presents one side of an argument as fact, SqueakBox 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There are now 4 editors attempting to use the multiple issues box, and one editor and a mysterious new IP reverting back. Deiz talk 03:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A UK IP. Problem is that I am in Honduras and according to my IP locator the IP is based in the UK. And even I couldnt get a meatpuppet to call my tune at 5 am (UK time). I have to say multiple editors removing an NPOV tag is disgraceful, a new low for wikipedia, SqueakBox 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody - not one editor - has removed the tag. You like the orange stand-alone tag, we get it. Others are happy with the multiple issues box. Deiz talk 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • NPOV tags arent consensus based, if you are as experienced as you claim you will know that, SqueakBox 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nonetheless, the fact that those reverts are that IP's first and only edits is highly suspicious. OcatecirT 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well if you believe I am currently in the UK please feel free to run a check user, but I am in Honduras right now, SqueakBox 04:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Tags are absolutely based on consensus - if there is consensus to add or remove them they get added or removed. "..which is the one one I want as I believe the article currently merits it"? Sorry, but you don't own your pet article. For good reasons. Deiz talk 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While there is definitely a significant conflict going on here, I agree with ElKevbo -- this is not an issue that requires administrative attention at this time. A request for comment would probably be the best place to go from here. --krimpet 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article was protected, there was also an apparent 3RR violation. Issue seems to have blown over for now. Deiz talk 06:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the catch-22. The page can't be unprotected till the neutrality issues are sorted out, as that would be the best solution to this mess, but until someone can edit out the issues, the page can't be unlocked to be edited. ThuranX 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The dispute has nothing to do with the neutrality issues. It's entirely concerning the template. :( --ElKevbo 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


There's an anonymous editor on both Mousepad and Talk:Mousepad that's claiming that Armando M. Fernandez made the mosuepad invention, making rather serious accussations of plagerism and possibly personal attacks. The anon editor uses multiple IP Addresses, and has made very few other edits to any other articles.

The only citation involves one small document, which might not even make the requirements of a proper citation. Aside from that single document, there isn't much information that allows this to be verified - and another link seems contradicts the claim of invention (by stating the original demo used a cloth pad).

Fernandez's reference presents legal documentary evidence. Other claimants and their supporters present only fabricated plagiarism and fabricated false conjectures about having invented the mousepad, they also have a groupie of pushers of the plagiarism and false conjecture fabricated by Kelly and Pang. Fernandez's reference document, shows that he is the true person who first invented, first named and first documented the mousepad.

This needs escalation, and ANI seems to be the best catchall. While I'd go for WP:RFC, I strongly doubt that will resolve the issue based on the sidedness of the arguments. The references also appear in more than one wikipedia translation as well, thus escalation probably would affect a larger number of pages. --Sigma 7 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However, WP:AN/I is not a place where content disputes should be resolved - more leaning towards user conduct. I'd go for WP:RFC first. And which other language Wikipedias are "affected"? x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam Personal Attacks[edit]

User:Beh-nam has personally attacked me on my talk page [6] and User:Tariqabjotu - [7] on his talk page, using harsh language and assumptions of bad faith. Atabek 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user in question. --Tango 12:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

why has this guy not been indef-blocked?![edit]

Can someone please look at the contributions of (talk · contribs) and tell me why this total and complete troll was not blocked indefinitely the moment he showed up and started spewing his disgusting, idiotic racist filth? I know I'm a little late on this one as he hasn't posted for over a week, but shouldn't he be blocked anyway to make sure he doesn't get a chance to post that garbage again? K. Lásztocska 04:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well admisn arent all-seeing but, yeah, this guy looks a definite troll and shopuld be blocked for a while, SqueakBox 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. Indefinitely blocking a user a week after their vandalism helps no one. Moreover, indef blocking IPs is not usually a good idea, especially for one day of vandalism. --Haemo 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, point taken. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea though to keep an eye out in case he returns...K. Lásztocska 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. IPs are very rarely indef blocked, because an indef block of an IP means an indef block of more than one person, much of the time. Many of those people netted in with the indef block could be very innocent and interested in building the 'pedia. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS puts him in Romania, so it looks like good 'ol fashioned national pride trolling is at play here. I'll keep an eye on him, though. --Haemo 05:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
national pride is one thing, spewing idiotic hatred against other ethnicities is something else again... Thanks Dissident for reminding me about the IP block usually catching more than one person--it's late, I had a weird day, my brain isn't working...ughhh.... K. Lásztocska 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It was blocked for one week. If it continues after that, report to WP:AIV and mention it just came off a block.Rlevse 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User One haer[edit]

Keeps adding indefblockeduser templates to users that aren't such. If I remember correctly this is a recurring problem with a specific user. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 08:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a vandalism only account. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User redirecting page during MFD[edit]

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) has just redirected a page currently up for MFD, which is this page, to another page, see this edit. According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. Should the user in question be warned about his actions? Davnel03 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Have you asked Tony about this on their talk page? Spartaz Humbug! 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, he hasn't replied yet. I just wondered whether any further action is required. Davnel03 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You only gave him 12 minutes to reply before you took the matter to ANI. Readro 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief ... it may be a technical procedural misstep, but hardly a matter worth bringing here. He was boldly, in good faith, redirecting a page that doesn't need to exist to a suitable target. I think he can be forgiven for not having the deletion policy memorized. There's nothing that needs to be brought here. --B 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Davnel03 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich violates policy by continued baseless personal attacks and posting of a link to an attack site[edit]

Resolved: Chris O has blanked and locked the talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Jason Gastrich was recently denied reinstatement and has responded by engaging in personal attack, in violation of WP:NPA, by insisting without evidence that I am a sock-puppet of another user. He perpetuates the problem by the repeated posting of an attack link to a domain that he owns [8] [9] [10] [11]. The Google Group to which Jason's domain redirects is nothing more than an attack site, and Jason's continued posting of it violates a subsection on Wikipedia's policy on civility by forbidding the use of those links on project pages. Jason no doubt feels that he's banned and there's nothing more that can be done to him, but even as the temper tantrum that Jason has thrown this morning means little, and his claims mean even less, the use this attack site should be countered in the interests of the community. Recommend that the domain be blacklisted. - Nascentatheist 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse blacklist. DurovaCharge! 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any point in giving a banned user a platform to continue his disruption. I've protected the user talk page accordingly. -- ChrisO 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Armon[edit]

Armon (talk · contribs) has been extremely disruptive on Southern California InFocus. He appears to be taking advantage of a legitimate content dispute between other editors on that page in order to revive his little war against me. He has been threatening to take me to Arbcom for months, and he appears to be revert-warring on the page simply to antagonize me. I don't know his goals here and I don't want to know - I would just like him to stop. I have asked him over and over again to leave me alone, yet he continues. Lately he has been inserting material on that page that fails WP:V -- a self published web page that keeps changing -- and he refuses to reply to arguments in talk. I decided to avoid his revert-warring trap and instead put an NPOV tag on the page. That tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. Rather than discussing the dispute he simply removed the tag with a cryptic note about WP:POINT. Before that he made another mass revert with a very deceptive explanation -- the edit summary said "cleanup with cite fixes- there is still is a problem with the Townsend cite" but he changed more than that; most notably, he added "tabloid-style" to the intro even though the other editors had agreed that the opinion of one person that it is "tabloid style" did not belong in the intro and needed to be attributed as an opinion. His editing is extremely disruptive on this page. csloat 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after he was informed about this report, Armon went ahead and removed the tag yet again, adding a nonsensical edit summary about "defacing" the article. The NPOV tag is not vandalism; it is Wikipedia policy that the tag stays on until a dispute is settled. csloat 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggested a rfc instead diff. <<-armon->> 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An RfC may also be appropriate here, but the NPOV tag should not be deleted when there is a valid content dispute here. csloat 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Please note two things:

  • The user posting this very dramatic complaint above has himself been disruptive
  • The statement contains mischaracterizations

I do not feel the drama in the note above is called for. The WP:AN/I page says that this is not the wikipedia "complaints department" I believe that if CSloat feels he has a legitimate complaint about Armon he should formally file a user conduct RFC. I believe it would be helpful for him to follow the process of stating exactly what policy he thinks other users are breaking, supplying evidence of this, and supplying evidence of his good faith efforts to resolve. Bigglove 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually did all that above, bigglove. Unlike your accusation that I have been disruptive, which you have provided no evidence whatsoever of. csloat 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make one thing clear, the type of rfc I referred to is a content rfc. We are at an impasse with sloat. <<-armon->> 01:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, I know that Armon was talking about content RFC, and I agree we could use one. Sloat, please refer to the talk page of the article for specific comments from me about your recent disruptions. This is not the place for it. I was just pointing out that your post here was an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Bigglove 01:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)::No; what you were doing was making a false accusation with no evidence or explanation whatsoever. csloat 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::This was/is simply not the appropriate forum for any of this. You certainly had a valid beef about the tag, but the talk page of the article was the place to discuss. Bigglove 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article Southern California InFocus a day ago, because Cslot and Bigglove had a heated conversation in my talk page. User Armon seems to be a very neutral and reasonable person, who provides convincing arguments during a discussion. I even tried to keep a segment of Armon's text in the article, but only got accusations of wikistalking from cslot at my talk page. It might be a good idea to protect this article.Biophys 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Biophys (talk · contribs) appeared out of the blue on the page and his sole contribution was to revert my changes twice, and then when another user had reverted him, to revert again. It did feel like wikistalking to me, so I posted a polite note to his user page asking him to avoid what looks like harassment and inviting him to contribute to the discussion page if he felt like participating. In response he blatantly lied, stating that he had only made one revert of the anonymous user. He has an old grudge against me because of a dispute from months ago and this is the third or fourth time he has carried that grudge to unrelated articles or comments. This AN/I has been resolved as Armon has left the tag up and come back into the discussion, and we are actually making progress on that page towards a solution, so it is not helpful to have biophys come here and ask for page protection. csloat 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You just said "blatantly lied". But I made only one revert of an anonymous user in this page:[12], exactly as I said. Please provide your diffs to support your accusation me as a "blatant lier".Biophys 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I "came out of blue"? Not at all. It were you and Bigglove who came to my user page, which was fine until you started making all kind of accusations [13][14]Biophys 04:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow; you just lied again. Your actual words were "I made only one revert at this page, a revert of anonymous user." Yet you reverted three times on that page, only one of which was a revert of an anonymous user, and all three of which were restoring the exact same material, the material that I was arguing should be excluded. You showed up on that page without participating in the discussion and refused to participate in it when I invited you to. Now you have lied again about all of this -- I really think you should stop now. csloat 04:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So you failed to provide diffs proving that I did revert three times. By the way, this your request was about Armon, not me.Biophys 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. The diffs were above but here they are again: [15][16][17] Now let this go before you embarrass yourself even further. csloat 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No. You must provide diffs showing that texts from the left and right sides are identical (like in 3RR reports). See - this is my only revert: [18]. Once again, this request was about Armon, and I commented about him. But you started accusing me, instead of discussing Armon. This is not good.Biophys 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you really going to keep lying about this? It is really abusive and ridiculously petty, and everyone can see you are lying. You lied, you were caught, I provided the proof, and lucky for you, I'm willing to drop it rather than turn this into a separate RfC. I think it would be best for you to drop it as well. Have a good day. csloat 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you failed to provide a proof: three diffs showing that right and left parts are identical, but you continue to call me a "lier". If I am wrong here, I would like to apologize. But this seems to be a personal attack by csloat, right at the ANI noticeboard, in reply to my neutral comment about armon.Biophys 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the proof was provided twice now in the form of diffs showing that you reverted the page. You're nitpicking about how to cite the diffs -- click on them yourself and use the history page to make the diffs look the way you want, if that really amuses you. It doesn't matter to me -- it is pretty clear you lied. So, I accept your apology, and I hope you refrain from attacking me in the future. I've asked you to move on several times now -- how about it? csloat 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I made a request earlier this week that this user be blocked (again) as that he is consistently making disruptive/unproductive edits and/or creating articles that are no-notable (I cannot find the archive of it). He has be requested to stop by myself and at least 10 other editors or administrators, yet he ignores our requests and continues to do so.

He has created at least nine non-notable articles that met the criteria for speedy deletion, two of which he tried to recreate several times. Several articles that he did create, he was asked to modify so that they met the criteria of a notable article, yet he did not and another editor had to. When he does create an article, it is usually just a sentence or two long, does not cite any sources and he fails to place a {{stub}} designation.

Here are some articles he has made disruptive/unproductive edits to:

  • Burger King products - keeps putting incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • List of CBS slogans - created an article that was basically a duplicate of the main article;
  • CBS Records - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • Dice Game (pricing game) - deleted a section of the article without sating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
  • Farmer Jack - deleted a section of the article without sating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
  • WLS-TV - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • WNYW - keeps modifying their slogans with incorrect data.

Mr. Finke will not respond to any posts on his talk page, so this has been very frustrating to many editors who have tried to engage him in a productive dialog to help him understand what he has been doing violates the policies of Wikipedia. He has already been blocked once and I believe that he needs to be blocked again, for at least 30 days if possible. This will hopefully get the point across that he has been causing harm to this community.

Jerem43 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds strongly like User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Has this user made any constructive edits? If it's not something from the sock drawer (as suggested by Corvus) maybe it's time for a WP:CSN? --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that any sanctions against him would be ignored as that he does not read his talk page. ---Jerem43 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why not just block him like all of his other sockpuppets? Corvus cornix 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not so sure this guy is a sock puppet, but he is being disruptive. Could an administrator please put a block on him for a 30 day period, as the first one seemed to be completely ignored. - Jerem43 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Could somebody with a strong stomach and an expertise in popular culture please look over Sweetbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is quite, quite nauseating. In the old days I'd have asked User:Bdj but he's Left The Building, to the regret of many. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As their name is so close to my own user name I couldnt resist making a start including tagging it as unsourced but it needs more work, SqueakBox 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Which part of the article requires admin intervention? Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As its clearly not a speedy or even deletable I suspect admin intervention isnt required but I didnt postt he thread, SqueakBox 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It requires clue intervention more than anything else. No sources whatsoever..... SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Correct. I posted it here because I am too lazy to find the right venue and because historically there have been folks watching this page who do actually fix crap articles like this. It's not speediable, but it sucks royally. Hopefully someone cares enough to fix that. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of edits by‎[edit]

Is there any place better than here to warn editors to be on the lookout for edits by‎? I have just found two more instances of vandalism by this user. He has a long history of vandalism (see User_talk: Many edits look normal but there is enough vandalism that I distrust all of this user's edits. Editors who are familiar with the subject matter of his edits, should check his "contributions" to see if other edits are in fact vandalism. Sbowers3 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP is one of the sensitive IP addresses which administrators should warn the Wikipedia Press Committee after blocking. The IP belongs to the Department of Homeland Security. Miranda 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The IP address has made changes to User:Dragon2eden, who self-identifies as working for DHS. Perhaps someone should ask them what's going on? Corvus cornix 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As Dragon2eden supplied an email address, I did send him email. He replied "it wasn't me." Sbowers3 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing yet again by MoritzB[edit]

I'd like to have a third (and fourth, fifth, ...) opinion on the behavior of MoritzB (talk · contribs). His constant POV pushing has already been the subject of an ANI thread (here) which basically died out without much action taking place. However, since that time, MoritzB has continued to systematically push his agenda which is best summarized by: blacks are genetically inferior to caucasians, blacks are more likely to be criminals, Africans did not build Great Zimbabwe because, well they'd be just too primitive to do that, the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is understated on Wikipedia, and so on. Sure, that's a bit of a caricature although I think someone looking through his recent edits won't find it much of an exageration. His edits have lead to the protection of a number of articles and to fairly intense edit wars on others (Race being the most recent example). I have tried to reason with him about his recent edits to Great Zimbabwe but to no avail and part of the problem is, I think, that he genuinely believes that he is correct in saying that, for example, the work of Robert Gayre on Great Zimbabwe is authoritative, despite much evidence that Gayre is brushed off as a racist nut by an overwhelming majority of modern archeologists. Nevertheless, his classical tendentious editing is increasingly wasting efforts of a number of editors. I can't see how an RfC would do much good but I'd be interested in knowing how other editors see it, particularly editors uninvolved in one of the many disputes spawned by MoritzB. Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the edit summaries of his contribs but I'm not going to spend the effort to actually read his contribs. Instead, I'm going to assume that your assessment is accurate and unbiased since I've seen you around often enough to trust you. I don't understand why you wouldn't issue an RFC on him. Seems like the first step in the dispute resolution process. Without the RFC, you can't take him to ARBCOM and a community ban would be harder to justify.
--Richard 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Tend to agree with some of the assessment above. In my experience, he's been abrasive and incivil in general, and definitely tendentious. --Haemo 06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I never add new points of view to articles without supporting my edits with reliable sources. Some information I add about genetics, crime statistics or homosexuality is politically very controversial and some editors tend to reject all additions which are inconsistent with their worldview. This leads to edit wars. My personality divides opinions but often many editors also support me though so I am not out of the mainstream. Also, because of my academic background and access to scientific databases I often have better resources to support my POV than other editors. A good recent example is the article dysgenics. I also disagree that my edits are unproductive. I have contributed large volumes a lot to many articles and helped to resolve content disputes (cf. Saint Maurice).
MoritzB 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
While I have not looked at the situation in detail, do remember that sourcing, in itself, does not ensure NPOV. It helps, but source material can be interpreted improperly, original synthesis can take place to make novel theories, information can be placed out of context, any number of things. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Including, of course, the possibility that the sources themselves are biased, or are otherwise not as reliable as would be desired. LessHeard vanU 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson's account of this situation is spot on. I've been monitoring MoritzB since warning him for soapboxing at Talk:White people. There is a continuing issue with Moritz soapboxing and generally using wikipedia to characterize mainstream academic sources as fringe and present minority opinions as mainstream[19] - if this behaviour was limited to race pages it would be bad enough but he is also povpushing at Homosexuality[20]. The amount of revert warring and push against consensus by MoritzB is disruptive but the soapboxing and trolling of talk pages has become tendentious--Cailil talk 14:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Most editors understandably have no background in biological sciences which makes my discussions with them perhaps quite tendentious. Anyway, you are gravely mistaken if you think that Neo-Marxism is a mainstream ideology today. MoritzB 15:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
More of this nonsense of calling mainstream sources "Neo-Marxist" without any sort of backup whatsoever. That MoritzB hasn't dropped this behavior by now, but instead throws it out at ANI, is rather telling. He apparently hasn't taken feedback in any way over the past few weeks. The Behnam 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed. The question was about Noel Ignatiev, some other scholars, critical theory and Frankfurt School. Countless Marxists published articles in the scientific press and wrote books in the 1970s. They are not ashamed that they are Marxists so why do you deny that? You can simply enter their names to Google and see that they identify themselves as Marxists. Please see this reference which describes Marxist-based critical theory and the Frankfurt School as one of the longest and the most famous traditions of Marxism.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum. Now, this is the fourth or fifth time I have had to point out to you, MoritzB, in the form of both talk page notes and {{Notaforum}} warnings, that wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that you are incorrectly characterizing a whole list of academic & scholarly work is being as 'left wing' or 'marxist', or 'neo-marxist' to advance your own point. The Behnam is right, you are not taking on board the feedback we have given you, and are so far flaunting the five pillars of wikipedia. Please stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point--Cailil talk 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Important notice. Because of a warning I can no longer safely participate in any discussions with editors or defend myself in this ANI. MoritzB 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As a disclaimer, Cailil is one of my admin coaching students. I'd rather focus on more substantial issues than warning template removal and I want to see ample diffs and logic from both sides. MoritzB, you are free to seek a mentor or to e-mail me any evidence that supports your choices. I founded Category:Eguor admins and would give it a fair hearing. Or if you prefer, you could contact any of the sysops from that category. Most of them have no relationship with Cailil that I'm aware of. DurovaCharge! 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I no longer have any interest in the white people article or the Zimbabwe article which was mentioned. A consensus was reached although it is different from my original opinion. There are no content issues which need to be settled. Perhaps I will just take a wikibreak and let everybody cool down. MoritzB 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have written an explanation, providing diffs for the 3 {{uw-chat1}} warnings that I gave MoritzB here. I don't think a level 4 warning for soapboxing should in any way prevent MoritzB from properly using this or any other talk page. The purpose of such warnings is to point out what behaviour needs to be changed, not to "gag" anyone. I sincerely apologize if MoritzB felt or thought that my intent was to "shut-him-up" - it was not. As with the other warnings I left, I have expressed my hope that MoritzB would take on board site policy and become a better wikipedian, I still hope he will do that. However, after giving this user fair and, what I consider to be justified warnings for repeated violation of site policy (spanning nearly 10 days), this beahviour continued. Therefore I see a level 4 warning as appropriate--Cailil talk 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I was only involved in a content dispute about the article and it became rather lengthy. Meanwhile five other editors were chit chatting about smoking:

MoritzB 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to MoritzB's sudden and active engagement in Talk:Race and intelligence I assume it's a new account of an experienced editor who's worked on racial topics before. I gneerally agree with the problems that Pascal.Tesson have described and think this editor needs to be more collegial if he's to continue participating in the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal redux[edit]

I have previously reported this, but had no response from anyone on this. Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) continuously floods various talk pages with "How to edit", "How to insert references" etc. guides, which I discussed in that thread. Sadly, he has yet again added the "How to edit/add references" guide to another unrelated talk page.

He has also flooded various pages with similar unrelated content today:

The user is aware of WP:MULTI and has been requested many times not to flood various talk pages with the same message repeated ad nauseum. Also, in the previous thread at ANB/I, I provided other recent diffs of such behavior. I request an uninvolved admin to try reasoning with him, and make him stop flooding various unrelated talk pages with these bloated messages and "How to edit" guides. He has often removed friendly advices requesting a stop to such disruption.

Thanks. --Ragib 08:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And here he goes again, inserting a "how to edit guide"!! Can someone else please stop this? My polite requests are taken negatively by the user. Thanks. --Ragib 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are over-reacting. The idea is sound - giving people editing hints on articles is never bad - but it would be better to link not include a big chunk of text, and I've commented on the user's Talk page about that. Now I strongly recommend you leave him alone. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's needlessly harsh. Ragib's is not an over-reaction, in my opinion. This user has been told about this and similar issues very pleasantly before, but he has chosen to simply ignore policy in the past, even when linked and summarised. Thanks for stepping in, though. Hornplease 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye, I've had a (very mildly) frustrating time trying to encourage Atulsnischal not to add large numbers or tangentially related category tags to reams of articles. Atulsnischal is making good faith edits, and trying to be constructive, but seemed to me to be a bit functionally hard of hearing when it comes to constructive criticism of his edits. Still, I don't really see the need for admin intervention here, just the application of patience and perseverance. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

user: BIG Daddy M[edit]

Their is a user named user talk:BIG Daddy M who continues to make unconstructive edits such as, repeated offenses of the 2RR, then every day he redoes it, Bad Faith Edits, Personal Attacks, Reveiling Spoilers and Rumors, and being uncivil. All of which we have warned him to read WP:CIVIL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PW, and he still deliberetly denies to follow the rules. What shall we do, because we try to work with him, but he just says "Stop stalking me." I don't know what else to do, can you please help? -- KBW1 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh great, another obsessive tendentious professional wrestling editor. Now who does that remind me of? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If your referring to user: TJ Spyke this is not about him, Please that is considered a personal attack. -- KBW1 17:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe Guy is referring to this banned user, who has made upwards of hundred block-evading sockpuppets: JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, more than likely a JB196 sock. Is checkuser needed? Davnel03 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
NO, I don't think this user needs to be checked, I just think this user is unknowledgeable and is unwilling to learn WP rules. I think he needs to be blocked. -- KBW1 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
He will only be blocked for about 48 hours though. If you did go the way of checkuser, and he was a sock of JB196, he would be indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds awfully vindictive. For instance...2RR? Never heard of that one. KBW1, where is the evidence of the accusations from above, and why do you seem to want him blocked so badly, rather than attempting to work with him? You seem awfully anxious to have him blocked as soon as possible without any checking or consideration here. SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I tried working with him, I even asked if he needed my help! He denied and simply said leave me alone. Yes, I do think we need to check user him, because you sound like maybe your him. Just a suggestion. BTW, the 2RR, isn't a real rule, it's just the fact of users reverting twice, then coming back the next day and doing it again. Please check this user. Thank You. -- KBW1 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll offer the following observation:
There is an issue with WP:OWN, 3RR, and civility with Superboy-Prime‎. (I'm staying out of the nuts and bolts of the wrestling articles since they aren't an area I normally fiddle with, though it looks like there may be a few articles with like problems.)
The long and short of it is that BDM added in two overly detailed passages, one a full page interaction between the Superboy-Prime character and another, the other a one panel cameo in another issue. Both including full dialogue. Other editors have removed it citing, basically, that it's a case of going overboard on plot summary of the character's recent use. In the course of the back and forth, the other editors have tried to take the situation to the article's talk page, to little real result aside from BMK trying to steamroll over the other editors, and accusing them of vandalism for trying to keep the article with in standards and adhere to the majority consensus of those that have voiced an opinion on that particular point in the article. These accusations are on the articles talk page, BDM's edit summaries for the article, and the talk pages of BDM and Pairadox (though Pairadox relocated the thread to BDM's talk page).
There is also what amounts to a wikistalking accusation by BDM on KBW1's talk page. - J Greb 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct, BDM accused me of stalking him, when all I did was keep an eye on him, because multiple good faith users claimed that he does not wollow WP rules. I offered help, he didn't accept. Therfore, he does not want help, which needs someone has to do something about this user, because he is getting out of hand. -- KBW1 03:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just, on an unrelated note, blocked this user for violating 3RR on Superboy-Prime‎. I do not foresee a very long, or successful, Wikipedia career for this user if this kind of behavior continues. --Haemo 06:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sikjhad, a possible sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel?[edit]

Resolved: Nuked, salted, banhammer wielded. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a request to block anyone, but I wanted to inform the administrators that Sikjhad hasrecreated the hoax De-Animated. This page has been recreated several times in the past, mostly by Danny Daniel sockpuppets. In fact, the original page was created by a Danny Daniel sock.

Note that Sikjhad has made only four contributions, and all of them were made to De-Animated. Pants(T) 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempted theft of user accounts[edit]

Resolved: permablocked per wp:uaa Eleland 18:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Runescapehacker (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is an apparent SPA created to talk people into e-mailing him their passwords to Runescape ([21]). Recommend permablock. Eleland 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked this account. Navou banter 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted[edit]

Anyone who's up on "global strategy consulting firms" would be valuable in sorting out the crap from the reality on the article and helping decide where it should go in the end. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 Note: WHOIS suggests the IP belongs to "Oliver Wyman & Co". This looks like a conflict of interest to me. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
is there a reason not to nuke it for the G11 and the COI issues? Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not specially, no, but there is an asseriton of notability and there is the other article. If it were unequivocal in my view you may assume that it woudl already be gone :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Just noting Oliverwyman (talk · contribs)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And the history at Mercer Oliver Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup[edit]

I am sitting here with an OTRS ticket for the Saffron Walden County High School article. The history contains a number of edits that make libellous comments about staff and this needs cleaned up. I have mailed the ticket,, details to oversight-l - but it may be the case that a regular deletion and selective restore will do. Please help here, I am in touch with the school's IT guy and he is getting grief from the headmaster. --Brianmc 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

History looks weird, presumably due to oversight. Perhaps a semiprotection would be wise? --ST47Talk·Desk 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, so done. —Crazytales talk/desk 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


[22], [23] launched another edit war on March Days, article that has been in consensus and peace, and went through 3rd party mediation, for months now. He is removing sources, which claim the figure of 12,000, then questioning the figure and inserting POV tag without sufficient rationale on the talk page. It would be great, if some 3rd party would be willing to mediate on this well references page. Atabek 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an admin issue here. Perhaps I am missing something but he removed nothing and has made two edits that I see which was adding a POV tag. Please see WP:3O. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I will leave a message about removing the content but it's really not an admin issue at this point. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

votestacking by Cman7792 in regards to the Dragon Ball Z live action movie page[edit]

User Cman7792 has put a lot of pressure on me to change by vote even after being warned that I will not change my vote. I simply wished to state my opinion and if it does not fly then I will accept that. However, I will not accept users such as Cman7792 putting pressure on me to change my vote. --BrenDJ 23:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What actually happened - I never asked him to change his vote, i was just trying to ask him a question about his vote. but he deletes everything on his discussion page and he is impossible to talk to. --Cman7792 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Cman and explained to him that it is best to leave an editor alone that does not want to get further involved in a situation like the AfD process. Cman removed his comment at my request, though not before BrenDJ had seen it. I don't believe that this will be an issue any longer. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Atabek at March Days[edit]

User Atabek is going to start an edit war by deleting POV tag, moving the references [24], [25] and then, adding genocide term to the article [[26]] while he is marking 3 non-historical non-reliable sources (Hopkirk is a journalist, Aliev is the Azerbaijani president and the third is a political declaration by some PACE members). I didnt succeed to welcome him for a constructive dialog... Andranikpasha 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to stay within the bounds of WP:3RR and see if anything in dispute resolution is any help. Regards, Navou banter 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Dannycali[edit]

I find the following posts to be unsually hostile and violations of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks: [27] and [28]. Could an admin please caution Danny about unconstructive and rude comments and remind him to sign his posts? Please also consider that in addition to other warnings about civility, he has also engaged in some edit warring, too: [29] and [30]. See also: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36] for other problematic posts. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned tags and the civility and NPA warnings were appropriate. I'm going to recuse myself from further action, but I will direct other administrators to previous talk page messages [37] [38] [39].--Chaser - T 05:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I responded to Danny's comments as follows: [40] and [41]. I hope that these are a fair response. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Gk35d3_lab's only contributions are either to his user page, or uploaded images to display on his user page. It seems to be solely for presenting material for a physics class at the University of Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, it does basically look like he's using Wikipedia as a notebook. HalfShadow 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the material per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Quite likely a copyvio too; instructors retain copyright in their lecture notes. Raymond Arritt 01:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Per those reasons, it might be good to request oversight of his userpage. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that something is also going on at User:22600 Spring 07. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Baleeted android79 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pascale989 civility, consensus, edit warring issue[edit]

Can another admin intervene with regards to Pascale989 (talk · contribs) with regards to List of Dirty Jobs episodes/Dirty Jobs Episode List and List of Modern Marvels episodes and episode numbering? He has brought up that me being a "moderator" [42] with regards to my edits. I have left friendly notes about his civility, consensus, and edit warring issues and I think it would be best if I step aside instead of issuing additional warnings or blocks since I believe that he thinks my being an "moderator" carries additional weight. See the Talk discussions here, here, and his Talk page. Thanks. =) -- Gogo Dodo 03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a detialed message offering alternatives to edit warring, hope it helps. ThuranX 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Ortis12[edit]

For the last couple of days User Ortis12 is edit warring in the article Bulgars. He is deliberately removing a part of the article without giving plausible reasons and adding his own comments without supplying any serious/scientific references or sources. Since he is new to Wikipedia I gave him the necessary warnings in his talk page. It did not work. Then I tried to establish contact with him in his talk page again, and lastly I opened a discussion in the article's talk page. But all of these efforts did not help. Today in the morning he made the same reverts again. You can see the situation in the relevant wiki pages. Thank you. --Chapultepec 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he is clearly edit warring. But what's this diff from your talkpage? He says in the last part: "You can revert my posts or block me, but cant BLOCK the Truth!!!" I suggest he's only here to cause vandalise, and the fact that he's used capitals for the word block might mean he actually is edit warring just to get a block. Pretty obvious vandalism-revert only account. Davnel03 09:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think so too, he seems to give preference to defying the other ones over discussing the issues. --Chapultepec 10:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He/she seems to acting in good faith now. I guess you can never tell with these type of users. Davnel03 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I blocked Ricky47893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as a very likely Gastrich sock, email me for some of the giveaway hints if you like. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Factmaster07 removing part of Michael Knighton article and adding legal statement[edit]

Factmaster07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • This user keeps removing most of the Michael Knighton article and adds a whole paragraph full of legal stuff, see here. Davnel03 08:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The last part of that diff would constitute a legal threat, methinks. LessHeard vanU 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have indef blocked this editor for making legal threats, but would be grateful for a review. Please remove/adjust without reference to me, as required.LessHeard vanU 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks like a legal threat to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Also agree the bolded text looks like a legal threat. As this account seems to be giving an impression that it represents the law firm described, wondering if our counsel should be informed. --Shirahadasha 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call. Raymond Arritt 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Our counsel should be informed. Davnel03 15:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check[edit]

I have indef blocked User:Notespace is Getting Blocked as an apparent spa designed to revert duel. Please check me. Best regards, Navou banter 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its justified. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User Jason Gastrich would like to be reinstated[edit][edit]

Entire contribution of the anon is a WP:POINTY deletion nomination of a wikiproject. Please investigate. User may be a banned user. Possibly User:Moby Dick. -- Cat chi? 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm. It can't be WP:POINT unless he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Since there's no evidence of either disruption or any underlying point... -Amarkov moo! 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think an IP coming out of nowhere just to MfD a newly created wikiproject is very very strange. -- Cat chi? 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed strange, and should be investigated. That doesn't mean that you can immediately act as though his being disruptive is a proven fact. -Amarkov moo! 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks disruption oriented to me. But hey what do I know... -- Cat chi? 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As further information for anyone who reviews this, a link to the project was posted on the Village Pump fourish hours before the IP first edited. -Amarkov moo! 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I was told on IRC that the IP is User:Gurch who has a history of being a dick, trolling, and project space vandalism. -- Cat chi? 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Gurch is MIA right now, but honestly to suggest he's some kind of abuser or troll is simply fatuous. Pissed off, yes, but not evil, surely. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    He isn't MIA he edits as an IP. He was talking on IRC as "gurch" same time the same IP made the edit. -- Cat chi? 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see that any rules are being broken, however. Gurch, or anyone else, can choose to no longer contribute as a username and contribute while not logged in. Whoever this is, Checkuser shows no double voting or other impropriety. He's also allowed to not like your proposed project. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Two questions (directed at Cat, not Morven):
  • Any particular reason we're trying to out the identities of IP users today? Especially since there's no evidence of disruption, though of course you're free to disagree with the nom.
  • Dynamic IP is useful info. Whenever I turn my DSL modem off and on, I have a new IP; if I were an IP editor, would that mean I'm not allowed to go to MfD until my computer's been on for a few days straight?
--barneca (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is innocent but me. Hence I should be the guilty party here. -- Cat chi? 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the speedy deletion of the wikiproject. While at it block me too. -- Cat chi? 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is saying that, Cat. Just that the nom doesn't seem pointy, and the ID of the IP editor doesn't seem relevant. --barneca (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Gurch was never a vandal (nor a Dick in my estimation), although his pointiness might perhaps be considered trolling by some. I should think dealing with the subject in hand, and not indulging in retrospective speculation, is the proper response. LessHeard vanU 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I have gotten the page speedy deleted and initiated User talk:White Cat/Poll forced leave. I hope everyone is happy now. -- Cat chi? 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Who are you again? HalfShadow 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Cat, stop overreacting to this. Just because people aren't fond of your idea doesn't mean you should throw in the towel, especially given the recent flak image-patrollers have been getting (case in point: User:Durin's recent departure). I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds like a 6-year-old throwing a tantrum because his mom won't let him get the big toy robot. Wikipedia will grow a new nose to fix the one you cut off. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. --Haemo 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) White Cat, I don't think you should be posting logs on IRC to Wikipedia without Gurch's consent. Miranda 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Logs? Where? Because they most certainly shouldn't be published on Wikipedia, and should be deleted/removed on sight: 2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, July 11, 2007. Daniel 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's deleted now. Miranda 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Whois data is NOT IRC log. They are more than allowed. Miranda find someone else to bother. -- Cat chi? 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid polling page deleted (no, don't DRV, that really is dramaqueenish). We have a fucking encyclopedia to write without bothering our heads with some moronic "leaving" poll. White Cat can make his own mind up while we all look the other way and whistle for a wind (that is, actually do something productive). Come on, don't indulge the drama, people. We have enough of that without trolling ourselves by adding more. Moreschi Talk 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Operation Spooner[edit]

Operation Spooner has repeatedly inserted this material into Ronald Reagan over the objects of several other editors, namely User:Arcayne, User:Info999 and User:Happyme22. (note: disagreement is concerning only "advocating less government regulation of the economy, speaking against the welfare state, and arguing that people should be allowed to keep most of the money they make from being taxed") Diffs: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56](This is not an all inclusive list)

His comments on the talk page [57] make it appear that he plans on doing this indefinitely and he insists [58] that WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to his edits. After the material was explicitly discussed on the talk page (here) and a majority of editors explained why they didn't want the material in the lead, he has continued to reinsert the material without addressing any of the points the other editors discussed. I would appreciate it if an admin could look into the situation and take whatever actions they deem necessary.--Rise Above The Vile 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, briefly looking over the situation, Operation Spooner is clearly acting in good faith, but he probably should not be continuing with the reverts as it does seem that multiple editors disagree with him, but at the same time I'd be reluctant to block at this point. It seems like other editors in the article are overly hostile, though, and the matter seems to be getting heated for little reason (as so often happens). Perhaps dispute resolution should be looked at instead of rushing this off to the administrator's noticeboard? Cowman109Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also grown tired of this user continuing to readd the information and completely disregard wikipedia policy. I advocate a block, not indefinitely but until this user promises to stop readding the information and to actually read and understand policy. I think the user is nieve and if he is blocked perhaps for a week I feel he would come back and be constructive. Dispute resolution is not necessary since this is a problem with only one user.--Southern Texas 03:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And no one user appears to be at fault here. This just looks like the brewing of an edit war as multiple editors have expressed interest in both sides of the issue of introducing that bit of information into the lead. I'm also reluctant in protecting the article as there seems to be a good deal of positive editing in other areas of it, so dispute resolution is really the way to go. But if anything's clear, it's that just mindlessly reverting each other is doing no good. Everyone's to blame for that. Finding a way to improve on another's edits than undoing them repeatedly tends to end up better. Cowman109Talk 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, this is an Operation Spooner problem not a wikipedia problem. Block the user, inform him about WP:CONSENSUS and that is all that is needed. Dispute resolution would be going way to far for such an easy problem to fix.--Southern Texas 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
At least one other user has also expressed his point of view. Generally protection is done in a case like this rather than going on blocking editors. (example of other edit). But Operation Spooner should definitely not be reverting once a day like he seems to be doing, so I'll leave a note on his talk page. Cowman109Talk 03:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not specifically asking for a block, because I'm not sure whether that will have a positive or negative effect on Spooner's editing here. However, this user has repeatedly ignored every other user that has disagreed with him and does not think that repeatedly inserting the material is against any wikipedia policy. I have little hope that dispute resolution will go any different. I was hoping that if a user entrusted with the authority to block/protect/etc clearly explained to Spooner why what he is doing is disruptive, then maybe he will actually discuss the material instead of edit war.--Rise Above The Vile 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cowman109Talk 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, much of the above claims are false. Some other users have reveterted back what I put in, which indicates that they want the informatio there. Also the claim that I've been ignoring users who disagree with me is false.. I've been pleading on the discussion page for reasoned arguments why the information shouldnt be in the article, but all I've been getting are threats of being blocked if I put the information in or act against "consensus." And here you see above, the attempt to get me blocked in order to avoid discussion the issue of the content itself. Don't take any of the users' claims above at face value. There is an agenda. Investigate the issue and you'll see I've done nothing improper. Operation Spooner 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually away for most of the day, and apologize for not commenting earlier.
I don't really think a block will do any good, but it is the typical action available to admins to preserve the article and to enforce a bit of a time-out for editors who are having difficulties working with others, the block ideally being used to allow the user to see the repercussions of disruptive bahavior. Frankly, Spoon's account is pretty much a pov political account, used to push a specific agenda, as seen on his user page. Furthermore, he has shown that he perceives any attempts to correct his behavior as some grand conspiracy, as noted in his user page Advice for Newbies (updated as it detailed his 'oppression' by the rest of us). Yes, I will admit that I have little tolerance for anyone who refuses to listen to and follow the rules, and I make no bones about expressing my disquiet about it. Spoon's failure to follow those rules, increasingly sacrificed his AGF at least with me.
The user aside, the article lead was changed to reflect that the Lead doesn't introduce info that isn't in the body. Hisw edit - of his own creation - didn't do that, and the revision met with far more accpetance than his. He kept inroducing it, especially after we clearly outlined what was wrong with it. He steadfastly refused to concede, or even admit to the point, which amounted to disruption.Consensus tells all users how to go about affectiing consensus; there is even a flow chart. A new edit takes a different form. Not the same edit, and specifically not the same edit that has already been discarded by a majority of the editors activiely editing in the article.
As far a DR goes, discussion was attempted on Spoon's talk page, and failing that, in the Discussion page for the article, and then a consensus about the edit was specifically attended to. And dismissed. What did the user do then? He re-added the same edit, arguing that the consensus didn't satisfy him, that there weren't enough people participating in the consensus discussion. Not once did the discussion of how his edit violated Lead come into play. He just said, as another editor has pointed out, that WP is in constant flux, and that he was just doing his bit to preserve that, so that he could see his edit every day, if only for a moment. Forgetting the monumentally selfish, OWN-ish attitude, it is simply disruptive. We are activiely engaged in fixing the other parts of the article, improving citations and whatnot, and we are constantly having to cater to one user's ego who cannot seem to work well with others.
Speaking personally, I've done what Spoon has in my early Wikipedia edits. It was called edit-warring, and I was blocked for it. This is what is happening here. He is aware of 3RR, and doesn't violate it, but performs the same edit once or twice a day over a 5-week period. I learned my lesson, and have grown from it. It is time to fix the issue, and give Spoon the same opportunity to learn a lesson in low-grade edit-warring which is intrinsically disruptive. Maybe he will learn better how to accept that his edits aren't always going to be the consensus opinion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain WP:Consensus to you. The purpose of obtaining consensus is to try to solidify particular edits into or out of articles, which itself is a quixotic quest, and exercise in absurdity, with no rational justification, since consensus is constalty changing on Wikipedia. It's quite frankly, a childish goal. Anyone who attempts this should actually be embarrassed.
Consensus is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. Since you dismiss that core policy out of hand, it may be best for all concerned if you put your talents to use in a different venue. Raymond Arritt 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The only way to solidify your edits, or deletions, in an article would be to waste an awfully large amount of your life on Wikipedia. If that floats your boat, go for it. If a person has no goal to solidify anything into an article but simpyl wants to share the article with others, then there is no reason to obtain a consensus. As I pointed out, I don't care in the slighest if you or anyone elese deletes my edits as long as they're there for at least a couple minutes, because I have no desire to monopolize or own articles. Wikipedia is designed such that someone only need add the material back after sharing the freedom of adding, or deleting, content with other editors. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss whether I should add particular material or not. I've always been available for such disussions, and am open to be convinced against putting the material in. I just won't be intimidated into not putting material in an article with the claim that I have to please the "consensus," whatever that is, in order to add material to an article. There is no such policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." This whole claim that putting something that others disagree should be there is "edit warring," or for that matter, deleting it, is nonsense. No one is edit warring in that article. What's being attempted is to prevent me from adding material by claiming rules that don't exist and using threats of blocking me. Operation Spooner 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A consensus exists such that all parties agree on a certain aspect of an item. A consensus on Wikipedia is such that all parties involved agree to the inclusion of the material that is to be added, removed, etc. Because there is no consensus at the moment, and no one knows what the hell they want, I've protected Ronald Reagan until you can all work this out.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily all parties, as that would be called unanimity. Consensus calls for a general agreement among most involved editors (and potentially noninvolved ones). The aforementioned elaboration should be distinguished from a supermajority or majority, though, as they involve a set percentage of editors, while consensus does not. —Kurykh 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that is what we have achived in the article. One editor keeps adding the same edit in, and other editors remove it. Actually, one editor defended it, thinking we were picking on Spoon, until he discovered that the edit being added was unchanging, and had been added in steadily over weeks. then he joined the consensus asking that the edit not be reintroduced.
Allow me to present the argument in a different way. If a person violates 3RR in a single day by performing 4 reverts, chances are, they get blocked (we'll say 24 hours). If, after the block ends, they violate 3RR again, they are blocked for a longer period of time (again, say 48 hours). They are blocked because their edits are disruptive and are not agreed to by the majority of the editors (or violates policy/guidelines like, say, Lead or Consensus). All in all, for committing 8 edits in two separate 24 hour periods, they have been blocked for 3 days. 8 reverts over a 5 day period. I should like to point out that Spooner has introduced the same edit almost daily for over 4 weeks. Is it any less disruptive if it happens in slo-mo? And it should be pointed out that with perhaps one word-tense change, this is the only change he has made to the article in all that time. Contributors have been banned for less.
One of the basic lessons of Wikipedia is that if you cannot stand the scrutiny of being edited, you shouldn't contribute. Spooner has clearly demonstrated that he is unwilling to concede to the spirit of this rule. Or to the rule of consensus. Or to the spirit of Wikipedia. To his reckoning above, Featured Articles don't really exist, and that its all some great whimsy of use to even aspire to make article FA, as they are going to fall into chaos at a moment's notice. Pardon the crudity of the comparison, but his philosophy seems to be that, since we are all in a world of crap, why should we bother wiping? Its an unacceptable approach to making an online encyclopedia.
Usually, when one admin gives you the heads-up on policy, you might not agree with it, but you follow it. When two admins tell you the same thing, you start considering how you are misinterpreting the policy by mistake, and adjust accordingly. Currently, Spoon's user Talk page has no less than three administrators, who have been spending the past few hours trying to help Spooner grasp the problems presented here. How does Spoon react to this grand collection of intellect and experience? He assumes they are all wrong, and that they are threatening him and ganging up on him, and that blocking him would be immediately challenged. He even says here that he thinks people will "throw him in jail" if he doesn't stop his editing. Nowhere else on his user page does the word 'jail' even appear as a post by himself or another user.
This is the measure of what the rest of us have been dealing with in the article. We aren't ganging up on him. If we are less than patient with him, it's because he has exhausted the patience and AGF of at least myself. Three admins - I don't recall ever seeing three admins together in a user's talk page in like, ever. And they are in agreement - when does that ever happen? lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:CONCENSUS was reached a long time ago, but Operation Spooner fails to abide by it. It's not that the material that Operation Spooner added is false, because it's not, but where he wants to put it was the debate, and editors reached concensus saying that the lead is not the correct place for it for it does not provide an overview of Reagan's life like the lead is supposed to. User:Arcayne already really solved the problem by placing exactly what Operation Spooner wanted in the "Governor of California" section, towards the bottom. I see this as a problem that could and should have been solved a long time ago, but evidently wasn't.
Then there's talk about concensus changing. Well let me give you a little history of me and Operation Spooner. He added Reagan's philisophical statement to lead and I removed it, saying that it would be better to go somewhere else in the article. He disagreed and placed it there again. I reverted, but then we reached a concensus at that time, something that we both agreed upon. Eventually, the article reached FA status and then User:Arcayne came in and helped redo the lead, removing the content but correctly summarizing Reagan's life in a nutshell. I really didn't care if the material was in there one way or another, but then another user, User:Info999 came in and said he didn't agree with it being there either, so I listened to their arguments and eventually joined them in opposing the material being there. Concensus already changed, and then, like mentioned, Arcayne wrote what Spooner wanted in the Governor section, but Spooner has been adamant in really being the only one wanting the material in the lead.
And now I look at Ronald Reagan and see that an admin, User:Ryulong, has made it so no one can edit "until everyone figures out what the hell they want." Well, concensus has figured it out; concensus has agreed that the material Operation Spooner has added to the lead is not the right place for it. As I've stated before, the information is not false, but rather does not belong where the user (and only the user) wants it to go. The whole reason this was brought to the admin noticeboard was not to have an admin say "I'm making this so no one can edit," but rather "let's do something about this user, because he/she fails to recognize that a concensus has been established!" Why should productive editors such as User:Info999, User:Arcayne, User:Rise Above the Vile, User:Southern Texas and myself (among others) be blocked from editing the page? Wouldn't it be better to block (or condemn) the user causing the problem and not abiding by Wikipedia's policies? I see that User:Cowman109, User:Mr.Z-man, and User:Raymond arritt have left multiple messages on Spooner's talk page and are trying to reason with him, but it appears that he is not going to budge on this, so instead of just warning him that he might get blocked in every setence (like most of these people that are trying to reason with him are doing) why don't you step it up and actually block him? Arcayne has warned him about a possible block, Info999 has warned him about a possible block, Southern Texas has warned him about a possible block, even I have warned him about a block because he's not following an established concensus and hasn't for weeks....why not actually follow through with the block instead of punishing everyone editing Ronald Reagan? That is best for the Wiki community. Happyme22 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been monitoring the Ronald Reagan talk page the whole day and only within the last few hours has the debate started to surface again. After reading the arguments, and having this discussion on the admin noticeboard, maybe, just maybe, Spooner has a point. He said on the talk page: "He was not only anti-communism but also pro-laissez-faire. Only saying he opposed communism is just one half of the picture."--I think we can work with this. I asked on the talk page, "Spooner, what is the most important part of his philisophy that you would want to put in the lead? Maybe, just maybe, we can compromise and come to something. Spooner, Info, Arcayne...I don't really see that we can do much else." And I see the arguing isn't getting us anywhere; so maybe we can work with him, because he does make a good point in saying that being anti-commuinist was only half the picture. Now, the entire statement about Reagan's beliefs is definetly a no-no in the lead, but it can probably be summarized or the most important part can be chosen...I don't know. My point is that it's a fact arguing isn't getting us anywhere, and thanks to these admins if we ever want to edit Ronald Reagan again we're going to have to compromise. Best, Happyme22 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown[edit]

There seems to be a problem here. After several weeks of full protection following intense edit warring, I unprotected this article this morning, but the apparently controversial content was almost immediately re-added. I have now reprotected the article indefinitely. However, the problem, the dispute, does not seem to be being resolved - I cannot see an end to the issue in sight. Other than myself, I was hoping for a third person perspective on the dispute, and on action that should be taken. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit made after unprotection wasn't the same as before, Ilkali before the lock was pushing "the Christian God" and after the unlocking changed it to "God". While it might imply the same thing (Christians always capitalize God), maybe a discussion can be had now that its been a few weeks. OcatecirT 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am hoping for - discussion. I just want to make sure it is polite, calm discussion, rather than discussion that might occur as a result of, effected by, and distorted by a possible edit war. Or do you think that it should be unprotected again, before waiting to see what unfolds, and then taking action following that? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
THe subtext of his edits is even more interesting, in that he went for the 'Christian God' to 'a god' implying the christian version is distinct, and by the capitalization, the only right one. It's POV warring that's unlikely to get fixed any time soon. He's got a religious agenda, and he packed it in his lunchbox and brought it to Wikipedia. ThuranX 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't possibly have misread me more. I wasn't pushing for 'Christian God', and I'm not a Christian. Ilkali 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC) and Santilli and magnecules[edit]

No claim to knowledge of the subject, but the responses on the Talk page use capitalization and has a tone (like "he would be known as THE GREATEST SCIENTIST...etc. etc.) that suggests a closer look is well warranted. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In the mathematical and mathematical physics community Santilli has gained a certain notoriety as a self-promoting fringe pseudoscientist. His "research" is not taken seriously. The magnecule is apparently a fundamental molecule made from reprocessed human sewage, among other things. A glance at his ethics page reveals details of a sordid campaign he waged unsuccessfully against the managing editor of a prestigious mathematical journal following an unsuccessful submission by Santilli. The biography seems self-written and rather inaccurate. It should probably be reduced to a biographical stub. --Mathsci 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC) linkspammer?[