Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I 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 threatened, and personal information given, in this diff to today's FA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, for all the good it will do. The page has been protected and I doubt it's really personal information. JodyB _talk 12:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERSIGHT if it is. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not protected beyond standard move protection for Main Page articles. Oversight have been emailed - easier for them to remove one diff than for me to delete the Main Page article and selectively restore. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another threat here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight contacted ... just in case someone hasn't already done so. Anyone with Checkuser access might want to do a sweep of that IP ... sounds like this person knows Possum fairly well. Blueboy96 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually called the number listed in the soon-to-be-oversighted edits? For purely encyclopaedic purposes of course. :) X MarX the Spot (talk)

No, because either it's the number of the editor in question, in which case we're helping the harasser harass; or it's the vandal's number and s/he'll get off on us chasing around after him/her; or it's a made-up number and we'll just confuse whoever it belongs to. Better to ignore it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Yeah, I 'spose. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who know me will know that I've been the victim of some very serious harassment recently which was one of the reasons I retired in the first place. However, what's happened today is ridiculous. The following 10 edits were made to todays featured article, my number appeared on the main page for goodness knows how long: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. He left similar messages on my talk page yesterday (1, 2 and 3) until User:Garden protected my page. He then went onto posting similar messages on his talk page as seen here and here. I have no idea who it is but I'm pretty sure it's the same person who's been causing me grief all year, he's just taking a different route to harassing me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what to do. I thought leaving would stop this but it's only made it worse. Whilst in class this morning, I received dozens of text messages and calls from people saying I needed 'smacking.' — Possum (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum, how did the nasty little git vandal get your mobile number in the first place? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea but if it's the same person as last time then they also know my address and email addresses. They've been sending me cheques and other mysterious gifts through the post too. You all may find it hilarious but it most certainly isn't — Possum (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum, this is worrying. It's also very illegal. You're being stalked, and clearly by someone who knows you (I assume, sorry if you're older) from school. I think you need to tell the authorities. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum, I would suggest two things. First, contact a 'crat and ask them for a name change (or just start posting under a different name) If you want to conceal your WP identity from this guy, you might want to lay low on the articles you've been working on. Second, you might want to consider contacting the authorities. If this guy has your personal information, is using the internet to make threats, and sending you stuff to your home address, they might be able to do something.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I renamed from User:RyanLupin very recently, however I didn't undergo usurpation purely because of this harasser. Second, I have alerted the Police but they've been less than helpful. They think the guy's from Hertfordshire because that was the address on the cheques and originally asked me to contact that force directly which I thought was ridiculous. I eventually had someone pay me a visit who gave me a card with a number to call to help tackle cyber-bullying! — Possum (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the card have this guy's number on it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been getting a lot of instances of the phone number posted to oversight-l - you may wish to ask WMF what paperwork they need from the police to release the IPs to you/them (some of the edits are IP edits, you'll see 'em in the block logs, some are logged-in users) - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being part of the crapflood, David, but better to have each diff a dozen times rather than not at all (I assume). Possum, this isn't cyberbullying, no matter what the useless police have to say: it's real-life harassment. They have your telephone number, email address, home address and Wikipedia account details. That's Not Good. You need to do something. An email to Mike Godwin may be a start, to see what info the Foundation can release to you, as David suggests. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possum, I echo Redvers above. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 this is harrassment and a criminal offence that can carry a jail term. I implore you to contact the police again, making it very clear that the "cyber-bullying" is mixed with real world interaction too and that it has escalated. Given the nature of the threats on your talk, you could easily argue that you are in fear of violence, in which case it is also common assault. Pedro :  Chat  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the article for about two minutes in the process to get them out of public view (that's the first time ever I've deleted Today's Featured Article), and all the offending revisions have apparently been duly oversighted. The IPs who added this are all blocked for 48 hours, and I support reporting this to the Internet Service Provider. The FindIP resolves the IP to some service provider in London. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just zapped another few. Could someone please put their hand up and step through every single diff during the relevant range of the history of the page(s?), and report to oversight-l a list of diffs that introduce the problematic text. Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted oversight a while ago asking whether they could provide me the material that was posted about me so I could pass it onto the police but I think it was FT2 who replied by saying it's against policy even if it is sensitive data about myself, he still couldn't do it. I then contacted Godwin who pretty much echoed the same. The only concern I have is that oversighted material is kept for 30 days, I live in the UK, if I were to request the material the legal way, surely it would take more than 30 days? — Possum (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send Godwin and FT2 a note that you want them to preserve the material separately since you are going to be making a legal request for it shortly. That should make sure that they at least keep a copy on hand. And then get a lawyer on this asap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted Scotland Yard about this matter since its it threatning , and cyber-bullying.Rio de oro (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't contacted Scotland Yard, however, my local force is aware of the situation — Possum (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way a rangeblock can be implemented? Collateral damage be damned--we've got to nip this in the bud, now. Blueboy96 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry to bring this slightly off-topic, but I'm concerned that this editor's number appeared on the main page for a period of time. I wonder, if it has or has not already been discussed, perhaps we could consider having all pages automatically semi-protected when they are featured on the main page, so as to avoid vandalism, or incidents like this. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's rarely protected but then I've often wondered why that is...anyone care to explain? — Possum (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that our open invitation is that anyone can edit. Given the high traffic TFA gets if non auto confirmed/IP editors then discover they can't, in fact edit it, it goes against that invitation. Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh OK, thought it might be something like that — Possum (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• God, that's terrifying. Great work with this one, guys. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 00:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:50

In the Anti-Zionism article there are a editors who have frequently removed sourced material that is relevant to the article. Today, for instance, there has been this [1][2][3]. The source is the highly reliable Wiesenthal Center, and the material, which I expanded in the hope of clarifying enough to resolve any objections, is certainly relevant to the subject of the article. It is my understanding that WP policy on NPOV, and reliable sourcing, can not be outvoted.

Would it be possible to get some administrative oversight for this article? Or could someone suggest another possible route to diminishing the abysmal editing environment of this article, and a number of other articles related to the issue of antisemitism, where NPOV is a constant problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable is likely the more fit adjective here: Verifiably sourced content shouldn't be removed from articles. If an editor has PoV worries about such content, it's far more helpful to find verifiable secondary sources which answer that PoV, rather than taking it out of the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the document the edit is sourced to [4]. Perhaps I never did get my WP lingo just right. Sorry. It is, as far as I understand, both reliable and verifiable. (I also admit to sometimes being less than charming. Sorry about that too. But I sometimes wind up editing articles where the more charming editors have departed because the editing atmosphere is so poisoned -- as in this case. It is admittedly a very hotly contested subject in the real world, and that has translated into a problem on WP too.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem here is that you are describing Fischer as a "former terrorist", which is not included in the source. I have reinstated the quote, but without that commentary on the person who made it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that not being in the source. Thanks for catching it. I have no idea why, or who, put that in. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 - I'm not aware of an RSN on the Wiesenthal Centre, I'd have supposed it's status as an RS to be dubious. Norman Finkelstein calls them "a gang of heartless and immoral crooks, whose hallmark is that they will do anything for a dollar. As I point out in the book, the guy who runs their headquarters in Los Angeles, runs it as a family business, and in the mid 1990's they were collectively raking in $525 000 a year." The book in question is Finkelstein's own, "The Holocaust Industry" and is hardly even-handed. However, it's considered a work of major importance with over 100 Google Scholar citations just in the English-language version.

And in this case, the SW Centre is being used as a source for "In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister (and former terrorist) Joschka Fischer stated that "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism.", apparently something overheard during his visit. I can see no RS for this statement, only a few bloggish re-publishings. As you say, there is nothing provided to describe Fischer as a "former terrorist", another reason this should have been discussed on TalkPage before coming here. PR^talk 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer (who was a stone-thrower and rabble rouser as a young adult but not a terrorist) is well documented to have made such statements on several occasions. For example, in an April 2002 interview for the respected German weekly Die Zeit, Fischer said:

ZEIT: Wo ist die Grenze zwischen legitimer Kritik und Antiisraelismus oder sogar Antisemitismus?

Fischer: Ich habe in meinem Leben die Erfahrung gemacht, wie Antizionismus in Antisemitismus weggekippt ist. Das hat mich geprägt. Ich bin durch diese Erfahrung zum Westler geworden. Das heißt: Das Verhältnis zu den USA, zu Israel ist für mich immer der Lackmustest, woran man nicht so sehr antisemitische Positionen als antiwestliche Positionen und Emotionen in der deutschen Innenpolitik erkennt, nationale Positionen, die im linken wie im rechten Gewande daherkommen.

ZEIT: Ist Antiisraelismus verwandt mit Antiamerikanismus?

Fischer: Hinter beidem steht ein starkes antiwestliches Element. Es ist essenziell, dass wir Antiisraelismus keinen Raum geben, nicht nur aufgrund unserer besonderen historischen Verpflichtungen. Wir würden auch ganz aktuell einen eminenten politischen Fehler begehen.

Translation:

ZEIT: Where does legitimate criticism cross the line into anti-Israelism or even anti-Semitism?

Fischer: I have personal experience of how anti-Zionism defaulted to anti-Semitism. This experience was formative for me, it turned me into a pro-Western person. To be clear: one's attitude towards the U.S. and towards Israel, as far as I am concerned, is always the acid test. You can use it to detect attitudes and emotions in domestic German politics that are not anti-Semitic so much as they are anti-Western and nationalist, cloaked in the garb of both the left and the right.

ZEIT: Is anti-Israelism related to anti-Americanism?

Fischer: Both are backed by a strong anti-Western element. It is essential that we give no quarter to anti-Israelism – not just because of our unique historical obligation. It would also mean making a grievous political mistake.

By the way, I'm not sure that the user name PalestineRemembered is a good example of Truth in Advertising, but people can choose the pseudonym they like.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Can we get this clear, Fischer has never been recorded anywhere as saying "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism" - other than in this statement from the the non-RS Wiesenthal Centre? Though the original anti-Zionism of this "extremist" led to him hating the Jews, he appears to be more or less denying that it happens this way to anyone else. PR^talk 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the interview excerpt above and numerous other public statements from Fischer, it is entirely possible that he said exactly that. Although when questioned further, he would probably clarify that he does not equate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Zionism. Fischer is not on record as "hating the Jews". His attendance as a young "activist" at a PLO conference in Algiers was the formative experience that taught him that anti-Zionism (which is nothing else than the claim that the state of Israel has no right to exist) in most cases is simply a modern form of hating the Jews. I hope it won't be considered a personal attack if I add that I am somewhat mystified that [personal attack removed].--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Goodmorningworld about making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PalestineRemembered, The Wiesenthal Centre is a reliable source, and you are not... no matter what you think to the contrary. If you have a source where Fischer directly contradicts the Wiesenthal Centre, you should put that into the article. As it is, what you are doing is arguing for the removal of reliably sourced, verifiable, material from the article just because you don't agree what it says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike this notification. This is a content dispute. When it is dealt with at the proper places (starting with RSN) it's quite possible that the edit concerned will be rejected. The addition "In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister (and former terrorist) Joschka Fischer stated that "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism." is unlikely to reach WP standard on at least 3 different grounds. However, admin assistance would be appreciated since there is significant disruption going on. The TalkPage on this article is being vandalised, the contributions of at least 2 people being removed (twice now). The dubious inclusion-edit itself is being edit-warred without discussion. And this comes on top of inflammatory statements that editors have refused to discuss, ethno-specific references to other editors after objections and a claim that other editors are "antisemitic schmucks". PR^talk 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reliable sourced material that is relevant to the article indicates POV problems, and not normal editorial content disagreement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be online much for the rest of the day, and do not have time to reply to PalestineRemembered's conniption right now. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit clash)

It has already been agreed that the allegation against Fischer was not reliably sourced. And he is not German Foreign Minister he was the then foreign minister. Given PR has raised your editing of the talk page I would be interested in why you removed this part of my post to the page:

Wikipedia has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.

Perhaps admins could care to comment on how to handle talk page chatter that wanders away fromt he page subject and then comes back again.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the text from the Wiesenthal centre and wrote that Fischer was a former terrorist. I apologize for that over simplification. Fischer associated with terrorists in the past see Revolutionary Cells (RZ). I believe he left a training camp in Algeria when he found German neo-Nazis sharing the facilities. This led to a misunderstanding. I would note that editors of Zionist and Jewish related topics endure a great deal of abuse including antisemitic or almost-antisemitic abuse. We rarely complain but sometimes one can lose it when abusive editors seem to be defending anti-semitism (even if they don't think they are). Telaviv1 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of being antisemites because they oppose your own POV on a particular subject is not a road that is going to lead to productive, collaborative editing. Might wanna rethink your attitude there. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has reverted or altered a lot of TA's edits and who is on the pro-Palestinian side of the issue, I have to agree with him there are certainly several contributions that I can think of where either the post has been "antisemitic or almost-antisemitic" or where "editors seem to be defending anti-semitism". Conversely there are people who label anyone who disagrees with them antisemitic and even end up accusing pro-Israeli editors as such. (See any amount of material related to the JIDF.) which is why I posted the now-removed sentence to the anti-Zionism talk page.

Wikipedia has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.

--Peter cohen (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins reading this should be aware that Malcolm is committed to the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, and virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view, against the consensus of other editors. The thread here is just the latest of several attempts to game the system in order to overcome consensus. looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted chat that had nothing to do with the article, and I asked the users involved to have their chat elsewhere. If there were a few good sentences, in the bad paragraphs I removed I regret that. There is nothing to stop Peter cohen, or anyone else, from adding relevant discussion at any time. As for the Wiesenthal Center, it is notable, has a excellent reputation, and is certainly a WP:reliable source. Looie496's accusation above is not correct, and, in any case, I am quite capable of including information in articles that I do not agree with to achieve NPOV, but with the editing situation as it is for that article, there is no need for me to do what others are doing already, and the need for balance os on the other side. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom, please don't remove or refactor anything from/on the talk page of a controversial article. Whatever sundry editors may think of the Wisenthal Center, as for its reliability as a source, the pith here is independent reliability. No organization is an independent source for information about itself, hence if that information is at all controversial, it can be taken as being less reliable. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, what I deleted had nothing to do with the Wiesenthal Center, or anything else concerned with the article. Here is that edit [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I see your reasoning about the Wisenthal Center as a source. The article is not about them. The article is about anti-Zionism, a subject for which they are as reliable as any source that exists. This is a Google news search result for them [6]. This is a NYTimes search result [7]. The organization is a reliable source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom, please don't remove content from article talk pages. Otherwise, ANI is not the project page for talking at any length about sourcing disputes. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, my understanding is that WP guidelines allows deletion of material not connected to the writing of the article. This is old [8], but I know of nothing saying guidelines are now different, and I have seen, many experienced editors remove such material. If deletions of talk page chat not now allowed, please show me the changed rules and I will not do that again. As it is I believe I acted properly.

Also you have not explained your statement above, about the Wisenthal Center. Not long ago you defended the presence of this source (which I nominated for deletion) [9] in the anti-Zionism article, and which has nothing at all to establish its notability, and yet you are criticizing the Wisenthal Center which is world world renowned. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you to not delete content from article talk pages because you have done it in a way which has stirred up worries among other editors. As for the Wiesenthal Center, I didn't criticize them, you misread what I wrote. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, why are you concerned about my stirring up "worries among other editors"? Unfortunately, anything in the article or talk page that suggests Israel has a right to exist stirs them up, and there is no way of avoiding such discussion in the anti-Zionism article. Unless you can indicate a WP policy or guideline against doing it, I will later today, or tomorrow, once more remove the off topic chat that PalestineRemembered has once again restored to the talk page.

More importantly, I have still not gotten any reply to my original request at the top of this section. The are editors who had frequently removed sourced material from reliable sources that is relevant to the article, apparently because they do not agree with it. I gave only one example, but can supply others. They have on occasion resorted to using tag team reverts to enforce such. It is because it appeared to me that the article was entering another round of such deletions that I came to the administrators noticeboard. For instance, yesterday morning I found this edit [10] by Peter cohen, which removed the antisemitism category from the article despite the fact that the subject is important to the article and is discussed here [11]. I reverted it back, and the category was again deleted, this time by CJCurrie [[12]]. The removal of a category that is justified by content of the article because is contrary to the POV of some editors seems problematic, and contrary to the writing of a balanced article. It is for these reasons that I asked if administrative oversight of the article was possible, or if some other solution to the articles very toxic editing envionment could be suggested. I am still hoping to get a reply to that question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom, when one stirs up the worries of other editors by removing talk page contents, one might be nudging the bounds of disruption.

Another way of putting it would be, if multiple editors don't have your PoV, it's a "tag team." If they do share your PoV, it's consensus. I think most of this would be more helpfully talked about on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a similar comment as Gwen ... when the "environment" on a specific topic (and therefore its related Talkpage) is a little problematic, the absolute worst thing that one could do would be to "stir up the hornet's nest". Refactoring/removing comments from a Talkpage (whether unrelated or not) is just that type of action. As an long-time editor, you must have known that doing so would have caused the environment to worsen. ►BMW◄ 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, it was the chat that was disruptive, perhaps intentionally so. But, if you point out what I deleted that had value to editing the article, I will not bother that.

As for the question of "tag team" or "consensus", perhaps I misunderstand something. My understanding is that removing reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant information is considered harmful to the article (and to WP). If the majority is acting to maintain sourced material that is consestant with WP policy and guidelines, that is called "consensus." If it is the contrary to that, it is "tag team." If I am mistaken about this, please give a detailed explination, because it seems I do not understand what you have said previously.

I invite anyone who is neutral about the subject to examine the editing of the article, and the talk page, to judge for themselves if I have portrayed the editing situation correctly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point Malcolm - it has nothing to do with the comments themselves, but the action. Planting a tree is not usually a bad thing. However, planting a tree in the middle of your neighbour's livingroom is. Refactoring unrelated chat on a talkpage is usually not a bad thing. Refactoring unrelated chat on a talkpage that is already a poisoned environment is. ►BMW◄ 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Malcom, we've been through this already. It helps to gather a consensus on what sources for a given topic are deemed reliable, independent and verifiable. Take it from me, you won't always get your way, consensus does not equal Truth(TM) and sometimes, it doesn't even equal NPoV, but we do what we can. This project page is not the place to discuss a sourcing dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale wrote:"This project page is not the place to discuss a sourcing dispute". There is no sourcing dispute, but the arbitrary deletion of a source that is world renowned on the subject. That is why I brought this here, and (in all likelihood) will be back again soon. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it has and I am so sorry. Warning: Some editors may wish to avert their eyes from what I am about to do:

Malcom, please have a cup of tea. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing (da-da-da-daaahhhh) the Reliable Sources Noticeboard!! ►BMW◄ 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tea? Never drink the stuff. I have been up (as usual) since 4:00 am, and am about to have my fourth cup of coffee.

It would not be necessary for me to discuss the problems of the anti-Zionism article on this page if I was willing to do what other editors of the article have apparently done, and build a team that is in contact be e-mail. But, since I think canvassing is wrong when others do it, I will not do it. This is a problem that is well know on Wikipedia irrespective of the editing situation of the anti-Zionism article. All too frequently editors working alone are faced with this problem. The failure to find a cure is equivalent to a well know infection if the human immune system. For WP what is harmed is its credibility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of such groups, then by all means bring it forward. As we have seen in the past when such cases arise, they are dealt with swiftly. Otherwise, as I noted above, baseless accusations against other editors left to stand unchallenged is truly what will harm the Wiki's credibility. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I said that is how it seems to me, which is not a "baseless accusation." On the other hand, there have been many baseless accusations in this section, such as [13], which mentions me by my actual name, because I use my actual name instead of hiding behind a WP alias. But you seem to have found nothing wrong with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why this discussion is taking place here and not somewhere else like the article talk page or on one of the appropriate noticeboards? JodyB _talk 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JodyB, because

1. I am still hoping that my original question will get answered
2. Other users make edits that seem logical to reply to where they have occurred (i.e. here)
3. There is other unfinished business, such as user looie496 (talk's personal attack on me, by name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would someone please explain the best way to locate this discussion thread after it is archived? I will need to be able to refer to it later. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on the last blue number (currently 495) in the arcive link near the top right of this page. The most recently atchived threads are placed there. When this thread is archived, note down the number. Leave it a week and see whether you still want to pursue things at that time.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has no problems whatsoever of denying the Syriac ethnicity though, [14]. This user also has no problems of insulting and talking ill of other users with other users in a different language than English, [15]. Unfortunately for Nineveh, I also speak Syriac and therefore I could make up some of the things he said about me. In the end, this user is no better than user:HD86, but when your out of arguments then you have to either go on personal attacks (as Nineveh has done) or trying to eliminate the opposition (which Nineveh is trying to do here). The TriZ (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of these comments are inflammatory. As an editor you must except that other editors may have differing points of view to your own especially when discussing history. Wikipedia does not and can not legislate what personal beliefs editors' should hold, admins can only intervention when such views lead to disruption. If this is a content dispute, persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more pressing matter is the personal attacks and canvassing by Nineveh 209. --neon white talk 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I was just about to remark on that. Someone should warn him on that, especially after forum-shopping at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#HD86. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit requires some attention. Thank you. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's clear vandalism and I see no actual threat. Bstone (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bstone are you that naive , this is a serious threat. You dont go around on the internet and post death threats to people. Its a felony in this country , for your information. Has this been reported to the FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security, I'm going to file a ISP abuse report form right now on the matter to let the ISP know what this 'person' committed. Rio de oro (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ip is located in Willkes Barre, Pennsylvania. They are using Verizon Internet Services. Rio de oro (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider... the authorities have limited resources and we want them to concentrate their efforts on the most serious and likely threats. If they are bogged down hearing about random childish "death threats" scattered all over the internet (and I'm sure there are thousands), they will have less time to spend on potentially more real and serious threats. So while your concern is admirable, it would be wise to to use your best judgement when taking up the time of the authorities. Ask yourself, is this a real threat, or is this just some boob making noise? Is taking the time to chase down this particular boob really how you want the authorities to spend their time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarta (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started the bio of Stephen Gardner Champlin today. The bio is about the American Civil War general. It easily passes WP standard. The bio was tagged for speedy deletion by User:McWomble. I think it was an inappropriate step. An editor should understand WP notability standard before tagging articles for speedy deletion. I erased the tag so that I could further develop the bio. Then User:McWomble posted a warning on my talkpage. I want an admin to look into this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've removed the tag as it indeed isn't a speedy candidate and will drop McWomble a note. Which is more or less what would have happened anyways once an administrator evaluates the deletion request. They may just haven't seen that he became Brigadier general and the warning is a boilerplate one that is often given if the author removes the db tag themselves instead of using the recommended hangon tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for erasing {{db-bio}} from the bio, and warning from my talkpage. I erased the db tag myself so that I could further develop the bio. No further action is required. I think this issue is resolved. AdjustShift (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a good idea to remove a db tag from an article that you started. That could lead to more warnings. Better to let somebody else do it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been making unsourced edits on the article List of best selling video games, including claiming that Super Smash Bros. Brawl isn't a fighting game, despite the fact Nintendo's US, UK and Australian sites say its a fighter, the box of the game itself says fighter and several e-tailers put it in the fighter section. This particular one has been discussed at length and concensus says everyone thinks its a fighter, and he has made this change more than 5 times to the article, despite concensus being reached.

He also claims, again with no sources, that Pokemon Red and Blue isn't a roleplayer, and has also edited this. This one doesn't even need discussion, the simple fact is it is a role-player - no room for arguement.

I have warned him before that if he continues editing like this he will be reported, and, as its happened again, I feel there is no other option but to take it here

Looking at his previous edits on all articles, he does appear to be a disruptive editor, pushing his opinion despite concensus. He has also tried to edit articles, including the SSBB one, to say it isnt a fighter. I feel that he may be an "anti-Nintendo" fanboy, which is why he's taking these titles off the article, despite sources etc.

I would like an admin to decide if his clear edit warring over a period of weeks means that he won't change, and should therefore be blocked from editing the List of best selling video games article?

Also, could someone notify him about this discussion as I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just for clarity he originally tried to class Smash Bros as a party game, then tried to class it as a "vs action" (despite the fact if you do a google search, this genre does not exist) then tried to class it as a party game again - this to me is clearly either him being anti-Nintendo or a Tekken fanboy. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should do is take those references you mentioned and put them in the article. I went to List of best selling video games and Super Smash Bros. Brawl and couldn't find any cites for the genre so either they're well hidden or non-existent. CIreland (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cheers for the advice. the sources are not on the main page (as this is the first time anyone has argued a games genre, i believe) but they are clearly listed on the discussion about the game's genre on the talk page chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick google and there are *lots* of articles from reliable sources that name this as a fighter - added a few of them to the article and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done and thxchocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user persists in edit warring/adding blatantly incorrect information, then ititiate a request for comment/user conduct. MuZemike (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i considered an rfc but the particular article is edited by relatively few people, i didnt see the point as it wud end up here anyway chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vs. genre exists in Japan not in America, that's why you don't find it at google.... many websites claim brawl is a fighter because they don't know what vs. action is. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care - if 5 reliable sources name it as a fighter - it's a fighter - it's not our business to say "oh well they all got it wrong" and slot in OR in it's place. You keep reverting it out and you should be blocked for disruption. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link, i'd already used all the English-speaking Nintendo websites (UK,US,AU) as refs as well as 2 shops (which I know aren't reliable but still extra evidence). please add your comments to the RfC, Cameron.

also, if the "vs. action" genre existed you would be able to find results in Google, people debating why theres so few, talking about Japanese games etc, but no - no results. Its a genre you tried to make up, because nobody let you call it a party game. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 12:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that multiple editors have failed to resolve this situation, I am initiating the RFC/U. MuZemike (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo MuZemike (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74.249.96.148 (talk · contribs) is making edits with peculiar edit comments of the form "thanks for letting me vandalize!". I can't see any obvious vandalism, but the edit comments make me suspicious. -- The Anome (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo your suspicions, but also note that without any evidence to suggest disruptive behaviour from the individual behind this IP address, we have little grounds for taking action—most especially in light of the anonymous editor's constructive article contributions. I am concerned, however, about the IP's edit summaries, which generally take the form of excessive punctuation and ALL CAPITALS, and I have dropped a note at User talk:74.249.96.148 to the effect of "I would also suggest not being quite so "loud" in your edit summaries. It's somewhat distracting and disruptive for your fellow editors." AGK 20:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I smell a dirty, dirty sock. MuZemike (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on looking where all the new text came from, it looks like it's the Disney vandal, back again. There is, for example, no User:Collection or User:Collectionion, who they "thank" for "letting them vandalize". Does anyone want to start the process of blocking and reverting? -- The Anome (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there is, however, a User:Collectonian. However, this IP's edits still closely resemble those of the Disney vandal. I've unpicked 74.249.96.148'd edits to the best of my ability: can someone check whether I've got all their changes? -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian (talk · contribs) is (but not right now, being on a 3RR block) a very active Disney Vandal fighter - and quite possibly the ip was noting Collectonians "enforced unavailability" in the manner of a taunt; which is another way of confirming the editor behind the anonymous addy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-11-27T23:21:21 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (3rr) - you've got your timestamps confused William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have requested her help in checking out if there are any further articles and addys to be cleaned up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit, 86.40.211.19 (talk · contribs) looks like another sock of the same editor at work. Can someone who knows this vandal's MO go over all the affected articles and check them out, please? -- The Anome (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those songs are not in the Charlotte's Web 2006 movie. Another vandalism [16], changing the book's author from E.B. White to Stephen King. Nothing else before that. MuZemike (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of the latest edits of 74.249.96.148, (over 50 within the past couple of hours), I think it's time to put a stop to it. Looks like everything from bad redirects to talk page refactoring to removing other's talk page comments to what it looks like vandalizing all of Collectonian's previous edits (before the block, that is) and wreaking havoc (example, others can be found on the diffs where the edit summaries say "thanks Collectonion for letting me vandalize! happy thanksgiving!"). MuZemike (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is a portable mobile IP and currently blocked for 72 hours. Not much else can be done right now. --Rodhullandemu 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that was the Disney Vandal. He/she dosen't do edits that oviously bad, mainly refacters the talk pages ([17]) and pushes pov ([18], [19]). Pizzahutpanpizza (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the response I left on my talk page: 74.249.96.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Pizzahutpanpizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both him (I'd already suspected Pizzahutpanpizza and reverted his first two edits, but didn't bother tagging him). The named should be indef blocked, the IP long term blocked, and both tagged as usual. His editing tends to be fairly distinctive, with a mix of "okay" and bad edits, primarily reverting various Disney articles to older versions before clean up attempts were made, refactoring talk pages, undoing archiving, changing project templates to incorrect ratings, making bad redirects, and adding links to his many bad articles on other language wiki's. His taunt is likely a response to my removing the Disney vandal info from my user page (and my somewhat sarcastic edit summary) by which he knows I am not going to bother being the "Disney vandal fighter" anymore.[20] (Guess that proves my theory that he was stalking my contribs as well) 86.40.211.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is someone else. The Disney articles are, actually, hit regularly by 3 known repeat vandals:

• the main one (Bambifan101 socks), who sometimes self-identifies, depending on his mood, and sometimes tries to pretend he's just a new editor, but almost always reverts to his old behaviors quickly
• the User:Skymac207 IP socks who constantly changes the release dates and almost always vandalizes User:Gabrielkat user and user talk pages as well and occasionally self identifies by signing his comments with his sock name (last known IP to hit is 66.63.88.209)
• and the newer one, the Clone Wars one, who runs around and edits a bunch of the Disney Princess articles to insert fake stuff about some Disney Princess vs Star Wars Clone War thing.

I have removed all of the Disney and Teletubbies articles from my watchlist and will not be involving myself in this anymore. Someone else is welcome to use the info I removed from my user page and in the various AN/I and abuse reports to take over watching for Bambifan101 if they want. I never wrote up anything for the other two, though I'm pretty sure Skymac has some stuff somewhere identifying the source sock.

I'm only responding now because LessHeard vanU asked me about it and neither has been blocked hours later. The use of a mobile IP would explain how he's getting around the range blocks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I admet it! I am the Disney vandal! I knew I would get caught (again) somehow, though I really was starting to belive Collectonian would leave me alone. The "Clone Trooper" Orchestra thing on the Disney princess articles has me laugh EVERY time it's so stupid! Seriously, and yes the block has been released from all three wikis that I've hit as a sock, but I was also blocked as an IP at Welsh Wikipedia and as a user at Simple Wikipedia, thus I must now wait untill tomarrow to edit as an IP. And then they'll block me. They said so here. They changed my name to The "Disney Anon" as well. If that's not a mockery then I don't know what is. It's like when they put the thorned crown on Jesus. Pizzahutpanpizza (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids! as everyone's favorite masked villain would put it. MuZemike (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If he comes back on this range, it is 74.249.96.0/19. The 86.x.x.x is in the UK, and is not related. Black Kite 08:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Skipstops for continual disruptive editing to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. He has been warned by myself, and The Legendary Ranger to add sourced info, however continues to add knee-jerk reaction/opinion to various articles.

Acps110 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its obvious vandalism you can report it to AIV —Nn123645 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV reports was declined by Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Looks like a content dispute to me ... --Kralizec! (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AALIYAH2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a chronic copyright/fair-use violator. Final warning here, latest violation here.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 3 days. Like the last image guy, I'm open to any admin undoing the block provided that the user acknowledges that they have read and understand our policies on non-free content. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 (talk · contribs)

This user has posted an slanderous lie here. I have requested he immediate delete his comment and apologize. Since he has refused to do so, I asked that he be blocked. This is uncivil statement that can only be described as a personal attack veiled in what appears to be a real Arbcom decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time interval between demanding stuff and filing this report was precisely 20 minutes, during which I was not around. I intend to respond to this, but it may take a short time to get my ducks in order, so this is just a quick note that I'm not ignoring the issue. Looie496 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be this is a reference to this; the case was of sufficient complexity, drama and confusion that it's easy to be mistaken or have your own interpretation of the outcome. I wouldn't characterize Looie's statement outrageous, though perhaps s/he would like to point directly to the case and/or outcome and clarify with jpgordon. Or I could be wrong. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...yeah. That's a 'slanderous lie' in the same way the Star Wars prequels were epic examples of motion picture history (In the good way, obviously). At best, this could be considered an error on Looie's part. Overreact much? HalfShadow 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That's the case. I wasn't aware of the "further statement", and I deny having "lied" in the sense of making statements that I knew to be false when I made them. I apologize to OM for having misrepresented the outcome of the case. That being said, there are real issues with his current behavior, which can easily by seen by anybody willing to take the time to read Talk:Major depressive disorder#False statements in the other treatments section. There is also material that may be relevant on my talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you lied. I didn't. Instead of an honest apology you make excuses. This about your slandering me. Where's the apology and full retraction. Otherwise I hope you're blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

he has apologised above, and says he didn't deliberately lie but was himself unaware of the conclusion of the case. You could just have linked him to it or explained or something. :) Sticky Parkin 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my viewpoint, the worst effect of this frighteningly intense attack is that it is obscuring what I see as the main problem, the post from OM that I was responding to with the passage that he is complaining about, quote:

"Too many medical articles on this project have utter crap when discussing medications. Tryptophan or 5-HTP cannot treat depression under any condition, and picking one dumb-ass paper out of the millions published is an embarrassment. Do you really want to treat your spouse, your mother or yourself with tryptophan if you have MDD? I wouldn't. I think there's a CAM-wikipedia somewhere. Take this stuff there. Not here. I intend to remove any CAM crap from this article, and if Casliber blocks me for doing so, I'll respect that. However, if I'm mistaken and some of these useless therapies have shown to work as described in a fair number of real peer-reviewed journals, then I'm willing to eat humble pie. I don't see it however." -- OM

This argument is used to justify altering a statement in the article in a way that causes it to misrepresent its cited source. As far as I can see, this is the same kind of belligerently uncooperative style that led to the Arbcom proceedings, and that's what I was trying to say. I have a great deal of respect for OM, and think that the vast majority of his edits are excellent. But there have to be limits for everybody. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the mentorship outcome of the arbcom case, I've posted a comment on jpgordon's talk page for his awareness. I would expect he'd have the best opinion on the situation. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an outcome, it was voluntary on my part. Remember, it was the result of secret, vindictive, arbitrary, and hateful proceedings by one Arbcom member, FT2, without the support of any others. So please don't misrepresent what happened. If you want to complain about someone, go after FT2. Otherwise, the point of this situation is not me, but it's the patent misrepresentation of facts by Looie in an vain attempt to silence my opinion. WLU, whom I respect, is misinterpreting what is going on here. I am not the subject of this ANI. I did nothing but respond in a very appropriate way to an outright lie and fabrication by a fellow editor, so that his awful pro-CAM POV can be added to articles. I would appreciate it WLU if you would stick to the point of my ANI--someone lied in a most hurtful manner. There's nothing else to discuss, other than the full blocking of Looie from this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, you probably need to watch how you phrase things in future. I looked at this thread thinking it had been startd by User:Malcolm Schosha per his complaining in a thread above [21]. I was surprised to find it was a totally different person who was raisng this thread. Okay neither of the complainants seem to have the thickest of skins, but you seem to have irritated both in fairly quick succession.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, on this page, Looie496 made this statement about me [22], which includes this: virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view. A look at an article on POV pushing, which he accused me of, includes this list of characteristics of a POV pusher [23]. In the context of WP, POV pushing is a serious accusation, and if Looie496 thinks I am guilty of anything on this list, I will be happy to discuss it further. But Looie496 seems to have a pattern of making foundationless serious accusations against other users which are insulting, and apparently intended to undermine the credibility of those he criticizes. The apparent intent of destroying the credibility of editors is highly problematic and harmful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. There's no admin action to take here. OrangeMarlin, your show of bad faith in response to his clarification is shameful. And you can throw whatever you like at FT2, but when it comes down to it, there were serious issues raised in your case. The fact that you are demanding a block for this, claiming it is a "personal attack"... I don't even have words. You're in no position to be demanding apologies from anyone. لennavecia 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia, the role of people commenting is to deescalate a dispute, right? I'm not seeing your comment as helping to improve the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is extremely bad form to mention an users ArbCom sanction in an effort to "win" a content dispute. It seems to me that Looie496 muddied the water by talking about Orangemarlin prior conduct in this discussion. The fact that he mistated the situation makes it worse. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in OM's shoes, my response to such a statement would be simply, "You are mistaken about the ArbCom," and elaborate as needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, in a perfect world, OM would have not responded in a heated way. But in the real world people have different temperaments. OM has a legitimate complaint that I've heard from many of other users with current and past sanction. I think we need to make a point to remind users not to take discussions sideways by mentioning a persons past conduct. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. What's the value of a civility sanction if it can never be invoked? Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that many users have been blocked for less, but in this there has not been even a warning to Looie496. It seems true that Wikipedia is a virtual police state with club welding administrators keeping the slaves in line, but it would be nice to know that the punishments were being given out in something other than a random fashion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with mentioning someone's arbcom sanction- if the facts are correct. Unfortunately, Looie had gone on the case 'verdict' before it was altered, so had misunderstood the findings, for which he's apologised. Sticky Parkin 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention?! The way it was done was not a mention, but a cheap shot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cheap shot indeed -- and one of the reasons I came to the realization that "civility paroles" are not a good tool on Wikipedia is that they are used as bludgeons in precisely this manner, and the result, a disproportionate amount of the time, is escalation, just as we are seeing here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a cheap shot, and the guy who brought it up knew just which button to push. Everyone's different, but what matters here above all else is the content of wikipedia - to keep it a place where the casual reader to go to find information. If someone takes a cheap shot, it might sting, but does it interfere with the content of articles? That's the issue that should be the primary focus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a cheap shot, and the problem was that I didn't know which button to push, or I wouldn't have left myself open to such an obvious counterpunch. In one of the threads OM started a few days ago, somebody included a link to [24] or something similar. I read it, and the evidence, but was not aware that the decision had been vacated. In the evidence, I noted several instances of the same type of angry intimidation apparent in the passage I quoted above. Believing that it still applied, I cited it. I have apologized for that. I consider that in doing so I have taken the first step to de-escalate this. I don't think I am obligated to keep trying to de-escalate while OM keeps trying to escalate. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was just one, I would be more inclined to believe your innocent mistake excuse. But you did the same to me. I invited you [25] to explain just what it is that makes you think I am a POV pusher, and have gotten no reply. That was two cheap shots in one day (or was it two?). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right that stuff like this takes away from time that could be better spent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The right way for Looie to have handled this was to bring it here if he thought an ArbCom sanction was being violated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get him punished, I only wanted him to change his tactics in the dispute. Bringing it here would have been the last resort. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why this thread continued beyond here. Looie made an honest mistake; OM overreacted; Looie apologized. It wouldn't hurt if OM apologized for his part as well, but anything beyond that and a handshake seems like overkill. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin has a history of this; if he doesn't like you, you 'need to be blocked'. HalfShadow 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a reply at all from Looie496 about his accusation that I am a POV pusher. It was a cheap shot too, although the one against Orangemarlin was worse. Looie496 seems to see no need to respond to my challenge of that at all, and has continued to ignore my request for an explanation. In my view Looie496 is just trying hard to play innocent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to deal with this in the current thread, it's already too complicated. Start a new thread and I'll respond. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, this began with you responding to a forcefully put reminder of the essence of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE by alleging that it's "belligerent intimidation" and dragging in imaginary sanctions. Your response was completely out of order, and you should be presenting reliable sources to support the claims you want included, not trying to get people shut out for asking you in no uncertain terms to comply with policy and fringe guidance. If you acknowledge that it would be a great help. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read User_talk:Gppande#kokar --GPPande talk! 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks pretty open and shut to me. Two checkusers noted that both accounts used two identical IPs within minutes of each other and edited the same discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of User_talk:Privatemusings#curiosity_killed_the_crat, should the block on Everyme (talk · contribs) be reset/extended for this second incident of block evasion with socks? MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset. I can't really see any other course of action, seeing the blatant admission. A pity, because I like this editor - and he can be quite acute in his observations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset and extend for a further few weeks. Sorry, this is just deliberate and obvious trolling. Quite apart from the mention of the possibility of a "reset because of forbidden editing like this", the user, had he wished to contact PrivateMusings, had numerous other options - PM has email enabled, is a regular face on IRC, he even has a blog about his WP activities. The only reason to do it on wiki is to stir up a bit of drama. CIreland (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset, extend 6 months - Everyme has been around for more than long enough to know that blocks=people, not accounts. // roux   08:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset and double duration. Clear block evasion.  Sandstein  09:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warn, but no additional action - he did not create an additional account and commented under an IP. He is merely asking what appears to be a "friend" a question. I read his comment about "reset because of forbidden editing like this" as rhetorical, if not even a portion of self-deprecating humour. Warn him, let him go. ►BMW◄ 12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset, double block time - I had second thoughts about my earlier statement immediately after posting it. Subject is not just leaving a message, he is also editing mainspace pages. — neuro^(talk) 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extend. Obviously. User shows no signs of change of approach. The only question is whether he's deliberately trying to sabotage that other user's ArbCom nomination, and if not, just what his game is. Aside from the obvious, of feeling like he's on a crusade of some kind, to "balance" wikipedia, i.e. to violate POV rules as much as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200.109.222.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked twice for adding Brazilian charts (which fail WP:BADCHARTS into articles related to RBD, as have his socks Blandinocm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morocho12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's back at it today.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help?

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

He's been blocked for this before, his accounts have been blocked for this before, he's been warned multiple times, and he continues to insert bad chart information. It's a static IP, so a block won't have collateral damage. Please, a nice, long, hardblock? It's hard enough to try to clean these charts out of Wikipedia without having to revisit the same articles over and over because people keep trying to force bad charts into them.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for a week with a message in the block message about the disruption of continuing to add information from known unreliable sources. Block duration will get longer if the behavior continues. This editor is making some good edits but on balance is causing more harm then benefit to the project.--NrDg 17:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rvnx25 (talk • contribs)

1. First incident
2. Second incident
3. Third incident

Per above evidence, can any admin take action on the abovementioned guy? I think his action of harrassing three wiki users to make a point has gone too far! ...Dave1185 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's been warned now, and yeah, his editing does appear a bit obnoxious. Let us know if it keeps up. I wouldn't necessarily say that he's been harassing people per se, but he's not interacting in a particularly constructive manner. --Cyde Weys 01:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more anon users at the article talk page for Copernicus keeps posting irrelevant material (for example [30]). This is a violation of article talk page guidelines, in particular "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." and "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)". Additionally, the nature of these posts is that of trolling, with pretty much an obvious purpose of re-starting old edit wars and reverts that that article used to be plagued by. Following the last round of edit wars, a consensus compromise was worked out (no mention of nationality in the lead and a balanced nationality/ethnicity section, without undue weight given to the topic) and it should remain in place. Extremists on both side of the issue (like the Polish editor who keeps inserting "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer" into its lead) are basically trying to destabilize the situation again and spark another edit war. Since the comments currently being posted are 1) irrelevant and 2) have a destructive rather than a constructive purpose, they should be conscientiously deleted. I, and some of other editors have done this. However, user Matthead has been restoring the irrelevant posts and adding in his own irrelevant commentary. Matthead has gotten in trouble for edit waring on this kind of topic in the past. I would appreciate it if an administrator issued a warning to Matthead and made a comment on the article's talk page about the proper article talk guidelines. Thank you.radek (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Radek apparently had no problems with previous talk edits of another IP: Special:Contributions/99.225.147.123. Speaking of "problematic edits changing the history of where Danzig/Gdansk was located": We have the Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, which states "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively", to avoid edit warring about the city's background in countless biographies. See Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet for somebody who mainly edits bios of clearly German persons in such a way, since at least 2003 [31][32].-- Matthead  Discuß   02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As far as Space Cadet's edits, I have no idea what his edits are. Looking very quickly at some of his/her more recent edits of "clearly German persons" I see "diplomat of the city of Danzig (Gdańsk)." [33], "Fahrenheit was born in 1686 in Danzig" [34], "Sahm ... was a German/Danzig politician." [35] - so I don't see any evidence of your accusations.radek (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

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

According to Buffalo University, N.Y. Nicolaus Copernicus (the Prussian Mathematician- Prussus Mathematicus) was born in "Poland" [36] and the long history of Danzig is disregarded and merely described as Gdask Poland [37]. One can only wonder about the reason for the US University Buffalo to use Polish Communist era propaganda, without identifying it as propaganda. The site is pretty explanatory. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have been attempting to ad a quote from George Carlin to his bio and OhNoitsJamie ^Talk has done what he can to censor me.

He needs to be banned or at least lose his ability to ban others. --Georgelives (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page and discuss it. We aren't banning anyone here. But shoot, I'll ask him and see if he wants to explain himself here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an impartial non-admin, I took a look at the George Carlin page and I have to say that Ohnoitsjamie was in the right to remove the quote. The quote you added, while from Carlin, had nothing to do with the "Religion" section it was under. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:07

Carlin's belief that the earth can think qualifies as a form of pantheism and while I'm not sure if he should be labled as such the quote should stay none the less. --Georgelives (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring isn't the way to get that to happen. Talk with Jamie or do as Ricky81682 suggested, go to the talk page and discuss it there. Edit warring will only get you blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:20

If you look at the edit history it's clear that no matter what I did to reach a middle ground it wasn't good enough for jamie and he continued to wage an edit war. --Georgelives (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at your edits and you haven't tried talking to Jamie. Please try doing this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 01:34

What's the point if he's not going to change in the slightest? --Georgelives (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're failing to assume good faith by not trying. HalfShadow 02:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when he tells me (again) that my edit shouldn't be on the page and accuses me of being disruptive (again) for having posted a cited quote what then? --Georgelives (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you add the same thing over and over and over after it has been removed and the user has explained why, that is disruptive and potentially violating 3RR. So, show some good faith, and start up a conversation with Jamie. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 29, 2008 @ 02:51

The quote clearly did not belong in that section. As I noted in an edit summary, short quotes can be introduced into the article in the context of explaining one of the themes of his work. It's pointless and unencyclopedic to randomly toss in quotes. You were given plenty of warning to stop trying to make a WP:POINT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As much as I love GC, and I haven't gone through their contributions, but Georgelives might just have some WP:OWN issues, as it looks like a fan-SPA-account. ►BMW◄ 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite a press release clearly showing Led Zeppelin Radio moving to Channel 12 til December 31st,[38] an editor User:Bull-Doser has continued to change the channel from 12 to 33. This channel swapping has been going on for sometime now, mostly by anonymous edits and now by User:Bull-Doser. I would like to request that a lock be placed on the article from anonymous edits and an admin intervene if necessary to resolve the dispute. MegX (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection instead. I see that you are talking on his talk page, so I think this is moot now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a slew of accounts being created with the same basic naming convention of "Snappy19xx" and "Snappy20xx." I don't know what this guy has in mind, but experience tells me that there may be a sockpuppet farm in the works. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to list all of them below. This is every one that matches the literal search term "snappy" in the past 1500 accounts created.
• Snappy1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheSnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fakesnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Realsnappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Might be related to User:Snappy (who owns User:Snappy96 and was previously named User:Snappy56). Protonk (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't the server stop you after 20 accounts if you don't have the ACC tool? This is 21, unless I fail at counting. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you are IP hopping. John Reaves 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. So, what to do since none of the accounts have edited? I left word with the 1999 version, but no answer. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a trip to requests for Checkuser and see what they have to say. This many identically-named accounts seem to be pretty obvious evidence of ill intent. // roux   08:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snappy here, I created those accounts but I forgot to put the doppelganger template in. I had some trouble recently with User:Bell V Bell who created many impersonator accounts [39] of me. I think I might have gone overboard in creating doppelganager accounts though! Snappy (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF being what it is, I have struck my previous comments. // roux   09:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to strike them in my view, Roux. I fail to see how creating 20 or so accounts can be done with improving the encyclopedia in mind. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, assume good faith. If these accounts are not intended to be used, but are only intended to block the namespace, go ahead and indefinitely block all of them. Since the creator has assured us that he doesn't intend to edit with them, you will only be making sure his wishes are honored.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a single-purpose sockpuppet/meatpuppet over at an AfD discussion. User's first edit was to C&P someone else's user page to his own. The same AfD article has been getting a lot of anon hits as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all who said that I copy-pasted the user page of another user. That IS my user page and that user IS me. I just decided I want to change my username because the old one was, well, getting old. Check your facts buddy before accusing people.Megatron85 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as sock of Top Gun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose sock's userpage he copied. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Statement redacted per WP:BLP,  Sandstein  09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budhhiyogo (talk • contribs) 09:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. No admin action requested. This should be closed. // roux   09:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

116.212.192.14 (talk · contribs) has added details of a book (example, with no obvious relevance, to the bibliographies of several articles. I think this may be spam, but could be wrong. (I looked for a "spam noticeboard", but couldn't find one.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I am rolling these back. Please report any recurrence. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WT:SPAM is where all the cool spam-fighting kids hang out; it's the closest thing I've found to a "spam noticeboard." --ElKevbo (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please would an experienced admin take a look at this diff and inspect the edit made that appears to impersonate another user. Please then take whatever action is necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that intention of the said user was simply a reaction to my comment. Considering that s/he is a new user and has been informed of the mistake, I think we can ignore it at the moment. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vendergood1's only edit is to create Millard Brunton and attempt to redirect Lew Brown to it. Ordinarily I would just let this grind through AFD but there seems to be a BLP angle to this. The article purports to have a photo of the subject, but it's plain that the picture is recent and not of a sixty year old. I suggest the photo at least ought to be oversighted. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was on Commons, uploaded by the hoaxer and not used elsewhere; I have tagged it for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and it's gone. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceedjee has been struggling, against a clear consensus view of many other editors, to remove the category Zionist terrorism from the article Irgun. He has demanded sources which explicitly use this phrase, insisting that those who refer to the Irgun as Zionist do not call it terrorist, while those who call it terrorist do not specify that this is "Zionist terrorism". In the course of this, he has made personal attacks on User:Peter cohen[40], [41]. When I removed one such attack from my own talk page[42], he immediately reposted it[43].

When I provided several sources confirming the usage that he objected to,[44], he responded by refactoring my comments to make it appear that I was haranguing and shouting at him, and he mocked me, including questioning my ability to contribute to Wikipedia because I am the target of a notorious vandal and wikistalker.[45] After I objected, and posted a warning notice about refactoring comments on his talk page, he sent me a hostile email, demanding that I withdraw the warning.

In response, he has just posted a comment on my talk page, including my name and email address[46], followed by a string of hostile comments -- all of which I have now removed. Since he is clearly aware of my harassment by the serial vandal, this posting is at best irresponsible, and could even be seen as encouraging the vandal to harass me by email.

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

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

I have just seen that he also, without explanation, posted my name and email on his own talk page[47], though he later removed this.RolandR (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(edit clash) Ah, I had been just thinking of putting together a case myself. Very briefly on the minor issue of the posts against me, Ceedjee keeps claiming that I haven't provided sourceds despite these posts of mine [48],[49], [50], all of which are replies to his own posts on the article talk page and thus not buried somewhere he was unlikely to notice them. However, I can live with the posts that he makes against me which are rather unintersting compared with what the JIDF were saying.

It is when Ceedjee starts talking about Roland's stalker [51] as part of a WP:POINT-scoring exercise that things get beyond the pale. As far as I know, User:Runtshit is the most eprsistent vandal on the English Wikipedia and is expected to reach 1000 identified sock accounts by the middle of next year. The vandal also appears to be active elsewhere on the web (see conversations I've had with Roland on his talk page). Yesterday, as soon as I noticed Ceedjee taunting Roland about Runtshit on the article talk page, I posted [52]. However, today I noticed the additional material on Roland's talk page. And please note that if the email address is being WP:Oversighted that Ceedjee has also WP:OUTed Roland on his own talk page. [53] --Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only edtis he has done contains of either personal attacks ([54] & [55]) or edit warring (as seen in his contribution history). Most likely his also a sock puppet of Am6212 (talk · contribs). The TriZ (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]