Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive521

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Collect and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren[edit]

Closed per the privileged nature of mediation. MBisanz talk 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has, in the few brief minutes that yet another round of mediation has opened on this article:

  • Announced his immediate intention to "call a halt to the mediation" if his conditions are not met. I don't know how a single party to mediation can do that, but there it is.
  • Accused another editor of treating the mediation as "a high school debate club."
  • Accused another editor of posting a "brief ultimatum" when all they'd done is reposed one of the earlier proposals from an earlier round of mediation.

I am bringing this to ANI because I think more eyes need to be on this. This dispute is well past ten weeks now, and this is not looking like a postive start to formal mediation. I regard these comments as personal attacks on other editors, no matter how Collect thinks mediation is supposed to be conducted. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think the current mediators can't keep a handle on the subject? Admins overseeing this have certainly been willing to give out blocks and topic bans to both sides for bad behavior. THF (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I felt that the comments made by this user at the outset were well beyond the scope of mediation, and I wanted more eyes on this from the beginning. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The mediators are, by definition, experienced editors and can certainly ask for help if they need it. Mediation is optional, so unreasonable demands on either side that cause the mediation to fail to resolve the issue just means that the dispute resolution will go to the much more unpleasant arbitration process. This doesn't belong at ANI. THF (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering that I posted my reasoning to the mediator, I find this to be an exceptionally bad faith complaint. I noted the mediator asked for "brief comments" to which the editor above and another editor appended thousands of words, and that they then posted "finalized" language which was anything but final as that is what the mediation was about. I find mediation works best when it is treated as a formal process accoridng to WP guidelines, and not as a free-for-all continued directly from an article's talk page, and including material not even up for mediation. My "conditions" are that mediation protocol be followed -- I find that to be reasobnable. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI, please don't relitigate the mediation here. THF (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Per User:THF. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree, to stretch the legal metaphor: a case has opened an attempt to appeal until that case has run its course is premature. And this is probably not the correct appellate venue either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I blocked Special:Contributions/ after this charming edit on my user page, after I gave him a stern warning about his disruption on WP:RFPP. (The duck test makes it clear that the IP is the same individual as User:Zubeneshamali; the two combined made about 25 edits to two requests for unprotection and a request for editing a protected page, all relating to the full protection on University of Tennessee.) Since the final straw was a personal attack on me (which was reverted while I was blocking him), I'm putting this up for review, and if anyone feels the block is unjustified, feel free to unblock with a note here. Horologium (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems justified in my mind. I can't imagine how you could be both a boy and a princess :-) Even without having heard of Zuben_ before, I can say that blocking is warranted for the IP. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine how you could be both a boy and a princess :-)
Yo. ;) //roux   05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off a 24hr block, using article talk to protest.[edit]

Resolved: blocked 2 weeks Toddst1 (talk)

More Obamalamadrama, unfortunately. Fresh off a 24hr timeout, John has repeatedly inserted this vertaible Wall-of-Text several times now (one, two, three, four), a long tirade against the fascists of Wikipedia, etc...etc... the first 3 each reverted by a different editor for soapboxing concerns, while the 4th currently sits shiny at the top, as I'd rather not personally repeatedly revert war over it. Tarc (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to respond your disrespect. I simply created a discussion thread about the problems that are systemic that I saw. That is all. You seem to be deeply scared or intimidated by my point and are thus waging some strange "obamamania" war on me that I simply do not get. If you wanted to prove your "fascist" whatever idea that you said I thought then simply continue your feud with me. You are the one opposing the Jimbo guidelines not I. I don't think I have anything else to say to you. Leave my discussions alone and stop violating your tools. JohnHistory (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I don't know what a jimbo guideline is, but i do know what disruption is. I suggest you start editing and stop disrupting. The mere fact that i've made a comment here may help you... if you stop. If you don't stop, this is probably the end.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The article talk page is for discussion of, y'know, the article. Not for your tangential musings of fascist Wikipedians and the perceived unfairness of your block. And no, there's nothing scary or intimidating about it. Tarc (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeated postings of rants against a block in no way belongs on the Obama talk page, the guidelines are setup at the beggining. Do you go to Starbucks when your overcharged for something at Dunkin Donuts? No. YOUR block, and the discussion is confined to YOUR talk page. Youve been told that many times, and you ignore it. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
JohnHistory blocked for 2 weeks for personal attack here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael McLendon[edit]

Resolved: Pages moved to other locations, considerably updated. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:06

A new article has just been created about the alleged shooter in Alabama. I deleted the first unreferenced version of it. It's back already with a few references. I think we need some eyes on this, please! Aleta Sing 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a page should be created, but more in the news story version than to the actual person. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:45
Right now it is a one line article about the man who allegedly killed a bunch of others and then himself. It would be a BLPE issue if he were still alive, but he apparently killed himself at the end of the spree. I'm not sure this is at all appropriate as is. Aleta Sing 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What I was thinking of, is move the article to say 2009 Alabama shootings and have it be like a "news" page like 2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing looks. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 11, 2009 @ 05:51
That would certainly be better than what there is now. Please feel free to go ahead and do it! I have to go to bed now. Aleta Sing 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with the move (although I couldn't think of a good name at the time)... I took a minor stab at some of the wording in the article currently (I admit, " who police believe killed" is kinda weaselly, but, I too was concerned about the sorta-BLP issues involved). umrguy42 06:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to take a go at it, I will move the page to 2009 Alabama shootings (seems appropiate enough a name) and work on some references and more information. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 11, 2009 @ 06:02
Looks like someone beat me to the punch and moved and updated the pages. I am marking this as resolved. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:03


This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't see much point in having an AfD for someone who is mentioned in the media virtually every day. Better to wait until media attention to her dies down before trying to nominate the article about her for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • What you've got there basically is one editor who absolutely can't stand the fact that this baby factory has an article here. He objects on the grounds that there's already an article about the octuplets. I would argue the octuplets article is the "not notable" one, because they haven't done anything except to be born. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I personally think the woman in question is an messed-up idiot, and the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life, the sad fact is that this issue overally does merit some encyclopedic entry because of the same reasons I just gave. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Baseball, it may not be right but you can't say that only one editor questions this bio, several voted delete. Non admins shouldn't really close early or close contentious AfDs, I think per WP:NAC, which I know is just a guideline but makes sense. It should be reopened as the close was not in accordance with standard practice, the snowball clause or guidelines. Having said that, it would eventually have been an obvious keep, but why not wait till the end so no-one can say it's not been handled in the standard fashion. Sticky Parkin 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
At the AfD, some editors want two articles, some editors want them to be merged, some editors want no articles at all. A contentious AfD with 30+ contributors should be closed with more explanation than 'keep'. Non-admins shouldn't be anywhere near the closure (IMHO). One problem with these AfDs is the appearance of trying to stifle debate: firstly by closing AfD/1 after less than twelve hours here, then trying to get AfD/2 closed in equally quick time here, then appealing to this page to get AfD/2 closed early (see above), finally getting another non-admin closure. If there is consensus for anything, then fair enough. But let's discuss it, find consensus, and close the debate properly. (MHO is no consensus, but whatever.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I initiated the first AFD on BLP policy, albeit a section of policy which has been poorly enforced and may very well not be policy at all. I don't believe that a NAC was inappropriate in that case, since at that point it was not particularly contentious (i.e. WP:SNOW) and I as nominator had withdrawn it. I was not involved in the second AFD and have no opinion there. SDY (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first AfD's close complies with WP:Speedy keep, clause 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Talking of BLP, we should probably be more careful about slinging around phrases like "baby factory", "messed-up idiot" and the ethics board comment. Exxolon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I was careful to state that it was my personal opinion. If it was anywhere near an article, there would be an issue, as it would be WP:OR. I'll never be called to provide testimony at said ethics board, so it's not an issue. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Making it clear it's a personal opinion helps, but BLP does apply outside non-article space. It applies on ALL pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what admin action is really required here. If you don't like the article being kept WP:DRV if always availablt to contest that. Disclaimer: I opined that the article is a keeper given the significant coverage of her. It would be interesting if WP:DRV came out differently (don't hold your breath), as we'd have a much higher bar to get rid of some articles on marginally notable (under the current regime) subjects....but I digress. Should this be marked "resolved"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Would an admin simply endorse/overturn/reopen the AfD? DRV shouldn't be necessary, as this NAC is clearly outside the limits suggested by the relevant guideline and its supporting essay. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)striking per information provided by MBisanz Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we have problems with BLPs[edit]

I am gravely concerned when a thread supposedly started to discuss concerns about article deletion promptly turned into an opportunity to bash the subject of the article: "baby factory", "messed-up idiot", "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life". This is unacceptable. The editors who have made such comments should consider themselves warned, and I hope they will give thought to striking such commentary. Very disappointing. Risker (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your possible concern, fromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
If this is what you consider context, there is a bigger problem. This is the noticeboard for people requesting administrator assistance, in this case about a dispute relating to certain discussions. The place for you to add your personal opinion about the discussion is at the discussion, not on this noticeboard. And stating that someone is a "messed-up idiot", or that "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life" is most certainly a biographical commentary. If you put that in an article without attribution, as you have on this page, there's a relatively good chance you would have been blocked, let alone warned. Your personal opinion about these individuals is completely irrelevant to this or any other discussion page, the article, or the encyclopedia - as is mine. Risker (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, an ARBcom has spoken. The phrase "lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. Fear not, I'll be dutifully reporting that phrase to the BLP noticeboard ASAP. Badger Drink (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh!?! Shot info (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase or when they coined it, but I'm worried that it may refer to living lunatics. Badger Drink (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This from a User whose User page has once been deleted as an attack page and once deleted for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Risker, I won't mention any names, but I know a current member of arbcom who might argue that this problem doesn't exist because Google doesn't index it. I don't accept the "all about the juice" argument. However this is nothing new. AFD has long been a toxic environment where people have nothing better to do than ridicule the subjects and editors of articles they don't like.
Bwilkins, that sounds like wiki-lawyering. Non-biographical intent would not make it acceptable for me to refer to you on Wikipedia as an asshole, for example. — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For crying out loud, this is gone from bad to worse. First I have been wrongly "warned" by an ArbComm member, and now I'm being accused of Wikilawyering, all within 24 hours? I go away to a military base for one little week to write a series of real life articles with bullets flying over my head, and come back, and I'm public enemy #1? The original intent of my original statement stands: unlike some editors, just because I disagree with a subject, that does not mean that it does not have encyclopedic merit. Yes, I used phrasing about 2 living people that appear throughout the press around the world - indeed, one of the phrases was said by that person's own mother in a number of real world articles, so it's not original (unfortunately, I don't think you can find any reliable sources calling me an asshole, that's just WP:OR ;-) ). I did not participate in the AfD, I have not touched the article in question, nor do I plan to. I mean you want me to source the 2 statements? Is it worth the drahma for me to go back and put quotations and references? Can we not get back to the subject of the original AN/I report, and if you have an issue or need clarification with any of my edits, then let's deal with it in a way that does not make it look like I had involvement in the original issue? You want to call me out, then do it in the right way...if you want to discuss, I will want to take wild stabs in the dark, forget it - I'm used to wearing kevlar. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the closures were correct. It is sometimes impossible to figure out whether a person is merely known for one veent, or could become notable. I'm goign to semi-protect the article if it hasn't been done already. Let's call it a day. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

William Murphy (tennis)[edit]

I am having difficulty persuading an IP account from making changes to this article that are inappropriately based on a personal relationship with the subject or his family. The IP account continues to insert information that is based on unverifiable information. In response to my requests for citations, he continues to insert "according to Chet" (the subject's brother) or to refer to the fact that certain war medals were seen at the subject's home. See, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. I have tried leaving extensive notes/suggestions on the IP user's talk page, (see [6]) but the user continues to delete my [citation needed] notations. I have tried to be courteous but I don't want to get into an edit war with this user. What can be done about this? Cbl62 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the user a caution message suggesting they engage in discussion and read up on the guideline and polices they have been referred to. I also added them a {{Welcomeunsourced}} with the relevant links in mind of their unsourced contributions. They certainly seem in good faith, just misguided about what is appropriate so hopefully this will prompt them into slowing down and reading up. I suspect thought that they may well not know what a watchlist is so aren't seeing edit summaries and have not stopped long enough to see they have messages, or may not even know what a talk page is yet. A revert of all the unsourced stuff is appropriate, maybe that will confuse them into stopping or clicking away long enough to see they have messages. If it continues against that reversion they could get a couple of hour block to prevent them wasting any more time contributing material that will not stick, get their attention and give them some reading time. Mfield (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs using Wikipedia as a storage location.[edit]

This diff shows an IP tucking away a character file into an article, no doubt for later recovery. This is not the first time, either see this as well. I'd like to request that both be oversighted out, as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace; this is not the purpose of WP. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's already fairly commonplace. HalfShadow 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
From my experience, Oversight will not deal with such edits, Thuran. Sorry. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Damn shame. Such edits ought to be deleted to discourage them entirely. On the other hand, good to know we can all abuse the site ad nauseum from now on. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Admins can, with some effort, nuke the revision out of the publicly visible history (deleted revisions of page, etc). However, is that even justified? Is just deleting it out of the active page good enough here? Yeah, it's not completely gone, but it's fairly gone, someone has to know about histories to go find it now.
I'm open to the answer being "It needs to go away harder" but that should be explained and justified if you think it is... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
stray question....what is that sort of thing used for? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a HeroMachine save "file". I just happen to have the software and I've loaded his character onto my computer. Looks like some sort of Asian Sith Lord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the other one is some assassiny knife wielder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for filling my head with yet one more piece of irrelevent garbage. Face-smile.svg --Ludwigs2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)To be honest I can't see the point of considering oversight for this specific form of vandalism. Add together "Wikipedia is on the Internet", "Wikipedia is freely editable" and "I am a complete numpty who will happily use freely editable resources on the Internet for my own purposes" and this sort of thing will happen, as will people using talkpages as a message board, people thinking an article on their dog/band/girlfriend/cake recipe must appear on here. It's no different to people seeing "L1z suz c0k" on a page and saying to themselves "aha! i could create a page like that too", and nobody (surely) is considering oversight for all vandalism "as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace". WP:RBI, applies, doesn't it, just as for any persistent vandalism? Tonywalton Talk 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC, servers were acting up, ryulong said a lot of what I'd tried to say) For those unclear about this, this string represents the save data for a character for an internet game of some sort. The difference between this an 'joo allz zuk kawk' is that this editor is seeking to squirrel away actual usable data in our edit histories, which he can recover and use later. This is far more a WP:NOTMYSPACE violation, or WP:NOTYOURHARDDRIVE, perhaps. Wikipedia shouldn't be abused as an off-site storage site. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. See Numbers station. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is doubting the fact that what the text is used for, I can provide an image of the output. :P And, yeah, this is a vio of notmyspace or notharddrive because this can be saved in a freaking .txt—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the sticky nature of oversight (interaction with WMF policy, real world copyright issues, local policy, and dramaz) its highly unlikley a drastic measure will be taken. I would support however, a single revision deletion of that edit - although we need to actually get that featured installed for us non-OS admins.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It can be done, I've done it on occasion- I thought it best if people elsewhere weren't able to see the diffs (ED related rubbish). Just delete the page, and then restore all revisions apart from those that you don't want to be seen. It's a bit of a hack, but it can be done. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what User:NawlinWiki was doing incessantly a few months back that caused the whole site to freeze up and watchlists to backlog by thousands of seconds? No thanks, we have an encylopaedia to write. Skomorokh 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, he still does that, God love him. (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, if you must know, it was a threat involving me, being linked to "for the lulz". Not something I want sitting around. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

scriptural reasoning article[edit]

I am writing about the article 'Scriptural reasoning'. I am happy to admit I am an officer of the Scriptural Reasoning Society. I am not 'scripturalreasoning' but am part of the same society and we all know about the history and editing conflict. I made a single edit on this article a long time ago. I have not done so since because of the conflicts and I do not have time nor sufficiently interested.

But I am concerned that 'thelongview' seems to have added a lot of references to himself and people from the organisation which he is part of or works for, and his editing seems biased towards the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. Two other editors 'mahigton' and 'laysha101' arrived at the exactly same time last November and they have all admitted they know each other. This all seems dodgy.

Other admins have noted that this article has been a conflict between the two organizations and suggested that it should be edited by people who are not linked to either organization, and don't use it to promote either organization. There are hardly any references from people who aren't directly involved in scriptural reasoning. Thanks. --Kurteasy (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Scriptural reasoning for ease of editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there a really good reason for this article to exist and not just be a redirect to Exegesis? Just because multiple people join the same two words together doesn't really mean we need an article about it. For example, "my stupid parents" gets plenty of g-hits, but that's obviously not an article topic. --B (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Scriptural reasoning is not exegesis... I'm not convinced about its notability, but a redirect to exegesis would be profoundly misleading. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I thought "scriptual reasoning" was just another synonym for prooftext. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this recent discussion here at AN/I regarding Scripturalreasoning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell Scriptural reasoning is a (relatively) new interfaith practice. A more accurate description may be "interfaith discussions concerning Abrahamic scripture". We've got an obvious COI problem, but it doesn't seem unmanageable. Cambridge University's interfaith programme seems to be involved, but I'm not sure if the notability is inherited. All that having been said, what exactly, if anything, are admins needed for?--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A search for scriptural reasoning on wiki reveals that the lead scholars have their own articles, some of which may have been autobiographies, but this appears to be an editors needed problem, not an admin intervention required problem.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Tznkai. The article certainly needs to be improved, and more editors are needed. Most scriptural reasoning activity worldwide takes place under the aegis of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, so most editors familiar with the practice will be affiliated in some way with it. There is an expanding literature on the topic, and over time I would expect a corresponding increase in numbers of editors able to form independent judgements. Thelongview (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thelongview, in the Google-searching I did a couple of days ago, I got the impression that everything relating to the Scriptural Reasoning Society was probably generated by a single person. I presume you know something about this -- can you shed any light? (No personal identities, please, though.) Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Looie496, the website relating to the scriptural reasoning society is, I think, maintained by a couple of friends/colleagues. I think one of them, Carpathy2009 (recently blocked), originally designed it, but he has said on a talk page that the board of trustees of Interfaith Alliance UK approves the content. I don't know who drafts the content that the trustees approve, but it represents the views of Carpathy2009. It's difficult to be more precise than this, or verify it, as the website lists no trustees, and does not name sponsors or participants. Thelongview (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not run 'by a couple of friends'. If you buy tomorrow's Baptist Times there's a full feature article on the Scriptural Reasoning Society, description by the journalist of one of our group meetings, interviews with people, photos etc. It is true up to now we haven't blown our own trumpet enough to the media and we've been too modest. There are names of some SR Coordinators under the affiliated local groups (click 'Events' on our website). I think names of Coordinators, Trustees etc should be much more prominent, but one or two of my colleagues have been vocal that it would apparently make us 'unequal' and a 'personality cult' like the other SR organization. We also have over 200 members and we aren't going to put their names up on the internet just because a couple of anonymous Wikipedia tell us to. Due to conflict of interest it would be better if non-involved editors edited the scriptural reasoning article. --Kurteasy (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 asked a specific question about what he found by Google-searching. My response relates solely to the maintenance of the website, not to the scriptural reasoning society. I agree entirely with you about publishing names of coordinators and trustees. It is normal for societies to do that. (And wholly unusual to publish full lists of members - no-one is asking for that.) Thelongview (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Ferguson[edit]

Hi. I'm back after a while and I screwed up my attempt to reverse an old redirect, page move, thus accidentally deleting the edit history of one of the pages. I wanted to recreate a disambiguation page after an old deleted page was recreated as there are two people with the exaxt same name. There should be a page for Duncan Ferguson (political activist), Duncan Ferguson (Scottish football player) and a disamb. page. Sorry and thanks for the help. (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin help with the above? Thanks! (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That is contrary to recommended practice. Skomorokh 06:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for assistance at ANI (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with misplaced article history. Whether or not there needs to be a disambig page as opposed to two top-notes is another issue. Cirt (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't, basically. One is an internationally-known footballer. The other is a sculptor whose article was started this week. There's a clear primary topic; I've marked the dab for speedy, and will add a hatnote to the footballer article once it's moved to the root title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USER:A6702 and Sock[edit]

Resolved: IP and all known sock accounts 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USER:A6702 posted this [7] and this [8] and this [9] to Presidency of Barack Obama with a few minutes of each other; each was quickly reverted for any of many good reasons. He was warned of 3rr.

A few minutes later, the brand new USER:A16529 appeared, and added this [10] to the same page. I smell socks. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See also [11]. This appeares to be a deep sockfarm. I am off to bed, so if other admins could continue the whack-a-mole for me, I'd appreciate it. If a checkuser is reading this, we need to clear up this problem, and perhaps block the underlying IP as well as the rest of this farm. I have also semiprotected the target article for 24 hours to stop these newly created accounts from disrupting. 06:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP. No other socks were immediately apparent. Dominic·t 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
And I have declined the unblock request of A16529. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Aloemps (talk · contribs)

Earlier today, I reverted some edits to Mannatech, a company that is, to say the least, controversial. The edits violate WP:NOR, but more to the point, it's advertising for Mannatech. I placed a level 4 warning here, because a previous warning had been placed for the exact same edit. I usually do the the 1-2-3-4 warning system for editors, but it was obvious that this editor was focused on Mannatech and its products.

After a good night's sleep, I awake to the following:

I believe that Aloemps does not represent the best of Wikipedia, and administrator intervention is needed, even though if he thinks we're all fascists, it's going to be interesting. Good luck. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A note about the speedy: it wasn't a direct personal attack, but with the immediate history and editing I felt it might warrant action and was sufficiently directed, and an admin agreed. The editor seems to fail to grasp the basics of contributing here. Verbal chat 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much what Marlin said sums it up, I reverted a rather largish block of text here which seemed to be a mass block of unsourced WP:OR. And that's really all I had to do with it besides that WP:NPA warning. Q T C 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well as per his last post that you cited above, it seems he is all done. No block is needed if he really does leave Wikipedia. If he doesn't leave, a block may be required then, but a wait-and-see approach may be best at this point. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the last post as a comment that he wasn't going to post on my talk page anymore. Well, we'll see.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

egregious personal attacks in edit summaries[edit]

User:ErikWarmelink has been attacking other editors on Talk pages, and in edit summaries. He was recently warned by an administrator about making personal attacks, yet he persists. Yesterday, he described another editor as a "racist" in this edit summary, and after I warned him yet again about violating WP:NPA, his response was 'I hope you may rot in a camp too'. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hrs for the two personal attacks, after / despite prior warnings. Left a long message about civility and cooperative engagement rather than abusive confrontation. Hopefully he gets the message. Most of the time he's merely strident, but he keeps going too far and pushing the personal attack button every few days now, and that's not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Dabomb87 by Jehochman[edit]

Resolved: User unblocked per statement released on talk page. Did anybody bother to notify Johochman of the ANI thread? Nope. seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has blocked Dabomb87 for 24 hours. I asked him here to explain the rationale for the block. It is my understanding (which may be in error) that the block is because Dabomb87 made a single edit involving a date de-linking. It is also my understanding that the parties to the date de-linking ArbCom are currently enjoined from “mass de-linking”. Jehochman explained on his talk page that he “will not tolerate badgering from multiple parties every time I try to enforce the rules.” He further instructed interested parties to go to WP:AE to discuss any concerns. I did and was told that the proper venue is here. Ergo my question: what rule? Shouldn’t Jehochman cite the rule he is enforcing? As I am not aware of a new ArbCom injunction enjoining the parties from any linking or delinking, the original injunction applies. And in that injunction, the term “mass delinking” meant—and still means—bot delinking or manual delinking in similar quantities. If Dabomb87 really made a single edit (an assumption), then what rule does Jehochman think he is enforcing? If my understanding of the facts is correct, then this has a chilling effect: editors should always be comfortable with following the letter and spirit of rules without fear of an excessive, knee-jerk reaction from a frustrated admin. Greg L (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a full explanation is in order. I have raised three issues on that page, concerning (1) unexplained assumptions by this admin of what was going on in dabomb's mind at the time, ini particular, the admin's declaration that the user was "testing the limits [of the ArbCom temporary injuction in question]" and aimed "to provoke conflict"; (2) different rules for each side in the current "dates" ArbCom hearing in relation to this admin action, resulting in the appearance of grossly unfair treatment in what is meant to be a fair and neutral hearings process; and (3) clarification of just how the definition of "mass [delinking] was reached by the admin, seemingly at odds with previous statements by arbitrators (diffs on request). (4) The apparent breaching of two fundamental WP:ADMIN requirements to (a) communicate fully, before and after, the reasons for a block, and (b) to block only as "a last resort", to prevent harm to the project. It has all of the arbitrariness that characterises extreme regimes. Tony (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm copying here my comment I made at WP:AE: This is beyond ridiculous. These kinds of blocks, and much more importantly, these kinds of vindictive hostile reports, must stop immediately. The "injunction", if handled in this way, is evidently creating much more damage and bad blood than it could ever prevent. Fut.Perf. 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a very specific clarification of what is meant by the ArbCom temporary injunction. It had never occurred to me that it would cover something like this. I wonder if I've broken it? dougweller (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit in question by Dabomb is this one. Dabomb had been commenting on the arbitration enforcement page, and so was aware that the very idea of delinking dates was under dispute (how could he not know?). Thus I agree with jehochman that the edit summary of that edit is provocative: "delinking dates and making dates the right format: this is a featured article and therefore must comply with all MOS guidelines".
The question whether that MoS guideline has agreement is well known to be disputed, especially by Dabomb, who has been discussing whether to place a "disputed" tag on it. For Dabomb to refer to that MoS page as if it is controlling when he/she knows that it is disputed is unlikely to help resolve the dispute, and more likely to irk those on the other side. It's a classic power move (and it does not build rapport with editors on the other side of the arbitration case).
Moreover, Dabomb had not previously edited the page in question, and made no other changes to it. I agree that if someone were to delink a date while making significant changes to an article, that would not violate the injunction. But to arrive at a page simply to change date linking isn't on, and Dabomb reasonably could be expected to know this.
If all editors would simply not change date linking styles until the arbitration case is settled, that would resolve the issue of blocks such as these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This was an obvious violation by somebody deeply involved in the case, clear testing of limits. I was in contact with Dabomb87 and they understood the 24 hour block and more importantly, how to get unblocked (for which I left instructions on their talk page for any reviewing admin to consider). Greg and Tony have engaged in needless drama mongering, and wasted the community's time. Anyone who wants to review this should read the thread on WP:AE fully, and the preceding thread also at WP:AE. This is a vitriolic dispute. Regretably firm limits had to be established, and the disputants will be blocked if they test them. Jehochman Talk 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman: Since you are an admin, I expect better conduct out of you than this. I did not know the detailed facts and wanted clarification. My appeal here makes that much clear; I was seeking an explanation and justification. In my mind, the only controlling rule governing the extent to which editors can delink dates was an ArbCom ban on “mass delinking.” I had received an e-mail from Dabomb87, who is a wikifriend, saying he made a single delinking edit. Based on that, I sought to help him out of what I perceived to be an unfair action by an administrator. I was first seeking 1) the facts of this dispute, 2) the justification for why you blocked Dabomb, and in the end, 3) fairness. That is not too much to ask. I wasn’t out to get you, or, as you accused me of here, “drama mongering.”

    I see now that Dabomb87 was unblocked by another admin, who chose to post this edit summary when doing so: “as per unblock request and discussion. No immediate danger of further disruption. We need fewer blocks and less incentive for vindictive hostile "reporting" of "infractions" in this matter.” That explains a lot. I don’t know who made the hostile reporting and don’t care (though I can imagine), and see now how you got wrapped around the axle on this issue. I wouldn’t have bothered responding were it not that your above post, in a manner of speaking, accused me of having bad faith in my actions here. That was not the case, unless “seeking to get an unjust block” is regarded as “drama mongering.” I’m sure, as an admin, you frequently link to WP:Assume good faith; I suggest you go study what you link to a bit more until it becomes more of your modus operandi. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I am not seeing that the block was clearly justified under nor proportional for the enacted injunction:
1.1) Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case. The Clerk will notify the parties of this temporary injunction and post a note of it on the appropriate policy page(s).
Maybe by "mass linking or delinking" they meant "doing so throughout a single entire article", but on looking at the injunction and arbitrators comments I tend to interpret it as "running a bot to do so across a bunch of articles", not "manually did it throughout one whole article".
If Arbcom meant to freeze the date linking/delinking entirely, they should have and presumably would have said so. What they said wasn't "Stop entirely", at all.
Perhaps he was being provocative - and anyone doing so in the middle of an arbcom case should not to that. That a case was filed and accepted indicates that there's reasonable suspicion of seriously unreasonable behavior on one or all sides. But there's a difference between provocative, and blatant violation of an injunction.
Jehochman, if you have some additional comment diffs or locations you can point us to which support your assertion that Arbcom meant the injunction to apply as you have stated you interpreted it, please post them. I don't see this as an open and shut case that you're wrong on this, but there seems to be a preponderance of evidence leaning the other way... I think you have a burden of proof to either show that Arbcom did draw the line where you say they did, or ask them to clarify whether you interpreted it correctly.
I don't think that you clearly did wrong either, but I think that you have more of a burden of proof here. In some cases an admin action dispute is just sour grapes on the enforcee's side - in this case, I think there's a legitimate question as to whether the injunction was interpreted correctly. In any case, admins should be willing to explain actions in more depth if they didn't verbosely explain them to start with. In particular, when uninvolved parties object or ask for more clarification we all have a burden of justifying our actions.
I think the simplest way forwards is if you can find us some comments or diffs clarifying the injunction, or just ask Arbcom to do so now... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you Georgewilliamherbert. Well written; that was precisely my take on the matter. I had two motivations for involving myself on this: 1) to get Dabomb87’s block record to reflect that it was far from an egregious, purposeful violation on his part (if it was a violation of any sort), and 2) I might have innocently delinked a date I had stumbled across if it stood out like a sore thumb in some article. I don’t make it a practice to go looking for trouble with “neener neener” delinking, nor do I run a bot, but “mass delinking” is just that and a single edit once in a while simply isn’t a legitimate concern of any sort. So having “instruction creep” like this and blocking an editor is quite troubling. This whole thing is unfortunate because, even though Dabomb87’s block was undone, the fact that he was blocked and that there was so much drama associated with getting it undone still has a chilling effect. Again, I don’t know who was the party who complained about Dabomb87’s edit, but there are a few involved in the date linking/delinking ArbCom who are quite good at writing wikilawyered prose that makes admins spring to action. IMO, this, may have unfortunately been the root of the problem on this one. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein[edit]

Resolved: Restored, offending comments redacted. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The afd is turning into a bash-Klein fest with major WP:BLP violations. Can an admin with guts do the right thing and close this discussion? (I don't care which way)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. What a cluster@%&! of garbage. Kept as no-consensus with no bias towards a renomination at an appropriate time. seicer | talk | contribs 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried courtesy blanking, but I seem to have been reverted by seicer. Won't revert, but still think it's appropriate given the possibility of BLP issues Fritzpoll (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I was having technical issues with the AFD Closure app, and had to submit it twice for it to stick. It looks to have been overwritten in the process. seicer | talk | contribs 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh - no problem. I figured it was something like that Fritzpoll (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"Speedy no consensus", in the context of Wikipedia, sounds like an oxymoron. When there's no consensus it's more typical to extend discussion rather than to cut it short. I'm not arguing with the closure, but maybe we need to think about how we handle contentious AfDs concerning living people.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I would normally agree, but the AFD was littered with numerous BLP issues. Keep or not, I wasn't about to dig through and sort out the valid rationales from the obvious garbage. seicer | talk | contribs 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
True that. Doing what's easy is almost always a better option than doing what is right. --Ali'i 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We could try giving warnings to everyone who went too far with the BLP issues. I'm trying to sort through it now, but have no firm conclusions on that yet... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There was certainly Klein-bashing there, and a lot of Keep and Delete !votes that had nothing to do with policy, some WP:NOT#CHAT violations, and some minor incivility, but I don't see anything that obviously violates BLP. THF (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the comment Brewcrewer was so worked up about. All I said was "doesn't matter if he's an idiot, he is notable." the comment was a reference to a couple comments above mine that referred to his "idiocy." I didn't see that as a big deal, although I may be wrong. While brewcrewer was forum shopping I didn't see anyone share his opinion though. Landon1980 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole string of stuff there which is ... suboptimal, bending policy, though I am still not sure if any of it is warnable or cautionable. "selfpromoting puffery by a conservative nonentity.", "more sources have picked up on this guy and his world of idiocy. ", your comment as a less extreme example.
There's a tendency to feel more free to use terms like puffery and idiot talking about article subjects in BLP AFDs and talk pages, but BLP applies in talk and WP space as much as in article space... one can express ones unhappyness with the article subject without crossing the line into a BLP violation. Those do not reflect well on Wikipedia if someone googles them, and violate our own policies. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am very big on WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, and I don't think anyone since David Horowitz has ever accused me of left-wing bias, but "puffery" refers to the article content, rather than the subject. I don't see that remotely as a BLP violation. It's entirely appropriate to note that a subject's notability has been exaggerated by the inclusion of non-notable details in an article: there are thousands of Wikipedia articles where an editor has tried to get over the WP:N hump with lots of footnotes to mentions in passing. THF (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see either "idiot" comment as a major violation, if at all. I know BLP applies to this area as well, but come on, lighten up. Landon1980 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Borderline personal slander, but both instances have been redacted. I didn't bother with the chit-chat, but if it degrades, then it should be closed. seicer | talk | contribs 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"if he's an idiot" does not violate the WP:BLP policy I am aware of. I'm just going to remove my vote entirely, since I can't even say he is notable without it being removed, and my comment exaggerated. You shouldn't refactor other's comments unless it is necessary, not just because you could possibly twist them into a policy violation. Landon1980 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been much more appropriate to ask the "offending" users to adjust their comments rather than create a false incident. Grsz11 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the BLP interpretation[edit]

I am concerned about the overbroad view of the BLP policy expressed by some editors. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, among other policies, requires editors to assess the substance and credibility of living people. Does it violate BLP to say "Joe Schlabotnik is not a credible source"? (I had one editor edit-warring to redact that comment from a talk page discussing the WEIGHT to be given to the non-credible source.) There needs to be a little leeway in talk-page space, where the opinions of individual editors are clearly stated as the opinions of individual editors. "Joe Schlabotnik is an idiot" may be on the unCIVIL side, but it is of a different caliber than "Joe Schlabotnik molests children," which should be redacted. THF (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. There's a legitimate question as to when we start to overreact on any topic.
The comments were rude, not helpful (degraded rather than enhanced debate - the opinion could have been stated equally validly in a non abusive manner), uncivil. But I am tending to agree that the BLP issue interpretation was a mistake by Brewcrewer and myself. I wasn't sure they were - my first reaction was possibly, which was why I went and looked more carefully - but I spoke out here in part to float the interpretation up the flagpole. I think there's now a legitimate consensus that BLP wasn't broached.
That said, the comments were rude, not helpful, and uncivil. We're an encyclopedia and an online community which has to work together, under unprecedented external scrutiny, and comments like that do nothing but damage how we're perceived by the outside world if anyone notices. It may be that nobody will publicize them - the article subject is unlikely to point more fingers after being identified as the content offender in the first place. But the project would look bad if this was posted on the front page of the New York Times, or a CNN article. And those things happen from time to time.
Grsz' comment that this would have been best approached by asking those commenters to redact their own comments would have been preferable, I think. Pointing out the problem and asking that people edit collegialy and civilly would have been more useful as a first step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Joe Blow is an idiot or whatever is not needed and should be removed from talk pages. Joe Blow is not a reliable source is a perfectly acceptable opinion that should be allowed. Tom 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that noting that someone is an unreliable source is any sort of problem or violation, and I don't think anyone else said so. If it seemed that I or others were implying that somewhere above, my apologies, I didn't intend to convey that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not you, GWH, but I had two editors criticizing me on ANI a couple of days ago for identifying a non-credible source as a non-credible source, claiming CIVIL and BLP problems. It does seem that they were largely ignored, but I wanted to get out into the open the different degrees of BLP issues. There's a substantial difference between talk-pages and articlespace when it comes to BLP redactions. And since I use "puffery" quite frequently as a short-hand to describe article problems ("Joe Schlabotnik once spoke at a lawyers' convention and was mentioned on a blog."), I was also concerned that you viewed that as itself problematic. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Puffery is bothering me, but I think we're somewhere around the grey line the community is drawing on what's ok and what isn't. From the perspective of what outsiders would say if they saw that, it's suboptimal. But it may well not break the communities' idea of where to draw the line based on discussion here.
I appreciate the value of shorthand, but shorthand that carries excessively negative connotations, in a public forum, has its downside.
It would probably help our general civility clean up efforts if you moved away from using it. But I'll agree not to do more than ask people politely not to use it, based on the rough consensus I'm seeing here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is all besides the fact that I didn't call Klein an idiot, rather called his actions idiocy. To me, there's a difference. Grsz11 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but maintaining an enhanced level of civility, even about article subjects, is never a bad idea. Pretending that the article subject is a personal friend often helps, even if you disagree vehemently with his or her opinions. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Grsz, I was talking in generalized terms and was not involved with this article until a few moments ago, so that was in no way directed at you. I agree with what you are saying but would add that even calling somebodies action's idiocy is not needed but no biggie. Tom 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page polemic[edit]


User:Neophytesoftware, who was recently blocked for personal attacks, harassment, and violation of article probation on Barack Obama, decided to put this rant on his talk page, in violation of WP:PA, WP:SOAP, and WP:UP#NOT's prohibition against just such polemical rants. I removed it, but he restored it and accused me of vandalism, so I'm requesting others' input. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Removed it again, and warned not to reinstate it. Black Kite 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt this is really resolved. I was just cruising over here to note the same issue. I tried to leave him a friendly message during his block to encourage him to read WP:CIVILITY. Between his talk page rant and this post, I see he still doesn't get it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this seems a step or two away from resolution. Neophyte has not ended his vendetta against Baseball Bugs. Moreover, he has reinserted the polemic ([12]); Black Kite has been notified ([13]). Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Soaping is relatively harmless, but the personal attacks aren't acceptable. He reverted Black Kite's removal. I've also removed it. I have told him that if he restores it he will be blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
He's now had a little rant about "liberal admins". Removed again. I'll block him if he re-inserts anything even trivially incivil. (Edit: I see he's been blocked indef by GWH. Marked resolved, I think.) Black Kite 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, it wouldn't bug me so much if these guys would at least use paragraphs... HalfShadow 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
He's been indeffed by GWH. I gotta say, the last edit was relatively harmless and he did comply with the request, so I would have just let it go. Meh ... the guy was heading for an indef anyway, so I suppose there's probably no point bothering now that it's done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe GWH blocked him more for his efforts elsewhere [14] than that last comment. Black Kite 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflicted] Yes - It wasn't the last edit, it was the series of stuff on Baseball Bugs' adminship application. That was in combination just too far past acceptable behavior here. I wouldn't have done anything else over his talk page stuff at this point, but following up on his other recent edits I found those, and those were just too much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries, that's fair enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A good block by George in my view also.--VS talk 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool; he thinks I'm an admin. HalfShadow 20:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best to leave him alone unless and until his talk page postings cross the line. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we want to leave recently blocked users on their talk page to vent about it. Being upset over the block is a normal human reaction (that some people thankfully rise above). Let him vent. What he's done so far is nothing like the level of abuse at which talk page locks are applied. Please also don't bait or provoke him - if you chose to engage in discussion, walk away if he's just being nasty back.
We need to treat people with dignity under these circumstances. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Circular logic; it is a well known fact[citation needed] that all WP admins are abusive - therefore any percieved abuse must be from an admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that if I didn't abuse him, I've been de-sysoped? Rats... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I'm gonna go block some people, then. HalfShadow 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence[edit]

Resolved: Reported, reverted, lets now ignore him

See this edit. I've blocked the IP, and contacted the abuse address attached to it. Reported Reverted. Ignored. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a horrible thing to say, but considering how thorough a list that is, I'm almost curious as to if he'd actually follow through... HalfShadow 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A quick email to the RCMP might be in order (considering the Geolocate info for the IP). Sorry to spam it, but there's been a form letter and instructions in the works for awhile now at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect that threat to be particularly credible. "I SWEAR THAT I HAVE YOUR IP ADDRESS RIGHT HERE AND I AM CURRENTLY HACKING THE GOOGLE EARTH SYSTEM TO FIND OUT YOUR REAL ADDRESS" doesn't strike me as very lucid, nor as very understanding of what Google Earth is, let alone how it works. :-) And I'm quite sure he's not a checkuser. — Coren (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if he used your IP; it wouldn't help him. The physical location of my IP is about half the city away from where I actually live. Let us speak no more of him. HalfShadow 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) high speed editing, no edit summaries, some vandalism[edit]

This is an apparently new editor who has come in with a bang, creating new articles, new redirects (eg Suck a fuck to Donnie Darko]] and Hippey to HippieLate 00s recession as a redirect to Late 2000s recession), new categories, etc. Sometimes it's fine, othertimes it's vandalism, eg redirecting Arsehole to George W. Bush. Never an edit summary despite a request to use them. No responses on his talk page to warnings, etc. He's now created What Is Emo although we have a perfectly good article Emo. He is using some copyright material, eg What Is Emo has a sentence ripped from a source he gives (but he isn't using quote marks) at [15] - some of his sources are fine, others are bad, eg 'AskYahoo'. I suspect there is other copyright stuff, eg at Digital Revolution which was a redirect until he turned it into an article. As I type, he's created a new redirect, Info Age to Information Age. 28 edits in 31 minutes to almost that many different articles, some new redirects. Sloppy too, I hope he didn't intend to remove the Music formats category from MP3 as he did here [16]. At the very least, I think this editor needs some more eyes on him. I wish he'd respond on his talk page. Can he be blocked if he persists in not providing edit summaries? As an aside, should I have posted this here or at AN? dougweller (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To be brief, yes he can be but that's a bit extreme and it doesn't really matter as the AN/ANI distinction is pretty much long gone. The better question is are his edits productive? This clearly is vandalism and if he's vandalizing, it doesn't matter about edit summaries. I'm going to ask him to stop until he explains what logic he is using for all these categories he's working on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
He's inserting a lot of BLPs in Category:People with OCD now. Should we mass revert? I don't suppose they're legit. -- Mentifisto 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the right place for this?[edit]

This is greviously incivil: diff... calling the entire rescue squad "Filthy Coprophiles" (shit lovers)???? I am dismayed and totally apalled at this extremely poor behavior that repeatedly strikes at the very root of WP:CIVIL. And here [17] where more extremely insulting terms were substituted for the names of editors in good standing... and then when asked to remove the incivility, the edit summary here was even worse diff. This is escalating. I do not believe this continued denigration of other editors by User:Edgarde should in any way be allowed to continue. No such continued and blatant incivility should be tolerated for even a moment. This is grevious. I ask for a block, and that a ban even be consisdered. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the box and warned the user. -- Avi (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a continued pattern of agressiveness and incivility that should merit a close watch. Shall I provide diffs for futher investigation, or wait until the actions repeat? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fraser Verrusio[edit]

Could some experienced editors make sure this BLP is appropriate. It seems to focus exclusively on a particular scandal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New user using en-wiki for (mostly) personal fanfic[edit]

Resolved: Sock indeffed, master blocked for three months, page deleted as copy of previously deleted page and MfD closed

Hiya. Most of User:President Cole Herrington's edits are to his user page, where he's crafted a faux-history/self-fanfic -- which includes the choice line that his fake-country "presses Anti-Non Christianism or Anti-Atheism" (oh, don't worry: "it's not a law"). I've a couple of times asked him actually to contribute toward the Encyclopedia, with a few links to WP:UP and WP:NOT.... but, the article-space edits he's made are uncited OR. I just now pasted a welcome template... but if anyone knows of a better way to pull this fellow along, I'd be grateful. Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I sent the page to Mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:President Cole Herrington. – ukexpat (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
He is an obvious sock of User:The Real American; an admin can compare the material on his now-deleted userpage with the material on the userpage of "Cole Herrington". Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is almost identical, there are a few more things on the old page, but you are right about this being an obvious sock. It is also recreation of previously-deleted material and qualifies for speedy deletion under (I can't remember which) CSD. -MBK004 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the first edit dates, it looks like User:The Real American is the master and User:President Cole Herrington is the sock. Anyone want to block other than me under WP:DUCK? -MBK004 03:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Rosas, subject blanking controversies[edit]

Resolved: pending result of SSP

Mfield (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me out on this one. I happened upon it while watching RFPP. User:Tsunami812, with a clear COI, presumably is the subject judging by this comment to another IP. He has been attempting to remove information about controversies he has been involved in. I opened an SPI case on behalf of the IP requesting protection, and recommended cleaning up the article as there were some inappropriate parts of the claims that had BLP concerns. I then removed the most troublesome material myself and tagged the article for issues. Now the editor and IP continue to blank the remaining controversy content with zero discussion, and I feel I should not block them myself having been drawn in so far as to attempt some clean up on the article. The SPI is WP:DUCK material, the article may be a viable AfD with so many unverified notability points. Mfield (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I have semi-protected article, reverted it to the last edit before the disruptive edits by the anon IP, and blocked the anon IP for edit warring. I will be available to block Tsunami812 for being a sock-puppeteer (if necessary) after the result of the report at SSP is finalised. Please return to my usertalk page for that action if you would like my assistance. If you agree with these actions Mfield will you please mark this thread as resolved?--VS talk 05:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I should note that I have also left a conflict of issue message at Tsunami812's talk page.--VS talk 05:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)



غراوپ (talk · contribs)

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs, this user is constantly reposting the same thing multiple times, basically anywhere he can find an empty place to put it. I've warned him clearly that any further action of this sort on their part will be considered harassment/vandalism, but frankly, this guy already smells like a sock. HalfShadow 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ALready blocked, see -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I know; it took me almost a minute just to copy/paste the name. I wasn't about to go back and delete the topic. HalfShadow 02:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked this user for his disruptive behavior. Also, his username transliterates as "ghrawp" (with the Kurdo-Arabic 'p', not present in standard Arabic) -- a moderately clever trope, as you can see. — Dan | talk 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the vandal is "Grawp" but a sock of indefinitely blocked ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs). The NYC IP User at the RFA would be the same one. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ Nishkid64, Luna Santin, YellowMonkey, Alison, all of which looked into the account can confirm this.--Caspian blue 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just looked into this 10 minutes ago. It's ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs). I've also blocked some other accounts that were unblocked in his IP range. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, غراوپ is the transliteration of Grawp in Arabic. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


ソックマペット (talk · contribs) Looks like he's making useful contributions, so I inserted the welcome template. I thought the username was interesting, ran it through Google, it roughly translates to User:Sockpuppet. Would appreciate a background check if it's a sleeper? - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please block User: ?[edit]

Resolved (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is harrassing another editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Block request for Youdontknowmypassword[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Another newly created account from the same person as Farticus2000, Hi i like bad smelly cheese (both blocked earlier today) and DanceDanceWereFallingApartToHaveFun. More inappropriate edits. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also block DanceDanceWereFallingApartToHaveFun on the same grounds. Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
sock drawer cleaned, IP blocked. -- lucasbfr talk 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil and totally uncalled-for comment by User:Sapphic[edit]

Resolved: user blocked for 12 hours. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some pretty surprising comments here on Wikipedia, but this is flat-out unacceptable. The edit summary was not very constructive either; reading some of the things on Greg L's user page, the the edit summary could be easily construed as a personal attack. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor warned for incivility. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
A lucky break for Sapphic, methinks. That's an appalling post. Hopefully they'll respond well to the warning. The post is still to be struck/reftd, incidentally. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If the user makes good on her promise to "be offline for a while", I don't think the warning will do much. A block here would be punitive and unhelpful. I request that the comment be struck though. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after reviewing this, I've set a 12 hour block. Any administrator can undo my actions if necessary. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see her prior edits; I can't say the block was bad. I suppose this is resolved then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It won't be me, Julian. The edits in question are far over the line and the user is experienced enough to know better. @ Dabomb, enforcing and showing that bottom-line conduct policies will be enforced is not unhelpful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Deacon, I did not see Sapphic's comments in their entirety before (the three previous ones). I agree that a block is appropriate in this sitauation. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Strange. Looking at some random previous edits by Sapphic then that lot I wonder about compromised accounts. Or possibly my thought about '"Never Edit Sober" i not agoood idae' on my userpage applies. 'Endorse a short block. Tonywalton Talk 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What we need for such people is topic bans from all date-linking related discussions. Including notice boards and the like. Really, this whole thing will only be solved once 80% of the ring leaders on both sides are permanently banned from MOSNUM and all related discussion contexts. Seriously, why does Wikipedia need them continuing to monopolise those discussions? They've presumably said what they had to say, many times over, now let them go away and do something else. Fut.Perf. 22:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
HEAR, HEAR!!! //roux   23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You may find this interesting: User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite#Bold_RFC_Suggestion. —Locke Coletc 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading her comments at the talk page in question, I think this isn't a compromised account, but a temporary lapse in temper management. Hopefully she'll take advantage of the break to have a cup of tea and take the high road.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). I request that Sapphic’s post not be struck by anyone other that Sapphic; to do so might look like Sapphic had a change of heart and struck it. If (s)he wants to (s)he can. If not, that’s fine too. It’s not the extreme elements from each camp I am writing for; the talk page is a marketplace for the exchange of ideas and I am writing to persuade the middle ground. Sapphic’s post speaks more about Sapphic than anything else.

Now, to a separate issue. I am astonished that Sapphic would write, in her last post, this for her edit summary: “teach your retarted son to swim maybe”. I have a post on my talk page about my son. He is, at this very moment training (and doing quite well I might add) in Panama City FL, where he is being trained as a Navy Diver. He was a teenager when 9/11 happened and worked his ass off to become a Navy SEAL because he wanted to do something of a very material nature to protect the country. To even try out to be a SEAL, one must score high enough on their entrance exam on the technical aspects to qualify to get into “Nuclear”. And, of course, you have to be in awesome physical condition. Like roughly 75% of these highly motivated young men, he didn’t make it through SEAL training; he didn’t make it through an “evolution” called “mask appreciation”, where they have trainees fill their masks full of water and yell out songs while treading water clustered tightly in a throng of men doing the same. Well, perhaps Sapphic thinks she has what it takes to get through that evolution. Now…

I’m tough enough to take on whatever Sapphic has to dish out against me. Her words impeach herself, not me. I don’t know what her major malfunction is here, but to write that another editor’s son is retarded (“retarted”) goes beyond appalling by Wikipedia standards of civility. Greg L (talk)

Attacking a fellow editor's children is completely and totally unacceptable under any conditions. //roux   23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no children and an edit summary like that even randomly directed at me would be unacceptable. However Sapphic has now been blocked to have a cooling cup of tea, there appears to be consensus that the block was good, Sapphic herself has claimed she'll "be offline for a while" so there seems little point in prolonging this discussion. Tonywalton Talk 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; marked as {{resolved}}. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Block review: User:ScienceApologist[edit]

Resolved: ScienceApologist has been unblocked as the blocking administrator was not aware of the approval from ArbCom. seicer | talk | contribs 11:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: I have protected the article for two weeks as both parties agreed to it. Please work out a consensus version on the article's talk page. The article will be unprotected upon request once a consensus version is developed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, March 12, 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is DR2006kl vol 2. The user was recently blocked for 3RR violation / editwarring at 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. As soon as the user's 24 hour block was over, he started reverting to his preferred version, that is totally unsourced and does not accurately summarize the article (WP:LEDE).
This is very disrupting, as I've been developing this article for some weeks, having to face a user who has apparently no intention whatsoever to enter anything encyclopedic/referenced but who is keen on pushing into the article's lead section his own research. The user, whose whole contributions list (of 50 edits (!)) indicates no desire to write anything constructive, has engaged in long-term edit warring in this article. I really wouldn't like to waste my time further on a RfC for such a single-purpose account. I think Wikipedia can actually do better without such single-purpose accounts, and something surely has to be done. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the article to be locked at User_talk:Ezhiki#1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis. As this is clearly a case of WP:TEDIOUS editing on the part of User:DR2006kl, I would be suggesting another 24 hour block for that user, as a one-last-chance notice, and if it continues once that block finishes, a final farewell would be in order. As Miacek is clearly improving the article, including sourcing, I guess locking the article is a bit early at the moment? --Russavia Dialogue 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with locking the article. Russavia is a friend of Miacek who was brought in to do the 3rd revert of the article. He never contributed to the article before. Miacek's edits do not improve article, in my view. His references are welcome but they are all rather one-sided and further push POV of the article. The article is up for a major clean-up. Concerning Miacek's vicious personal attack, I, indeed, created this account with a single purpose of improving Poincare-Birkhoff-Witt_theorem. Then I came across several articles of personal interest that I may be able to improve. In particular, in this one I have managed to get rid of most POV language in the introduction. Concerning this particular conflict, I have already had 3 different edits to improve the paragraph in question while Miacek flatly undoes any of my edits. DR2006kl (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin abuse[edit]

Resolved: No administrator abuse here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin user Scarian used a name calling personal attack against Beantwo in violation of Wikipedia policy The specific attack part of an edit summary on Beantwo's talk page. Beantwo (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You were warning yourself, Scarian removed the warnings with the comment "Please don't be an idiot". I think that WP:NPA applies to comments on the editor, not their behaviour - if an editor is behaving like an idiot, it's entirely reasonable to ask them not to. Saying "you are an idiot" is bad, saying "don't be an idiot" is not since it implies that it's your behaviour (which can - and in this case probably should - be modified) which is idiotic, not the editor themselves. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) While using the word "idiot" was a bad idea, what the hell do you think you are doing, Beantwo? Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe he's trying to get indefinitely banned as [indicated on his talk page, and by the two self-reports at AIV (1 2). As noted above he posted bad faith edits to my talk page and also (non-reported bad faith edits) to this user's page regarding his subsequent block following their report to AIV ysterday about 3RR. Nja247 13:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)This is also forum-shopping; there is a Wikiquette alert filed, in which Beantwo has been told essentially the same thing. BTW, Scarian has not been notified about this ANI thread, only the wikiquette thread. I will notify him. Horologium (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have for once an admin that can publicly state they do not condone abuse of Wikipedia policies done by another admin. To answer your point, I am not admin here to set an example, I don't name-call, implied or not, although, If I were admin this entire thing in all honesty would never have happened because admins seem to appear to be above their rules. Also, to Horologium, thank you for correcting that message. That was nice of you to see and take care of Beantwo (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have only just posted at your first location for this and now you're here on the same tack, take that advice that Scarian gave you and stop behaving like one.--Alf melmac 12:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell an editor to stop being an idiot when they're being an idiot. I do not think it's acceptable to say an editor is an idiot, and if that had occurred I'd consider it a personal attack. Since it hasn't occurred in this case I don't consider a personal attack has been made. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And this is why any post titled with "Admin abuse" is universally ignored. You want an administrator to do what, again? seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew it would be Seicer as I stated on my talk page before I raised this concern. It's a sad state of affairs in my opinion when basic tenants of this site aren't adhered to and that's predicted and acceptable. It reminds me of how difficult it is to remove a sitting U.S. Senator because they make the senate rules. Beantwo (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Three things: 1) The users above are correct; I was referring to your behaviour. I think I called another admin an idiot a while back for blocking himself on purpose (multiple times). If you can operate a computer, then you are, by definition, not an idiot. 2) I don't need to be reminded to be polite; I said please! :-P 3) I left a note here directly after removing his self-administered warnings because I detected he may have "burn out". My apologies if you took it as a personal insult; but please be more self-aware. Look at the impression you're giving others when you give yourself warnings. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copyvios, or sloppy editing?[edit]

Resolved: After a brief deletion race between Pat and Doug, the article was deleted! ScarianCall me Pat! 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Came across the above book article and editor (also the same name of the book's author), and it seems a bit odd that there are a few "[edit]" texts within the article itself, that aren't actual section edit links, but plaintext. Seems like this would be an artifact of a bad cut n paste job, either of another wiki-like website, or a previously deleted page? This is also adding links to his book in other articles, and adding words of his own reviews of other books. There's a lot of apparent not-so-good things going on here. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Published by Booksurge, Amazon's self-publishing branch. dougweller (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted it. Whatever it is, there is a strong WP:COI and it failed WP:NB. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it. He calls it a pamphlet on one blog. I searched, no evidence of anyone really noticing itt. dougweller (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer in Quantum aetherdynamics[edit]

Resolved: PhysicsExplorer is now aware of what AfD procedure is

Tonywalton Talk 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer (talk · contribs) thinks that I am vandalizing his brand new article about an extremely non-notable theory by AfD'ing it, and removes the nom with a rather uncivil edit summary. Another editor has replaced the nom, but I think we're seeing a meltdown in progress and so I'm bringing it here. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PhysicsExplorer (talk · contribs) has now been notified of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for this patronising talk 'I think we're seeing a meltdown in progress'. WTF? I left the banner up there now, so I don't know why you need to bring it here. What will happen here now? Ive explained why the article should stay. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trading talk messages with PhysicsExplorer. I've pointed out that he doesn't