Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Xasha

Resolved

 - Anthony has blocked Xasha for 48 hours and extended his topic ban to all matters Eastern European; a site ban has been seriously considered but we agreed to try and see whether this topic ban works out. Gutza ^{T T+} 09:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago, I complained here that User:Xasha is causing serious disruption and harm to the project, and that I believe meaningful action should be taken against him. Following my report, Xasha was blocked - his eighth block in the last four months. Unfortunately, he is right back to violating his topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

Right after returning from his block, Xasha immediately made several edits violating his topic ban. User:Gutza, an administrator, warned him and Xasha acknowledged receiving the warning. (I should add that he had a "very serious warning" on September 15.) However, since Gutza's warning, Xasha has only increased his edit-warring, every time violating his topic ban: see here, here and here for clear examples.

The implication is clear. Xasha is indeed, as I noted two weeks ago to his displeasure, "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher...He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content", instead disrupting the project time and again. He has proven beyond any doubt (if such doubt ever existed) that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear down others' work and use the project as a battleground. His repeated, brazen violation of his topic ban is galling. Will he be served up yet another "final warning" and continue to be allowed to thumb his nose at the community, or will the curtain finally come down on this charade? Biruitorul ^Talk 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see Biruitorul is trying to remove sources like The American Journal of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law and Charles Upson Clark because they don't support his POV, and since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them, he has to secure a block for me to make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources. Two of the linked pages (Balti and MASSR) are clearly outside the scope of the topic ban, and the inclusion of the addition of the sources mentioned above in History of Moldavia is disputable.Xasha (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block you for a month when I was interrupted by your message on my talkpage - which has enabled me to consider this further. Biruitorul, I think you need to open a request at WP:RfAR regarding this matter and see if the Arbs are willing to consider expanding/broadening the topic ban. While I think that a short block per the existing topic ban is legitimate it does not seem to have the deterring effect, so perhaps it should go back to ArbCom to see if further sanctions are worthwhile. As Xasha would need participate in any discussion I shall not block in this instance - but if another admin feels differently then I have no objection. (Please note that Xasha will request block exemption for his ip - since it is used by other editors. I understand this has been granted before, Xasha can supply the details.)

ps. Xasha, it doesn't matter about the quality of your references - you are violating your topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I never did in fact remove those sources, though of course they're being used to support a fringe POV, which is itself troubling. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You did support the version that excluded them by fixing its grammar. Also, what would be the motivation of two undeniably reputable Western institution and a US Romania-expert to support a POV? (which is no way fringe, just that is opposed by a large part of the often politically controlled Romanian historiography)Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I didn't remove them and that's that. If you must know, a 1944 source may (may) be biased because the US and USSR were still allies, while Sinclair's "bilateral agreement" phrasing completely misses the point that it was done by force. However, that is not the point. What is the point is that you continue to brazenly defy your topic ban in the face of ArbCom consensus - and that is intolerable. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I want to say this for the record.) In my opinion Xasha has proven time and again that he's a POV-pushing revert warrior who follows an agenda irrespective to Wikipedia etiquette, rules or policies, and that temporary measures fail to change anything. As such, I would even endorse a ban on this user, since it's obvious to me that nothing works as a deterrent. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which may be the case, but there is an existing ArbCom decision on this matter and if there needs to be a different remedy then it needs to go through that procedure first. However, if there is no desire for this then it is a case of escalating blocks until the topic ban runs out... I have no position in this matter other than to advise the options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unaware of this case here, I broough it over here. Dc76\^talk 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: users can be community banned, even if they've been through, or are going through an ArbCom case. Alternatively, ArbCom can modify the restrictions and/or impose a Committee ban on the user too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources? (isn't this rhetorical?) Is the aversion of those few users to the reputable source-supported perspective introduced by me enough to prevent me from further increasing the quality of Moldova-related Wikipedia articles?Xasha (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're only proving you still don't understand that you're under a topic ban, and that you shouldn't have touched those topics no matter what; you're further proving that you cannot follow the rules of this project, regardless of how many warnings and blocks you receive -- after several blocks, under a topic ban, on the administrators' noticeboard, you're still discussing editorial issues and making counter-accusations involving a Romanian cabal. --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that so far there is consensus for banning this user, since I haven't seen anyone opposing that. I'm not saying this will necessarily remain so, I just want to prevent this from being silently archived; if that happens at this point of the discussion, or before there is any opposition, then I will ban the user myself as per said consensus. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There no such thing. 3 opinionated Romanian users don't make a consensus.Xasha (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. But again, I'm not saying this consensus will necessarily stand until this section is archived, I'm only making sure everybody is aware of what will happen if there is no opposition. This is neither a warning nor a threat, I'm just making sure we all know where we currently stand. And incidentally that's very much in your favor, since an abrupt announcement of this sort is usually followed by rebuttals -- the alternative would have been quietly proceeding to banning you on the same grounds, but without this announcement. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you want to ban an opponent in a content dispute you're involved in based on an essay. Great! Xasha (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great idea, wikilawyering is the best thing you can do at this point! --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting the prospective abuse of administrative powers is just sensible, and warning admins against such thing can't be reasonably construed as wikilawyering.Xasha (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your rationale, aren't we writing on the same page? How exactly is your warning towards admins supposed to work when it's just next to the very announcement of said prospective abuse? Either you're assuming all admins reading the Administrators' noticeboard are plain stupid and need your explicit warning to figure out an abuse announced in plain view, or you're wikilawyering -- I don't see other options (but hey, I'm an admin, what do I know). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time you ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, so by "admins" I was talking about you. Also your choice of options isn't the most civil one.Xasha (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't answer to this particular thread of the conversation anymore, but I want to point out a few things for the record:

• I cannot, have not and will not use my admin powers within content disputes (feel free to prove otherwise). However, that is related to taking unilateral action by the admin's own accord -- this is totally different, I would simply enforce a community consensus. Incidentally, bans are never unilateral, so I couldn't have banned you on my own accord anyway (that would be an inexcusable policy breach).
• The essay I linked to above is explicitly "intended to supplement WP:Consensus"; as such, it is mentioned within the very body of WP:Consensus. Also, for anyone familiar with the policies in place that essay is not really necessary (the spirit of the Consensus policy is clear enough for experimented users). You are an experienced Wikipedian, therefore your clinging to that material's status as an essay is obvious wikilawyering.
• Finally, your last reply is fallacious in its entirety. This would actually be the first time I'd ignore the part about admins not using admin powers in content disputes they take part in, and in addition I'm not in this case either. And my choice of options is actually not only civil, but indeed gentlemanly -- I chose to assume we admins were the stupid ones.

As I said, I will try not to follow up on this particular thread, unless I find your next answer erroneous enough to merit further clarifications. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← The point is that Xasha has continued to post on WP in violation of his topic ban. Whether the additions made to the article(s) were reliable or not, does not void this fact. Then to come and comment on this ANI about other editors, using phrases such as "since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them" and "make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources" or "a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users", continues to enforce the Arbcom decision of the necessity of imposing a topic ban of certain editors. When you consider the number of blocks placed on Xasha and his return each time to once again violate the topic ban, you can only conclude that he is not willing to abide by the communities decisions and will not change his editing habits. The only conclusion I can make from this activity is that a ban is indeed warranted and has been postponed longer than necessary. Blocking the user is not working to prevent his revisiting his topic ban once the block expires. It has become a pattern of disruption and abuse that needs to be stopped, not delayed for a short time, to once again start anew.--JavierMC 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In September 2008 the User Xasha hurt again his topic ban hurt (see this discussion), but the administrators were very generous with him and he was not punished (though it was not the first time he hurt his topic ban). Xasha also showed no signs of remorse and he refused to revert his disputed and forbidden edit. He only wrote that "You can't change the past. What is done is done." Now seeing that he carried forward his behavior (especially regarding his topic ban), my conclusion about this user is clear: Xasha is incorrigible. From this reason I request a full ban for Xasha. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to comment to this remark by Xasha: "You have to look at the opportunity of a ban. Would such reputable sources as the above ever be added to a topic otherwise dominated by a few opinionated Romanian users (cause not all Romanian users on en.WP are so)? Was Wikipedia improved by the addition of those sources?" Yes, those sourses not only will but are already being added by Illythr. Except that he does that in a completely different manner from Xasha. And yes, Wikipedia would be improved by the addition of anything, even "Adolf Hitler/Joseph Stalin once said "..." ". Absolutely noone prevented Xasha to add the sources in the talk pages. Talk page activity on the banned subjects is ok. But, hey, that does not give internal satisfaction of a pinch just delievered in the face. Dc76\^talk 04:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Xasha for 48 hours, and additionally, banned him from editing all articles relating to Eastern Europe, indefinitely. I'm not sure whether this would be a justification for closing this thread and "waiting to see" how that topic ban works, perhaps? Anthøny (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no, unless someone wants to take it personally upon themselves to follow Xasha for a couple of months or so. Xasha has been topic banned and subsequently blocked several times, and even in this section he's still having editorial arguments and accusing people. Your extended topic ban doesn't change anything -- if he was unable to abide by a more narrow topic ban I don't see how a broader topic ban could work better. Personally I don't have anything against your conditions, should Xasha respect them -- but I know that won't happen, and we'll all have to go through this process several times more before reaching the same unavoidable result. --Gutza ^{T T+} 17:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. One good indicator regarding Xasha's inclination to abide by topic bans is the fact that he has never agreed to abide by them. He was blocked several times for breaching the old topic ban, he has contested or discussed several of the blocks, but he never said he wouldn't do it again or shown any sort of remorse for the actions which led to his being blocked (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and most recently here). --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Gutza (although I am sure that in view of my boldness when I edit I am much more of a Nemesis to Xasha than Gutza, who edits almost politically correctly - I am not implying that is good or bad, just observing that as an admin Gutza is 10 times more careful than me). I think if sysop X issues a ban, he generally follows through with what is going on after that. So, if Xasha returns to his behavior, Anthony would be there to witness first hand. All we need to do is give to Anthony a list of the articles Xasha attacks and let him follow for some time (some weeks) the developments there. Dc76\^talk 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are volunteers like everybody else, Anthony is by no means obligated to follow up on anything unless he chooses to. Also, please note he has only asked a question, he didn't make any personal assertions in this matter. As I said above, if he -- or any other admin for that matter -- voluntarily chooses to take this upon themselves then I for one have no problem with that solution. And even if that doesn't happen, if there are any voices against Xasha's ban for any reasonable reasons (i.e. not a vandal having fun) then there is no consensus on banning him, and that option drops altogether regardless of whether someone wants to watch him or not. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would of course keep an eye on Xasha, but that's a different ball game entirely from taking him personally under my wing and watching his every edit. Having said that, I don't think we should rubbish the value of a topic ban altogether; to date, Xasha has been a source of irritation mainly in the Eastern Europe topic area. My topic ban has effectively eliminated that source of irritation; perhaps Xasha will start to constructively contribute? In all honesty, I prefer this course of action to a site ban; if, 2-3 months down the line, the topic ban has clearly failed to stem Xasha's disruption, then yes, a formal community ban could be looked into. But let's not jump the gun. Anthøny (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret this, but ok, let's try that and see how it goes. --Gutza ^{T T+} 07:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by RonCram

RonCram (talk · contribs) has repeated several legal threats against Wikimedia and against the editors involved. The issue arose over his attempt to use Worldnetdaily as source for fringe claims in a WP:BLP. In response to consensus that Worldnetdaily could not be considered a reliable source for these claims he said "If the official position of Wikipedia is that WorldNetDaily is not RS, I will notify Joe Farah immediately. I don't know for certain but it would not surprise me if he chose to pursue legal action." [1] Following that statement, he was warned [2] about making legal threats. However he continued and escalated these threats: [3] [4] [5] [6] And this very specific threat: [7]

He seems to think that because he's not saying he will sue, rather he'll inform the owners of that website who will then sue, that he is off the hook for legal threats. My understanding is that this is not true. I know, of course, that his legal threats are ridiculous, but the worry is that it will have a chilling effect on other, less experienced, editors who are questioning his edits. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need to have a "bring it on" attitude and ignore such threats? If some Admins here declare that whatever Ron plans to do in his life outside of wikipedia is irrelevant and then post a link on the talk page to this decision then it seems to me that the matter would be settled. Count Iblis (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Strikes me that his statements rather blatantly violate WP:NLT/WP:NPLT, if not in the wording of the policy, than certainly in the spirit thereof- NLT exists (at least in part) to prevent the very chilling effects that Loonymonkey speaks of from occurring, and threats to instigate another party to taking legal action shouldn't be treated any differently than direct legal threats. And in response to Count Iblis, we shouldn't overlook legal threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(font reduced to clarify RomCram isn't new) I'm against blocking relatively new accounts that don't know any better for making legal threats, but I'm in favor of blocking accounts of editors who have been here long enough to know better and who are repeatedly using legal threats as a bludgeon to get their way. Now, RonCram's legal threat is particularly silly, and I don't think any of the people he's arguing with are dumb enough to feel threatened, so I won't block him myself for the threats already made and listed above (although I won't raise a hand in his defense if someone else blocks him), but I will block him the next time he does something similar. On my way to his talk page now to say so, assuming someone else hasn't already blocked... --barneca (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec again)Actually, ignore my mention of WP:DOLT, I misquoted it here. My meaning was that we shouldn't just ignore the situation as it's primarily off-wiki. Ron can go ahead and inform whomever he pleases of whatever he pleases, but using the threat of causing a disruption of Wikipedia in order to gain the advantage in a dispute isn't really a "best practice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that he made these threats after he was template-warned about legal threats, so he can't really plead ignorance. Also, RonCram has been around since 2005 and has made thousands of edits, so it isn't really accurate to call it a "relatively new account." This is an experienced editor. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also posted on RonCram's talk page. Essentially I agree with barneca; no amount of wikilawyering is going to justify a continuation of this behaviour. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I may have been unclear. I don't think he's new, I was saying I think we block new accounts making legal threats too quickly, but he's not new, so even if this is skirting the letter of NLT, I'd be fine blocking him if he does it again, because he's not new and he knows better. Both SheffieldSteel and I have left notes on his talk page. --barneca (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a case where it's more important to pay attention to the intent of the policy rather than the letter of the policy.

All that aside though; I have a question of the ref being discussed. Where did that discussion take place? Was the concensus in regard to that specific article, or in regard to it being used as a source on all of Wikipedia? The reason I ask, is that it appears that the site is currently used as a ref or well over 1,000 articles ... so if concensus is that it should not be used as a WP:RS on all of Wikipedia, then we have a lot of cleanup to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That link is grabbing instances of that link on all namespaces, not just article namespace. While there are some cases where it's being used (Christian Exodus for example), a lot of those are in the Talk namespace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I did a quick scan, out of the first 100, only about 45 or so are in the article namespace. Using that as a means to estimate and rounding down, that still leaves over 400 articles that need to be evaluated and possibly cleaned up if the site should not be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good estimate; 507 links on 413 articles from the first 1000 entries on the ListSearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a sufficient metric, though. WorldNetDaily would be citable at articles about its own notable staff writers, such as Matt Sanchez, and might be acceptable as an external link on pages where it isn't used as a citation. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of citations that need to be taken down. I've been going through popular song articles taking out attempted citations to Angelfire, Blogspot, Tripod, etc. - low traffic stubs have a tendency to accumulate that sort of thing. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Three of them are links to a Pat Buchanan anti-gay screed, used as primary sources to describe lay Catholics' attitude regarding gay people. Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which statement we're talking about here - the editor has proposed so many, which as I recall tend to be fringe-y blogosphere style conspiracy theories and random criticisms. We also have many issues beyond legal threats. I know the editor was promoting a theory in two articles that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, and crying censorship, bullying, etc. at all attempts to close or consolidate the discussions. If Worldnet's articles are suspect it might not be a bad idea to do a spot check on the reliability of citations. It would be hard to make a statement that applies throughout Wikipedia based on the Obama article. Verifiability of hyper-notable political matters probably works a little differently than routine article editing. We often ask for more than one source, or a consensus among sources, on the theory that a lone source however reliable might have it wrong and may not satisfy weight concerns. If a guest writer writes a blurb about a furniture factory in a small town weekly newspaper in Ohio that is a reliable source, but we need better sourcing than the writer if the claim is that there is some truth after all to the rumor that Obama has a terrorist for a ghostwriter (or that he's Muslim, Arab, not born in America, the Messiah according to Farrakhan, participates in voter fraud, or any of the other comparable proposals that have come up in the past dayd). Certain publishers and authors may tend to be more reliable than others, but in the end sourcing is a case-by-case question of whether the specific work in question is reliable to verify the specific statement it purportedly supports in a given article. But in general blogs, highly partisan news organizations, small circulation papers, and opinion/editorial/commentary pieces (whether presented as such or as news) are poor sources for controversial factual claims about politicians in current elections. Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a standard application of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel I should respond to this comment by Wikidemon. The work done by Cashill has been published in WorldNetDaily and National Review Online. Columnists in daily newspapers have picked up on this controversy and opined about it. I do not see how something that is discussed in RS such as these could be called fringe. This discussion here is really not about me. It is people who want to stifle the opinion's of others (professional journalists and columnists) during an election. RonCram (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about your editing on the Barack Obama-related pages. It was initially over your insisting that any discussion over the trustworthiness of World News Daily and Jack Cashill's opinion piece there would subject Wikipedia to legal liability. You have been told not to do that and I hope you got the message. From the perspective of editors of the Obama article, there is a problem with your pushing fringe theories such as the bizarre, poorly sourced accusation that Barack Obama's autobiography was in fact authored by Bill Ayers. You can argue all you want that your source is reliable, the theories are not fringe, that it's all true, and that other editors have no right to limit the discussion but that does not change the community's decision on the matter. Moreover, your hostile attitude towards the many long-term editors here who try to manage the talk page - re-opening closed discussions, crying censorship, accusing editors of agendas and bias - is unwelcome. If you persist you will be asked not to further edit the page. If you come back to the page, please do not agitate further for theories the community has dismissed as poorly sourced and fringe, and do not complain there about other editors and their way of handling discussions. This is very disruptive and it shuts down the normal functioning of the talk page to handle proposed improvements to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I was not arguing that "it was all true." I am arguing that WorldNetDaily, National Review Online and Cleveland Leader are RS, making the controversy mainstream. I am arguing that the controversy is relevant to the article and interesting to Wikipedia readers. RonCram (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a side issue perhaps, but if you view it that way nearly every disputable claim about a major political candidate is extraordinary in that sense. Did politician X do Y? Any answer either way would need a multitude of sources if challenged, or else it may be fringe, of no weight, or simply inaccurate. Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted for blocking for mis-stating the law, thus illegally practicing law. Corporations can not be defamed under NY law, common law, or Florida law. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All other points aside, I'm fairly sure "mis-stating the law" when one is making no claims to be a lawyer is not "illegally practicing law". Achromatic (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of the no legal threats policy isn't really about legal threats - it's about the use of coercive tactics to intimidate other contributors - basing an argument on instilling fear, rather than on its own merits. This is the essence of Roncram's actions. However, I don't believe it necessarily requires a block, as it's clear that nobody involved is actually frightened by the action - I think a stern reprimand would be fine. Dcoetzee 19:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron has a looooooong history of dodgy BLP stuff. It's been a while but I clearly recall his repeated statements that Michael Mann, a prominent client scientist, was unethical. (For the tip of the iceberg see e.g., Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_10 at the "User William M. Connolley (2)" entry). So this isn't a one-off episode but a firmly established pattern. I fear that if something is not done about Ron's behavior Wikipedia could eventually wind up with a real legal threat on its hands. Perhaps a BLP parole along the lines of the Privatemusings arbcom case would be in order. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you for inviting me to this fine site. I had a busy day at work and just turned off the presidential debate to find this interesting discussion. I especially enjoyed seeing this currently used as a ref. If you take this at face value you can see that the Wikipedia community believes WorldNetDaily is RS. But certain politically motivated editors have made claims that it is not. This is extremely problematic and purging Wikipedia of all WorldNetDaily citations would only make things worse. Regarding my comments about Michael Mann, they were based on this English translation article [8] from the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. Anyone who reads that article and understands it will see my comments about Mann were not out of line. RonCram (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats disrupt Wikipedia. We block to prevent other types of disruption, why don't we block to prevent this user from continuing to disrupt with his (fairly obvious) legal threats. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is to prevent disruption, not for punishment or sense of completion. Everyone deserves a chance to edit constructively. The legal threat is stale at this point, and the editor has been warned. If he avoids the subject or contributes in a collegial, civil, productive way he is welcome to edit as he wishes. But I do suggest that if he causes more disruption on the Obama pages by tendentiously proposing fringe theories, interfering with discussion process, or making legal threats anywhere on the project, someone needs to take stronger action. Wikidemon (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This really has been interesting and educational. Previously, I was informed that op-ed pieces are not RS and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. I was surprised to learn op-ed pieces are RS as long as they criticize conservatives or conservative publications like WorldNetDaily. The WorldNetDaily article calls the website "unreliable" and links to this. [9] Not only is this an op-ed piece, it does not use the term unreliable. The same claim of unreliability also links to a critical op-ed piece by Media Matters which criticizes CBS News for publishing the same report as WND. Interestingly, Wikipedia editors critical of WND do not consider CBS News unreliable. [10] RonCram (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat

Infoart (talk · contribs) has made complaints and also passed on complaints from the Saatchi Gallery about the article Saatchi Gallery. See his text at Reply from InfoArt. He is complaining that the article is biased negatively against the gallery, which "would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action." Infoart says that I have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi" and that the Saatchi Gallery have asked that I should be barred "from making edits on any Saatchi related pages".

Infoart has written a considerable amount of editorial material for the Saatchi Gallery web site, and in early 2007 created around 150 articles on wiki about artists in the Saatchi collection, mainly by copying and pasting material (totally unsuitable in style and content for wiki) from the gallery site, each article having an external link to the Saatchi Gallery. See discussions on User talk:Infoart. At that point LessHeard vanU was close to blocking.[11] These articles could all have been speedy deleted as G11 advertising, but I felt they could be an asset to the project, and I organised a clean-up task force to salvage most of them, so I do not, as Infoart alleges have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi." At that time I received positive emails from the gallery and from Charles Saatchi.

More recently Infoart has made substantial edits to Saatchi Gallery removing negative (and solidly referenced) material and inserting content in a promotional tone about the new Saatchi Gallery, which has just opened.[12][13] My analysis of this is at Recent edits by User:Infoart.

The history of the gallery is one of controversy and contention, covered extensively in national and international media. Infoart's edits create a sanitised, revisionist history, leaving out major events, and present what seems to be the gallery's current PR stance.

Ty 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP that posted the legal threat, 81.159.113.122 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked (AO, ACB) by User:Orangemike. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've switched that to a 31-hour, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Ty's version, having watched the events on this & many other articles edited by Infoart, mostly from a distance. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

←The IP address is requesting an unblock, claiming that they were unfairly blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst not having unblocked, I have attempted to explain our position re independence of editing. It seems clear that although maybe not directly representing Saatchi's themselves, aligning with their position, and promulgating it, puts this IP in the (legal) situation of an authorised agent, and therefore WP:NLT applies equally. That's the situation in UK law, anyhow, until Saatchi's themselves resile from that situation. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've blocked his IP, but the offending IP edit was headed as a "Reply from InfoArt" (link above), and pretty clearly was - should you not block the username too? Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having observed and participated in the help project Ty initiated last year to revise, and keep dozens of otherwise deletable Saatchi related articles I back and endorse Ty's version of events as does Johnbod (talk · contribs) above....Modernist (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with Infoart extensively, although not as closely as Tyrenius, in the past past matter I have to admit to some confusion in respect of Infoarts latest editing; it does not seem to be the same character who both acknowledged and worked with the various editors to address the issues with the various artist bio's. That Infoart seemed to understand WP's position and desire to create appropriate articles. While I understand that the account is now editing the Saatchi Gallery article and is therefore likely more involved in its editing (and the wishes of the subject itself) it still seems to be a previously undisclosed aspect of this editors character. It is so different that I wonder if it is the same person editing from that account, or if the account (which was based within the Gallery, as far as can be ascertained) has been "passed onto" another individual with the same relationship to the Gallery. While this opens another can of worms (is it a Role Account?) I think an enquiry should be made to this account if they are indeed the same person who was involved in editing WP previously.

I also endorse Tyrenius' account of the prior situation, and also wonder if their previous access to Mr Saatchi might be of benefit in resolving this issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive rationale for the NLT block on the IP and also at Infoart. I have not blocked Infoart per se yet, and have no opinion on whether the account should be blocked along with the IP, but he has retracted the threat somewhat, and seems to be interested in pursueing the matter through the proper means (MGodwin) and not via talk page threats. Again, I have no opinion on any pending block on Infoart, but he seems to understand and wishes to abide by the letter and spirit of the NLT policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the discrepancy between the IP and Infoart, as pointed out by LessHeard vanU, and have concluded that the IP and Infoart are two different people. This explains the difference in tone. It also explains why the IP didn't sign in as Infoart, when requested: he couldn't. Now the IP has claimed to be Infoart, Infoart has to cover up for him and pretend he was the IP. There's no evidence at the moment that User:Infoart as such is a role account (or there would have been no need for someone else to edit as an IP).

Infoart has worked for the Saatchi Gallery and provided them with numerous artist write-ups, which are on their web site. This is presumably not out of charity, nor is the creation of around 150 articles on Saatchi artists, a considerable amount of work, done in a very methodical fashion. It has to be assumed he is editing here for the gallery. He is a SPA and does not edit non Saatchi-related articles.

There is an agenda to use the article for the gallery's current PR stance, and ludicrous arguments are presented to try to justify this, such as "Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years", when Hirst is one of the most famous living artists in the world and has had a huge part to play in the Saatchi Gallery's history. Countering this sort of speciousness is a waste of other editors' time.

This has been happening since 2006, as can be seen on Talk:Saatchi Gallery. At that time 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs) added to the article "we are closing the Gallery at County Hall and concentrating our efforts in preparing our new building."[14] Ktm10 (talk · contribs) admitted to being the gallery's web master.[15]

A number of other accounts display similar behaviour of edits to Saatchi Gallery and related (sometimes very few edits and then not editing again):

• 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs)
• Angel vonrudolf (talk · contribs)
• Barkalama (talk · contribs)
• Paulx555 (talk · contribs)
• Johnpcarter (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.165.2 (talk · contribs)
• Jmdc (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.164.26 (talk · contribs)
• Bananaleaf0709 (talk · contribs)
• Nederhoed (talk · contribs).

Some of these edits have needed instant reversion. There is a consistent agenda, which is in the gallery's interest, but not in wikipedia's.

It would be preferable to work with the gallery, as we have done very successfully with User:VAwebteam from the Victoria and Albert Museum. This is dependant on whether the gallery is prepared to respect wikipedia policies, which to date they have not. As things stand, they should be restricted in the first instance to only posting on the talk pages of Saatchi Gallery and related articles. This limit should also be extended to any new user that displays the same behaviour.

Ty 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New account Saatchi ben (talk · contribs) has been blanking the article or just leaving the beginning of it and adding a link to the saatchi gallery site, continuing after warnings. I have indef blocked. Ty 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A new IP editor chopped a large bit of text with no explanation. I reverted to the version before, was requested to semi-protect, but as this is a content dispute and semi-protection isn't recommended in such cases, I've protected the article for 72 hours. I've said on the article talk page that if any Admin wants to change this they may. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is 87.224.35.130 (talk · contribs), who has previously identified as the Director of the Saatchi Gallery.[16] Ty 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A whois on that address does show that it's from the Saatchi Gallery. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I am aware that you have previously corresponded with Mr C. Saatchi; do you think it would be appropriate to tentatively enquire whether these representations do indeed come from the Gallery, and if so to request that these concerns be addressed to Mike Godwin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The Saatchi Gallery IP that posted a "libel" message[17] removed it three hours later.[18] Infoart has disassociated himself from the original threat, saying his role was just a responsible heads up, and that he has forwarded Mike Godwin's details to the gallery.[19] In my emails with the gallery in the past, the gallery have not had any quibble about Infoart's part in the process, so I think we can take it that they have received the information. As things stand, then, there is no legal threat being made on this site. Maybe the gallery should be contacted by someone, just so it is all done by the book. It might be better if you did this. What is of concern is the COI SPAs that undermine the article, amongst whom Infoart must be counted. That needs to be addressed. Ty 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin on Template:Databases (Ramu50 again)

I need an uninvolved administrator to review Template:Databases - Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has made some extremely questionable additions, I'm going to 3RR on reverting him if I do more, and his responses on the article talk page are not making any sense. This is an area I'm familiar with, and Ramu50 seems to be adding material which is completely inappropriate to the template. He's claiming deeper knowledge of computer architecture but not sourcing claims. This is an area which I've studied and worked in professionally and he seems to just be spouting nonsense so far. He could be a non-native-english-speaking research grad student who's just not communicating effectively in english or something, but he's not listening to me, and I can't protect the template when I'm involved in a content dispute on it etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You probably want to go instead to WP:3O for a third opinion, as this is more of a content dispute (there are several scalating venues in WP:DR, and 3O is one of the first ones). I left my own opinion on the talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not a grad student, but someone taking Math 12. He's buggered other people before on math and computing topics, generally acting against consensus, sometimes rudely. He seems to chill out quickly though. VG ☎ 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke. This is the fourth thread on Ramu50 for the same thing on different templates in a month. His constant tendicious editing across different IT navbox templates isn't going to stop without administrative action. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's editing tendentiously. But he is editing articles & templates where he doesn't have the necessary background, and this action of his creates unnecessary work for other editors. VG ☎ 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he does throw a hissy fit when contradicted, no doubt about that, see User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2008#functions and User_talk:CBM/Archive_10#function. I don't think he should be banned for this though, but he needs to learn to show more respect for other editors' opinions. VG ☎ 20:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I first encountered Ramu50 some months ago on the AT Attachment talk page. Recently I've crossed paths with him (or her) again, first on template:CPU technologies and now template:Databases.

In reviewing his edit history I come away with the following impressions:

He or she indeed has a history of, if not tendentious, at least aggressive editing, particularly in regards to templates. He often expands the template and its scope considerably ( template:ATI, template:AMD, CPU techologies) and in the process often changes the templates from single to multilevel - from simple to complex.

These changes are invariably against consensus (as represented by ensuing discussion; see the talk pages of any of the above). In discussions he has a pattern of responding to any contradiction with challenges to others' legitimacy ("who says you start making the rules"), multiple paragraphs of barely comprehensible verbiage with many offtopic points, referencing all manner of barely related terms, combined with multiple links to web sites that often seem only to contain some of the same keywords he's using.

Although he rarely provides any good references for his own positions he freely demands proof from anyone who dares counter him. ([20]) Then when proof is provided he dismisses it as irrelevant or OR ([21]. When he does provide "references" for his own positions they are often off point, not supporting his position at all, merely somewhat related to the topic. ([22])

He will frequently accuse others of having less understanding of the topic than he does. ("if don't understant how certain components work don't revert it instantly", "you totally don't understand", etc.).

Personal attacks, if not common, are not unheard of either. ("Get real idoit", "stop whining", "you got a fucking problem with that asshole? ... What are you a fucking facist?")

(Please note that I bring up some of these older examples (from the AT Attachment article and talk page) not because I want action on those points, they are long since dead, but to show an ongoing pattern of behavior.)

Another pattern is that any point he wants the article to make that anyone else does not, he defends by claiming others are biased against those points ([23]) or against himself personally. He is also very free with accusations of bias against him and threats to "report to admins".

And now he's raised a threat of legal action for GWH's above text. Jeh (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Really Chris Cunningham and may I ask you that why did you contribs this expansion of template, when every single time we have conflict you are against. Keep on being a f**king hypocrite and we'll see in the end who has more creditability. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADatabases&diff=165385410&oldid=165363010 --Ramu50 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that particular edit doesn't appear to be an "expansion of template" at all, either in visual layout or number of links. Letdorf (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

Ramu50 has just made against-consensus major edits to Template:Sun Microsystems and Template:Solaris, and revert-warred the latter when it was restored by User:Raysonho. I am extremely concerned by this behavior spree... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what Georgewilliamherbert and Jeh have written above. Over the last few months, Ramu50 appears to have been trying to turn several computer technology-related navbox templates (Template:Sun Microsystems, Template:AMD processors, Template:CPU technologies, Template:Databases, Template:IT giants among others) into some kind of representations of nebulous personal mind maps, which are rather idiosyncratic (to say the least), and not in accordance with the WP:CLN oder WP:NAVBOX guidelines. When these changes are challenged in talk pages, Ramu50 tends to write rambling, digressive, and often incomprehensible defences, and seldom engages in constructive debate. Revert-warring and personal attacks often follow. Letdorf (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

Does anyone have a concrete proposal what to do about him? VG ☎ 11:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so we have some options to discuss: A short block, after his next disruptive action, the block message to include links to some well-chosen articles (perhaps WP:CON, WP:DR, I don't know). Or mentoring (if someone with appropriate knowledge is willing to undertake that). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Whippletheduck's block extended

Resolved.

Because Whippletheduck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was persistent in their unblock requests that they are still determined to make edits like this after their 48-hour block expires, indicating serious problems with understanding of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT, I've extended it to indef. Posting here for review. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think I would have just let him sit out the 48 hours and see if he does jump right back into the same edits - he does sound like he's trying to conform even if he's not really got the hang of it. But I'm not going to disagree with your extension of the block as he has been distinctly disruptive despite repeated warnings. Even if the block had been left at 48hr, I think it would have been with the distinct implication of 'any further edit-warring and you're gone'. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the extension being dropped back to 48 hours. Yes, he was being disruptive, and defensive, and rude. But he's also a new editor and more importantly is making progress in understanding Wikipedia. In his unblock reason he has presented a source for the edits he wants to make and has tried to defend its reliability. He's agreed to engage in talk page discussion. We ought to let him back in -- if not immediately, then at the end of the original 48 hours. Mangojuice^talk 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of lifting the block with the explicit instructions "If you continue to edit war, you will be indefinately blocked even if your version of the article is right. He seems to misunderstand the nature of an edit war block, and seems to feel that just because he has found a source, he gets to force others to accept it. He doesn't, and his changes still need to be confirmed via consensus. I say lift it, but let him know he is on his last leg, and to tread cautiously. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a compromise, and reset the 48 hour block, but definitely remove the indefinite block. Gives 48 hours to try to make sure he understands the conditions of the unblock and the policies we have around here about edit-warring. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked now. I left a note that should be along the lines Jayron was intending. Note that the 48 hour block would, at this point, have expired. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read and will comply with the above directives: I'll keep the discussion of the edit to the DISCUSSION page of the article and hope we find consensus. Now at what point can I say 'You know what...it meets NPOV standard; It mets the No Original Research Standard' and it meets the Verifiability standard, can Scorp still hold it up over the CONSENSUS issue?

Also, as a side note, well, it would have helped to have gotten my opinions out here on this specific page it seems it might have been resolved faster if one could put in their response here even while blocked. just a suggestion in the future that it might help thanks Whippletheduck (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you were too quick in unblocking him. The user is a troll, and has left several none-too-friendly messages on my talk page promising to create pages that were BLP violations, [24][25], posting rude comments in other sections [26] and posting attacks in old talk page sections. [27] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Last king of Frisia

Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs)

This user is canvassing for Pier Gerlofs Donia to be promoted to GA with the text:

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. It is well referenced article of brilliant prose and both the Rambling man and user talk:Jimbo Wales agree it should be a Good Article.

I dropped him a note on his talk page, but since then he has spammed another 25+ user talk pages. He has recently been blocked for vandalism & this feels like trolling. --Nate1481 10:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dropped him a not" looks like a typo, but in a case like this, it still works. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What typo? :) but agreed it could work. --Nate1481 10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"What hump?" I like the "dropped him a NOT" idea. I might start using that. And here's another oddity: When you see (rollback) at first glance (at least to my semi-dsylexic eyes) it looks like "trollback". And that works too. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have learnt the error of his ways [28]. Pedro :  Chat  10:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, this is more complex than that, please see above thread on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kermanshahi_.2F_-The_Bold_Guy-_.2F_Last_king_of_Frisia. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we don't block editors who have made (several) mistakes but then say they'll stop. If they carry on we block, not before. Pedro :  Chat  10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see this, as I'm one of the lucky recipients of his request and was wondering what to do about it! I'll ignore it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the mind to rollback all the unanswered requests that have been made however. Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked for 31 hours for disruption. I'm sure the editor expected no less. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And the response is interesting. [29] Pedro :  Chat  10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"You can run but you can't hide"? Who's he talking to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And relevant to the checkuser request, [30] and [31] which are his attempts to involve Jimbo in it. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy in RL now - no objection to any admin reducing or extending my block - just a note. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, this account Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs) is obvious block evasion of an indef block on Angela from the Blue (talk · contribs), among others from the prior case history. IMO this user and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be indef-blocked for sock abuse and block evasion. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long, and the short, and the tall! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Now Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) is complaining, see his talk page. What do others think? Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

-The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) requested an unblock - declined by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). He has requested a second one. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ive actually be involved with a ring of editors on this article (probably ofr over a year). Ive blocked many as sock puppets/meat puppets. I am 100% sure they are at least meat puppets (and doubt they are socks). I have talked with several of them and from all indications it is a group of friends. I support blocks of everybody but kermanshi. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi checkuser case results said Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) is a "possible" sock of -The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) and Last king of Frisia (talk · contribs), and also a "likely" sock of indef-blocked Mrlob (talk · contribs). This Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kermanshahi RFA is also quite odd. I do not think Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) seems to think that Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. I do not feel comfortable unblocking the user and I do not think the user should be unblocked. But if there is a consensus to unblock the user, with Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) as mentor and taking responsibility for Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), I will not object. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) has now unblocked Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), without first discussing this here with others. I disagree with this, but I will leave it to Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) to be responsible for this user's actions in the future. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked Kermanshahi. No checkuser evidence has ever confirmed him to be a sockpuppet. This makes it VERY unlikley that he is (consider that through 4 checkusers there has NEVER been a concrete hit, they always come up as possible (due to geographic location). This lack of concrete evidence, plus this editors harmless editing patterns make this block a poor decision. On top of this, I have been involved with this situation for over a year (as far back as march of 07). I have contacted the editors, gotten the stories from both sides and they check out. I have unblocked Kermanshahi and will mentor him if necessary. I think the rest of the blocks can stand, I am fine with that. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think mentoring, or at least close and careful supervision, would be a good idea (though I'm not particularly comfortable with the unblock). There's been very odd goings on with this bunch for a while now (I ran into them via User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga back in summer '07), and something still just don't feel right... EyeSerene^talk 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EyeSerene (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will also agree with EyeSerene that there are some odd things going on, especially with the bold guy and the king of frisia(and some of the past accounts such as angela from the blue and going allt he wa back to Mr. Lob). I have no doubt that there is a disruptive editor creating socks and just being troublesome, I however am 100% sure that it is not Kermansihi. I am sorry if I jumped the gun on this unblock but I felt that being WP:BOLD in this situation was important to precent a good faith editor from being disgruntled and leaving. On a random note, bold guy had been emailing me begging for me to unblock him. I changed his block to prevent email and to prevent talk page posts because I have a feeling he is at the root of the troublemaking somehow. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bilinski

This user appears to have been inactive since May, but now he's back, making personal attacks[32], POV pushing and edit warring on Menachem Begin[33]. His talk page makes it quite clear that he has been warned before, but has shown disregard for policy. -- Nudve (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned. Please alert an administrator if the behavior continues. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He responded with a mocking, sarcastic comment here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll choose to take it at face value at the moment. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 3RR, but seems to be continuing by logging out[34]. -- Nudve (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Sponsorations

Anybody have any idea what this is all about? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious: There seems to be a Hungarian songwriter called Axone. [35] An article on him on the Hungarian Wikipedia was deleted. [36] User Sponsorations is apparently trying to create an article on him here. The "important" link points to the Hungarian article from two weeks before it was deleted for the second time, saved in weird format (as an email). -Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It just looked like a mass of gobbledygook to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been trying for some time to get "Axone" mentioned on Wikipedia in any possible way. He has created an Axone article several times, only to have it speedied each time, and spammed a link into axon, which is what first brought it to my attention. The user has been advised, warned, and blocked, and shows no sign of ever giving up. Looie496 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Post below moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480, where user belatedly responded to original thread EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Axone's professional musicians,why may not they be worth a short article? Hungraian:

Axonék professzionális zenészek,miért nem érdemelhetnek meg egy rövid cikket? On Internet many sites to be found the about them descriptions and reference?

Hungarian:

Számos leírás és referencia szól róluk az interneten. Az összes keresőben benne vannak Miért nem ír valaki róluk egy elfogadható cikket?

Why not a write someone article on them?

Mi az ami nem megfelelő,vagy nevezetes két ilyen rendhagyó zenészben?

What that, which in incongruent,or notable, so fine artists? Please someone writes,an useable article on them on the english or hungarian wikipedia! Kérjük írjon valaki egy használható cikket róluk az angol vagy magyar wikipédiában!

Thanks for supporting them... Kind regards, Karola, Bp, Hungary

I'm afraid I got bored removing the various postings/rants/recreation of the "Axone" page. To me this user is not prepared to work collaboratively. I've blocked for a week (they have previously been blocked for 72 hours) - if anyone thinks that excessive..... Personally I think it unlikely that this user will work in a way that is not disruptive so an indefinite block would not worry me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that, although the combination of poor English and bad bot-translation that led to Wikipedia being described as a "mastercool hoggish plaza of truth or reality" was also quite refreshing ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that has made my day - thanks :). (It should not be taken that I either agree or disagree with the above statement....;)). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

I have a topic ban on me from Barack Obama related articles and I want the community to review User:Barneca's decision. I also suggest that the community consider and issue a topic ban to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Previous topic ban request for LotLE at WP:ANI found here. This is an overwhelming amount of evidence: edit-warring and personal attacks. There is so much evidence against this person that people were refusing to read it, because it's too long. Since then, within days after the John McCain campaign began to mention Obama's links to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), LotLE went to the ACORN article and substantially reduced material about members of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. [37][38][39] This was a whitewash of the article to protect Obama. He immediately started revert warring to protect his version.[40][41] When a newbie reverted him, LotLE immediately accused the newbie of sockpuppetry in violation of WP:BITE. [42][43] (note edit summary] This removed material that had been in the article for four years before LotLE came along. This triggered an edit war between several editors and the article is now fully protected. LotLE's bias on this topic has led to long-term disruptive editing patterns.

Let's review the evidence Barneca cited when topic banning me:

I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.

I have taken this action for the following reasons:

• You are a single purpose account
• I have recently blocked you for edit warring on Barack Obama, and warned you that a topic ban was the next step if disruption continued
• You have been tendentious editing; that is, refusing to listen to other editors and repeatedly saying the same things over and over, exhausting the editing community's patience (particularly with regard to Rezko)
• You have repeatedly violated WP:SOAP
• You nominated, in bad faith, the article for WP:FAR
• You have made attacks and insults to other editors, and when they have been struck out, you have unstruck them; admittedly, most of them were borderline, but this has now happened multiple times
• You are doing all these things on an article under probabation, where editors are explicitly expected to be on their best behavior, and were you have been specifically warned that this was the case.[44]

I have other purposes for this account and a review of my editing history will confirm that. WP:FAR was started in good faith due to NPOV violations, by a group of pro-Obama editors as confirmed by User:Noroton and several others, and due to the instability of the article content. Instability of article content, by itself, has been sufficient grounds to downgrade Featured Article BLPs in the past. So my FAR was started in good faith. Barneca describes what I was doing on the article talk page as "disruptive." What I was really doing is showing that other editors were misrepresenting what the sources said. This conduct is being described as "attacks and insults to other editors" when I was proving that what they were saying about the sources was not true. Barneca says "admittedly, most of [the attacks and insults] were borderline" but I was demonstrating that the sources were saying something different from what these editors had represented.

To make a long story short, they're lying about the sources. I was proving that they were lying about the sources and trying to remain polite about it.

For this, I'm topic banned.

I encourage anyone to post the diffs of my edits that day, and show me how so many of them were "attacks and insults." Even "borderline ... attacks and insults."

If I'm to be topic banned for what I did, then please carefully consider all that LotLE has done. Extensive compilation of diffs for evidence at WP:ANI here. Recent diffs posted above demonstrate that he has not changed and has not learned anything. He continues to start and participate in edit wars. He continues to be hostile and accusatory toward those who disagree with him. This is surely not what Wikipedia has in mind for a collegial and constructive atmosphere. If I must be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned.

Uninvolved editors only please. Curious bystander (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you're big on preventing anyone who disagrees with you from commenting, but you can't prevent editors from editing your section, CB. To say, "If I can't edit, no one who disagrees with me can either" is ridiculous. You edit warred, attacked other editors, wouldn't give up on your POV pushing, made bad faith edits and engaged in tendentious editing. For that, you were topic banned until after the election. LotLE hasn't done half of the things that you have, and cannot be compared with yourself. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You defend him because he agrees with you in content disputes, and because you are one of the people who was misrepresenting sources. This is why I said "univolved editors only please." Everyone who agrees with him in the content disputes will rush to his defense. LotLE has done many times the things I have done, as proven by the evidence here. He has edit warred, attacked other editors, wouldn't give up on his POV pushing, made bad faith edits and engaged in tendentious editing. Look at the mountain of evidence of his misbehavior, repeated recently. Where's his topic ban? Curious bystander (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the topic ban. You have been behaving in a way that was inappropriate, were warned that further disruption would lead to a topic ban, and have not desisted. The topic ban was expected, predictable and quite warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he just violated his topic ban. Grsz^X 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca encouraged me to have his decision reviewed at WP:ANI. Look at his talk page. He's the one who imposed the topic ban, so when he says I can have the decision reviewed, I can have the decision reviewed. Review the evidence against LotLE with a dispassionate and unbiased eye, particularly the most recent evidence.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] (note edit summary) If I should be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned. He was edit warring, editing tendentiously, making personal attacks and biting a newbie. The timing in particular, just hours after the McCain campaign started mentioning ACORN in its criticism of Obama, demonstrates the bias that LotLE can't control. It leads him to start these edit wars, wherever the presidential campaign may lead, if there's content out there in Wikipedia that may cast Obama in a bad light. Curious bystander (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And that doesn't give you permission to violate your topic ban. LotLE was already taken up in an earlier ANI case that you linked, and they decided not to take action. ANI is not the place to attempt to reverse this ruling. Suigetsu

Barneca specifically gave me permission to have his decision reviewed here. Look at his talk page. The previous ANI ruling about LotLE should also be reviewed because of this new evidence. Curious bystander (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

These are two different topics. Either you need to be topic-banned or not. Either LotLE needs to be topic-banned or not. There is no automatic link between the two. In particular, reviewing your topic ban has nothing to do with LotLE's behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, I think it's fair to compare the two cases. Where is the threshold for imposing a topic ban? If I crossed it, how did LotLE not cross it; and if he did not cross it, how did I? Look again at the mountain of evidence against him both here and here: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58] (note edit summary) Curious bystander (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not "comparing" them. You are saying that LotLE's lack of a ban justifies the repeal of yours. Suigetsu 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This looks like a non-starter. Curious bystander wants to be unbanned so he can go back to aggressive editing on the top from which he was banned. Saying he wants to deal with "a whitewash of the article to protect Obama" suggests he is unwilling to change, but merely arguing that everyone else is all wet and he was right in being so tendentious to begin with. CB was nothing but disruption, edit warring, insults, antagonism, and procedural game-playing when he was editing the articles. He has accused me personally of all manner of bad faith, lying, etc., which is unpleasant and unwelcome. As a SPA whose very first edits, and nearly all editing since, were to jump into edit wars to disparage Obama and to try to get other editors blocked and banned, the legitimacy of the account itself is in question. The repeated claim that he is an Obama supporter who merely wants balance and sourcing is suspicious to the point of bizarre given that nearly every edit on the encyclopedia is an attempt to disparage Obama. This is more or less the definition of a problem editor. There is nothing here to suggests that he would do it any differently if unbanned. The articles have calmed down considerably in his absence. Please don't let him make a mess again. Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well written. Endorse topic ban per Demon above and everything else that's been said. Suigetsu 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for LotLE. If his friends and editwarring allies can ignore "uninvolved editors only," then I'll have my say. LotLE isan edit warrior. When he talks, it is to attack and to make false accusations of sockpuppetry. A well deserved topic ban for him. He ignored repeated warnings. His timing in whitewash of ACORN is proof that his agenda is to cut material that might hurt Obama. Utterly transparent timing and consistent with earlier whitewash elsewhere. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, CB can't restrict who edits at ANI. Grsz^X 01:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually denying that CB isn't an edit warrior, WB74? And I'm the one accused of editing in an agenda-based cabal... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He said "CB can't restrict who edits at ANI." Not "CB isn't an edit warrior," etc. Suigetsu 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to WB74, not Grsz. Bad statement on my part. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, then I completely agree. Suigetsu

I haven't claimed that WB74 isn't an editwarrior. What I've said is LotLE is also an editwarrior. He has a consistently ugly and combative disposition. When challenged about it in proceedings like this one, he will quickly and carefully conceal it. He starts the editwars by cutting material wherever he goes that might make Obama look bad. He started an editwar at the ACORN article by removing well-sourced material that had been there for four years, then he editwarred to keep it out. Agenda driven editing: not a good thing for Wikipedia. Topic ban for LotLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WB74, try to assume good faith and try to cooperate for once, please? Adding/removing material that a partisan, POV editor reverts is not starting an edit war, the person who removed it started the edit war. Discussion, not the undo button, is the key to success on Wikipedia. It was wrong of the reverting editor to have reverted without discussing first. Yes, LotLE might have edit warred, but that does not warrant a topic ban. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm endorsing this topic ban on Curious bystander -- from someone who is "uninvolved." Does that now make me involved and strike my commentary from all future discussions on this subject? Give me a break. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon whom are you endorsing the topic ban? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Modified. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support of the current topic ban on Curious bystander. User is in fact using the privilege of appealing the ban, but from commentary on here by the user, just seems to want to go back and own the page. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic or community ban needed

Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I bring this here as a last resort before I go rogue and indef-block this user. Middim has long been a problem for the editors of WP:SHIPS. His SPA POV pushing, disruption, sock-puppetry and block evasion have been a chronic problem for over a year off-and-on. While his edits do have some merit, he refuses to discuss them in a calm matter and properly cite them at the time he makes them other than to assure us that they are true. He instead posts long diatribes on his talk page and the talk pages of the editors who question his edits calling those editors "misguided and biased". Based on his constant POV pushing of a certain American shipbuilder the editors of WP:SHIPS have long thought that he/she may be related to the historical figure and thus would prevent an extreme conflict of interest as well.

For more information related to these incidents, there are plenty of evidence to be seen:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Middim13
• User_talk:TomTheHand#From_Middim13:_Abusing_multiple_accounts_and_evasion.
• User talk:Middim13
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Royal_Navy_edits
• User_talk:Middim13#ONLY_WARNING
• User_talk:MBK004#Middim13_is_wondering_if_this_editor_is_biased_or_simply_.22misguided.22.
• I know there is plenty more to be found, but I'm not prepared to dig up over a year of talk page archives.

These users have dealt with the editor in some fashion:

• TomTheHand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Parsecboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• BillCJ (talk · contribs)
• Benea (talk · contribs)
• Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
• Maralia (talk · contribs)
• B.S. Lawrence (talk · contribs)
• And others I have forgotten to mention

I contend, and I believe that I won't be the only one to say that the patience of the community (WP:SHIPS) has been exhausted because of this editor (his edits require extensive clean-up and/or complete reverts because of the POV pushing and that time cuts into our article building and other activities). Several of the project members (some who are no longer editing) have tried to help Middim through his time here to get his edits to comply with our policies, but those efforts have had no visible effect. Unfortunately I must propose that at the very least a topic ban be imposed on Middim which would restrict him from editing any article related to a ship, shipbuilding company, ship operator (including navies), biographies of people related to the maritime industry, etc. and at the most an indefinite community ban. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• No comment about the behavior exactly, but can someone take a gander at Submarine? That is on my watchlist mostly for vandalism reasons, but he did add a lot of GD/EB stuff with some pretty odd edit summaries. I don't feel comfortable wading in and reverting to a version from months ago, but I will if the consensus is that what he added is bunkum. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Socking, disruptive and POV editing, uncited personal opinion in articles, and a horrible block log - why is this person still here? That last post on their talk page, entitled "Reasons why what is true will win out in the end", displays absolutely no indication that the editor understands the problems they've caused (or even believes that fighting for the truth is a problem). They've been given more than enough warnings, and been shown a remarkable amount of good faith, but this mustn't go on for ever. I've indefblocked the account as I don't think we need to jump through all the hoops on this one, though if you do want to go all the way to discuss a community ban and unblock so they can participate here, no problems ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think Middim13 should be topic banned. He is guilty of POV pushing on a certain American shipbuilder, but I analyzed his other contributions and found them to be useful. He is a troubled user but he can still help this project, so I'll not a support community ban. I would say let's give him one final chance. AdjustShift (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My initial thoughts too, until I saw this undertaking not to edit 'ship' articles, followed by another addition of unsourced material to a ship article (for which a final final warning was issued). I wonder if the editor will be able to abide by a topic ban? EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's give him one last chance. He has a POV on this issue. I've analyzed the edits of many banned users and POV pushing is often the reason for banning. Many banned editors have made some useful contributions. Maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing. One of the reasons why I'm not supporting a full site ban is because he can help the project on other topics. He is not a vandal and he seems to be intelligent. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)It doesn't sound like you've really dug through his edits—I don't believe he has any 'other contributions', and many editors have explained NPOV, RS, Fringe, and numerous other policies to him. He edits only articles related to his great-grandfather Arthur Leopold Busch, who he feels has not received sufficient credit for designing and building the first US Navy submarines for Electric Boat (a venture which he credits as being largely responsible for the success of the successor company, General Dynamics). All attempts at addressing these issues seem to fall on determinedly deaf ears; his response to any type of correction is to joyfully leap to the editor's talk page to repost some version of his screed, which includes such gems as "I must admit (however) that I am passionate about "setting the records straight" as never done before. Over the years I have made a considerable amount of progress in this quest of mine to bring the facts to the surface" and "It is time (that) somebody rewrite this slanted history in a corporate book (about General Dynamics/Electric Boat) and set these records straight for the good of doing what is right here in America." As EyeSerene mentioned, he indicated 2 days ago that he was "done with ships!", yet yesterday he joined WP:SHIPS with the comment "Going to try to contribute in an honest and sincere way"—and followed up an hour later with another unsourced edit. He is not going to edit in other areas, he is not going to use sources, and he is not going to drop his agenda. I've wasted enough time on him. I do not feel a topic ban would accomplish anything; as he doesn't edit outside this topic at all, it would effectively be a ban, which regretfully seems appropriate here. Maralia (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Maralia. Middim13 has only ever edited to one purpose, to rewrite the history of General Dynamics/Electric Boat and the role of his relative to fit his version of the 'truth'. At many stages this has been explained to him why this unsourced POV pushing without any attempt to attribute reliable sources (indeed in his 'conspiracy theory' style edit summaries he often indicates that this is because they don't exist owing to some sort of sinister cover-up) is not acceptable. He has then begun to spread his net wider after being frustrated on some of his favourite topics, and has been adding his unsourced theories and claims of corruption/cover ups/shady deals to the detriment of his great-grandfather's place in history to an ever more diverse pool of articles, including the submarine article, pages related to the Royal Navy, the Imperial Japanese Navy, etc. The damage this is causing to the project is therefore increasing the longer he has been editing. Attempts to apply policies or requesting sources have resulted in accusations that the editors in question are misguided, ignorant or otherwise part of this conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'. He has also openly announced his intention to edit war until his version is accepted across wikipedia. He has treated the project as an opportunity to rewrite his ancestor's history, and has shown no indication that he understands his actions are unacceptable, nor has he made any attempt to move beyond this single purpose quest. Benea (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Maralia, you are familiar with Middim13. I'm not familiar with Middim13. I analyzed his edits for about 20 minutes, and it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes. So please don't say that "you have not really dug through his edits". I did what I could in about 20 minutes. My conclusion was "let's give him one final chance". After looking at the evidence of Maralia and Benea, it seems that Middim13 has caused some serious trouble. Editors who are familiar with Middim13 should decide whether he should be topic banned or community banned. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • After doing more research, I feel the user has lost all his chances. He has exhausted the patience of fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't understand your objection to my wording above. You first two comments were that you found his "other contributions" useful, and that "maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing". From your analysis of the situation, it appeared that you hadn't yet gotten deep enough to see that he doesn't have any other contributions, and repeated attempts have been made at explaining the consequences of POV pushing. I never said, or meant to imply, that you hadn't tried, or that you should have known more already—essentially what I meant is what you later said yourself: "it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes". Peace? Maralia (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My topic??

So the bot just archived my discussion and only one person made a general statement on it? What should I do? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are absolutely convinced that it is critical to get action, please repeat the reason briefly. One short paragraph, no more -- people can read the archive if necessary. Usually when a topic gets no response, it's because no admin feels that a response is necessary. But sometimes it's because the complaint is so long and confusing that nobody wants to read it. (As I recall, your complaint was one of the hundreds of Balkan disputes that come here.) Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was actually a civility complaint, but I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I'll summarize. Basically User:Imbris has brought personal attacks against User:Grk1011 and I into a discussion since August that were totally un-needed. They included comments on our religion, ethnicity, and stuff like that. (Greek, American, Orthodox Christian -- all of the cases are in the archive) We complained to him about it, but he used some attacks again just the other day which was the "last straw". He said something like since we are American and he was born in Yugoslavia, that we don't have the right information to comment on articles about that. And even after we commented on this notice board, he said something like "Our Greek friend missed..." on a talk page, which again was totally un-needed (mentioning Greek I mean), and which I take offense to. (The way it was written, as well as having nothing to do with the discussion at hand) Anyway, long story short, this has been very disruptive to our editing, and has made editing articles related to Yugoslavia very stressful, which is why we decided to jointly bring it up on the notice board. Greekboy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might have to explain more. I, for one, don't understand the conflicts between Balkan ethnicities. Are you saying it's offensive for another user to describe you as "Greek" even though it's in your username?

When I look at recent user-talk discussions between Grk1011 and Imbris, I don't see anything particularly hurtful being said. I was also looking for such discussions between you and Imbris, but there aren't any. I don't see anything so far that requires the involvement of admins, I just see a content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There were some diffs, but no one responded fast enough so it was archived. It may be a little more descriptive there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC

As User:Grk1011 stated, there were some "history diffs" showing the conflict in the archived topic. One of them was User:Imbris bringing into a discussion that User:Grk1011 and I are both Greek-American, Orthodox Christians, and possibly could not be interested in the Eurovision Song Contest. To me, that is a personal attack. It had nothing to do about the discussion at hand, but yet User:Imbris felt that it was necessary to mention religion and ethnicity (in a negative way at that). Again, there is a better explanation with diffs in the archived section. Greekboy (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ShadowOne333 (talk · contribs)

For the past month or so, ShadowOne333 has persisted on adding an advertisement for a fan-made online petition to the Resident Evil 5 article. I have issued the user two 3RR warnings, though the user has continued to engage with other editors by waiting out the 24-hour limit. In an attempt to civilly diffuse the situation, I posted a topic that addressed the issue, but the aforementioned user has ignored the topic and persisted to advertise his issue. I have issued the user a level-4 warning for advertising, and am requesting further advice/input to deal with this issue. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An advertising warning, and subsequent warnings should have been issued before. If the user continues to be disruptive and advertise, then he should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours - he was warned, but it was this diff in particular [59] that made me decide to block him. Doug Weller (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, disruptive editing shouldn't be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the event the user should continue to make disruptive edits, should I issue a warning, and report him to AIV if needed? Or should I post a follow-up thread here with a link to this topic? thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

new editor barges into pseudoscience-related articles

User talk:RFmedic is disrupting pseudosciences articles by removing any negative connotation about pseudoscientific concepts, like marking well sourced sections as unreferrenced[60], or removing hidden comments about WP:PSCI [61]. Please some admin warn him to take it way slowly. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him on his talk that some of his recent edits were unconstructive and have been removed. You don't have to be an admin to do that! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you are right, I'll do that the next time --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he removed the explanation that Free Energy conspiracies are probably wrong because "the standar for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"[62]. I drop any good faith assumptions right now. That argument was seriously lame and obviously made up in order to remove stuff he doesn't like. (and if he's really a god faith editor, then he really really needs to be made to understand that he needs to change his ways) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This edit, only his 10th since creating the account just 2 hours before, doesn't look like the work of a newbie either—he's already citing policy in edit summaries and dropping {{cn}} tags. Smells like a sock. Yilloslime (t) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that and got an edit conflict. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I consider this complaint before talking with me a seriously offencive assault at my address.

Lets turn the tables around for a moment. Where did you get the idea you could use Usenet as a reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=prev&oldid=245809634

This cited source is a preposterous citation.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/8ee0acb80e943e21?hl=endc310437cd1cee1e7&

Every breadth we draw, every step we take, every thought we think, every sound or word we utter and the aeons of grief and oceans of tears we've shed for our needs or the secret exquisite pleasures, ease and security we seek we owe them all to our father cosmos & sun and earth mother ! Who else ?. Isn’t this all we are and every thing that is and will ever be ? Animated tail chasing star dust !; matter spirit energy yin yang dance ! (Probably the gist of a partly remembered translation of a Vedic hymn )

This was not part of the original article was it? Or should we perhaps correctly call it a copyright violation? I correctly added the template to this section. This was reverted by YOU without any explanation. In stead you immediately created a Administrator noticeboard post about me.

Then your claim I deleted hidden references is also erroneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=245821731&oldid=245639812

You clearly have some agenda against me personally. Lets also mention this contribution of mine that was deleted in less than 10 min.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car&oldid=245804997

As user:OMCV is citing Usenet I cant think of a reason to delete Dr. Andrija Puharich invention.

Do you have some explanation for this destructive, user-targeted behaviour?

RFmedic (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The diff is here. You added some information on a patent, and made some unsourced claims. Do you know how easy it is to get a patent? The USPTO is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I've got a feeling this isn't either. Please go ahead and read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how easy it is to make a Usenet posting?

Do you also know how easy it is to find the tag?

RFmedic (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between citing a usenet post, and citing a Sunday Times article with a link to a usenet copy of it, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say I can copy news articles into Usenet postings?

Show me the exact guildline please?

Dr. Andrija Puharich has an article, that makes the MD a reliable source. He can make claims about Water Fueled Cars when ever he likes to.

I added his lectures, I added his patent, I added his article.

And what did we have on the free energy suppression article? An large chunk of opinion that isn't even worthy of being on the article talk page?

RFmedic (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, have you read WP:RS? I don't see anything about having an article making you a reliable source. I would have an issue with an article claiming a particle physics breakthrough and citing Uri Geller, and he has a bigger article!! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no breakthrough the article is full of disclaimers denouncing the invention a hoax and a conspiracy theory.

Why did you bring Geller into the discussion?

What is to be considered a copyright violation in your book?

RFmedic (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I typed, or merely respond to the words as separate concepts? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RFmedic is claiming the link is to an unreliable source (Usenet) and that it's a copyvio. First, the link is not unreliable -- I am looking at the same article on Lexis Nexus , and it's word-for-word identical to the usenet posting. Only that doesn't do our readers much good, since Lexis Nexus requires a subscription (which I can access through my university's proxy). That's why we provide a link to the usenet posting of the article. We don't have to - it's entirely optional - but it makes things easier for our readers. RFmedic's action in tagging the section was unreferenced was not only unwarranted, but disruptive.

Second of all, claiming it is a copyvio doesn't make it so. Frankly, given the transformative nature of the the discussion thread there (to educate and critique), whoever posted it has a pretty good case for fair use. Raul654 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You write:

Now he removed the explanation that Free Energy conspiracies are probably wrong because "the standar for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

The section didn't cite any sources but it indeed claimed the suppression is not real and wrong. Then you write:

I drop any good faith assumptions right now. That argument was seriously lame and obviously made up in order to remove stuff he doesn't like.

Drop good faith?

The large chunk of nonsense opinion discussing solar panels on the white house is totally irrelevant to the specific suppression cases listed on the page.

If they are really suppression cases, I have no idea. But you feel the need to explain your POV to the reader without citing any sources?

It has become abundantly clear to me there are some users who want to overrule the cited sources with opinion pieces.

Reportedly, Exxon mobile has dedicated 16 million towards this effort.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Whoever wrote it has a pretty good case for suppression.

RFmedic (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RFmedic has been indefinitely blocked by yours truly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Should a checkuser be performed? Verbal chat 06:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Of whom would the user be a sockpuppet? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User requests review of block

Resolved

 - Unblocked. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Caspian blue#3RR on The Sea of Japan naming dispute. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like I misread the four reverts as not all of them were for the same image I was seeing. I have unblocked Caspian blue and apologized on his page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ip claiming relation, changing page

Resolved

User given 48 hour vacation ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An IP at 67.234.104.242 (talk · contribs) is changing the Julianna Rose Mauriello page, claiming to be her brother. After another editor tried to talk to him about WP:COI, I tried to explain to him about reliable sources and the usual. In response, I got this edit summary [63] that says "we can fight about this all night" and this [64] on my talk page, which claims someone from wikipedia told them to make the edits. The spelling and mannerisms make me think we're dealing with a kid here, but I don't want to edit war on this article. If an admin could have a look-see, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning, if he continues a short block may be in order. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just a note. According to the article, Julianna lives in New York. This IP resolves to Florida. Make of that what you will. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

actually i am in philedelphia at college. Make that what you will. A short block for vandalism of my sisters page, you mean the crap you guys post on it? I thought wikipedia wanted truth, not random bs. Remove my sisters page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I made this post 15 minutes before you guys started crap here. Why didnt you post on the post I made? Trying to skirt he issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#my_sisters_page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.104.242 (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ip has reverted again here [65]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 3RR violation; asked for unblock and called his opponents pedophiles, so page locked and block extended to 48h. We're done here for the moment. By the by, he also came to WP:AN. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jéské- I was trying to post that I blocked him and for some reason it wouldn't save. I'll add the resolved tag. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. I noticed the AN thread before I noticed this one, anywhoo, and was the first there to see that truly obnoxious unblock request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I Posted this on the WP:AN thread, and thought a 2nd set of eyes wouldn't hurt on this. Can someone oversight the email address posted by the IP in one of the edit summaries on the Julianna Rose Mauriello page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted that edit; oversighting probably isn't needed. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That'll work too, thanks :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wallamoose

Resolved

 - Not a legal threat

Greetings all, here I bring you User:Wallamoose, who for the life of me, I can't exactly figure out at this present moment in time. I came upon this user while at Gwen's talk page, after another user reported this user. The other user doesn't matter at this moment.

The two users argued over I think.. a content dispute. Eventually I believe both were blocked for 3RR. Wallamoose contested his block, and was declined. This happened several times. Wallamoose even when so far as to threaten legal action, threatening to go up to the supreme court where possible. This of course was declined as well, and the page was protected, set to expire as soon as the block did.

As soon as the protection did expire, the user in question then proceeded to create a log of the events that had transpired from his or her point of view, and then again with admins in general. These last two contributions of which I speak appear to be something along the lines of WP:POINT.

Thank you all for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a legal threat, Wallamoose only wrote a (very lame, sorry Wallamoose) metaphorical log about his block. I'll leave a note for him though. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

After digging through the page history, I might have to disagree.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnnie Cochran is dead. This is not a legal threat, it's a try at creative writing to make a point. I do agree though, that the post was utterly unhelpful and shows Wallamoose still doesn't understand why he was blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh...

I didn't know he was dead, or that he was a notable person....

Oops.. I guess..— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He actually came by ANI earlier tonight and asked if the "story" on his page broke any rules: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clarence_Thomas. I've found him to be a pretty reasonable guy (no excuse for 4 unblock requests though). I hope he'll delete the "story", or delete the lawyer line, upon reading Gwen's note. thanks --guyzero | talk 10:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Wallamoose is grasping for some understanding of what has happened, but is still muddling his notions of how he thinks Wikipedia "should" be run with how Wikipedia is run. I wish he'd read some project pages. Had he read the unblock guide, he could have written an unblock request that would have gotten him unblocked straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think the "story" was intended as cathartic humor in response to the block and zany unblock requests. I've found Wallamoose to be interested in learning and following policy and working with the group on a fairly controversial article, and he's made great contributions there. You are right that his transition would be easier by reading and watching a bit, but he's opting to learn by doing, which is cool too I think. Maybe adoption by an uninvolved seasoned editor might help give him another avenue for start-up mentorship and advice? --guyzero | talk 10:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread strikes me as making mountains out of molehills. Wallamoose screwed up, got a 1 day block, and blew off some steam on his talk page. I see no impending threat from him to the integritiy of Wikipedia, and thus no need for admin action. The rest of this discussion really doesn't belong here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 10:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's spot on what I was getting at. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer to be characterized as a mountain rather than a mole hill, so if this metaphorical comparison is in any way an attempt to diminish my notability, I reject it totally. I trust you are referring to the "thread" and not me personally. As a measure of my abiding generosity and as an act of good faith consistent with the guidelines and policies supported, though not always lived up to at Wikipedia, I will let your comment stand. "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; For you are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they confort me." Psalm 23:4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WyeVQd6e0&feature=related

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Humourous? Yes. Creative? Yes. Legal threat? Never. BMW(drive) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Ethel Aardvark

Resolved. Admin requesting second opinion -- all is well. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting review of my block. I blocked User:Ethel Aardvark for edit warring and other problems, chiefly the removal of sourced information and references from the article deforestation (most recently [66]). I had previously protected both the deforestation article and rainforest for a week to stop the edit warring. Several warnings about removal of referenced material have been left on the users talk. A dispute has been brewing between User:Ethel Aardvark and User:Asidemes and both had accused the other of vandalism. Asidemes has been adding sourced material to various related articles and Ethyl has been removing the material. Vsmith (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Aardvark's edits were disruptive. I think the 48 hours block is justified. AdjustShift (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

48hrs is plenty of time to go Quantity Surveying. BMW(drive) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible action needing to be taken

Resolved

 - School is dealing with it from here. لennavecia 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, a user threatens "I WILL BLOW UP A SCHOOL". Shouldn't there be something we do about this? The talk page has no school IP template, so this is out of my realm of knowledge. Some assistance would be appreciated. لennavecia 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP info:

  network: Organization-Name;I: Hannah Beardsley Middle School 
  network: Street-Address;I: 515 E. Crystal Lake 
  network: City;I: Crystal Lake 
  network: State;I: IL 
  network: Postal-Code;I: 60014 
  network: Country-Code;I: US 

I'm not sure this is a legitimate threat though. John Reaves 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It would be sensible to contact the school though, imo. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree, but what are the negative aspects of taking it seriously, just in case? لennavecia 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would merely cause unnecessary panic at the school. Also, it would waste someone's time contacting them. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course if we didn't, and a school was blown up... Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It does, indeed, simply seem like genuine vandalism. However, it might be prudent to contact the school. IMO, it would be more tragic to have a school blown up than to waste someone's time. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 3) Maybe that's what someone said about the Twin Towers. >_> Maybe it's best to let the school decide if it should be taken seriously or not. لennavecia 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the school's administration (more to get the little twit who is vandalizing in trouble than anything else). John Reaves 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Jennavecia: {{sofixit}}: you are more than welcome to pick up the telephone and bother the school yourself. There's no need to continue to make a fuss about it here. John Reaves: Indeed, maybe a suspension or some lines will teach him not to screw around about things like this. HiDrNick! 16:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Nick. Already on it. Now go away since you have nothing constructive to contribute. لennavecia 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell them to check there e-mail. Trying to explain how to check a diff to someone over the phone is not easy (trust me). John Reaves 16:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, John. The principal has the tech guy attempting to figure out what computer it came from so they can maybe figure out which student did it. He appreciated the email and call very much. لennavecia 16:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it time for another 12-month schoolblock? The little... contributors didn't waste much time getting back to vandalism after the previous one expired. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One could always offer to the techie that has already been contacted that we could block anonymous edits from that IP range, essentially permanently :-) BMW(drive) 17:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked for 6 mo. Vsmith (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This may relate to this. John Reaves 20:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Coal Mining, Incivility and Invasion of Privacy

Unresolved

See below.

The following material has been moved from my talk page. Material I placed in the Coal Mining article has been deleted, so I have removed all my other contributions to Wikipedia as well. See my user page for the reasons why. Apparently we have mathematicians serving in the role of copyright attorneys at Wikipedia. Mistake.

Thank you Elonka and Todd for trying. I'm not sure you can fix this. Farewell.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste of talk page removed. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... What is the incident to report here, exactly? 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently somebody removed it. I'll see if I can find it again.

I am removing a copy and paste of content from User talk:Mervyn Emrys. Interested parties can review that page's history. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Mathsci (talk · contribs) for one week for attempted outing. To me, this looks like finished business. ANI is not for drama making; it is for requesting specific administrative action. I don't see what further administrative action is required here, as the IP above correctly notes. If you are sincerely concerned about an invasion of privacy, reposting the offensive content is a rather counter-productive thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Uh... you can't "delete" your contributions. Attempts to do so have been reverted. seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Uh, curiouser and curiouser. Apparently anyone can delete anything I contribute, but I cannot delete what I contribute?

Mathsci deleted virtually my entire contribution to Coal Mining, much to the joy of coal mining firms everywhere, I imagine. Still gone.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is about GPL not GFDL, but a similar reasoning applies, unless the original contributions were illegally put under GFDL (copyvio). VG ☎ 19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What are GPL and GFDL and what language is this?Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When you edit Wikipedia, you agree to license your contributions under WP:GFDL (see the text right under the edit box). VG ☎ 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this situation is resolved at this point. There was a conflict between Mathsci (talk · contribs) and new editor Mervyn Emrys (talk · contribs), some of which evidently involved a violation of WP:OUTING. Mathsci has since been blocked by arbitrator Charles Matthews (talk · contribs), citing the Tobias Conradi case. As for the edits at Coal mining and Environmental effects of coal, I think there was just a miscommunication here, and I've been working with Mervyn Emrys on this at our talkpages, and I think the confusion has been cleared up. I don't think there's any need for any further administrator action, so we can probably tag this thread as resolved. Any further questions from Mervyn Emrys can probably be handled via his own talkpage. --Elonka 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Mathsci deleting a contribution to Coal Mining article. It was someone else, and apparently happened simultaneously with my discovery of it, so there was no explanation provided until after my message was posted.

However, Mathsci made outrageous accusations on a previous incident thread that is now archived, preventing me from responding to them. In that thread he attempted to “out” me. Subsequently he attempted again on my “talk” page to out me. There WAS a pattern. I'm disgusted.

It seems Mathsci does not understand copyright law as applied to U.S. Government documents. Nobody can acquire a copyright on any material published in a U.S. government document simply by quoting or paraphrasing it in a book published by a commercial publisher. The material remains in the public domain as public property. No publisher is going to come after anyone for reprinting material that is in the public domain, and nobody else has legal standing to do so.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, on your user page you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." It is nice to see such an open and welcoming attitude towards advice and suggestions. Allow me to make a few. First, an important priinciple here is Assume good faith on the part of other editors. it seems to me that Mathsci assumed that you were adding relevant content in good faith, but were violating a wikipedia policy. I hope you can assume that matchsci was acting in good faith in removing material she believed violated policy ... above you make a remark that this has something to do with pleasing anti-coal-mining interests. Can't you instead see this as a question over Wikipedia policy, and interpreting and applying policy? What do we do if both of you have good intentions? We play it safe by removing content that may be copyrighted, that is just prudence. Since none of us are "authors" in the sense that wikipedia content is public and common and does not belong to any one of us, I am sure you won't take it personally. I do not see any harm in inviting people who understand copyright law thoroughly to review this and reach a consensus. We can easily restore anything deleted, so there would be no harm done. Many of us like you are academics and have published, and there are more complex issues when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia that we ourselves have copyright to. This may be salient if copyright is an obstruction to adding material to Wikipedia. IT seems to me that MathSci was trying to find ways to help you add the content you want to add. All of us have to make compromises to suit Wikipedia policies and also of course informal ways of working together at Wikipedia. But of course, you know that, you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." So I sincerely apologize if anything I wrote seemed out of turn. I just want to encourage you to stay and keep editing! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election debates, 2008

Resolved. Editorial matter. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The page in question is protected so I can not edit it, and there is a sentence that uses weasel words and has no reliable source, so it should be removed according to Wikipedia policies. I know this might not be the right place to ask in, but can someone help please?84.13.172.146 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The right place to ask is that article's talk page -- I'm sure a lot of people are watching it these days. And the page is only semi-protected, no administrator intervention is required. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for asking here, but I have already asked in the article's talk page (Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2008#3rd debate), and even though the sentence appears to be blatantly against WP:NPOV and WP:RS, it hasn't been removed. So can any user remove it, please?84.13.172.146 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an editorial matter entirely, and administrators have no special prerogatives in that area. For the record I don't find anything wrong or partisan about that sentence -- it doesn't make any weaselish comparison between candidates, since it's all about McCain. But then again, this is really not the place for this discussion. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:76.126.193.161, Bradley Effect

76.126.193.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on adding a poorly phrased sentence to this article by edit warring, and has completely refused to talk it over, despite attempts to engage in discussion and a warning on his talk page. I would like to request a block of this user, if only to get him to engage in discussion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If he has violated WP:3RR, the 3RR noticeboard would be a better place for this. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Today the IP made three edits. All of them were to the Bradley effect ‎article and all of them were reverted.[67][68] The IP has stopped editing, so there is no point in blocking it. AdjustShift (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I swear if I have a nonadministrator close one of my threads one more time... in any case, 3RR was not violated, but the user has completely violated WP:EW, and the user needs to talk, and the user has continued to make edits. And, to non-admins: please do not close this thread. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Doris Day

Resolved. Misunderstanding. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried 5 times to revert back to an older version I edited, waiting inbetween doing it different ways, etc. but it fails. It ACTS like reverted fine, but the history shows nothing. The article was edited by an IP doing misc tests (not vandalism per se). Something is amis. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the IP made two edits and then deleted both of them. Your "reversion" doesn't show up because it's not making any change in the article. Deor (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. ah. Mine was a safety reversion due to the four edits I saw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doris_Day&diff=next&oldid=245129205

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doris_Day&diff=next&oldid=245975954

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doris_Day&diff=next&oldid=245976101

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doris_Day&diff=next&oldid=245976567

PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me barging in here, but I've seen this behavior quite a few times: new users adding some vandalism-like content and them immediately reverting it themselves. Are these Grawp-like accounts gaming the system to rack-up edits? Most of them don't seem to do anything else after these odd edits... VG ☎ 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed that they (kids, mostly) are just trying the editing process out, perhaps having found it hard to believe that they are actually able to change something on The Mighty Web. Deor (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss this, I beg to (somewhat) differ. In my experience, kids typically leave their edits alone, they don't revert. Not only that, but kids' edits tend to be very typical to generational trends, combined with the everlasting appeal for taboo topics. As such, I don't think a kid would go for "bestest" and adding a dash only to remove both in the next edit -- a kid would go for "poo" or worse, depending on their age, and would not revert themselves. Teenagers go for politically incorrect stuff (e.g. "<article subject> is gay", etc). If I were to bet on a profile, I'd say this person was a noob in their early/mid 20s. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Deor is right. It's easy to become cynical, but there are lots of kids out there who really don't want to mess up Wikipedia but can't resist the temptation to find out whether they really have the power to. Looie496 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Prod reverts

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed most of the Prods I added to BLP's that didn't have a single reference or external link. He has done so using rollback, which as far as I'm aware should only be used on vandalism edits. Is prodding unsourced BLP's now classed as vandalism? RMHED (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll grant that RMHED believed he was doing the right thing. However, what he was doing was not actually the right thing; these are perfectly valid articles with no contentious or objectionable content. I've rolled myself back on occasions when I've made a mistaken edit, simply because it's quicker. Under the circumstances, I feel that there was nothing inappropriate about this use of rollback. Furthermore, after asking RMHED to please stop what he was doing, I checked each article individually before rolling it back; I left one prod in place because the article made no assertion of notability. DS (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can contest a PROD simply by removing the tag. However, rollback is reserved for vandalism or otherwise "unworthy" edits. I find it hard to believe that restoring a tag that is perfectly removable counts as "unworthy"; although in the absence of a definition for such, it's moot, but I would consider it should apply to, say, pointless formatting edits rather than issues of process. The PRODs appear to have been good faith nominations, so I wouldn't regard their application as "unworthy". Certainly, you can ask RMHED to stop, but he's under no obligation to do so unless acting against good faith. I see no evidence of that here. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Might the better solution be to stick at least one reference in? This goes for both PRODing and reverting it without fixing the underlying problem. It is just as easy as doing either and helps move things on a step. I have left instructions on how to use {{gcdb}} on the talk page - all you need do is add the person's name to the template. (Emperor (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I tend to agree that using rollback here was a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the rollback policy, but I think we also need to note that it's possible to use semi-automated tools to PROD at great speed (not sure if this is what RMHED was doing), so I'm not sure if it's fair to say that PROD tags need to be removed by hand, unless we're prepared to make the same assertion about their addition. On the prods themselves, I agree with RMHED here on the interpretation of WP:BLP - everything needs to be sourced, and anybody can remove unsourced material at any time. But I think he's completely misguided on what the source of the BLP problem is: the problem isn't that there aren't enough footnotes in BLPs: the problem is that anybody with an axe to grind or a sick sense of humour can come along and write anything they want in a BLP, and in a great many BLPs this will remain unnoticed long enough to get cached by Google and scraped by mirrors. Citations are important and valuable in cleaning up BLPs, but they don't really have anything to do with the root of the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that all Prods and prod notices were added manually, no tools were used. RMHED (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with the claim that RHMED was not basically in the right. Why is the BLP policy interpreted as "all BLP claims must be sourced" except when there are zero sources? How is proposing deletion of those articles not proper? sure, RHMED could have diligently researched each and every one and then added references for all uncited claims, but that isn't the mandatory route for unsourced BLP's. As I see it, the firm instruction is: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Precisely. BLP admits some laxity, the keyword being "contentious", and the "negative, positive, or just questionable" doesn't really add to that. It's foolish to say that "contentious" means anything much more than "open to argument", and it's simple enough to apply common sense and say that the principle of "Do No Harm" requires that negative unsourced assertions be removed immediately, whereas there is little to be lost by retaining "X is the best-selling Bhangra artist in Heckmondwike". Some perspective needs to be retained here, I feel. --Rodhullandemu 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the rub is... "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material..." The mass PROD seems to hing on the lack of a source being the point of contention. If that were the case, then you'd think the BLP proviso would be to remove 1) all contentious sourced information and 2) all unsourced information. - J Greb (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always read that sentence with parentheses in different places than you apparently do: "(unsourced) or (poorly sourced contentious) material", i.e. all unsourced material, and poorly sourced material only if it is contentious.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought it meant "all unsourced material", because that would be nonsense ("Jon Doe is a man"); but "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>yourblog.com</ref>" wouldn't cut it, whereas "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>jondoe.com/biog</ref>" would. That's how I see the policy intended to work. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that regardless of whether RHMED was correct in prodding the articles, DF67's use of rollback was inappropriate. I'm going to go drop a short note on his talk page about that. — Coren ^(talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, RMHED is complaining about someone else removing their prods from articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't encourage mass reversions, but it's possible to use custom edit summaries when rollbacking. For example in this case, it would be possible to use "contested prod" in edit summaries. It is unclear in the rollback guideline if this use is allowed for non-vandalism edits. Though using it for good faith edits seems inadvisable. It's the problem of semi-automatic tools: lack of review, real or apparent (since a user may still review pages manually beforehand). But in this case, we don't know if rollback is used or not, edits can be quickly reverted without rollback using tabs (with a tedious preparation), even faster than non-admin rollback since theirs is throttled. Cenarium ^Talk 03:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sprintinpace (talk · contribs) and Gazevod (talk · contribs)

These accounts have both made edits to user subpages belonging to sockpuppets of Yorkshirian (talk · contribs), by removing all content from the pages and redirecting them to the user pages. Sprintinpace (talk · contribs) on User:The Renton/pit[69] and Gazevod (talk · contribs) on User talk:True as Blue/arch[70]. They don't look like new users, and as more than one account is used, this appears to be a violation of WP:SOCK, although I'm unsure who the puppeteer is and whether any more accounts have done anything similar. —Snigbrook 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They should both be indeffed as socks of Yorkshirian, as they are editing subpages of his socks, pages that not many other newcomers would just happen to stumble upon. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton again

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), fresh off 1-week block for tendentious editing (incivilities, edit warring, etc)[71] on Barack Obama-related articles under article probation (Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation), vowed during block to devote himself to "stopping" me,[72] immediately begins to provoke trouble with me and other editors claiming an "ongoing conflict", "harassment", etc.[73][74][75][76]. I am not asking for any specific thing and do not wish to engage with this editor - perhaps we can nip this in the bud before he does anything blockable. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gave a final notice. This type of continued @#$^ is simply unacceptable, and to declare your stalking and harassment intentions in an unblock request is simply unexcuseable. Any further harassment from this account will result in a block. Noroton, disengage from Wikidemon and others; find another article to edit. You are not willing to abide by the probation set forth, and you are not willing to work with other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An angry ultimatum from a blustering admin over week-old unblock request really should be accompanied by proof with a quote that I intend to stalk or harass. So provide it, Seicer. Are you going to block me for pursuing dispute resolution at an RfC or ArbCom? Is that what you call "stalking"? Because that's the only "pursuing" of Wikidemon I ever said I would do. If my complaints in those forums have no merit and constitute some kind of harassment and stalking, why don't you let ArbCom's calmer heads deal with my behavior. If I open an RfC on Wikidemon, are you going to block me for that? Are you fulminating now because I was mad when I responded to my block? Three other admins were involved in that block or in reviewing it, and somehow they didn't find my statements "simply inexcuseable". Do you find angry comments delivered in unblock requests inexcusable, Seicer? Perhaps you should redact your own. I'm not the one who approached Wikidemon at the Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy discussion, he's the one who approached me. Does that sound like some kind of stalked editor? , knowing that he'd gotten me so mad just a week before. Now I don't suppose you'd consider that WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility, would you? If not, please run down the bulleted list to the sixth item, about taunting.

Unfortunately for Wikidemon, he didn't get me mad. In that discussion, knowing that he just had a dispute with me, his first comment directed at me was to tell me not to address other editors in even the most glancing way [77], while at the same time ignoring far worse comments from other editors in the same discussion.[78] Which I pointed out to him. I suggested that he just ignore me if he didn't have a substantive point to make relative to the discussion.[79] His reaction to that was to goad further. My response was to tell him a second time that his comment was not constructive, and at the same time continue a discussion with a third editor -- and cross out the comment that Wikidemon appeared to find offensive.[80] Now, as I was discussing the article and the article title with Eric the Red 2, Wikidemon unilaterally tried to shut down the discussion, putting a box around it and a title declaring the comments "off topic". [81] Now Seicer, who's misbehaving at this point?

Seicer, in addressing a complaint about WP:CIV, why don't you comment civilly? You know, the most outrageous behavior in this case today isn't coming from me or even Wikidemon -- it's coming from you. You've blatantly misrepresented my words, which are on my talk page for anyone to see. You've blatantly threatened me in vague ways, telling me to stay off -- what? Any page that Wikidemon happens to edit? You couldn't wait for a consensus at this spot to form? You couldn't wait to hear my side of it? You couldn't look into the matter more than a brief glance at Wikidemon's tendentious diffs? You address me with a conclusion that doesn't even indicate you're interested in hearing me out. Look at my first edits as I came off this block and then tell me I deserved the enraged comments you left on my talk page and just above. Seicer, you need to disengage from me; find another editor to talk down to. You are not willing to abide by basic standards of admin behavior, and you are not willing to get past the surface of a complaint before fulminating and threatening.

In my unblock requests, I told other editors and admins that I would keep my cool in dealing with this very difficult editor and I would handle our dispute in the proper way. Since coming off the block, I have interacted with Wikidemon civilly and deflected his goading. I also asked him politely on his talk page if he would accept a proposal I had made for a third party to address the most salient part of our differences (after ignoring the comment for a while, he refused -- now I'll respond in accordance with policy).

Wikidemon has now reverted my revert of his closing of the discussion.[82] Does anyone else get disgusted that editors block off comments of other editors on talk pages that way? Without even getting consensus? That appears to be a violation of WP:TALK. Who's the aggressor here? Take a look at the new subtitle Wikidemon slapped on the part of the discussion I participated in: "Discussion of editor behavior". And yet Wikidemon had no complaints when he discussion had already featured comments such as This is a disgrace. This article has been hit over and over and over again with sleazy attempts to raise its 'hit count', and this is just one more. (Flatterworld 13:23, 17 Oct), there should have been a proper discussion before choosing this title. (Scjessey 13:59, 17 Oct) I agree with Flatterworld, it is unseemly to change the title on ten minutes (Pete Tillman (talk) 17:20, 17 Oct). Now tell me that Wikidemon was forced to start interacting with me because my comments were out of bounds after all this. -- Noroton (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How much patience does Wikipedia have? Noroton has proven that he is in no way able to participate in a neutral and civil manner to any election-related article. I propose a topic ban is certainly in order. Grsz^X 03:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much. See, this is where things go wrong. Editors like Noroton are given too many chances. It's clear he has no intention of changing his behaviour. No matter how many times he's blocked he intends to return and edit tendentiously and disruptively. The simplest and most effective solution here is not a topic ban or similar well intentioned tolerance, it's to issue an indefinite block. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. A topic ban would do nothing but provoke the hornet's nest in Noroton. He's already made it clear that he intends to use this account to stalk and harass other users, and to use all means possible to do so -- including abusing various processes that we have here at Wikipedia. Further disruption will result in an extended block, but another administrator can come along and extend it at their will with probably little to no remorse. seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He's already made it clear that he intends to use this account to stalk and harass other users, and to use all means possible to do so -- including abusing various processes that we have here at Wikipedia. You know, Seicer, you're engaging in violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Back up your slander with evidence. -- Noroton (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much threatened a single Wikipedian on your talk page not once, but three times, in a way that suggested you would not stop until you had "changed" Wikipedia's perception of that person. I suggested that might not be such a good approach and your response contained a veiled attack towards my contributions at AN/I. You're certainly not convincing me, standing on the sidelines here, that you're here for any other purpose but to malign and harass others of opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying that others have behaved perfectly - indeed, I have found quite a bit that concerns me. But in general I see that they have in the main only responded to comments from yourself and those who agree with you, and contributed to open discussions.

Oh, and yes, sometimes I do make flippant or humorous off-the-cuff remarks on AN/I. There is an old saying that if you can't see the funny side of life you would soon go insane. I think sometimes it's possible to forget this is a website (as opposed to real life) and most of the people who read here get put off by intense conflict between the same parties after several months. Orderinchaos 05:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much eh? I told Seicer that his or her attacks should be accompanied by proof. Your immediate response is to repeat the attacks without proof. in a way that suggested you would not stop until you had "changed: Wikipedia's perception of that person. Not quite. I said I would present evidence. Orderinchaos, you haven't been "standing on the sidelines" for some time. When Clubjuggle, a very widely respected editor at the Obama talk page, asked you, as an admin, for help with a problematic editor who was doing far worse than anything I've been accused of by Wikidemon, you blew off the request. And when it turned out that the problematic editor was embedded in the Obama campaign, you cast aspersions on Clubjuggle, the editor who uncovered it, although the vast consensus was that Clubjuggle had acted rightly. I recall criticizing you back then. I'll find the diffs for that. Orderinchaos, do you consider it sleazy to take words from an editor who is angry at being blocked and is talking about pursuing dispute resolution and adhering to WP:CIV and then bring up the words a week later, treating them as if they were some kind of coldly thought-out blueprint for mayhem? Do you feel that you've just treated me the way you would want to be treated? -- Noroton (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I've come to much the same conclusion as those above me - although I believe Noroton is capable of being a better editor, on this issue he is in my view tendentious to the point of net deficit to the project. Maybe after the election things will finally calm down. Orderinchaos 05:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly? Why "sadly"? You seem rather enthusiastic as you mischaracterize what I've said. he is in my view tendentious to the point of net deficit Tendentious, eh? As in, not agreeing with my point of view? Perhaps your left-wing POV (as revealed in your blog, where you state you're on the left and where you bemoan the memorializing of 9/11), is just as "tendentious". You know, we all have a right to our POV and shouldn't be skewered for it, but it shouldn't affect the way we treat those who disagree with us. -- Noroton (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly not convincing me, standing on the sidelines here, that you're here for any other purpose but to malign and harass others of opposing viewpoints. No one who actually reviewed my editing history would say that. No one who viewed my blog would say that. No one who is honest. I'll assume you said that without looking. -- Noroton (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 weeks. Noroton, tendentious means you're disrupting the encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we agree with you or not.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading images with no source

Jarajet89‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be repeatedly uploading images with no sources: indeed, his talk page consists almost entirely of notices about needing source information. His block log suggests he's been blocked for this sort of thing before. I'm leaving this for someone else to decide because I don't really work with images much and think it would be better to have someone else look this over (I only know about it because I had his talk watchlisted from my recent block of him for edit warring). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this needs to be considered. The editor appears to continue to not respond to requests for communication whatsoever, and the talk page is a solid mass of image upload issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fun with chihuahuas and pig latin

Resolved

 - LockedBay, NdefinitelyIay, Yay! SirFozzie (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Eenispay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) really doesn't like a recent film. Username violation, vandalism only. I've engaged this person twice at his user page with no useful result. Who wants to ockblay? Durova^Charge! 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LockedBay!, urovaDay SirFozzie (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Estbay. iffday. Evaryay! Eway eednay eadsthray ikelay isthay oneway ormay oftenyay :D Ajay.elanoyday^absgay_addsyay 07:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)