A few seemingly California-based editors with an axe to grind appear intent on inserting blatantly POV statements, speculations, largely irrelevant essentially current events material and otherwise blatantly prejudicial information on Dellums. It is fairly obvious the intent is to try to skew public/voter opinion. (Dellums is a declared candidate in the Oakland mayoral race.) Prominent among the offenders isUser:Justforasecond, who repeatedly has reverted deletions or reasonable edits of some pretty tackily written and prominently formatted information about Dellums' family life. Given the recent Seigenthaler episode, I should think there would be some care taken to avoid embroiling Wikipedia in another media incident over the disparaging of prominent public figures -- particularly those running for public office. This article needs immediate and decisive attention and warrants watching.Deeceevoice12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

givus a break. ron dellums is a *factual* article, siegenthaler was not.Justforasecond16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual verifiability is very important to Wikipedia, but so is theneutral point of view and our policy againstoriginal research.Superm401 -Talk21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There may be a problem atWikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board - at least, people are complaining to me about it. Is it appropriate for it to:

• List an RFCRequests for comment/Aucaman under their "urgent attention" header
• Ditto a user, MB?
• List some articles as "Attacked by User:Zora and User:Ahwaz"?

These seems to me like the noticebaord is being used for factionalism. Comments welcome.

William M. Connolley12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for taking up this question. I might add that I brought up the same issue at the RfC in question (seeWikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman#Outside View by Lukas Pietsch (II), and have pleaded personally with two of the Iranian editors involved ([1],[2]). The response has not been particularly positive so far ([3]), but as of today, somebody else has started cleaning it up and removing the worst bits ([4]). You probably saw the partly cleaned-up version already; it was worse until this morning, with an explicit black-list of alleged Anti-Iranian users who "need to be watched" and other such stuff.Lukas^(T.|@)13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't start that board. Secondly, I have only ever made one post to that board and that was regarding the situation withRuhollah Khomeini (which was basically ignored). I don't know why you thought my response wasn't "particularly positive" but I wonder why it should be my responsibility to fix the problems there when I have only made one edit to that page? Simply because I happen to be of Iranian background or because I am involved in Iranian articles? It should be left to the responsibility of those who have been most involved with the page.SouthernComfort16:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my unclear use of the word "involved" above. I had addressed you because (a) I thought you as one of the more experienced and respected editors in the "Iranian" group would be in a position to exert some positive influence; and (b) because you were centrally involved back in the events that led to the confrontational atmosphere between Zora et al and the Iranian group, which seems to be the background to the present situation.Lukas^(T.|@)17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize as well if I came across as being "curt" but quite frankly I am tired of what you have correctly termed "factionalism." As I have just related on another talk page, I am tired of all the accusations that we all throw around so freely, of the racism (both subtle and overt) displayed by those who choose an extreme, of those who are unwilling to compromise or to communicate properly like human beings and discuss things civilly so that we can actually get down to how everything actually is. We are trying to have a society here, a civilization - and both online and in the "physical" realm all we see is a persistent breakdown in both civility and communication. Where does it end?SouthernComfort17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Iranian Wikipedians' notice board is meant to inform users who are knowledgeable on the various Iranian subjects to participate in the maintenance of Iran-related articles and improve their encyclopedic quality and reliability. There are doezns of similiarRegional notice boards to help knowledgeable editors collaborate with each other in order to improve a specific set of articles. --ManiF13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You miss the point. I'm not complaining about the *existence* of the board - thats entirely sensible. There are many other boards, but of the few I sampled - e.g.Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board - none listed anyone as "attacking"; the few sections on disputes described them neutrally. The Iran one looks far from neutralWilliam M. Connolley16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Each notice board has its own format. Many notice boards such asWikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics are similar in format to the Iranian notice board where users describe their own account of the incidents. Simply put, anyone and everyone is welcome to contribute to the Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, the project is neutral and does not endorse the opinions and the views of individuals who participate in the project. --ManiF17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:ManiF has made an effort to clean that notice board up by deleting the section "Users to keep a watch on", which looked like a personal campaign against four users with explicit mention of the ethnicity of three of them. This removes part of the problem, but there is still some elements where its states "attacked by so and so ..." which are inflammatory. However, I think that there is a need for such a page so long as it does not have an agenda against individual users.--Ahwaz14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to actually say this, but having known WMC, I think he is sort of a fair guy, and I feel the editors of the noticeboard should refrain from some of the sections they have been inserting, simply because we end up looking like the same person for whom we set up an Rfc page for, who posts help requests in the discussion pages of others. We really are not helping ourselves, although I`ve got to say users like Lukas seem to suffer from a clear case of double standards, since he is hitting the talk pages of many and identifying many editors as problem editors, which in a weird way, this noticeboard was doing as well (both are wrong). So, I dare say let`s keep the page, yet, unconditionally, erase any segments where it refers to certain users as attacking the articles. I`d say simply write certain articles are being vandalized (which with Iran being in the media a lot these days, they often are ), like in this case[5], or need clean up. Other than that, I think the board can serve as a good bridge between intreseted editors and certain specific articles.Zmmz18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. We can mention which pages are under "attack" without actually naming any specific users. Fair enough.--Zereshk23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Two more for the fire:Jonnox (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andWoolwich_Matt (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) have been blocked indefinitely for urging people who "want to editIain Lee" to edit a cut-and-paste version of it dumped intoBriefs. I'd appreciate if a few more admins could keep an eye on Briefs...tho I am tempted to put a semi on it and move protection, since they did pagemove vandalism yesterday (check Flcelloguy's move log for the repairs). We may or may not hear from themonotonous piping of unseen ip addresses calling for my blood later today onWP:ANI. --Syrthiss12:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rozgred (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Syzzamundo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Intheiderem (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Apreacherofiar (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• ZZZZAZZZAZZZAZZUM (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

...emerged from the nuclear chaos that is Azathoth as well. --Syrthiss20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This subject is already being discussed on the notice boardSelf promotion spam but I started a new notice because this has taken an ugly turn.Ati3414 so strongly feels that people removing his selfpromotion spam is a personal attack that after he got blockedfor adding hisown name to the list of notable Romanian americans multiple times, that he called my local police and tried to report harassment.

I think / hope that if enough people besides myself explain to him that this is not a personal attack, but trying to maintain policy and consensus, that he will eventually calm down and remove his spam and contribute to the articles instead.

As a side note,User:Socrunchy and several others thatAti3414 sporatically calls my SockPuppets are in actuality just other editors removing his spam as well. Some of the newer editors go to the same school as me, so I do indeed know them in real life, but I fail to see the relevance of that. They are allowed to edit as well. And there are several veteran editors trying to combat his spam as well.

I should also mention (as I have toAti3414) that besides the self-promotion reason, I and others have been removing his links because:

• The papers are often not on the topic of the article and sometimes not even relevant in any manner.
• The papers often contain large direct copies from other works / plagarism.
• Some of the papers contain misunderstanding of the material and should not be included as a information source.

Due to the ridiculous heights this dispute has risen to, I think it is best if I bow out of this discussion to helpAti3414 come to consensus about how to handle the spam. I really do pray that everyone get this undercontrol.

Thank you.Gregory913:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Ati3414 for a month for off-Wiki harassment and to give us time enough to work this out. He's lucky I had just enjoyed a good lunch, or he'd have been indefinitely blocked. Clearly, this is vanity. Clearly, it is inappropriate and there is no need for the previously-mooted RfC. I'm inclined to bulk-remove all of his additions and be absolutely firm on the fact that theystay removed. -Splash^talk14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By "additions" I mean his self-promotional additions. He has a good number of otherwise-decent (at a first examination anyway) edits. Most of his promo work has already been removed, and I've removed the remaining 2 or 3 instances. -Splash^talk14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a false police report is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions.*Dan T.*14:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but, that's not quite correct: it is a legal offense toknowingly file a false report; not so if a person reports what (s)hethinks is a crime, when it actually is not.RadioKirktalk to me16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think at the very least (i.e. if he's going to be blocked before his side of the story is heard) the blocking admin should place a{{block}} template onto his page so that he knows how to appeal. At the moment all it says is "you're blocked". --kingboyk14:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't stand that template. He'll get avery long set of instructions on how to flame me when he tries to edit. -Splash^talk14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Hadn't seen that before. Maybe that message should be modified to include the{{unblock}} template? I'll take that suggestionover there. --kingboyk15:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't legal threaths validate an indefinite block? --Chris 73 |Talk15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. This user has claimed ownership of a deleted and redirected article i.e.How to calculate Earth's Age. That was last month, when the article was nominated forAFD, I voted on the article to redirect toAge of the Earth. Another user and admin also voted the same. We then got messages on our talk pages that this was his article, don't mess around with it, if you have any doubts ask me. This went on for sometime, until a failedRequest for mediation came along regarding an external link. Well, I'm not surprised to see this user being blocked for a month regarding his actions. Calling the police regarding Wikipedia harassment, this is totally absurd. Well, this is a severe offence worldwide for calling the police for unnecessary matters. Self promotion is definitely not acceptable on Wikipedia. This is vanity. Off-wiki harassment is worse still. I believe a month's block is fine, unless he creates sockpuppets, then that is the time to block him indefinitely. --Terence Ong15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify :) If he called the police and alleged harassment, I support anindefinite block. However, it's currently one word against nothing at the moment. That was all I meant. --kingboyk15:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gregory9 can you provide some proof of this call to the police? Without that it's just your word against his. Now he probably earned a block for his other activities anyway, but a legal threat/action clearly calls for an indefinite block. Don't necessarily add the evidence on Wiki, but email Splash, the blocking admin or another with a way they can verify the claim. -Taxman^Talk16:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The two editors appear to know each others names, judging from the conversation onUser:Gregory9. The connection between them appears to be fairly local and Gregory9 hasn't exhibited the symptoms of a troll or a distasteful user. That's enough for me until someone claims stridently otherwise. -Splash^talk16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats only applies to threats on wiki. However, this particular block is valid as a response to legally baseless intimidation.Superm401 -Talk21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of proof you want, as by the very nature of it I have no physical proof. I can supply you with the officer's name and phone number and you can check yourself I guess. Is that good enough?

Since this latest incident was against me, can I request some leniency? It was annoying being contacted by the police, but they told me right off the bat that they looked into it and didn't feel this was a matter to involve the authorities in. We shook hands and that was it. So, in short, I don't feel this is worthy of blocking him indefinitely. AsSplash mentioned himself, in the volumes of spamming, there were some cases whereAti3414 added worthwhile content. I think we should be trying to encourage this side of him instead of punishing him. He may have issues that prevent him from listenning to other people or being able to question his own actions, but he seems to be a smart guy. Which just makes this all the more sad.

Please, error on the side of helping him instead of punishing him. Thank youGregory916:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make international phone calls to confirm a block on Wikipedia. I'm also not going to set a precedent for admins needing to go to such lengths to confirm a block. He has a dead easy way to get himself unblocked: a message either on his talk page or in my inbox apologising and promising to stop the spam campaign. Also, blocking is not a punishment, it is a remedy for a situation. A 24 hour block didn't achieve anything, he's on the road to an indefinite block and so a month seemed pretty lenient. -Splash^talk16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"This whole issue's looks complex...perhaps you may want to ask the admin noticeboard for a third opinon?" said Mailer Diablo 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC). So:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_Haley&curid=4348587&diff=44184272&oldid=44176798

Ombudsman restored the venom. ... I'd think that tactless at least. Had you seen the discussion aroundWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Fletcher (Deleted, deletion review in progress[6]) and the closing admin's comments there? This is of a piece withTalk:anti-vaccinationists and with the currentWikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Leifern/Accusations_by_Midgley#.5B.5BUser:Leifern.2FAccusations_by_Midgley.5D.5D with Ombudsman and Liefern in explicit alliance, and tacitly working with Liefern and "The original invisible anon" who is actuallyUser:86.10.231.219 as a cabal.Midgley18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Devised byDanny,Gmaxwell, and others, this is the place to get things done. List specific tasks, complete specific tasks. Collect points for glory and fame. — • 2006-03-17 07:39

I can't pretend to know exactly what is going on, but userUser:Seanver appears to be on a personal attack binge againstes:Usuario:George McFinnigan akaUser:George McFinnigan ie and involving a number of Es people and their user pages here. Seanver has:

• Replaced most or all content on the following user pages:
  • User:Willtron
  • User:George McFinnigan ie
  • User:Taichi
  • User:Rsg
  • User:CHV
  • User:Yrithinnd
  • User:Maldoror
  • User:Hispa
  • User:Jorgechp
• Edits were marked as 'minor'
• Appears to have just barely stayed within the 3RR bounds a couple times, and possibly then only because rarely challenged as yet
• Content contained forged signatures, implicatinges:Usuario:George McFinnigan
• Has done most of this in the last 2 days, the rest in the prior 2 days
• And the content contained the phrase "en colaboración con la Campaña Anti-McFinnigan" which sure sounds like a personal attack

I've put a strong 'second' warning onUser_Talk:Seanver, but I think noone has previously understood the extent of the abuse. I didn't know what kind of warning to put there, as the abuse covers so many bases.

I just happened to come across all this, and spent quite awhile cleaning up. But what to do now? Help!

They'reat it again! (19:34, 17 March 2006 (hist) (diff) mUser:Yrithinnd (top))

Help! Help!Shenme19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I blockedUser:Seanver indefinitely yesterday for disruption and vandalism. I had posted toWP:ANI but after no response, sawUser:Sean Black blockUser:Blisz, who is also involved, indefinitely, and so followed suit. Note to self, be more pro-active. Note to other admins, feel free to review block.Hidingtalk21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This user says he's been blocked (autoblocked?) on his talk page, but I couldn't find anything in the logs for his username or the IP in question. Can someone look into this? --nae'blis_(talk)22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

He needs to tell us the IP that has been blocked, and we can hard unblock it (that is, unblock the IP directly) which will clear any autoblocks. Autoblocks on IPs are masked and not listed in the user's blocklog, the IP's blocklog, or the admin's blocklog to prevent association of IPs with users.10:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He gave an IP on his talk page, does that not come up with anything? Surely someone has access to that restricted area of the logs... --nae'blis_(talk)15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The above article, started by myself, was deleted byUser:JzG without prior warning or discussion.SouthernComfort00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion history it seems the official reason is that it's reposting of deleted material - which is a speedy criteria.NSLE_(T+C) at 01:00UTC(2006-03-18)

But as I told JzG, I didn't repost anything. I had no idea about the previous article that had been deleted. I noticed there was no article about the man, and being knowledgeable about the subject, I decided to go ahead and start it. And then it gets deleted just like that. That's not right and it's not assuming good faith.SouthernComfort01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the article was about a verifiable individual who is also a published author, so I see no grounds for such deletion. Isn't that grounds enough for inclusion on WP?SouthernComfort01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Everybody in the phonebook is verifiable, but that doesn't mean we need an article on them. And I certainly don't see a need for one on this guy. The re-speedy was valid perWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet. Beyond that this is not the place to discuss undeletion of a validly deleted article. -Taxman^Talk01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just realized that after discovering the "deletion review" page, which I didn't know about as I typically go out of my way to avoid these mundane admin areas. Thanks.SouthernComfort01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody is welcome to participate in the deletion review process, not only administrators. ·Katefan0^(scribble)/poll20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the ethereal admin areas? ;) --Syrthiss13:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the admin plane is awesome; too bad we can't let the rest of the rabble in. --maru(talk)contribs17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my Talk and directed the complainant toWP:DRV. The two did not seem that different to me, not that I am infallible or anything, and the AfD was recent enough that consideration of the subject then is almost certainly still valid now. DRV is already considering this.Just zisGuy you know?21:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Intel reps have beenrepeatedlydisputingthe viiv articleI am not knowledgeable about VIIV, but someone here might. (Oh, and, someone contact Intel PR and tell them the proper way to edit Wikipedia)

Note: The edits have been coming fromjffwpr05.jf.intel.com it seems to be some kind of proxy for all intel employees and it includes good edits too.68.211.96.5420:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

They've been given a talk page notice to maintain NPOV.Stifle21:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I also posted a{{sharedip}}. If they keep editing inappropriately, contact abuse@intel.com . They will probably be able to trace it to the person responsible if you provide exact times (fromSpecial:Contributions/134.134.136.5).Superm401 -Talk21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a faux pas for Intel to add a (likely unofficial) response to this article. But they did have a point that the article was biased. I don't think we should contact the abuse team - although they didn't correct the article in the most appropriate way, they were correct to point out the article's anti-DRM bias.Rhobite21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've acted boldly after mediating this matter for some 18-20 hours. I can use an Admin to help me close this more ordinarily than this temporary:Iterim Notice of Resolution. All parties want to stop the 'Talk Page Noise' and get onto life.
• I'm mainly just looking for what might be done to cut 'N' paste from the threads given Tony S and my talk, into the original document, or whether the RFC can just be archieved before I put the INUSE on it. I'm waiting for guidance. The time pressure is from the co-complainants who realize (realise) this was the improper measure/venue.
• If this seems unclear, it should be very clear by examining the above link and where it leads you as well asUser talk:fabartus. Most clearly the second complainantslink shows the matter resolved taken with my less organized and chronological talk. My communications with Mel have been mainly via email, but I assure you he'll be glad to see the end of this. Ideas anyone?FrankB22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I madethis andthis edit. Then Mel makesthis andthis edit. I'm puzzled.WAS 4.25000:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Could you be a little more specific about what you're looking for?TenOfAllTrades(talk)05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel's reverts of his edits as if they were vandalism.Mike_(TC)05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

0waldo was blocked for 3RR (he was also violatingWP:CIVIL). He is evading the block by editing from other IPs (see the edit history onUser talk:Cburnett). Policy is to lengthen the block time on someone who deliberately evades their block, right? Could someone please lengthen 0waldo's block?

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this; wasn't quite sure whether it should maybe go on one of the pages connected toWP:AIV or whether it should go here.

Thanks!

Hbackman04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I explain in detail how I deal with posts on my user talk page,Metros232 andMisza13 keep revertingon my page. Could someone please stop them?ROGNNTUDJUU!16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are reverting becauseUser:ROGNNTUDJUU! is removing warning notices (though he states that he simply reverts vandalism).Misza13^TC16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A warning that I shall not edit my own page? Could you please just stop?ROGNNTUDJUU!16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Youdon'town the page.Misza13^TC16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No one says I own my page, but I am entitled to remove posts after I answered them. You are not entitled to revert me. It is as simple as that. Now please start using your time in a reasonable way.ROGNNTUDJUU!16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FromWP:TP:

1. If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you may archive it. You may then remove comments from your talk page, but please make sure that those comments are readily accessible on another page.
2. FurthermoreWP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

--Misza13^TC16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User has been removing any negative comments he received from his user talk page and displacing them to other pages, but retains only a few comments that are neutral towards his "cause." The user has also violateddon't use Wiki to make a point on various occassions and has been hostile towards numerous users. He has engaged in mass-spamming of user talk pages by posting the same copy and pasted comments to each page and then gets upset when they dislike the fact that he's being hostile towards them.--Metros23216:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting "vandalism" warnings to someone because you do not like how he/she deals with posts is vandalism itself. I am not hostile to anyone, I just asked those who crossed out the EU flag for some respect of those who feel represented by it. I showed respect to them by letting them know instead of just getting their picture deleted as was done before. Several users agreed with me, and some removed the picture. I leave honest comments on my talk page even if I do not agree with them but prefer to keep discussions together. I explain this on my talk page, and if you do not agree this does not mean you should revert on other users' talk pages.ROGNNTUDJUU!16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not thatI don't like your way of dealing with posts - it's against the rules. Again: why don't you justarchive it?Misza13^TC16:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I choose not to archive, everything stays in the history anyways. Many users do so, just respect it.ROGNNTUDJUU!16:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point something out to BOTH involved parties, while impolite to remove talk page comments, it is also bad to edit war, "However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring." (from talk page help page). Please take this through the dispute resolution process, instead of edit warring and using this as a venue to fight.Mike_(TC)16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am however not willing to accept vandalism on my talk page, and I do not think the 3RR rule was created in order to force users to keep absurd warnings on their talk pages.ROGNNTUDJUU!16:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not vandalism however. IT is a legit message on your talk page. My suggestion, reply to it on your talk page and archive it. Deleting comments after you reply to them is acceptable, i am unsure about warnings however. Best to archive.Mike_(TC)16:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As you write yourself, "Deleting comments after you reply to them is acceptable", so warning someone else for it is absurd and doing it repeatedly after being asked to stop is vandalism.ROGNNTUDJUU!17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck, may I remind you that wikipedia is not meant to be a place to aggress each other? Many users like to keep their pages clean and do not archive, so you should not single out one and revert on his talk page.De mortuis...17:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are these "warnings" and who issued them? I've checked some of the reverts and I don't see any legitimate warnings. Furthermore, if anyone is acting in good faith it'sUser:ROGNNTUDJUU! who seems to be fighting a one man battle against a divisive image, the presence of which can't be helping our encyclopedia in any way.

Unless there's some hard evidence of real wrong doing, I suggest you all take your petty squabble away from the admins noticeboard and get back to writing the enyclopedia.Misza - as far as I know you're not an admin, it might be best if you left the enforcing and citing of rules to those of us who are. --kingboyk18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The hell? Kingboyk, anyone can "cite" rules, and certain rules can be enforced by any user in good standing. Your attempt to prevent non-admins from getting involved smacks of a division and factionalism, and can't be helpful in the current environment. --nae'blis_(talk)18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it originated fromROGNNTUDJUU! noticing the userbox with the crossed UN flag. He started mass-posting to talk pages of users bearing the userbox, talking about "respect". I probably responded to one such post which resulted in him taunting me as well. Discussions went for a while untilthis edit after which I unfortunately couldn'tassume good faith anymore. All the rest is both sides (yes, including me) getting hot and into arevert war.

Anyway, everything seems to cool down now and we hopefully can go back to writing an encyclopedia. Finally, I agree withnae'blis above - can't regular users remind of policies as well?Misza13^TC18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolved.Misza13^TC18:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You're "warning" him about something which is just impolite and not a blockable offence (many users remove comments rather than archiving them), and then calling him a vandal for removing the "warning". That's why I caution to leave well alone. Anyone can cite rules, absolutely, but it's best to get them right and - more importantly - it's better to try and find common ground than to go waving the rule book. As for enforcement, revert after revert isn't the way to go about it, surely? If he's truly a vandal he should be blocked as per policy, and a non-admin can't do that.

All that said, I doapologise if anyone felt I was being divisive. Perhaps I would have been best advised to stick to the fundamentals of my message, which was: this is all a petty squabble, let it pass,let's write an enyclopedia. --kingboyk18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolved, lovely. Peace and happiness is restored. Now let's grab a coffee. --kingboyk18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing impolite in his way to keep discussion together. Well sure you can remind someone of the rules, but posting absurd warnings and reverting when they get removed with an edit summary indicating that what you wrote had already been answered is not encouraged. I think if you are not an administrator you should not post a warning at all as this would just lead to all those who have disagreements with others posting warnings at each other and claiming "vandalism" whenever the warnings get deleted.De mortuis...18:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Only admins should be able to post vandalism warnings?Superm401 -Talk22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Since many admins (even I) have gotten lazy with WP:PP, and some of the listings are outdates/incomplete, I developed quick listing/tagging AND unlisting script. It is available atUser:Voice of All/adminnolupin/monobook.js (no popups) orUser:Voice of All/admin/monobook.js (popups). These are stable versions, I only experiment on my own, and copy over once it works (from User:Voice of All/monobook.js). These tabs can automagically delist with the click of a button (to the protected page in edit mode).

SeeUser:Voice_of_All/Useful for more info. This is for Firefox/Netscape browsers (i.e. browsers that know how to read java worth 2 cents).

There isreallyNO excuse to not list now :).^|@|06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Still not coming back to PP or RfPP but awesome. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)}07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please...people...use "*" instead of "* ". The space sometimes causes1-2 extra entries to be removed (if two+ of the ones right after the one in question have those annoying pointless spaces too). the article to not be recongnized. I'll see if I can fix this bug, but is much easier to just list consistantly.^|@|07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've set it to just give an error message, as opposed to risking extra removals.^|@|07:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like everything is about how I want it now. Many things are recognized :).^|@|06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• MB (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) Hi, I`m reporting this user for vandalism, he was warned a couple of times about this revertion[7]. See what action is warranted, perhaps a block? ThanksZmmz21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definatly not worth a block. One edit in a day, and no clear consensus about the text on the talk page. --InShaneee02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page of the article there is a clear consensus there. The material is a translation of the historian for whom the article is named after, and it is relevant to that section; it does come with ample references from R. N. Frye of Harvard and others. The user continues to erase that section, despite good intentioned warnings, although, as of today, he has been eerily quite. ThanksZmmz02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI,Ambi andEssjay have been given checkuser rights. Seehere andhere.TacoDeposit21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

GOOD!! Best news in a long long time! Especially Essjay, probably one of the most active people on here, he will help clear it up I hope!Mike_(TC)01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ambi have already had it as a former member of arbcom?Mike_(TC)04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:82.42.237.114, He promised to stop the vandalism, and I gave him a few rules to read in the meantime. He sounds serious, and is almost begging to be unblocked.Whopper00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the interests of assuming good faith, I have unblocked this user.Joyous |Talk00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that people can vandalise articles and the like ? I've heard rumors and scuttlebutt about this going on only on April Fools Day.Martial Law00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC):)

People can vandalise articles any day of the year. They'll get blocked for it just the same onApril 1. And there was an arbitration case after last year's foolishness, I believe. -Splash^talk00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Since April fools end at noon, which time zone would this be in? April fools is another stupid day that people try to use as an excuse to act out in ways they wouldn't normally.Mike_(TC)01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope rules against the vandalism and other antics that appear on April Fools' Day really are enforced. I don't want to call anyone out, but the participation by some admins and bureaucrats last year was disheartening and only served to make other users believe April Fools' pranks were okay.joturner01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Users interested in vandalising on April 1 are encouraged to do so on their own user and user talk pages and nowhere else. ;D -A Man In(conspire |past ops)02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say free reign for civil, non offensive, fun pranks on USER PAGES. But article space, forget it.Mike_(TC)03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope we all intend on enforcing the vandalism policy for April fools just as we would for any other day. I suppose we may have to take an extra step of assume good faith and warn everyone first, but more pranks in article space after a warning is grounds for blocking. As I've said here and elsewhere, there are plenty of people in meatspace to goof around with, there's no need for the pranks to be in articles, especially not on the main page. -Taxman^Talk21:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See also:Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page. --LV^{(Dark Mark)}03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Inmy area, April 1 starts at midnight, ends at midnight,April 2Martial Law04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC):)

Here is a good idea: Pick a User who isnot a Admin tobe one, but only for April Fools DayONLY, so that the User will experience what it is to be like a Admin. I've heard that in some areas of the planet during the Middle Ages, roles between the rulers and those ruled got reversed for this one and only day. Isthis a good idea ?!Martial Law04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC):o :)

I hope that wasn't serious.joturner04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just making some inquiries.Martial Law04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC):)

One could ask the boss to appoint a user to be a Admin, but for April Fools only, and only for April Fools, but have a different User appointed every year. Isthat a good idea ?Martial Law04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC):o :)

Anyone we can trust with admin access for a day should probably just be promoted to admin, I would think. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we call the contest "Be a janitor for the day!" and see how many applications come in. And you are right, anyone with the powers for a day should have them forever.Mike_(TC)06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC):)

"You have created 6 accounts, which exceeds the maximum allowable limit. As a result, you cannot create any more accounts at the moment."

• Used to be 10, what happened?--152.163.100.20003:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused why anyone would need 6 accounts nevermind 10!Mike_(TC)03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

AOL users get this message all the time.User:Zoe|^(talk)03:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to the anon) - People are using them to go on vandalism sprees while avoiding the autoblocker. Cutting it down from 10 to 6 was a necessary measure.Raul65403:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say "you" instead of "this IP address" or "your IP address"? --Kjkolb07:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody had changed it yet. I just did it (it's atMediaWiki:Acct creation throttle hit, if you want to propose a better wording). --cesarb16:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it further. I would appreciate someone checking I got it right.Sam Korn^(smoddy)21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it some more.Rd232^talk21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On theKurdistan webpage user:Diyako added a claim that the Kurdish flag is criminal in Iran. He cited bogus non-existant cites as verification after the issue was clearly pointed out on the talk page recently and in the past. This is gross falsification of articles. For references bless see my talk page and the administrator I asked to get involved's talk page. I asked user:InShaneee to act on the issue, but the adminstator did nothing and said it was basically okay as long as any web page is given. That is ridicuolous and an insult to everything Wikipedia stands for. Additionally this user was warned just before that for personal attacks and instigation with offensive terms that he uses continually. I would like to see some action taken. TheKurdistan andIranian peoples are constantly vandalized and falsified by this user and user:Acuman who has made racist attacks and personal attacks on other editors who are asking for neutrality or reasonable articles. I offer my talk pages and theKurdistan talk page as evidence and the section with the flag and the sources used. Once agin it was clearly pointed out that these were phoney sources and for this behaviour to stop.Manik66604:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* For the record, I simply told him that if they're bad sources to say so, and hopefully get a counter-source to prove it. And Aucaman's warning was not nearly as dire as it sounds here. --InShaneee04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make my case clearly enough, and I'd be happy to do so. CWSB was instrumental in the careers of the four authors. Willingham went on to his DC comics work, much of which was related to his stories in Clockwork Storybook. Now fellow CWSB founder Matthew Sturges is working WITH Willingham on his new Fable spin-off series for Vertigo. Chris Roberson launched a new publishing company, Monkeybrain Books, specializing in printing non-fiction genre books, as well as establishing his chops as a novelist and short story writer. Mark Finn wrote some fiction and turned his attention to non-fiction work as well and is now one of the more recognized Robert E. Howard scholars in the country. Maybe a couple of the wiki reviewers never heard of Clockwork Storybook, but a Google search of any of the four authors above with Clockwork Storybook produces many results for their books, the reviews of same, and comments about the work they did. Seems valid enough for me, and likewise for something as all-encompassing as Wikipedia.Solomon Kane04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can take this up withdeletion review, and try to get the article undeleted. Alternately, you can write a new article that better establishes notability, or insert info on the work on CWSB into the articles on the (apparently notable) authors. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the policy on a user blanking his own talk page? I know that it's considered "bad form" (perWP:3RR#User pages), and many editors will revert a user who blanks his talk page, but is there actually a policy or guideline against it? I've been trying to explainWP:V to a rather obstinate editor, and his response has been to make vague threats and blank his user page — nothing severe, but certainly not in the spirit ofWP:CIVIL. I'm not mentioning the user's name because I don't think it would necessarily be helpful for a horde of admins to descend upon him — I want to defuse the situation and get him to leave the (non-templated) warnings on his user page, not get him blocked. —Josiah Rowe(talk •contribs)06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen it, butWikipedia:Talk_page#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F makes it suufficiently clear to me that this isA Bad Thing.Superm401 -Talk06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. Unfortunately, the user's attitude seems to be "if it's not explicitly against the rules, I'm gonna keep doing it,yah boo sucks." —Josiah Rowe(talk •contribs)06:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the page could be more explicit. Would it help if I put a guideline tag on it?Superm401 -Talk06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another admin has warned the user not to continue blanking his talk page. We'll see if he gets the message this time. —Josiah Rowe(talk •contribs)13:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is the admin who deletes userpage imageswithout informing the user? That is rude, to say the least. Please check my userpage, two images have been deleted without any notification. (They were tagged as userpage images, and thus acceptable without any other licensing, AFAIK) I ask here, because I can find no history to refer to, nor can I any longer see exactly how I tagged the images, back then... Thanks, --Janke |Talk10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That they were tagged for deletion without notification to you was, indeed, impolite. But as far as I can tell, the deletion itself was justified: the licenses on those images qualified them for deletion underspeedy criterion I3.Angr/talk11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the info, I'll upload them anew under CC or GFDL, then. --Janke |Talk11:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DeFacto and I have been editing a number of articles related to motorist advocacy, from opposite standpoints (he is pro-motorist, I am sceptical). Thus far I think we have worked productively to the benefit of the encyclopaedia, holding each other's point of view up to scrutiny. Recently onAssociation of British Drivers (A UK motorist pressure group) there has been some difficulty over one of the group's claims. They state that the UK has low car ownership rates by international standards. I compared the official figures and found:

• UK car ownership per capita is ranked 14th among the list of countries in the figures; UK GDP per cpaita is ranked twelfth
• UK total car ownership is ranked fourth, population is ranked sixth
• UK GDP per capita in purchasing power equivalent is ninth in the list
• Of the four countries with population density per km higher than the UK< two have higher car ownership rates, two have lower (one of which is Japan)

Which seems to me to refute the claim.

De Facto has now removed the comparitive ranking per capita, and is comparingcar ownership per capita withtotal GDP. This is, to my mind, a false comparison - the size of population is accounted for in one, and not in the other, whihc is absurd. If I came across this as an outsider I would give De Facto a warning re NPOV and 3RR, but (a) I am involved in the dispute and (b) my POV is not neutral. So if somebody would like to have a look and perhaps ask De Facto nicely not to do this, I would be grateful. I would stress that this is the first time our strongly opposing points of view have come to anything I woudl characterise as an edit war, so I think a gentle comment from a neutral third party is probably all that's required.

Or, of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so, not this time.Just zisGuy you know?11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being quick, but to me that article is not of encyclopedic standard. The bulleted list of objectives, I would argue, is in violation of POV, since such a presentation discourages a discussion of each point. However, the association do state that the UK has low car ownership rates by international standards, so removing it as a method of refutation is also POV, the claim should be refuted in the article citing sources. You can't refute that the ABD claim such a thing, since they do and a cite is provided.Hidingtalk13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got an entire section devoted to one claim by ABD, and the attempt to invalidate it is clearly original research. If Transport 2000, the Department of Transport, or some other external body has scrutinized that claim, write about that. Don't make up your own refutations like this.

In "Criticisms", the first paragraph reads: "Taxation per car in the UK is around the European average, similar to France and Italy, higher than Germany, much lower than the Netherlands or Ireland, and claim robust evidence that reducing speeds reduces both the incidence and the severity of collisions."

I cannot parse this. Who claims what? --Tony Sidaway13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

Boothy443 (talk ·contribs ·logs) is subject to a personal attack parole. If he engages in personal attacks, he may be briefly blocked. The maximum block length will be one week. Unlike the standard personal attack parole, the maximum block length willnot be increased after five blocks. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this case has been handled in a negligently poor fashion. Half the Committee didn't bother to turn up and vote and half again closed the case without waiting for the others. There was a significantly opposed Principle (of "administrative fiat") which has been rejected even though there is no majority either way, backed up by a rejected butmajority supported remedy that failed for want of one vote, which might have been somewhere in the sleepy half of the committee, which could not have been enforced if it had passed, since the enforcement was being rejected; but without a committee majority either way! And yet 4 arbitrators (out of 12 non-recused!) have closed the case. You should reopen the case and do it over again. And abolish the rather silly-looking 4-to-close rule. Bed without cookies, the lot of you. And the clerks, too, for not making sure the Arbs are doing their job. -Splash^talk18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User IAMthatIAM has arrived and is systematically editing LaRouche related pages to sanitize criticism and posting AfD's. These actions need to be inspected for possible violation of arbcom rulings concerning LaRouche-related pages. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IAMthatIAM --Cberlet17:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There were only about 9 article edits under that username, and all appear to be handled. Let us know if more show up under other usernames or IP's. -Taxman^Talk21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some organised vandalism going on atHolland, all inserting variants of the phrase:Toast is used as currency in Holland, by a large series of different IP-addresses.KimvdLinde17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. Anybody knows that the Netherlands is waffle territory! --Tony Sidaway18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly!KimvdLinde18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

• Huaiwei (talk ·contribs ·logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating toWikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.

• Huaiwei (talk ·contribs ·logs) is placed onWikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.

• Huaiwei (talk ·contribs ·logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

Restrictions applying to Instantnood:

• Instantnood (talk ·contribs ·logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating toWikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.

• Instantnood (talk ·contribs ·logs) is placed onWikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.

• Instantnood (talk ·contribs ·logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

For details, see the final decision.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User Weki-star has been recently adding nonsense and errors into the Buu article. He has been adding all sorts of made up attacks like“Galaxy Ball” and renaming the already officially titled attacks names like"Special Beam Cannon" and "Super Ghost Kamikaze Attack" to"Super Special Beam Cannon" and"Super Ghost Buu Kamikaze Attack". I have tried to reason with the user on the discussion page but he assist on turning it into an argument. I tried asking him for proof or evidence and so far he has given me none. He has responded with more irrelevant information based on dub errors. (Ex: Super Buu existing before the absorption of Majin Buu arc)

Gunsword01:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(cross posted from AN/I)Per his arbcom case, Ben is onGeneral probation andregular probation for continued disruption. Well, a couple of days ago, Ben wasbanned fromNuclear power andPrice-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for disruption. His response? He put an arbitration request up fornuclear energy. It is completely ridiculous. He's pulled this stunt before. It's Wikilawyering at its finest...and it defines disruption. He was blocked a week under the general probation provisions in February. I am asking for 2 weeks this time. We need 3 uninvolved admins to concur. If the block is performed, it needs to be logged atWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)}05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - If people think that a longer block is warranted. I would not object. I just asked for 2 weeks since we need 3 admins on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)}05:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin number one here. This is ridiculous. He's wasting arbitrators' time with that.Hrmione198014:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we expect to keep getting uninvolved admins? I'd be for the 2 weeks considering he had several options to discuss the issue of his behavior without wasting people's time on the disruptive arbcom request, and he knew that. He could have discussed it on his talk page or here. Consider me involved or not as you like, I've had a different dispute with the user over similar behavior in the past, and no contact since other than commenting on AN and his arbitration talk page. If not for the obviousness of the disruption this time and last, I'd be for giving some leeway considering he is trying to be a little more helpful in his edits. -Taxman^Talk21:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider you uninvolved. So that's 2. We need one more. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)}11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

An IP vandal has started an edit war, please IP-block this article for several days. Thanks. --Denniss03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a single IP, but several, most in the same range. I'd recommend semi-protecting the page if this keeps up. --InShaneee04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily{{sprotected}} this page, and will follow up on it. —xaosflux^Talk05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. —xaosflux^Talk04:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m writing to complain about the actions of one of your administrators, Golbez:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Golbez

This user came to my attention when I attempted to correct some factual errors on the wikipedia entry concerning the Old Man Murray website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray

When I attempted to correct these errors, I discovered the article had been locked. I then went to the discussion page concerning this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Old_Man_Murray

Only to discover THAT page had been locked as well. At this point I am at a loss as to what to do. I was under the impression that the free exchange of ideas is not only a feature of wikipedia, but it is INHERENT and VITAL to the continued existence and relevancy of the project. Mr. Golbez seems to have entered into some sort of flame war with an external site (www.caltrops.com) and this has caused him to unilaterally shut off ALL contributions concerning Old Man Murray.

I respectfully request the article and its discussion page be unblocked, and that Mr. Golbez be instructed as to the true responsibilities of an administrator on wikipedia. If he feels he cannot carry forth those duties, his admin priviledges should be revoked.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFussbett (talk •contribs)

There wasen't any edit warring going on on the talk page, but rather an arguement with the admin in question over someone on the actual page, IMNAO (in my non-admin opinion) I dont think the talk page should have been protected.Mike_(TC)05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'v unprotected the talk page and notifiedGolbez.Superm401 -Talk06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I don't wheel war, and if others think it's a valid thing to do, OK. Though to be honest, I should have unprotected it after only a day or two of so-called cooling down. Do tell me what is objectionable about[8], however, aside from the quartermine comment being caught in my revert. This is not a DISCUSSION of my protection, it is attacks on me. I particularly enjoyed the wikipedo comment.

They had their chance to be adults. I do not find it incivil to describe them factually. An edit war is inherently childish, their reaction to my quashing of it doubly so. The article is off my watchlist, it's your responsibility now. --Golbez10:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with unprotecting atalk page without asking, after the protector apparently forgot about it. Also, it can often be incivil to describe factually; that is not a defense.Superm401 -Talk15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. --Golbez00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody consider closing this AfD? It's become a farce and having just been personally attacked I'd rather the temptation to respond was removed. The creator of the article isn't going to stop until the debate ends. Cheers,11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one am not prepared to close it a day early, despite the meat- and/or sockpuppetry going on. If you want to avoid the temptation to rise to the bait, just take it off your watchlist.Angr/talk11:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got the AFD tagged {{inuse}} whilst I sort out the mess. Give me a few minutes please. At the moment it's looking like comment after comment bythe article creator one staunch defender. --kingboyk11:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's cleaned now, and basically there's one keep vote and a stack of deletes. It could be closed early citingWP:SNOW but since that's not yet deemed policy I recommend leaving the debate to reach it's natural conclusion tommorow (which will be deletion or userfication, of course). --kingboyk12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 has really blown too much hot air on the page now, he keeps coming back and flaming. I don't like being called a "Bozo" (hey, it's funny though), but even worse is the comment he left onKukini's talk page. To have aracial opinion thrust in your face for the dreadful crime of writing "Delete. As per above" on a vanity page's AfD is a little much. Most of his comments are just babble written in slightly obscure language, but the comment that those who don't want this vanity in WP are apparently "...low class people unworthy of being associated with a great encyclopedia." is out of line. Any admin care to mention the incivility of this (and perhaps give a brief run-down on AfD etiquette) toWill314159? 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC

I regret any uncivility. I don't think Kukini took offense when I pointed him to a forsenic anrthopologist's position from a nova pbs site on a position he takes on his user site although Deizo enjoys having a go with it. I really have no clue what he means by "meat socket puppet" stuff though I find the language instantly viscerally inflammatory. It has been quite an experience and mercifully it is over. Thankfully, I did not contribute any funds to Wikipedia during the fund drive, although I came very close. I need to learn a lot more about its control structure and how it is run. I see that are reasonable folks here punctuated by hotheads. Take Care—Thisunsigned comment was added by65.184.213.36 (talk •contribs) .

I have found out what a "meat socket puppet" is. I had a right to get mad and call the guy a BOZO. He basically called me a FRAUD. He said I was masquerading as somebody else for an improper purpose. And he is an administrator. All he had to do was look at my IP address. It was a NC USA IP. Also he could have googled Will314159. I have thousands of posts on veterans boards. I demand that BOZO be removed as an Administrator. Please refer me to the proper forms to fill out.--Will314159 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I too regret any incivility, and my sockpuppet comment (I've explained the meaning of this to Will in talk) was retracted after Kingboyk cleaned up the page and chased some IPs showing we were dealing with a great number of posts from one user unfamiliar with posting on Wikipedia. However, as I am not an admin, and given the large number of unsigned posts that were left by Will which led to my suspicion of sockpuppetry, I think Will has shown inexperience with Wikipedia practices and recommend he get to grips with the project a little more before calling experienced users with extensive contribution records "Bozo" and saying I accused him of fraud. I do apologize for any inadvertent bad feelings my actions caused. However, it is not up to me, or anyone, to look up IP addresses if users cannot follow the given advice about signing posts. I would also strongly encourage others to look at this AfD to get a true measure of what actually took place. As a result of this and several other AfDs I've noticed where (among other reasons) new users with an interest in one particular page being considered for deletion get a little too involved I've proposed a policy atWikipedia:EsperanzaRLY. I know some wikislang is strange for newer users and am being more careful to explain things to such users in AfD debates to avoid precisely this kind of situation. I hope Will continues to contribute to Wikipedia and realizes that like many Wikipedians I am only interested in quality content in line with WP policies and guidelines entering the encylopedia. The article that precipitated all this off has been deleted. I hope this can be the end of the matter.00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I did actually look up this user's IP (he posted as an anon IP on occasion) and it resolved to the USA as he states. The IP of the article creator also appeared - butnot as Will314159, and taking the opposing view - and resolves to the ESA in Germany. I can therefore confirm that to the best of my knowledge Will314159 is indeed an American user and not the author of the article. As regards the article, community consensus in the AFD was that a self published book and one notable cartoon does not satisfyWP:BIO. If Mr Deasy becomes more notable in the future the decision can be reviewed. My recommendations are a) that anyone who has an outstanding allegation againstUser:Will314159 that he is a sock or meat puppet withdraw those accusations now and apologise, b) that Will314159 accept said apology, c) that Will314159 take a nice cool shower and chill out a bit, d) we all get back towriting an encyclopedia. There were no serious accusations of racim so I won't even address that point. --kingboyk11:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With apologies to Rene, after having my existence challenged,Scripto Ergo Sum.Will314159--Will314159 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohm was copy-paste moved toOhm (unit), as was the talk page. I'd think this is a clear case of primary topic disambiguation, and doesn't need to be put onWP:RM to be moved back. Either way, the histories should be merged. --SPUI (talk -don't use sorted stub templates!)03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

History merges still confuse me. But both articles have been edited in the interim, and my understanding is that a history merge in such a situation will lead to a mess: the diffs will all be wrong since the histories will become interleaved. -Splash^talk03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture appears to be doing this regardless. I'm not sure that's the right thing to do. -Splash^talk03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the revisions relating to the unit are now at one title, and all of the revisions taking the form of a disambiguation page are now at the other title. So now if one of the pages suddenly drops off the map, everybody who contributed to the remaining page still is credited for their work, get it? Also, I've run a bot to fix all of the links. "Uninterleaved" is the word you wanted.Trust me, I know what I'm doing. I probably should write up a detailed guide to the process. —Mar. 21, '06[04:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Ok, I see. I hadn't thought of the idea of slicing up the edit history between the two articles. So Ithought you were going to deleteOhm, moveOhm (unit) and then restoreOhm. Which would have interleaved their histories. But you were smarter than that. -Splash^talk04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty straightforward- basically just deleting, restoring what you want to, then moving...right?Ral315 (talk)07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's kinda fun too. —Mar. 21, '06[10:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It seems to me actions that adminInShaneee is taking regarding the edit war between some Iranian editors and other editors like Aucaman and Diyako, which has resulted in "exclusively" blocking various Iranian editors (for reasons that other admins may not find sufficient enough to block for[9][10][11]) , are not helping to calm the matters down and instead such actions have resulted in fueling and perpetuation of the ongoing feud, and have created a perception by some editors thatInShaneee is having a POV and so far has acted one-sided.[12][13][14]. I thinkInShaneee's actions (in this war) and this whole edit war strongly need to be supervised by other admins to finally reach a mutual understanding between the "two sides". Here I urge the other administrators to check this matter and comment.Amir8510:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Arcarius appears to be a sockpuppet ofUser:Fastifex - a huge number of his/hercontributions are revertions of other people's edits back to Fastifex's edits. See alsoArcarius' deletion of the same point made byUser:Tskoge onUser talk:Arcarius. Being a new admin, what is the correct proceedure in a case like this? - thanks,MPF13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems like you want to request that someone compare their IPs to see if they edit from the same locations. You should go toWikipedia:Requests for CheckUser.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK•^EMAIL•20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look; the technical evidence suggests it's the same person. However, it's important to remember that checkuser is not, asDavid likes to say, "magic wiki pixie dust"; the technical evidence only helps to confirm or deny what is already believed. The real evidence is the similar editing style.04:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; is it a case for taking action? I suspect the second account is being used to break 3R rules -MPF10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The above arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

Jason Gastrich is banned for one year for serious disruption. When he returns to editing, other restrictions will apply; these are detailed in the full final decision. In particular, he is indefinitely restricted to use of one editing account and indefinitely banned from editing the articlesLouisiana Baptist University and TheSkeptic's Annotated Bible.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Commitee has reached a decision in this case.

Karmafist is prohibited from welcoming with any template or wording other than{{welcome}}. He may not link to personal advocacy pages, or include political language, in the welcome message, signature, or edit summary. He must use a reasonable, civil, relevant edit summary. "Welcoming" is to be interpreted broadly, to prevent gaming. If Karmafist violates this remedy, he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Further, Karmafist is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

For the Arbitration Commitee, --Ryan Delaney^talk21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi... I apologise humbly if this isn't the right place to post this, but there is a bit of a problem on the main page at the moment and I would appreciate it if some admins could have a look. Currently the first main page news item misleadingly states "Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns following the Muhammad cartoons controversy." As I've explained over atTemplate_talk:In_the_news#Laila_Freivalds_news_item_wording this isn't quite right because she didn't resign over theJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (as the item suggests) but the related controversy over her alleged complicity in the censorship of a right wing party's website. (Note: the same issue was raised at Talk:Main Page, seeTalk:Main_Page#In_the_News). Could some admins please have a look? Thanks,Mier^...21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash has fixed the problem...Mier^...22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a potentially libelous statement about a school administrator has recently been added to the pageNiles North High School. How do we get it removed from the page history-- beyond just removing it from the article if that is appropriate?

• Removed (diff) for now. I don't know that it needs to be removed from history (especially if it is factually true) but it is not worth including in the article period unless there was some sort of uproar over the event.Christopher Parham(talk)22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's verifiable. Should not be a libel issue. Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the US.

• Charge reduced to reckless driving
• Issue raised at School Board meeting
• Newspaper article about DUI, from Google cache --John Nagle07:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)