Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive197

Re: Jat Page

Hi, I have left tags on this page to discuss Neutrality of the material and also other things more than 3 times now, and someone keeps removing the tags without discussion. Is this Vandalism, or against wiki policy? --Sikh-history 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• It may be because of what the tag does to the page layout. At least in my browser it almost completely covers the first page of the article. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom Butler violating WP:COI

User:Tom Butler has been making POV edits at Electronic voice phenomenon even though he is the head of an organization discussed in the article and is mentioned himself by name in the article. I have asked him not to, but he has continued editing, specifically making POV changes. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I will say again, there is no way that I will ignore the kind of nonsense that has been written about EVP in Wikipedia to stand. As soon as you get the facts right I will stop editing the entry. Tom Butler 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Butler's idea of getting the facts straight includes announcing that other people are not qualified to edit the article, and insisting that completely unscientific "experiments" proving that voices of the dead communicate via magnetic tape be given equal weight with science.-MsHyde 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• He also has a history of editing-with-a-COI already at this article, and making threats:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=prev&oldid=98795370-MsHyde 03:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeat WP:BLP offender

SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SneakySoyMeat) have been pushing defamatory material into Francis Pym and Christopher Soames, Baron Soames. His edits appear to come both from a cable IP in Oregon and a Xerox Corporation web proxy 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). 13.8.137.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), another Xerox proxy, recently re-inserted the material into the article on Lord Soames, which I have reverted. Perhaps someone should contact Xerox, as the user has been quite persistent in attacking these articles. Choess 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Last report of this incident:[1] It's getting pretty tiresome now. Note that Xerox doesn't appear to use this IP for anything except vandalism and COI. — coelacan talk — 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Mr Phil

User:Mr Phil has engaged in a blatant and obvious personal attack:

"You know Mr. Racist, go f*ck yourself.[2]"

Furthermore, he and another user User:Computer1200 has continously used the Talk page linked above as their own personal soapbox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Issued warning. -Changlc 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BMT Giving unwarranted vandalism notices for me trying to maintain NPOV

If there any administrators reading this, can you please do something about user BMT. I have not been vandalising the Ben Thompson page. I added a section called Legend and it is cited from reliable sources and it is relevant. But for some peculiar reason he not only removes it but gives me vandalism warnings. I am only trying to maintain a NPOV.

Well, BMT told you on that article's talk page that he couldn't find your source, and you told him to look at Lexis-Nexis. I have access to L-N through my university, so if you give me a moment I'll see if I can't find an article to verify your claim. If I can find a citation, expect your edit to be changed; it's not very encyclopedic in tone. A Train ^{take the} 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this is at the top instead of bottom of the page, but anyway ... I just received a talk message asking me to help out on this because I had "been editing the article". I've never edited the article; I added the fac tag to the talk page per the WP:FAC nomination. I don't know how to help here, but it looks like both parties are deleting things from each other's talk pages, so it's hard to follow. Can someone help? Editor20 says BMT's real name is Ben Thompson, FWIW. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved entry to bottom of page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Santa Fe New Mexican, the newspaper cited in User:TheEditor20's source, is not one of the newspapers indexed by Lexis-Nexis. A Train ^{take the} 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is! I am using the executive version. When I get home tonight I will even provide a screenshot. also, i have uploaded the article and provided a link to it on the talk page. What can I do to prove this?! I have added a screenshot (look on the talk page of the Ben Thompson article. My source is accurate, and I think anyone who fails to believe it now is deliberately trying to cause trouble. If anyone who has access to LexisNexis Executive searches for "ben thompson" and "1884" for in major stories then they will find the article. LexisNexis professional may not bring up the result. I have even provided a link to an RTF file with the information. Because you require access to look at LexisNexis material, it is not possible for me to provide for you a direct HTTP link to the source. --TheEditor20 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look through MrEditor20's history he is a prolific vandal see Talk:Bethany School and perhaps talk to Raker or Chris Lester. Not to mention the attacks carried out as User:Edgovan20. yes my name is Ben Thompson, different one, of course. --BMT 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please use Lexis Nexix Executive and verfify the article I have provided from the Santa Fe New Mexican. Either than or someone find the edition of the new mexican. How can someone say my source is incorrect without even getting a copy of the Santa Fe New Mexixan July 04 1997 and finding out? This is upsurd, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia and yet you cant even confirm a simple source --TheEditor20 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism, need assistance or block

71.202.167.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making subtle changes to the population count in various city pages. See the edit history. Edits are unsourced[4] or in some cases contradict existing citations.[5] Other edits are even messing up existing reference names thinking the name of the reference is a date.[6] I have left two warnings on the IPs talk page. I'm not sure how to proceed. --Mperry 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's templates for that: {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}}, and {{uw-vandalism4}}. After the fourth, a simple vandal report is in order. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GrahameKing, again (previous incidents attended by Proto)

FIRST:

GrahameKing deleted blocks of text from the talk page [7] [8].

The larger block of text was reintroduced by Proto [9] after an older previous mass-deletion by GrahameKing [10].

GrahameKing suggested to leave the deleted paragraphs out of the talk page during the RfC about this issue, due to his concern about such "defamatoy" (his opinion, not mine) stuff listed at Google.

• I am wondering if that´s (GrahameKing´s "truce") the correct thing to do (if no Wikipolicies barring this option), just to avoid a nasty escalation of deletions and reversals. If my source is pronounced as valid, the paragraph then will be in the main article. If it is not, the text will be deleted and that´s it. I have no hurry.

• I think that GrahameKing is a good user, but, -just my opinion- maybe a bit too emotional and too devoted to PrimalTherapy. Not offence intended.

SECOND:

OTOH, GrahameKing presented no alegations for the RfC, and I asked him thrice to do so [11][12] [13]. I am wondering if I am in front of a stonewaller. I must confess that my reserves of good faith about this issue are running low.

THIRD:

GrahameKing also deleted [14] another section of sourced content (introduced by me in...October [15]) from the article , never touched before by GrahameKing´s multiple deletions. This time I reverted the deletion [16], because the deleted stuff is totally noncontroversial.

I think that this deletion of a section after four months it´s just a diversionary tactic. As I said, my good faith about this issue is running low.

FOURTH

Incorrect tagging at my User:Page [17]

This is a complex issue. Proto attended the issue previously, but any input is welcome Randroide 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to happen here, Randroide. Has Graham done anything since I warned him not to? Proto::► 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All this four points are a posteriori since your warning. Randroide 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

E. Brown and fair use images on user page

E. Brown (talk · contribs) seems to be having problems with Wikipedia not being a soapbox in terms of fair use images. He has several self-created userboxes (these userboxes are not templates or transcluded on user pages) that contain fair use images. Chacor removed them as a violation of WP:FUC #9 and left a warning, and E. Brown promptly reverted them. This happened once more, with Chacor and I leaving warnings. He responded with a short tirade on Chacor's user talk page, asserting that he "isn't breaking the law" and stating that he can't stand fair use (which is what a short blurb at the bottom of his column of userboxes states). I responded by protecting the user's user page for one week. Is there anything else that should be done for now? --Coredesat 06:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just went off on my user page. --Coredesat 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, his userpage is protected, so I cant remove it, but the one tree hill userbox has a fairuse pic in it as well. -M^ask 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Must've missed that one when taking them out. Can an admin please do so? Side note, Guy has told E. Brown flatly why he's violating FU, so let's hope it works. – Chacor 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Daniel.Bryant 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin leaving Wikipedia

Is it a practice to de-sysop admin that state intentions to no longer take part in the project? User:Alkivar, after being asked about his reasons for blocking me ([18], [19] and [20]), listed himself in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians [21] and left a goodbye message on his talk page explaining his frustrations with the project and his intentions to leave. He also thanked those who helped him and asked all the others to f*ck themselves (this is not the first time Alkivar used this expression to address fellow wikipedians [22]).

Also, some days ago, when Jimbo Wales joined other editors in criticizing Alkivar for a "very bad block"[23], he removed this (and many other) critics from his talk page calling them " worthless crap"[24].

Is there a process for admin-status evaluation (or something like that)? Or is it just better just to wait for Alkivar to calm down (and hope the account's admins powers won't be misused in the future)?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see. Maybe after a break he'll be fine. Maybe he'll stay away. Maybe he'll resign the sysop bit. Right now there is no problem to solve, though, that I can see. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Zamaq is very interesting. Daniel.Bryant 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that is an alternate account of someone more established...--Isotope23 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well its certainly not me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it was anyone in particular... and particularly I wasn't implying that it was you. I don't really know you, but you don't strike me as the sort who would sockpuppet to call himself a dick.--Isotope23 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali, your desire to protect the Wiki is admirable. I'm certain you would have done the same for any admin, even those held your favor, and that the fact you happen to have announced the wikibreak of an admin who sanctioned you is a complete coincidence. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions on the project, and again, thank you for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no coincidence, actually. It's no secret that I don't feel comfortable at all with users with Alkivar's temper are in the wild with Admin powers. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:GopherQ

I don't know what to make of the contributions of GopherQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). In some edits this user comes across as well meaning, in others as a confused newbie, and in some edits as someone with a strange sense of humour bored senseless. A few examples:

• Adding a link to Aviation accidents and incidents to the See also section of Islam [25]
• Adding Category:Aviation accidents and incidents to Islam [26]
• Replacing Uzbekistan with "BOOBIES BOOBIES BOOBIES BOBBIES!" [27]
• Adding a sentence about Lisa Nowak to Anna Nicole Smith: "NASA is said to be reviewing its employee screening process after the incident." [28]

This might make the user's edits seem as trolling or minor vandalism. But the user has also reverted pov edits and vandalism. The user talk page suggests some editing issues, in particular the {{blatantvandal}} warning left by User:Ohnoitsjamie on September 23. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I've checked every edit by this user. Yes, a couple of helpful ones, but also one piece of egregious vandalism and a lot of mildly humorous trollery. We really need to be tougher on this one - the talk page shows us still handling him with kid gloves. Metamagician3000 12:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern

I've just protected Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern as a redirect to her parent Anna Nicole Smith since if all that's noteworthy about her is that her dad's identity is in some sort of dispute then there's really not much to write about her specifically, and nothing that couldn't be mentioned in her mum's article.

However, I reverted the page to a redirect twice [29] [30] and so I might not be a neutral party to have protected the redirect. Anyone else is free to unprotect if they feel this is unjustified. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't want to get stuck inside the secure.wikipeda the links are here and here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Killed in action

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) is disrupting the page Killed in action as evident by the history, who seems to think he owns the article and is reverting all attempts by other editors to improve it by making it in line with the WP:MOS. So far he has used two meatpuppets/sockpuppets (one was admitted on the talk page, I believe, where he said he would ask a friend to help him out), KSCHO (talk · contribs) and Andrewrhchen (talk · contribs). I don't feel the user should be blocked indefinitely or anything like that as he seems to be acting in good faith, but he doesn't seem to be listening to reason. I'm therefore bringing this issue here. Cowman109^Talk 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And it appears he has just broken WP:3rr by reverting multiple users once more. Could someone please look into this situation? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point I really don't think he's operating for the good of Wikipedia. He has his preferred version and he's going to do everything he can to keep reverting to it. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think he's acting in good faith, but it's just that it's a disruptive good faith that he does not understand. I believe the user also has a conflict of interest as he mentioned somewhere that he is either a member or a founder of one of the foundations for the relatives for those killed in action, so this is a sensitive issue. Cowman109^Talk 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done what I can. He's past the 3rr and will not respond to the talk page. Material he keeps adding is irrelevent to the topic of the page. Mystar 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is taking up a huge amount of attention and resources. I do believe he is acting in good faith, but I believe he has personal issues and at some point we have to cut our losses. --Ideogram 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this? The user has taken to editing with an IP now and calls other edits vandalism that reverts his (and has called another sysop a 'vandal' in the past to put things into perspective). He is unwilling to listen to reason and believes that he owns the article. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears this user has already been blocked for 24 hours, and then extended to 1 week for evading that block[31]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A meatpuppet of John's, KSCHO (talk · contribs) had taken to reverting the article for him. The user is a friend or colleague of John's, I believe it was confirmed, and as is clear by his contributions, his only edits are to that article as a single purpose account. Cowman109^Talk 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Confirmed meatpuppet with admitted intent to carry on edit war. pschemp | talk 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User making personal attacks on his talk page. Block extended. pschemp | talk 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, this user is now name dropping Brad's name apparently in an attempt to get unblocked or make a veiled threat and talking vaguely about "we" (his foundation?) and how wikipedia is responsible for libel. none of this bodes well for his editing future. pschemp | talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. He and Wikipedia will part ways, it's only a matter of time. --Ideogram 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone point me to the diffs showing uncivil activity after his one week block? He's contacted me by E-mail, asking for help in getting unblocked. (As I don't think I've interacted with him before, he may have contacted a number of other Admins.) I see a probable violation of WP:LEGAL, (as noted by pschemp above), but nothing I can be sure of as being uncivil. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He said he didn't contact any other administrators at this time, but that he also sent a fax to the Foundation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I read the history, and I see the violations on his talk page. If his E-mail is to be considered an unblock request, I'd deny it. His best bet is to cool off for the block time, not incite friends to edit on his behalf, and remember to speak civilly, especially to those he considers "the enemy". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community noticeboard

This thing got started really quickly so I'll post here for the record: there's a new noticeboard for decisions that welcome the entire community's input, such as community bans. Nonsysops often avoid this board and WP:AN because of the boards' titles. So if an action is a community discussion, rather than mop-specific, let's relieve the load over here by posting it there. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see giving it a go for awhile but it seems redundant to this page. Nice idea but I'm not sure it'll be used. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea to get those 6 page community ban discussion off this page, and into the public arena. This page is always too long, and discussions that are not just admin issues are the main reason. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I would like to report some personal attakcs which have been taking place on the British National Party talk page introduction section. Claims such as these i view as personal attacks by One Night In Hackney

• "the vast amount of 100% false comments you have posted"
• "to further your agenda"
• "Do you actually know what stubborn means?"
• "lies lies and propaganda"

Could someone please do something about these attacks. There are more but these are the most recent.--Lucy-marie 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These claims come from a tendentious editor was has made a string of false statements on that talk page in bad faith, and has also had two recent warnings for personal attacks directed at me. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And this justifies reciprocal negative behaviour on your part, how? - WeniWidiWiki 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if you looked at the context in which those comments were made, rather than the biased presenting of them. One Night In Hackney 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Politeness is expected even with those users who you think are being impolite to you. Wikipedia behavioral policy does not authorize you to treat another person rudely in whatever context.

Now if you think the other person has been rude to you, you must report the incident on this page, that's what you're expected to do. --Abenyosef 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence for your claims of bad faith edits and personal attacks.--Lucy-marie 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Booze broads and bullets persistent copyright offender

I would just like to bring to attnetion User:Booze broads and bullets. The user has been uploading copyrighted images (and in some cases, text) since July 2006, has been repeatedly warned on his talk page User_talk:Booze_broads_and_bullets but has been unresponsive. Just recently again (February 10), he has uploaded a new slew of copyrighted images, using the magazine cover fair use tag which does not apply to the images as they are web sourced from the parent website. He has been warned before and seems unresponsive and doesn't seem like he's changing his ways anytime soon. I'll just leave the resolution to you guys. Thanks. Shrumster 11:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user and left a message here saying that they can be unblocked after their discussion about the image uploading problem. This is not supposed to be a permenant block but an attention getter. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As it is not just text (and not simply naive, as he has been told to stop), I think we have an instance of an increasingly common problem: Copyright-infringing users who create numerous articles. We cannot verify all of them as copyright infringements, and it is a tremendous waste of time for someone to go through verifying them anyway, yet most of them are and if any copyright holder were to find one of the copied articles it would be an odd and unaccepted response that we knew about the user's copyright infringement but did not remove his additions to Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. He just blanked his talk page. I fear he'll come back with a different user name and just proceed with what he used to do. I'll stay vigilant on this. Shrumster 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This user will not be hard to recognize if he/she comes back with a new name. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Persianate society

Could other admins advise me? I've been doing some tidying at Persianate society, including copy-editing, wikifying, bringing it into line withj the MoS, etc. the whole article is in pretty bad shape. One editor – Surena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – persisted in reverting my edits wholesale. He or she has stopped, but suddenly people hitherto uninvolved have popped up to do the same (see this diff for the latest). I've tried explaining at the articles's Talk page what the issues are (they have nothing to do with citations, except for one which, when followed up, proved to support nothing in the article, so I removed it), but these people are clearly reverting without looking, as they've been asked to by a friend.

My question is this: these reverts seem to me to be disruptive at best (they're clearly organised by Surena by e-mail), but are they sufficiently vandalistic to mean that reverting them is 3RR-protected? If it isn't, and I have to leave it, I'm inclined to let the thing go altogether and let it stay in the hopeless mess that it is now. The only admin intervention was from (totally disinterested, of course, and unaffected by previous disagreements with me) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, who wagged his finger at me for using rollback on one of these (at least near-) vandals. Something more constructive would be appreciated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I was wrong in part; the latest editor to revert me has now, after my explanation to him, reverted his revert. I'd still like comments on the principle, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's now even worse. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Second request for intervention regarding Tom Butler

This report was made above, but nothing was done: [32] Butler has just made four edits to the article.-MsHyde 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And he is actively continuing to disrupt past those 4 edits. He has been repeatedly warned:[33] MsHyde 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

His only edits to Wikipedia are to this article:[34] MsHyde 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And there is a complaint at Conflicts of Interest noticeboard:[35]-MsHyde 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(NOt an Admin) Left him a note about it, doubt it'll help, but since I'm not involved in EVP, maybe it will. ThuranX 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He's already had dozens of warnings, and has been doing this for months.-MsHyde 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

batik page

The page explaining batik fabric colorization has text innappropriate to the page under the second paragraph and in the "See Also" at the bottom. I tried to edit it, but the text doesn't show up there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cynjaden (talk * contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

The text has gone now. Someone has reverted the vandalism. Please feel free to do the same! Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to ban User:Sarvabhaum

I think the time is up to ban Sarvabhaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has persistently edit-warred on Kannada-Marathi pages such as Belgaum, Seuna, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, and has been blocked for 3RR many times. However, he has continually created sockpuppets whilst under block - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvabhaum - persistently, and continually uses his IP range 59.95.... to revert the same articles over and over again. His block has been renewed and lengthen many times, but it is simply obvious that he will keep on coming back. see Sarvabhaum back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vishu123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Itihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvabhaum000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

According to me, banning the user is not going to achieve anything. He is shameless enough to run the gauntlet and edit anonymously, create sock/meatpuppets and other ways of bypassing bans. He appears to be playing to a gallery, though I am not sure which one, since many Marathi people have rejected his/their fanaticism as well.

The Belgaum article (his/their favourite hunting grounds) is in a pretty stable/credible state right now (apart from our friend's edits), so I think just locking down the article for a few months would solve the problem much more effectively. This guy appears to be a college student, and in a few months is going to be facing exams and will have other things on his mind.

Some info: 59.95.x.x is the ADSL pool of BSNL, India's largest (and Government owned) ISP. Unless the ADSL modem is rebooted for some reason, the address tends to remain the same over long periods of time - but is still a dynamic one.

Achitnis 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His edit-warring was not limited to just Belgaum article. It included Chalukya dynasty (an FA), Vijayanagara Empire (another FA), Rashtrakuta, Origin of Rashtrakutas, Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri, Belgaum border dispute, Kannada language, Marathi language, and probably many more. Locking down articles because of a single editor, defeats the fundamental purpose of WP, ie, any article can be edited by anyone, anytime. - KNM ^Talk 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean my comments to be a vote, which is why I didn't tag them as such. This was meant to merely be additional information related to the case. I am merely pointing out that given my experience with said individual, banning him (which I support, and will say so below) will achieve nothing. I am aware of the fundamental principles of WP, and am not saying that the article(s) shouldn't be updated, but isn't that what we have semi-protection for? Works fine in just about every case that it has been applied. Achitnis 11:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Permanent Ban. The user has been advised not to create more sockpuppets to evade his block, but he is just ignoring that caution carelessly and creating a heap of sockpuppets. The category Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Sarvabhaum is growing almost everyday, without adding any value to the purpose of Wikipedia project.

When his block was extended for 6 months, he was even given warning that he would be blocked permanently if he creates more socks, but still he has continued evading his block by creating more socks. Also, if we see the edit history of that user, it is very clear that, right from the beginning all his edits were involving controversies or just plain reverts (was blocked for WP:3RR several times), and we hardly see any useful contributions. Considering these points, I don't see any valid reasons why he should not be banned. - KNM ^Talk 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This user has been disrupting these articles for quite some time now. It is time the community bans him from wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This user had been reverting articles according to his whims and fancies. Support permaban. Gnanapiti 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Enough said. Sarvagnya 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - The sole purpose of this account seems to be to indulge in disputes. He has been voilated 3RR multiple times, and created a whole bunch of socks to evade blocks. -- Naveen ^(talk) 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support to ban Sarvabhaum. People who dont respect the wiki system have no place on wikipedia. This should send a strong message to future vandals as well. I request wikipedia authorities to contact BSNL and see if his internet access can be banned in any way. He is still warring.Dineshkannambadi 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support, and in addition recommend semi-protection of targeted articles for a while. Achitnis 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I used to be sympathetic to the Marathi users, but Dinesh's FA's have proven that his argument is well sourced and probably true while sarvabhaum is acting like BhaiSaab (talk · contribs).Bakaman 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

SI IEC Edit War

Is using WP:AES to aide in a prolific edit war over megabyte prefixes--162.84.217.206 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User has single handedly decided to change every single instance of MB and KB to MiB and KiB--162.84.217.206 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a bad faith report by someone who has likely been involved in a recent string of anonymous IP reversions of articles to non-IEC binary prefixes (usage of the IEC binary prefixes is currently blessed by a policy that has withstood many debates and challenges). The anonymous user is obviously aware of Wikipedia policies, has been informed of the current standing of WP:MOSNUM on this issue, and probably is already aware of the recent controversy over this. Sarenne has already been the subject of some near harassment at the hands of a few editors on a mission who labeled a content dispute as vandalism and warned him/her thusly. From the three discussions I linked, you can clearly see that it is the decision of a strong consensus to use IEC binary prefixes on Wikipedia, not the rogue actions of Sarenne. Please ignore this report. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T22:21Z

My mistake, I must have missread the section that says "Do not change all SI prefixes to IEC prefixes in computing contexts, only those that are actually being used in a binary sense"--162.84.217.206 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake as well. I confused you somewhat with another anonymous user, 63.215.27.53 (talk · contribs), who is currently aggressively reverting several articles. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T22:36Z

My only concern was that there were two parties aggressively edit warring, both with the help of WP:AES, which made it impossible to tell what was actually going on without quite a bit of research on my part since no one was using edit summaries--162.84.217.206 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not aggressive :) I used edit summaries when I made the first change so it is easy to see what is going on by looking at the history Sarenne 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio that's not a copyvio?

Hi - I originally tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_P._Meek&oldid=107175770 as it's a straight lift from the reference, however reading the disclaimer at the bottom, US Govt text is in the public domain? Does that mean that a straight lift is ok? The same editor has created multiple articles on that basis so I thought I should check. --Fredrick day 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Material created by an employee of the US government, including the US armed forces, in the course of his or her duties in the context of that employment, is in the public domain. Since the text is from the US Navy’s website and no notice of authorship is present that would suggest otherwise, we should assume it is not a copyright infringement. However, be sure to check for NPOV and verifiability, which may be not satisfied in a direct copy. See WP:MCQ for future questions about copyright. —xyzzy_n 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Samuel Erau

I'd like people to take a look at User talk:Samuel Erau, please. This user called me "trailer trash" and somehow insists it's not a personal attack. Frankly I was tempted to just block him but I didn't want to do that. What is everyone else's opinion? --Deskana (request backup) 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for a short period and left a note on their page. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD sockpuppetry

CheckUser confirms that Ccfr88 (talk · contribs), Wizardbrad (talk · contribs), CSMASTER84 (talk · contribs), FGreen1989 (talk · contribs), and BlackMateria (talk · contribs) are all the same person. I've blocked the IP, but could an administrator take a look at the situation, and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination)? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

*shakes head in disgust*. Good luck with the SPAs ;). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for what I've done. If someone wants to go through and label the AfD !votes with a message pointing to that, feel free. Daniel.Bryant 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Capella University Vandalism

The Capella University article has been the subject of ongoing vandalism by anonymous users (Capella University employees) in the past with these users resorting to name-calling and other tactics. As a result, the Capella University article had been locked. No sooner had it been unlocked, when the vandalism began again - this time by another new anonymous user (the IP traces back to Minnesota, home of Capella University). It might be best to ask for either administrative support from Wikipedia, or arbitration in order to prevent another heated revert war. Shac1 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been reprotected by User:Arjun01. I only had a quick look, but this looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism. You say the IP is spamming/vandalising while the IP says that you are only citing negative material from an article which includes positive material and that they are trying to even up the negative/positive quotes. The IP and you, User:Shac1, need to take this to the talk page, or, as you've already been advised, try an RFC. Sarah 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post; however, if you take a look at the edit history that I've just posted on the talk page, you'll see that the individual posting from 75.134.132.66 also appears to be 68.117.38.94 (who was recently blocked from Wikipedia), and Pizzaman6233 (who has also received many warnings). You will also note that the charge that only I am the one reversing the vandalism is completely unfounded (again, I've cited seven others (there may be more) who have also reversed the vandalism: all seven of these users may be found on the talk page, ). Of course, these matters don't include the unfounded and ongoing personal attacks being made against me - some of which were recently deleted by Wikipedia administrators. The charges that I'm removing positive posts/edits is also not true. For example, the anonymous user posted listed a series of scholarships provided by Capella University. I've also noted the phenomenal growth of the school. Finally, in regard to spamming, the anonymous user has previously posted a long list of twelve different "articles." As is noted on the talk page (under the RfC I've created), all twelve of these so-called "articles" are literally press releases by Capella University. This fact is easily verified by examining them. As the anonymous user (User:68.117.38.94, User:75.134.132.66, and User:Pizzaman6233 consistently demands it's either his way or no way, I believe it would be best for the article to remain locked. Shac1 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

This user initiated an edit war on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, broke the 3RR rule, and has made personal insults towards other editors on the article discussion page. What is worse, he accuses others around him of breaking WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:3RR, and of making personal attacks - the first two are open to his question, but largely a matter of opinion, the final is definitively not true - and refuses to acknowledge his own clear violation of 3RR and Personal Attacks - consider [36]. I would like an admin to warn him. Michaelsanders 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not started an edit war on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Michaelsanders has started it by blindly reverting edits without justification, to the risk of committing a 3RR violation.

I have never made any personal insults towards other editors, Michaelsanders is actually making false claims and spreading lies about me. However, I was the one personally insulted by Michaelsanders.

That Michaelsanders has broken WP:RS and WP:OR is not a question of opinion, it has been thoroughly established and undisputably proven using quotes from the official rules of Wikipedia.

That Michaelsanders intended to break WP:3RR is obvious, as he was already reverting without any justification.

I have absolutely never attacked anyone personally, and I have no intention to acknowledge this just because Michaelsanders forces me to say so. I was the only one who was attacked personally, and Michaelsanders conviniently "forgets" to mention it.

Michaelsanders is actually harassing me, pursuing me and spreading lies about me in every page on which he has the occasion to do so.

This user has something personal against me, however he refuses to settle it through private channels and is beginning to harass me all over Wikipedia.

As I don't really care about him, as I'm not as vindictive as he is, I don't ask him to be warned, I only ask him to stop harassing me, and stop talking to me (since he's not able to talk to me without accusing me of being pure evil).

Michaelsanders has already been accused of harassment on another user, User:RosePlantagenet, and has already been warned "not to directly engage the other editor in combative fashion". Folken de Fanel 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Please see here for the other half of this AN/I. MichaelSanders has been warned by myself and others before about combativeness on AN/I, and probably has met the requirements for a bad faith/incivility block. The other editors aren't saints.ThuranX 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox...disrupter

Not sure if this has been posted before, but there is a persistant editor who has been making questionable edits to infoboxes under various IP addresses:

• 74.12.155.186 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.247 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.131 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.95.145 (talk · contribs)

There might be more out there, but these are the one's I have encountered through Peter Jennings. It's definitely disruptive (although there are good contributions here and there), and the editor has certainly been warned before on his older IP addresses, but has shown no sign of heeding the advice of others. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gzkn 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Paulley

After an article about a UK wrestling promotion was involved in was deleted yesterday, he's now gone on a mass prodding spree of other wrestling promotions. There seems to be no reasoning behind his choices, some have been recently prodded (and one that just survived Afd and is referenced) so he's not checking page histories. It seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. One Night In Hackney 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to my defence i am infact following a suggestion made by One Night In Hackney on the said afd. I admit i did prod one article i shouldnt have, and after checking history of some of the articles i realised there where previous attempts.. but they are only prods and if they were saved before they will be saved again. No harm, no foul -- Paulley

In my defence I'd have hoped you'd have given each article a thorough inspection before decided to prod, but 33 articles prodded in 10 minutes tends to suggest otherwise. One Night In Hackney 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

32 in 13 minutes to be exac (PCW Uncut Championship was a category change not a prod)... and even you must admit so far you have found only around two which you believe should be contested meaning 30 of those prods you agree with ... Its not a point it's a nasty job someone has to be cold hearted enough to do -- Paulley

I agree that it was a mass prodding spree and questionable. While he tagged it instead of prodding, United Wrestling Association had survived AFD in Nov and has been reworked and improved. This is all dubious considering it looks retaliatory considering Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varsity_Pro_Wrestling. STFmaryville 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes i saw that it had survived its afd (with a no consensus) and that's is why i didnt prod it. In my oppinion the article, though reworked, is still a large amount of listcruft. Independent promotions should not list rosters as they are independent workers and not strictly signed to that promotion. --- Paulley 13:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why aren't you deleting the listcruf instead of deleting the articles? TheNewMinistry 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt propose that article for deletion, i added a cleanup tag noting the listcruft. For other articles i just removed the lstcruft, while others saw an afd impossed until a healthy amout of sources were added. -- Paulley

If only the companies with wrestlers signed exclusively are allowed roster lists, one company in the U.S. will be allowed a roster list. Regardless of that, and changing the subject back to you, the accusation that you went prodding & tagging wrestling articles with little or no consideration to make a point seems plausible. STFmaryville 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also for future note, many of the articles a prodded, or put up for afd were removed from wikipedia or brought up to good standard... if may actions were not taken many of these under achieving articles would have remained on wikipedia with no change --- Paulley 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism, request for removal of tags

The editors of the main Interlingua have had to contend with sneaky vandalism for a very long time. Most often, this takes the form of plausible misinformation or deletions, but there is a lot of variation. One vandal even replaced an external link with one that read "demon" and apparently contained a virus. I had to replace my hard drive after I clicked on the link.

The last bout of sneaky vandalism has culminated in a spate of tags and signs left by someone who was frustrated that his misinformation had been reverted. Could I get someone to remove the tags and signs? I'm afraid that, if I do it, the result will be an edit war or retaliation. Since he's an administrator, I could also be blocked.

This person, User:Dissident, describes himself as a bureaucrat on the Interlingua Wikipedia. This claim has turned out to be true; there is evidence that he uses the status as a cover. Another person left a sign on top of the article to amplify the ones that were already there. He professes an interest in Interlingua, again, probably as a cover since his behavior suggests opposition.

At this point, most of the constructive editors have given up and stopped contributing. Only the vandals are left, and they are continuing to vandalize the article. I am very open to suggestions on how to respond to this sneaky vandalism, or help with reverting it when it occurs.

Thanks very much for your help! Cal 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Interlingua#Rant_about_POV, it doesn't look like anyone is disagreeing. In fact, there's some agreement. Have you tried discussing this, or otherwise following WP:DR? And, you had to... replace... your hard drive? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that it's appropriate for you to be throwing accusations of vandalism around like this (WP:AGF). Dissident's edits don't appear to be vandalism. Calling this a vandalism revert probably isn't right either; it looks like the edit may have just been a good-faith WP:NPOV edit. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My sense that it is sneaky vandalism is based on this page, which includes plausible misinformation as an example of this type of vandalism. Please note that I'm not insulting the person but calling the behavior sneaky vandalism. If I've misunderstood this term, please feel free to correct me, but it seems fairly straightforward. If you would like me to explain why the information is incorrect, I would be glad to do that. I wouldn't even have mentioned the person, but I felt some discussion of his status could be relevant.

Please consider that this is a complex situation in which it has been difficult to edit the article for a long time. There is a lot of interference and there was recently a concealed deletion of a link within the article. These also seem to be examples of sneaky vandalism according to the same page. I'm sorry if I used the wrong language, but I'm describing or trying to describe a real, long-term problem and genuinely seeking solutions.

The person who agrees supports a different auxiliary language, Ido, and authored the article on it, so it's understandable that he agrees. Unfortunately, there tends to be competition among the three most successful auxiliary languages, although this seems contrary to the goals of those languages. It is true that the third person, who agrees in part, is not associated with another language, but notice that he begins by agreeing and then refocuses the discussion on the criticisms section of the article.

On discussing the matter, it takes a special skill to reach agreement across auxiliary languages, and I'm not all that good at it. The talk page has been sort of off-limits except to supporters of other languages. Interlingua supporters have been commenting mostly in the edit summaries, if they haven't stopped editing entirely. I feel like stopping too, but if the article is left alone, it can degenerate pretty quickly.

I'm sorry if I've described the problem insensitively, but I'm very frustrated and at a loss for what to do. Cal 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism is tough, especially on a specialized topic. The challenge is to document it and cite it and explain it for the rest of us. See my investigation at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Maybe that will set you on a path where you can spell this out for nonspecialists. The burden's on you to substantiate the accusation. Durova^Charge! 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear from someone who has experience with this issue. Sneaky vandalism is especially difficult for Interlingua because its underlying theory and development procedures are complex. I'll read and digest your investigation before going farther. Thanks very much! Cal 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I right in making this edit?

I think I was right to remove what appears to be trolling, but I decided I should ask here since it may explode into a larger conflagration: [37] --NE2 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because WP:AFD discussions are not to be edited after they are closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page to avoid problems. (But in reality, that talk page will fade into oblivion.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary leaves something to be desired. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Try to avoid such edit summaries, though. Calling someone's comment "useless" can often inflammate a situation. Just a friendly pointer, Yuser31415 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Able Archer 83

This page is currently under attack by a user operating from a large number of IPs. He/she is replacing the page with a "9/11 Conspiracy" message. Kesac 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User now attacking BitTorrent Kesac 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Listed the IPs on Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Suspected_open_proxies_to_be_checked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected able archer for one hour. Viridae^Talk 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There were several other attacks. I've checked them with Special:Linksearch on www.mybittorrent.com/dl/565033/ —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters again

68.126.252.131 (talk · contribs) removed sourced material on Communist leaders while dismissing it as biased [38] and dismissed western sources as blatantly biased [39]. He generally shows support for a pro-communist POV while dismissing other views [40], [41]. IP appears to be similar to ones already blocked as JP socks (see those at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). Heimstern Läufer 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Jpgordon. All is well. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:24.63.32.105

Could someone take a look at User:24.63.32.105? He's doing quite a number on the Nashua, New Hampshire page. He's been reverted several times in some basic blatant vandalism. Philippe Beaudette 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nlu got him. :-) Philippe Beaudette 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV next time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Philippe Beaudette 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock of some sort?

Wikipedier (talk · contribs) was talking to me about a minor issue when he said, out of nowhere, "I'm not here to cause harm to Wikipedia, like Brian G. Crawford, Amorrow, Cplot, or Daniel Brandt were, and I hope that I will not be compared to them". This just struck me as weird, since he was acting vaguely fishy and then he feels the need to point out he's not like those 4 people, who are all prolific sockpuppet types. I don't really know who this guy is beyond my one encounter with him, but I was thinking some people who are more familiar with the 4 people he named might want to look into this. --W.marsh 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

While dealing with a concerted vandalism effort to a single article [42], my own user page was vandalised [43] by the user in question (Halokonan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Apart from reverting said action (now done), should I do anything further? Orderinchaos78 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

happens all the time. Don't worry about it for now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) update. Incivility and continued suppression of information

Hello all. The recent ANI notices seem to be helping to maintain the basic science facts in the Neurolinguistic programming article. There still seems to be a strong and coordinated resistance to collaboration or presenting the main criticisms in a summarized form “in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[44].

Similar to IP user 58’s edits, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Comaze (who seems to have a clear and definite COI) is continuing removing the main criticisms from the lead section [53].

They are still removing reliable published peer review sourced edits by persistently and often uncivilly calling me a sockpuppet and a troll. I've complied with the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppeting [54] and not taken this personally. I also believe my edit record is sound [55] and speaks for itself and shows that I am editing constructively long term on my own whilst appealing for civility and collaboration. This has already been discussed here with Guy giving his view [56] [57] and then Woohookitty (who has long experience of mentoring the article) giving encouragement to continue summarizing according to NPOV on my talkpage [58].

Meatpuppetry looks more probable within the pro NLP group. There are single or virtually single use accounts eg [59] [60] using similar arguments and language. They are definitely ignoring my voice and some have stated they deliberately intend to. I am also complying with the relevant sockpuppetry guidelines in this regard [61].

Regarding the constant allegations of sockpuppetry. I understand that neutral administrators can block sockpuppets at their own discretion [62]. If any neutral administrator considers me to be contravening sockpuppetry regulations then feel free to block me. Similarly if any neutral administrator considers me to be trolling please take the appropriate action or notify me here or on my talkpage. Also if any neutral editor feels that I am dong anything that is not constructive – again feel free to post here or on my talkpage.

Pro NLP editors seem to include views – yet present them in a selective and often non-sequitur order in order to negate criticism [63]. Thus they tend to edit defensively as has been identified in the Cleanuptaskforce assessment. The pro NLP arguments have been presented using OR and are certainly unencyclopedic. Critical views are being suppressed from the lead and the main body of the article. I have had a look at the other subsidiary NLP articles and they follow the same pattern. They also tend to spread critical comments around which makes the article look even more like an argument or debate and less encyclopedic. There seems to me to be a strong reluctance to make straight reports of NLP. They are still reluctant to remove debate or argumentative edits from the article [64]. As shown above they are also persistent in suppressing the critical science point of view [65][66]. There is a strong tendency for pro NLP editors to present research speculation as conclusion (selective editing) [67].

Despite the currently dismissive and uncivil actions of the pro NLP group – I would not ban or block them or apply page protection. I would give them another opportunity to make some effort to get along without intervention from outside. I believe that its more constructive (actually necessary) to continue to apply scrutiny and to encourage editors to get along and edit in a more collaborative fashion long term. AlanBarnet 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 7th effort gaming WP:AN/I [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. No-one has corroborated any of his highly creative stories -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to other editors indepedently conceding that the only way to deal with AlanBarnet is to ignore. AlanBarnet's talk page shows him exhausting all user patience one-by-one over the course of two months. It seems to be a game to AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown to play with people's sincerities. 203.212.143.167 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 203.212.143.167. I'm glad you replied. I believe you havn't quite grasped the reality of the situation. Of the six editors you present above, one is just a single use IP user (74.38.250.5) as is yourself (I'm assuming your present IP is also 58.179.191.108). JBhood is not a regular editor at all and could well be a meatpuppet also. Fainites is a single use account and seems to me to be strongly averse to admin suggestions. Comaze and Doc pato seem to have obvious conflicts of interests. Your edits seem to be the most argumentative and OR in order to suppress criticism. Your edits seem to show that you are calling me a sockpuppet and a troll in order that the article is prevented from being presented "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[80].

Even though you seem to be persistently and quite incivilly suppressing information in order to promote NLP, I am doing my best to collaborate both here and on the NLP talkpage in the spirit of Wikipedia in order to get on with editors of various worldviews. I see no problem at all with pro NLP argument as long as it is sourced and "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability" as per NPOV policies. You and other editors on the NLP article really do seem to have a problem with summarizing the critical science views towards NLP though. I encourage you to collaborate with myself and any other constructive editor in presenting the article according to NPOV policies. AlanBarnet 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not a meatpuppet. I came across the HeadleyDown issue through random surfing, and have followed the whole dismal saga on and off since then. AlanBarnet is HeadleyDown. That in itself would merit a block, although on the other hand the other editors' current "ignore and revert" approach might produce more desirable results in the long run. Not really for me to say, since I am not interested in editing the NLP article, but it would make sense to either block AlanBarnet or to ignore him on this noticeboard just as on the other pages. Jbhood 10:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jbhood. Ignoring AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown on the NLP page is working quite well. Fainites 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could either of you sum this up in a sentence as to why this all any of this requires administrative attention? I have seen this, but I had no idea what was going on until "NLP" was written out in full.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ryulong. Thanks for the reply. The pro NLP group seem to be persistently suppressing critical science views on NLP, being uncivil, refusing mediation or arbitration, and displaying meatpuppetting/COI characteristics - and though presenting diffs here is preventing total OR - there still seems to be a pressing need for the pro NLP group to be somehow encouraged into civil acceptance of editors such as myself in order that the critical science views be presented properly without domination， WP:OWN，　or suppression. AlanBarnet 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, none of this requires administrative attention (save for a sockblock on AlanBarnet/ HeadleyDown), nor does it get any. See [81]Fainites 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ryulong. He'll be back though.Fainites 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I do want to apologize if it seems like I "dropped the ball". Some of the NLP had brought this to my attention awhile back but I had SUCH a bad experience as a mentor that I just didn't want to get involved. And I know that the NLP editors understand that as they haven't really been a bother at all. But still. I should've let another admin know sooner. So. I apologize if this lasted longer than it should have. And yes. He'll be back. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Woohoo. Actually the ignore and revert policy worked quite well but it was pretty tedious and distracting. Thanks for your help. Fainites 21:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You really need to learn about RBI—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. Actually I never left (Wikipedia) and probably never will. As you can see from my contributions [82] my role (habit) is basically to cleanup/correct argumentative or unencyclopedic writing and help admin and other editors to notice and change information suppression on a wide variety of articles.

Its quite a relief you got round to blocking me from the NLP article. I thought you were slipping after I made myself so obvious both here and on the article. Rules are to be followed after all. Well, I understand the reluctance of some admin to block me was due to the hope for someone to civilly put long term COI information suppressors in their place. Not an easy task though. A single editor such as myself doesn't stand a chance against such a group. But long term notifications can be helpful [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. . I may post on the ANI again in future. If I appear on the NLP articles again I'll make myself just as obvious in discussion style and IP range. Right now it looks like far too much work for any NPOV oriented editor to manage though (my hat goes off to anyone who tries).

I may also appeal against my block but only if it helps make other admin usefully aware of the long term problem of critical information suppressors such as FT2 on Zoophilia and NLP (COI issues), Comaze (.com) and co on NLP related articles and so on. That [89] was a pretty snappy cover-up, FT2.

I've enjoyed applying NPOV guidelines (in various incarnations) on the huge and fascinating diversity of subjects that Wikipedia has to offer and I'll continue to help you out in that way wherever I can. Regards Headley (Weiqing) 144.214.237.196 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. One of my incarnations has clocked up a lot of edits and been prompted towards admin status. I understand its not easy being an admin and I've learned a lot from the best and the worst already. With the appropriate checks and balances I'm sure we can keep the worst admins in check. Feel free to remove this message. Cheers 144.214.5.195 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The above would all be plausible, if it wasn't for the email that basically says with glee "I had loads of fun jerking everyones chains with sock-play" and "It was great fun to mislead people". I don't plan to argue the point and I don't plan to respond to them specially. The record speaks for itself. For those unfamiliar, this included - fabrication of invented cites, sock use, meatpuppet recruitment, personal attack, game playing ("NLP is pseudoscience" by one sock AND "NLP is really good" by another), misrepresentation, and several others that come under WP:DENY... One would think a person of intelligence and academic background would value information rather than play round with its abuse. Your use is outweighed by other factors.

It further seems that you have convinced most independent people of this - people who have read your rants, and attacks, and protestations, and are unconvinced... Woohookitty, Mackensen, Ryulong, David Gerard, and several sets of ArbCom members in multiple cases. Nonetheless the consensus of these many independent and uninvolved highly experienced editors (as well as several newcomers) was bluntly, that your smoke is just that - smoke. It covers willful abusive editing and personal malice, under a veneer claim of good faith. It significantly misrepresents others. And it's inappropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello FT2. Its my job to point out your habit of information suppression and its your reaction to try to dismiss the point and to continue to suppress any information thats critical of your interests. Its as simple as that. I'm not looking for barnstars or brownie points and I am as surprised as anyone that someone should suggest I become an admin. Each relevant view on NLP may one day be presented and none at the expense of the other. I leave that up to others. I’ve plenty of other articles to improve.

I did find it highly amusing to use sockpuppets before last summer. And to tell you the truth I doubt if any editor - even an admin - would say no to watching NLPers try NLP powerpersuasion patterns out on sockpuppets. I’ve been using several accounts legitimately since then though (one account per area of expertise - mainly to reduce the incidence of harassment by the lunatic fringe on my talkpage). I actually had a hard time dissuading my old meats to join up. We wouldn’t have lasted long as a group.

Anyway I’m sure you’ll carry on with the whitewash. You'll not find me on the Zoophilia article again though. Your NAMBLA-esque arguments are quite nauseating. Here’s a pointer - if a 2 year old child starts humping your leg (and yes it can happen) - ethically speaking its very very far from ok to join in. The same is true with your pets. You've allowed us all to see the connection between NLP and Zoophilia; They both promote an attitude thats devoid of ethical concern! I suppose its ironical enough that Comaze.com and co have spent months to years of edits demonstrating to the world that NLP is a cult that uses its recruits to stifle criticism. Having a zoophilia promoter as their anonymous leader really is the cherry on the cake.

Theres a lot of admin and editors here who strongly dislike interested parties such as yourself suppressing critical information for the purpose of promotion. I'm happy to leave the NLP article in better form than it was in October though I'm sure you'll continue to whitewash the main criticisms just as you are now. I leave you and Comaze.com under far heavier scrutiny than when I joined. Now I've easier articles to edit. Bye! Headley 219.77.135.185 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Headley 144.214.5.214 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Afshar experiment and COI

We are attempting a mediation here. I have requested that one of the participants not edit the article due to an apparent COI here. He has ignored my request (see article history). At this point I think protection of the article is in order.

I have a bad feeling about this user and I do not think he will cooperate with the mediation. Suggestions welcome. --Ideogram 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note left on WP:COI/N. --Ideogram 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I would like to report some personal attakcs which have been taking place on the British National Party talk page ontroduction section. Claims such as these i view as personal attacks by One Night In Hackney

• "the vast amount of 100% false comments you have posted"
• "to further your agenda"
• "Do you actually know what stubborn means?"
• "lies lies and propaganda"

Could someone please do something about these attacks. There are more but these are the most recent.--Lucy-marie 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These claims come from a tendentious editor was has made a string of false statements on that talk page in bad faith, and has also had two recent warnings for personal attacks directed at me. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And this justifies reciprocal negative behaviour on your part, how? - WeniWidiWiki 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if you looked at the context in which those comments were made, rather than the biased presenting of them. One Night In Hackney 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Politeness is expected even with those users who you think are being impolite to you. Wikipedia behavioral policy does not authorize you to treat another person rudely in whatever context.

Now if you think the other person has been rude to you, you must report the incident on this page, that's what you're expected to do. --Abenyosef 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence for your claims of bad faith edits and personal attacks.--Lucy-marie 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting incident of Wikistalking above, I move a community ban on BenBurch, FAAFA, DeanHinnen or any account credibly identified as a puppet of any of them by any independent editor or admin, from creating any process intended to harrass any of the other parties, reporting supposed "violations" under the WP:KETTLE clause, creating sockpuppet investigation or checkuser requests or any other form of vexatious process with the sole exception of credible and good faith participation in dispute resolution. I further move that this be escalated to ArbCom without delay if any of the parties engages in argufying. Because, in the end, I think we have all had enough of the various parties bringing their off-Wikipedia fight here and trying to recruit allies to their cause. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do all of the above voluntarily. --BenBurch 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[Personal attack and threat removed] - 201.17.115.78

I have removed the comment above left by 201.17.115.78. --Onorem 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support however, if any of them pledge 1rr, I retract my support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do so pledge --BenBurch 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

from creating any process intended to harrass any of the other parties

How do you plan to divine "intent"? Dino 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberally. To be safe... don't talk to 'em at all. Failing that, try being nice and working collaboratively... but in no case accuse them of doing anything improper, unkind, or with less than your total support. --CBD 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also per JzG above that lawyer-like arguing is not going to help you here, Dino, so it's best to not try opening that door. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't. I asked a simple and very reasonable question which CBD has been kind enough to answer, if he may speak for JzG. And if I may be allowed to respond, these two have already been instructed by this very same administrator to leave me alone for two weeks. That was February 3. This is February 9. See how well it will work? Dino 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Right. --Calton | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

God yes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - Enough is more than enough already. --CBD 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Ral315 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - I think we've all had enough. This persistent warring is wasting a lot of time and space. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}

Support - though the statement currently reads as "ban them from carrying out any harrassment except dispute resolution", which made me giggle, but I know what Guy meant. Proto::► 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As an alternate proposal, since the various editors involved aren't completely worthless, perhaps a community ban from the article in question may be a better alternative before just banishing them altogether? FAAFA approached me to help out with things, and I wisely didn't get in the middle of it, but it wasn't due to not trying. I dunno, I don't know if we necessarily lose anything with this proposal, but we stand to gain more by allowing them to be productive in other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread the proposal. From what I can understand, the proposal isn't to banish them, but to ban them from "creating any process...faith participation in dispute resolution" - Aksi_great (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I got hung up on community ban. You can just ignore me now... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Jeff, thanks for the laugh. Actually, some of us might support a fully-fledged community ban...but that isn't what we're talking about. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it seems to be more along the lines of an intervention, rather than any actual sanction, to let the parties know the community thinks they are being disruptive and acting like dicks. Thus, I fully support this "ban." JChap2007 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support, I'm very tired of the endless back-and-forth bickering here between those users. Fram 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support saying we wont tolerate any more end runs around dispute resolution. There is more than one article involved. I suspect this mess is headed ArbComms way, and other involved editors should probably think about facilitating progress through the dispute resolution process. My goodness, why don't we have a user conduct RFC yet? After trying an intermediate step or two, a pointer here may be a piece of evidence that other methods have failed. GRBerry 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support current wording. The project must move forward. Directing to Dispute resolution. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin Support to save all the poor electrons being flung into the ether from this endless squabbling. This is basically a longer version of the simple and effective rule of "leave each other alone, for pity's sake!" (Chances of it working? Who knows. If it doesn't, the ArbCom case is going to be a three-ring circus...) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the many, many previous incidents that resulted in singularly useless warnings and 24-hour blocks that were waited out, I am concerned that any action of the nature contemplated will only be ignored once again. I will be engaged in a perfectly civil discussion with some other editor, such as Calton on the Peter Roskam Talk page. BB and/or FAAFA will intervene, challenge every keystroke I make, and claim that it's all for the good of Wikipedia and that I'm being naughty, as is occurring right now. I will complain here and all three of us will be banned, even though I have done absolutely nothing wrong. What assurance do I have that this will not happen? Dino 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dino, could you advise how you think this could be resolved? If blocks and warnings don't get anywhere, and you doubt this proposal is going to solve the problem, should the next stage be ArbCom? For what's it worth, my own view is this is possibly worth a try, however I suspect the case will go to ArbCom eventually. Addhoc 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has crystal clear precedents on WP:STALK. I do not believe I should be forced to convince ArbCom to enforce ArbCom's precedents on WP:STALK. Arguing over content with moments of incivility is one thing and it merits warnings and 24-hour blocks. But stalking is a completely different thing and ArbCom has ruled that it merits one-year blocks and permanent bans. It is like the difference between a traffic ticket and a felony. You are not taking the difference seriously. Dino 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem: Dino, you need to read the above. This comment is precisely the kind of thing we do not want and are not prepared to put up with any more. The problem is bilateral. Wikilawyering and a tone of fake reasonableness do not conceal the fact that you have brought your battle to Wikipedia. I am just about prepared to believe that you and Bryan are separate, but your agenda is identical and your tendency to portray your own bias as neutrality is unquestionably shared with Bryan. Start proper attempts at reaching an accommodation or leave. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh god. I don't think this proposal is going to work. --Ideogram 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

*That is totally false - Sorry to be uncivil and all but you just accused me of a felony. Produce the police reports or retract. NONE of what you assert happened. --BenBurch 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, what part of shut up and leave each other alone are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry. I meant to until he posted that. I'll strike it out. --BenBurch 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember my first hour here. It was an interesting experience. The moment one administrator got the (later proven false) idea in his head that I was a sockpuppet, I was permanently blocked. The moment the same administrator got the (later proven false) idea in his head that Carolyn Doran, the Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, was impersonating a WMF employee she was permanently blocked.

Period.

No discussion. No questions asked. Absolutely zero hesitation. It was as though the two of us had decided to take a little stroll on the beach in Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Here I have posted bulletproof evidence of WP:STALK after tall stacks of warnings were ignored and 24-hour blocks were waited out.

And you do nothing but claim that "the problem is bilateral." Dino 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif

You were blocked because your editing pattern matched that of a disruptive banned user who has used many sockpuppets. CheckUser showed the same address. Not in any way controversial. You say you are Bryan's brother, well, maybe, but all you have done - and I mean all - is to pursue Bryan's grudges and sow yet more dissent. I think the community has, thus far, shown heroic patience with you. I don't see that lasting much longer. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Note also per JzG above that lawyer-like arguing is not going to help you here, Dino, so it's best to not try opening that door." Like I said. --Calton | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support ~ Arjun 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I won't vote as I am just a kibbitzer here. But it looks to this observer like Dino is 80% of the problem, and the other two just lack the self-control to avoid responding to his provocations. I think Dino should be smacked hard, and the other two hit with a rolled up newspaper until they get some sense. --66.161.232.11 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• No. Dino just hasn't disengaged or backed down yet like the 100 or so editors before him. These is deja vu all over again. Dino is just the latest. --Tbeatty 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Or been banned. Maybe most members of the Free Republic site are inherently unable to edit within Wikipedia policy; it would not be a big surprise given its basis. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have no data on Free Republic members and WP. I do know that it appears these 3 editors are unable to edit within Wikipedia policy. Without commenting on their contributions, two other editors immediately come to mind though as disengaging - User:jinxmchue and User:Crockspot[90]. They have mostly disengaged from articles frequented by these editors as have I and some other editors. There are also editors User:lawyer2b that have disengaged as well. It's tiring. [91] --Tbeatty 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll support that - and furthermore - I support a 14, 21, or 30 day ban on all 3 of us from editing ANY political or religious article - encompassing ANY contentious article. Let's see if we're of value to the community outside of our own self-evident goals of trying to remove conservative or liberal bias and POV. (I'm hesitant to even refer to Mr. Hinnen, but must) Lets see if this concern concern is removed as an issue for Mr. Hinnen, how he, and all 3 of us react. - FAAFA 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support (From Non-Admin), also, *Object to the cruelty to animals above, instead SUPPORT beating all three with the dead horse. No amount of intervention by admins, or by non-admins like myself, can do anything. I'm totally frustrated with this particular situation. Only a community ban against all three, totally prohibiting ANY political articles AT ALL, including historical topics as far back as HAMMURABI and as far forward as Asimov's Foundation and Empire series should be covered by the ban. They can edit the sciences, the arts, and popular culture. They may NOT touch the social sciences. ZERO. ThuranX 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but support. I also think this might benefit from arbitration, it seems to have gone too far for RfC.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to me there's a related issue the committee should address about the appropriate scope of WMF employee action. I've left a statement at RFAR endorsing the proposal there. Durova^Charge! 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support (non-admin) Enough is enough. Kick it to ARBCOM and be done with it. - Crockspot 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support this resolution attempt and the remedies outlined. I'm sick of the whole thing. I'd rather see us solve it if we can, but if not, the ArbCom case is another chance to do so. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot

Metsbot has been migrating all Rugby union related useboxes without a valid explanation and I would like to know why because I dont think there was any problems with those boxes anyway. Check the Link and find out for yourself and Pliz explain to me why they were moved..thanx..--Cometstyles 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:GUS, but generally for such questions it is best to ask the user in question on their talk page. --pgk 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I already did..--Cometstyles 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 7. Garion96 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How would seeing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 7 help in the issue??--Cometstyles 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You already did which? Read WP:GUS and the basic principle of moving non-encyclopedic userboxes out of the main wikipedia space into userspace, or asked the user? I can see you posted to the user talk page about 5 minutes before posting here, but I sort of implicitly meant "and give them a reasonable amount of time to respond and discuss". --pgk 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason for moving the boxes is here but the question Iam asking is why didnt he solve the problem be4 migrating the userboxes and when I said that i had already written to him is that I was implying that I have already posted a messsage on the user in question and I thought there might be something else in regards of Botfailure which might have led to the problem of the unnecessary userbox migration is why I posted a comment here to see if there are any other wikiusers facing a similar bot malfunction problem..thanx--Cometstyles 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused then. Which problem are you talking about? Your question here is why were they moved? You don't seem to be suggesting the bot is not functioning as designed, more you don't like what it is doing. The question you asked seems to have been answered - there has been an ongoing task to move non-encyclopedic userboxes out of the main spaces into userspace, I'm not sure what deletion/merging of the categories has to do with this.

Looking closer the bot isn't updating userspace to reflect those moves, I've updated your page and I can see it did so for one it moved a few days ago. Since the bot isn't currently running there is nothing further to be done, we just need to wait and find out if it should be updating userspace and if it is, why it isn't. --pgk 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, the response here is that it is supposed to update the transclusions, but looks like it does it as a separate task. Wait a little longer and it should all come good. --pgk 14:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct. (for the record) It's a two step procedure, first it migrates a bunch of userboxes, then it updates the transclusions. This is to avoid having to make an edit on someone's userpage for each box migrated, instead of fixing many at once. —METS501 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ck12 uploading images

Ck12 (talk · contribs) recently uploaded 20 images recently that were all direct copy violations from the team's website (I was able to find the source for 19 of them). However, this user has received warnings in the past about his uploads: [92] (copyvio notice) [93] (no source x11, for which if he provided a source it would have likely been deleted as a copyvio but they were likely deleted as no source instead). He's blanked his talk page several times to remove the notices from before. I do not think this user understands the seriousness of the problem he is creating. I'm not sure if a block is appropriate, but a strong warning that uploading any other copyvio image again would result in a block. If it was possible, I'd be fine with just removing his upload permission, but I don't think that it is. --MECU≈talk 14:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet placed on my user page by 204.11.35.132

I do not have a sockpuppet. The "log" does not explain why the template is there. {{sockpuppeteer}}

The last time I was harassed by someone putting such unwarranted templates on my page, an administrator propected my page so I could not remove it and threatened to ban me. What should I do? Am I evading it by posting here? Please help. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. Cbrown1023 talk 15:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indef-block of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs)

I had posted on ANI earlier about User:Rumpelstiltskin223 being none other than the banned User:Hkelkar. Since then Rumpel has been blocked 2 more times. Once for violation of 3RR on 2 pages, and the second time for evading the block. It was shown by checkuser that Rumpel had been using an open proxy. Also see Special:Contributions/128.83.131.122, an IP from the university from which Hkelkar has been known to edit. The edits are also to the articles frequented by him. This shows that Hkelkar has not left wikipedia and is still evading his ban. Thus, I am sure of my conclusion that Rumpel is actually Hkelkar, evading his ban using open proxies and possibly different ISPs. Their edits are too similar, and Rumpel's block-count is building up. Hence I have indefinitely blocked Rumpelstiltskin enforcing this ruling made by ArbCom regarding Hkelkar. I am also resetting the ban on Hkelkar. In all Hkelkar and his socks Subhash bose and Rumpel have been blocked close to 25 times. Hence I propose a community ban on Hkelkar and his socks. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit early for an indef community ban of Hkelkar, since TerryJ-Ho and BhaiSaab were also both caught sockpuppeting this week. (More precisely, it may be too early to single out Hkelkar for an indef ban.) Certainly the sock should be indef banned and all three one-year blocks should be reset. But yes, things are certainly heading in that direction for all of them. Thatcher131 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, but would like to point out that the other two were not blocked 25+ times in all which was my reason for "singling out" Hkelkar. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just raising the issue. I see your point. Thatcher131 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Despite some positive contributions, this user has overall become a disruptive influence on a wide array of article. If not outright sockpuppetry by Hkelkar, it is likely that Rumpel is a meatpuppet. The margin of error in the IP analysis does not worry me, as ultimately Rumpel's behavior was disruptive. Rama's arrow 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, I've suspected it was Hkelkar all along, just didn't have enough to act. Daniel.Bryant 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I too endorse, I'me at least as responsible as Daniel, cause I too was pretty sure he was Hkelkar, but was too lazy to take action.--Aldux 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Like others have said, I noticed this awhile ago as well, but it had (at that point) recently received an unlikely result in a checkuser request. Not sure how that happened... -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - It obviously happened because they're two different people.Bakaman 04:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to detecting Hkelkar's sockpuppets Bakaman's skills are always dead-on wrong, as he has been before. If he says someone isn't Hkelkar's sockpuppet, you might as well ban that person for being a sockpuppet of Hkelkar without even looking at their contribs. 72.88.157.34 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry BhaiSaab, at least I'm not banned for being an anti-Semitic sockpuppeteer.Bakaman 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Rumpel is an excellent user. He has made postive contributions to the project and has access to a wide library of reference material straight from the source.--D-Boy 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Another sock of Hkelkar, India Rising (talk · contribs), has been discovered and blocked today. This reinforces my call for banning Hkelkar indefinitely. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  Two more sock IPs have started editing the same articles as Hkelkar - 129.114.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.113.92.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've blocked both IPs and reset the ban once again. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That is enough. Hkelkar has gone too far, too often against Wikipedia and abusing the decision of ArbCom. I'm blocking him indefinitely. Rama's arrow 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User Nareklm keeps removing sources info

User:Nareklm keeps removing referenced information on page Monte Melkonian -- diff [[94]]

That book is not reliable you need hard evidence if you're going to call someone a terrorist. Nareklm 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Houdini

Could some one please take a look at the wiki entry for Harry Houdini. There is a whole chunk of bizarre text at the begining of entry. I hope I have posted this request in the correct place. If not, many apologies, I'm not very tech savvy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.223.84 (talk • contribs).

Don't ever be sorry for trying to help! Usually, problems with an article are brought up on that article's talk page (the "discussion" tab next to the "article" one, at the top of the page, the one for the Houdini article is here.) I did see an extra semicolon at the beginning of the article, and fixed it, but nothing else too out of the ordinary. If you're still seeing odd text, put a more specific list of what you're seeing there, and we'll sure see what we can do! Also, if you see something with a page that needs fixing, you're welcome to edit that page as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You were probably looking at a vandalized version [95] --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is weird...

I tried to edit an article(I wasn't logged in at the time), and I promptly got a screen saying I was blocked. I actually tried checking the block log, and there was nothing there, same with contributions(which was a little confusing as my IP doesn't change, and I have inadvertently made edits without logging in). Can anyone explain this one to me?--Vercalos 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that a range of IPs, that includes yours, has been blocked for anonymous users only. This is done when abuse comes from across a range of IPs, these are almost always blocked so as not to effect logged in users. Unfortunately the only was I know of to find which range was blocked is to go around guessing at the different ranges that it may have been applied to. Does anyone else know a better way to find out which range block is effecting an IP? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, comment probably isn't helpful anymore) Somebody might have soft blocked your IP. However, you said that there was nothing in the block log. It is more likely is that your IP was autoblocked when a user operating from your IP was blocked. However, I could be wrong. And now the response to HighInBC: Couldn't you search for the range on Special:Ipblocklist? Just ask the user what his/her IP is, and plug it into the search function. PTO 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried it for 75.4.3.99. Didn't find anything.--Vercalos 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be listed as 75.4.3.0/24 or one of another 32 odd combinations. A software upgrade to mediawiki that automatically determines which range block is affecting an IP would be very useful, I would go so far as to say needed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was User:Dmcdevit who blocked autoblocked the IP.. Has something to do with sockpuppets, it looks like.--Vercalos 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you copy the exact message you get (in particular the reason field), it would make it much easier for us to find it on the relevant logs. --cesarb 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a static IP for years now, so I have never had these problems. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the message I get, and all the steps the page suggests to find out why the IP address has been blocked listed after the message have turned up nil--Vercalos 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Dmcdevit for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Standard message removed HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address is 75.4.3.99

Actually, I copied it at CesarB's request, and was fixing the formatting when you removed it...--Vercalos 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Block is of 75.4.0.0/16 as can be seen a few lines down from Dmcdevit's log --pgk 17:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, feel free to undo my boldness. However, I only removed the part that carried no new information, the needed info remains. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So your block is on of the 65536 IPs effected by this block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's a pretty wide block. Well, at least it's not indefinate.--Vercalos 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Role account

Imageboy1 (talk · contribs) is a declared role account (I have sent email saying it is blocked until that is fixed). Also, they have uploaded a lot of images that look like they came from their image file, but are not their exclusive property. I've asked them to clarify copyright and releases. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Astrotrain has resumed canvassing other editors to try to stack AfD votes on articles related to the IRA. Is there an appropriate action in this case - WP:CANVAS wasn't much help. My instinct is that he should probably be strongly warned not to do it, as he and several friends are attempting to use AfD to push a particular POV (but he's the only one canvassing). Is this a warn-able or blockable offense? Looking for input. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:CANVAS classifies it as "disruptive", which would fall under the blocking policy and/or WP:DE. This issue has come up with this particular user before, has it not? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has, but there's no solid warning on his talk page, which I think should be issued before a block. I just wanted to solicit a second opinion before doing anything, since the canvassing guideline is so weakly worded. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, definitely deserves a warning. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain is disputing the warning, and also nominated a clearly valid article (Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group)) related to the IRA for deletion, which I closed as a speedy keep under that guideline's second criterion for disruptive nominations. I've also issued a final warning that he needs to stop trying to use the AfD process to push his anti-IRA POV, and should be working on these articles if he feels that they are not neutral. If he abuses the process again, I'll block. I'm posting this here just for review and/or feedback if any other admins would like to have a look. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been keeping half an eye on this, and your actions seem correct. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is unacceptable and a complete abuse of admin powers- I contatced various people about several AFDs (none of which I had started) to increase the level of debate. I also contatced the main contributors to the debates from both sides. This is allowed per the guidlines on WP:CANVAS.

As for the article, Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group), this is clearly non notable (only claim to fame is an unsourced post office hold up). Your decision to speedy keep is again against the guidlines, and your claim that I am being disruptive is uncalled for. I am sure many other people would agree to delete this article, but now we will never know unless someone else calls for it to be deleted. Astrotrain 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVAS, ‘If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem.’ You have a history of disputed activity under the guideline; would you consider foregoing unnecessary AFD notifications for a while, just to avoid this? After all, anybody editing or watching the article will surely notice the AFD tag. —xyzzy_n 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the AFD nomination- Darcy should stop making silly threats here- if people want to keep an article they will vote as such. We don't need heavy handed tactics or bullying. Astrotrain 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you most definitely did make the AfD nomination: history of the nomination shows you as the first editor. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the references on that article? The post office robbery is sourced. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This has happened for far too long now. WP:CANVAS has to be enforced and user's can not be allowed to get away with wikilawyering or claims of being "harassed" by administrators to justify breaking policy. The next time I see this done I will block the user myself, you have already been adequately warned.--Jersey Devil 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not even looked to see what I posted and to whom- all postings met the guidlines in WP:CANVAS (limited, neutral and bipartisan). The only warning given was by a user who wished to vote keep on these articles- so hardly acting in a neutral manner. Astrotrain 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is a flat-out untruth. In this edit, you wrote: another non notable IRA member up for deletion - hardly "neutral" - but only did so on pages of users with whom you've been block-voting for the last two weeks. That's pretty clear evidence that you were canvassing. And it's time for you to stop - preferably of your own volition. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was neutral for that particular editor, in the context of the actual discussion. You should really assume good faith in these matters. Astrotrain 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that there has been an immediate assumption that wanting these particular non notable articles deleted is pushing a point of view that should not be allowed, and also that Astrotrain needs to be put back in his place somehow, this hardly seems neutral by any means. If I had known these particular articles were up for deletion then I would most certainly have voted for their deletion. Fraslet 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure others would agree to delete the articles too. It is unfortuante that some have chosen to attack the nominator, who was acting in good faith, and abuse admin powers to stifle debate. Astrotrain 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CANVAS? Shouldn't it be CANVASS? Corvus cornix 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS also redirects to Wikipedia:Canvassing. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What can I do about continuous soapboxing?

Is there anything that either I or an admin can do about continuous soapboxing? I and another editor have repetitively pointed out that WP is not a soapbox in this one particular Talk page, but it continues. The latest rant appears to be some lengthy diatribe about Jewish people[96]. How can we get these soapboxers to stop? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that one of the soapboxers, User:Mr Phil, has recently been warned by an admin about making personal attacks[97]. His account on German Wikipedia[98] was banned because of his behaviour. And he has indicated on his Talk page that he will only edit in English Wikipedia because of this[99]:

• Ich werde mich von jetzt an nur noch in der englischen Wikipedia äußern, die deutsche Wikipedia ist nur für Zensur gut.
• Translation by Dictionary.com Translator: I will express myself from now to only in the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia am good only for censorship.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet more lengthy soapboxing[100]. These editors are now on a full-blown rant against Jewish people, and even go as far as justifying the Holocaust. Help from admins would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GunZ the Duel, persistent IP vandal(s).

After this comment from 201.34.85.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), there have been many edits to the page, along the same lines, although it's not the same IP, so I don't think I can nominate them for AIV, even though they're most likely socks.

• 1 from 201.34.91.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 2 from 200.96.100.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 3 from 200.203.67.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 4 from 201.34.85.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

and as you can see in their contribs, more than one from most of them. I don't think this is suitable for AIV, 3RR, or requests for prot, really need assistance here, it's getting stupid -- feb^talk 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking out of archive, this needs some form of attention.

• New: 5 from 200.203.110.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- feb^talk 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• New: 6 from 201.14.254.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone please help, before I have to take this to prot requests? -- feb^talk 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd one on the unblock list

We are dealing with a hostage situation here. Urgent: Please  
permanently remove (edit) all information about a fund raiser for  
Jeff Ake from Downers Grove North High School or other, and personal  
names associated with it. Thank you.

No such information evident, likely a hoax, but I have passed it on to the OTRS folks anyway just to be on the safe side. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked his article, and it's entirely possible Jeff Ake is still being held hostage.--Vercalos 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Which article? Guy (Help!) 17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, removed from Jeffrey Ake and protected. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, don't you think that we should tell somebody high on the WM chain of command about this? PTO 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent it to OTRS and locked the article, that should be sufficient I think. I am not sure that it should be oversighted, although it perhaps wouldn't hurt to remove it from the history. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel Warring by Centrx on Roger Needham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Centrx fully protected this article on November 15, 2006. When King of Hearts lowered the protection level to semi-protection today, Centrx reinstated full protection a mere 13 minutes later, without any discussion whatsoever. This action is a violation of the wheel warring policy, which clearly states that "repeating your admin action after someone has undone it, is wheel warring". John254 17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to notice the article was the target of heavy vandalism from bots? Or that Centrix's protection notice actually said "Protected Roger Needham: Long-term problem with single-minded, horrid sockpuppet vandalism from one person persisent for half a year; do not unprotect until mid-2007"? Or that the admin in question didn't discuss it with Centrix? Try to assume some WP:AGF sometime. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

John254, it is very rare for administrator's to wheel war ever, especially over trivial matters such as that. I'd prefer if you would not accuse someone without being sure they had mal-intentions. Cbrown1023 talk 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article had been subjected to heavy vandalism; however, since the page had been fully protected for three months, it was quite possible that the vandal might have lost interest. Centrx's admonition "do not unprotect until mid-2007" does not act to prevent another administrator from unprotecting the page, since Centrx has no greater powers than any other administrator. While King of Hearts did not consult Centrx prior to reducing the page to semi-protection, Wikipedia:Wheel_war states that "Undoing another admin's action once is not considered a wheel war". There is no excuse for repeating a disputed administrative action, unless the administrative action being reversed is obvious vandalism (deletion of the main page, for example). If Centrx disagreed with the good-faith unprotection of this article by King of Hearts, he should have discussed the issue with King of Hearts and/or requested that another administrator reprotect the article. Moreover, since I didn't claim that Centrx's policy violation was conducted in bad faith, claims that I am somehow violating WP:AGF are without merit. John254 18:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a wheel war, and it most certainly did not require immediate posting to AN/I. A little communication goes a hell of a long way, and posting here without even attempting to discuss it with Centrx is in my opinion, a very clear lack of assuming good faith. (I don't agree with near-permanent full protection, but that is irrelevant to me at this point. I'm astounded at the mere existence of this report.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally a wheel war has a little more repetition than that, did you take it up on his talk page? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The George W. Bush article gets much more vandalism edits, yet it is in permanent semi-protection. We can't have an article fully protected for months unless it is an office action. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Rey on this one. It's unwiki to have an article FPROT'd for any long length of time, and the only time I feel this is acceptable is as an office action carried out by Danny. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. Vandalism to GWB will be reverted fast due to the number of eyes. A single-minded vandal can certainly cause a much bigger WP:BLP problem on a less-trafficked article. Also, this does not become a wheel war unless KoH reduces the protection again; as it stands this is just bold-revert-discuss, which is quite acceptable. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No Doubt History Page Vandalized

I don't know how to take vandalism down, or identify the source, but I would like to report it. It's disturbing and unfortunate.

I did a Google search for History of No Doubt and a line of obscenity appears on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the first item that appears in Google. There should be an easy link or button readily visible on the home page for people who are not technically savvy to report and block vandalism in a few easy steps.

Paula —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.238.149 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

It's been fixed. John Reaves (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism article

I have been mediating as the MedCab mediator on the Surrealism article. There was some dispute over the creation of links and there seems to be a monumental discussion over the actual meaning etc. of Surrealism on the talk page. Whilst I have tried to remain neutral, it has reached the point that mediation can no longer continue because one user, Classicjupiter2 has created an apparent army of sockpuppets to push the same point, despite the sockpuppeteer agreeing to a previous MedCab consensus that was put in place. No comments have been made on the Sockpuppetry request page and the 10 day limit is almost over. Ordinarily I would just leave this to a SSP outcome but all the while more and more sockpuppets appear. It is blatantly obvious that they are all one and the same user; they have identical speech and indeed formatting patterns (e.g placing certain words in capitals) and all want the same thing. Indeed, it has been put forward by one user that they are all known alias of the same person from other web-communities. I didn't feel a RfCU was required as there doesn't seem to be any real ambiguity over the identity of the person; they have seemingly admitted to being one and the same person at one stage. However, some of the later users in the list I am a little unsure about but couldn't find the right code to submit this under at RfCU. This user continues to disrupt articles and spam Wikipedia, and as such I would ask an admin to have a look, and if necessary, intervene. Note: Some of the later users are not involved directly in the current dispute, but a look at the talk page will show an extremely similar pattern of behaviour. Not sure if I should have sent these to a Checkuser.

MedCab case page
SSP investigation page (This page also contains links to diffs where the alleged sockpuppets have all worked together for the same agenda).
Current area on talk page:
Talk:Surrealism#Mediaton Cabal
Talk:Surrealism#Surrealism and its history after Breton died
The alleged sockpuppeteer: Classicjupiter2
Sockpuppets:
User:Punkrockerartist
User:Fatsosurrealist
User:Lisa_Petrasci
User:12.196.6.162
Other connected sock puppets:
User:Surreal-one
User:Protector777
I could give detailed links to diffs where each user has edited, but a quick skim of the talk page and history clearly shows the problem. Thanks. Jem 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the "sockpuppets" are disrupting a valid Dispute Resolution attempt then a block may be necessary to end the disruptions. An RFCU may not be appropriate if sock puppetry can be proven using other methods. E.g. editing styles, contrib history, and likely spa. I was unable to find an appropriate code, however, using other methods to prove likely sock puppetry, and in the case of disruption, blocking will not require the technical evidence RFCU can provide. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Classicjupiter2 (talk · contribs) has been notified as to this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of the users, User:Lisa_Petrasci has also commenced personal attacks on me here, to add that into the mix. Jem 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jewish heritage ... not exactly vandal, but problem editor

I just found a low-speed ... well, he's not exactly vandalizing, but he's putting "of jewish heritage" and similar comments in (in my opinion) inappropriate places in articles at a moderate rate. Operating from two IP addresses that I have seen so far: 84.108.128.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Feb 10-11, 7 edits 3 articles) and 84.109.44.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Jan 31 - Feb 8, 17 edits 9 articles). The IP addresses are in two contiguous netblocks at the same ISP in Israel.

This isn't a high volume problem... it's more of a review and cleanup the inappropriate edits he made... but I get the feeling that there are more IPs that he/she have used which I haven't spotted so far. So please keep an eye out for minor edits from 84.108.* and 84.109.* . They have done some other contributions and don't appear to purely be a single-purpose account, but it's most of what they're doing. I left them a note asking them to stop on the current IP in use, and briefer one on the old one. Nobody had left any prior warnings. Georgewilliamherbert 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by an admin

An admin has made the following personal attack on me at the Talk:Anti-Zionism page:

Actually, WP:NOR applies quite explicitly to the way sources are chosen and used. It baffles me that you would imagine you understand Wikipedia's content policies better than I do. You've been editing Wikipedia for 2 weeks, almost all of it to this article and Talk: page; the hubris in imagining you have the content policies down pat is astonishing. (...) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is this impolite, it's also worrying since an admin is claiming that WP:NOR applies to the way sources are chosen, which is not true. This was done in the context of a discussion about source reliability after I presented evidence in favor of one source.

Along the same line, the same admin had previously claimed: "Please stop filling the page with repetitive and irrelevant original research, let's stick to policy," suggesting, again incorrectly, that policy forbids original research from the Talk pages.

My complaint is, then, that:

a) An admin has behaved improperly, making rude comments on another user. b) An admin appears not to understand the WP:NOR policy. --Abenyosef 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually WP:NOR echoes WP:RS very clearly in requiring reliable, verifiable sources, which absolutely does speak to the way sources are chosen and used. I don't really see any problem with his comments, either, but I tend to have a thicker skin for that than others, so some might disagree. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of the point about WP:OR, "It baffles me that you would imagine you understand Wikipedia's content policies better than I do" does sound rather condescending, even if true. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I had seen just that comment out of context, I would agree, but looking over the talk page shows the reasons for such wording. I personally wouldn't have said it (at least I hope I wouldn't have), but I think, in context, it's mild incivility at best. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, amongst mildest incivility I have been able to detect. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Abenyosef has been engaging in original research on the Anti-Zionism talk page to try and dismiss the claims from reliable sources, which WP:V prohibits ("verifiability, not truth"). Several editors have tried to point this out to him with little effect, and taking into account the length of the discussion and the fact that Abenyosef still doesn't get it, Jayjg was entirely justified in making the comments he did. -- Steel 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Abenyosef was trying to go against consensus to push an unreliable sourced statement in the article. I can understand how it is frustrating to have to deal with this kind of stuff, when people refuse to accept consensus but Jayjg should have been more careful in his wording. Either way, I don't think one mildly uncivil statement made out of frustration should qualify as a true violation of WP:NPA.--Jersey Devil 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is probably a slight violation of WP:BITE, but looks like an act of frustration more than anything else. Nothing to be concerned about. Definitely not a violation of WP:NPA. --Tango 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No incivility, no personal attack, not even WP:BITE; just being firm and straightforward toward someone who has refused to take a hint. Raymond Arritt 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your advice. However, I still don't get it straight why O.R. is forbidden when arguing for or against the reliability of a source. Where's this written? --Abenyosef 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A better way to establish the reliability of a source is to open a request for comment. And by the way, I agree with Raymond Arritt about the original quote at this thread. Durova^Charge! 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Arritt, Durova, et al -- but here's Wikipedia behavior policy in a nutshell: even idiots deserve politeness. Wikipedia policy does not allow you not to be nice with a guy just because he's a jerk. Making use of such policy, I'll be nice enough to tell you that you're fundamentally wrong with regard to NOR. It does not apply to the way sources are chosen, and no one in a talk page can stop an editor from arguing for (or against) a source on the grounds that he's using OR to check that source. The only place where OR is forbidden is in the Wikipedia articles -- period. You can't write your own research into the article: that's the one and only limitation. Outside of the words written into the article, you're allowed to use OR for whatever purpose, including source choice.

Your failure to understand that elementary issue shows that the Wikipedia Policy pages are a large amount of beautiful words that are not actually grasped by the users, who wield NOR as a kill-it-all weapon they take pleasure in using against others, trigger-happy fashion, instead of using it with judgment. But then, if admins do not understand the rules, what can one expect from rank-and-file users.

One final word for Bbatsell. Your claim that "If I had seen just that comment out of context, I would agree, but looking over the talk page shows the reasons for such wording" is most telling. All my comments in that page are well-reasoned and polite. What you don't like is what you think are my ideas. The various ad-hominems I've gotten in this page also go in the same direction.

Wikipedia is young. Hopefully, in the future a way will be found to deal with these distortions. --Abenyosef 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editors including Jay have shown you a high degree of tolerance, in the face of you insisting stridently on some stuff which is against WP policy. You have no reason to expect for everyone to remain polite to you indefinitely with you provoking them. The responses have been very mild. Please stop the provocations. Georgewilliamherbert 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, guys and gals, your feedback has taught me a lesson I will never forget -- "Jay" has a lot of friends. Your bullying and ad-hominems are a disgrace to Wikipedia. You're justifying and "understanding" what is clearly uncivil behavior, and you're warning and admonishing me for daring to challenge a nonexistent consensus (you haven't even grasped what this word means), perhaps forgetting that Wikipedia requires us to swim against the current if we believe it's the right thing to do -- IOW, to be bold. I'm confident Wikipedia will improve over time, and this kind of childish behavior will become rarer.--Abenyosef 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

An editor is repeatedly removing POV and disputed tags during a dispute, instead of following dispute resolution and discussion. Also, he is insulting me when he removes the tags.-MsHyde 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this user has been warned several times about the misuse of such tags (see User talk:MsHyde), and has tried to use at least four different versions on this one article after encountering resistance. I have removed the tags because they have no need to be there. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have never placed a POV tag or a disputed tag before. Or a content policy dispute tag. Someguy keeps removing tags rather than discussing, also calling me names when he does it. This article is very unstable according to a previous editor, and there has been a persistent POV problem, with one side feeling bullied out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Electronic_Voice_Phenomenon -MsHyde 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you have yet to misuse these specific tags does not mean you haven't misused others. Likewise, you add the tags without noting the problem. You just think its there and expect others to get what it is. As for the other thing, I have commented on your behavior, this is true, because you refuse to stop. You merely pick a new tag and go with it when you're denied on another. I have explained to you why you're misusing the tags, yet you do not stop. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have appropriately used the unreferenced tag many times. The disputed tags are not being misused at EVP--there is a dispute. You should not be removing the tags during the dispute, or insulting me. My concerns are clearly stated on the talkpage, and in the discussions at the science help desk, the physics project, and OR--all places you have followed me to argue, rather than let anyone give an outside opinion. You are well aware that there is a dispute, and why. Removing the dispute tags and insulting me will not resolve the dispute. The tags should remain so that others are alerted and can comment.-MsHyde 09:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the page, there is a dispute about the tags. You have not listed what parts are POV and you have only listed one inaccurate sentence, which is anything but. You need to explain why the tags are necessary before they are used, and I have refuted your current arguments for your previous tagging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someguy0830 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There is a dispute on multiple grounds, which you are well aware of. Removing the tags will not resolve the dispute. Others should be alerted so they can participate.-MsHyde 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: now he has violated the 3 revert rule, to remove the disputed tags.-MsHyde 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As have you. Don't play wikilawyer unless you're in the clear. We really shouldn't be arguing here. Adding the tags does not create the dispute, either. Let me get to the point. Tell me what is wrong with the article. Specifically. Go to the talk page, outline your problems, cite sentences, note errors, the whole shebang. Just knock it off with the tag pestering. Do me and anyone else who might be paying attention a favor and tell us why you're so damn eager to add these tags instead of spending two minutes to actually fix something. Your behavior is incredibly frustrating, because the few times you actually do this you don't even listen to the people telling you why you're misguided on the particular issue. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not violated 3RR, only you have. And you have insulted me. And you have followed me around, arguing, and then claimed you were unaware there was a dispute. If you are not blocked by someone here for 3RR, I will make a 3RR report.-MsHyde 09:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Original version
• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Original version
• Revert 3
• Revert 4
• Revert 5

WP:3RR: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."

Do not lie. I am no better, but I do not hide this fact. Please, just explain what's wrong with the page. That's all I ask. For the sake of both our sanity, please do this. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Only you have breached 3RR. I placed the noncompliant tag, you reverted, I requested outside comments and then placed POV and disputed tags, you reverted 4 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=106796623

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=106797430

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=106798182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=106801076 -MsHyde 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." Can't you read?

I'm getting nowhere. I give up. If you're not willing to discuss things rationally, fine. An admin can settle this. I'll only ask you one more time. Please go to the talk page and outline your problems. Do this and I will not fight you on this issue. Please, just do this. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly pointed out, I have clearly outlined my concerns to you on the talkpage, and at OR, at the science help desk, where you followed me. You have continually removed the dispute tags rather than dicuss, and you have repeatedly insulted me--in your edit summary, and even here "can't you read" etc. I have reported you to 3RR.-MsHyde 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The pair of you: please make your way to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes rather than throwing mud at each other here. You're both cruising for trouble at the moment and it would be best if you resolved your issues instead. 〈REDVEЯS〉 10:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, my patience has just run thin and I apologize. I just want some reasoning. All I want to know is what's POV and what's inaccurate, which I feel hasn't been adequately done. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someguy0830 isn't the only person that's had his toes stepped on, intentionally or not. MsHyde has come into disputes with a number of editors. She's posted many a time to various help and policy pages; see her contrib list. She's also become a lightning rod on her talk page. I'm not saying all this as an attack though I can certainly understand if it's perceived as such. I just wish MsHyde would ease a little more gently into Wikipedia; I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. Read the comments others have left for her and judge for yourself. Thanks, Lunch 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (A bot wiped out my comment. Weird ... no edit conflict notice.)

Lunch is bizarrely unable to give up a grudge he developed after I placed a reference request tag at Nixie Tube--he repeatedly reverted the tag, and did not stop until someone else reverted him and told him the tag was both appropriate and a good idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube#references_tag He appears to have taken the tag placement personally, although it was the result of random button editing, and has harassed me ever since. Completely inexplicable.

Regarding Someguy, I have learned that the problems at Electronic voice phenomenon are so entrenched and longstanding that other editors believe the POV issues should go to Arbcom, and someone else has added additonal reverts Someguy made today to the 3RR report, which has still not been reviewed by an administrator. I want to be optimistic, but frankly this place seems completely insane, so far. :-)-MsHyde 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment makes it difficult to help you. I'm digging through the diffs on the page, from the first example listed above as 'original version'.I have seen NUMEROUS tags applied by Ms. Hyde. Although some, like the tagging of the audio file, seem to have produced consensus results, others seem only to be about antagonizing others. I note that SomeGuy repeatedly asked you to explain yourself, to which your reply was at least once 'there is a dispute'. That's not helpful to anyone in making clear your objections. I noted that SomeGuy, by working back and forth across edits with OTHER editors, found what I see as an excellent, NPOV means of distinguishing between mainstream scientific experiments and those conducted by 'paranormalists'. I think he chose "Scientific experiments did not find any anomalies that fulfill the characteristics of EVP. Informal experiments, on the other hand, recorded anomalies which, upon analysis and listening tests, seemed to the experimenter to". This seemed excellent to me, and then we get into the issue of the WP:COI, which is separate and distinct, and easily dealt with. Such COI on a problematic page should result in that editor (Tom Butler) being asked to stay away from COI pages, and then if needed, enforced by a brief block for the editor to engage in policy studies. It is regretable that later, someone esle insisted on a change in the wording, and then SomeGuy removed a big section, resulting in a LESS clear version.

I do note that in diffs such as this:[101], MS.Hyde's claims of NPOV seem to be LESS NPOV. 'An Audio Sample' is far more clinical than 'sounds', FOR THIS TOPIC. Because EVP is ABOUT the understanding, veracity, and nature of a certain set of audio phenomena, Editors should work carefully with descriptions of sound. Were things in this article regularly referred to as 'the voices', many editors would justifiably argue.

In summary, there is some definite conflict here. Neither side is innocent, but I do see more community relations and team and consensus building from Someguy. Ms. Hyde, meanwhile, seems fairly intent on seeing her viewpoint pushed. Both need to work on their patience, but Ms. Hyde would do well to get her incivility under wraps. ThuranX 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this article, and according to a longstanding contributor:

"Edit/revert wars have proven inadequate for bringing this article to compliance. Given the history of this article and the current choreographed effort of POV pushing by EVP proponents, the best course of action may be arbitration. --- LuckyLouie 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"

It is not simply my perception that there is a POV pushing problem at this article from EVP proponents, it is the perception of a longstanding editor. It also appears that another longstanding editor who has tried to counter EVP POV, ScienceApologist, is on break, which probably created a sort of vacuum. Someguy has continued to revert two editors--me and Milo H. Minderbinder--today. The issue of COI is not separate and distinct, as Someguy emails with Butler, and appears to agree with Butler that stating the scientific point of view is "disparaging" to EVP proponents. Removing POV tags on the grounds that the dispute wasn't stated is patently ridiculous, as Someguy followed me to OR and the science desk and was well aware of the terms of the dispute. And no, "informal experiments" is not NPOV, and it is a violation of WP:FRINGE, as I have stated on the talkpage. If you look through the history of the artcile, something I have now done, the same POV issues about the same wording have come up before. Violating 3RR to remove dispute tags about issues which have already been contested seems like bad faith. (ScienceApologist went on break, the article slunk into a POV version, I happened by and raised objections which had already been raised. Someguy fought to keep the objections from being raised and attacked me on personal grounds "you are being childish" "you tag too much" when he was well aware that that there had already been objections to precisely what I objected to.) There is a longstanding POV problem at this article, and it should probably go to Arbcom if LuckyLouie thinks so. In the meantime, attacking me personally or violating 3RR to remove dispute tags will not mask the longstanding POV problems, and is not helpful. In addition, since Someguy continues to "own" the article, and reverts any edits made by me or Milo H. Minderbinder, I find it particularly unhelpful that no one has addressed the 3RR complaint.-MsHyde 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, you are woefully mistaken. I may have reverted Milo once, and unintentionally at that. I've only reverted you intentionally. As Thuran points out, I've been trying to get it fixed. You have not. Second, I'm not putting up with this e-mail nonsense. E-mails with Butler? Who are you to say I've been e-mailing anyone? Do you have proof, or are you throwing accusations about randomly? I won't stand for that. Unless you have proof, do not assume I e-mail anyone. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is Martinphi who says on the talkpage he has emailed Butler, not you. (But note your defensiveness, and the extremely hostile attitiude, overreaction, etc, which I have found to be typical of you). You do appear to second Butler's POV, and you have not objected to his editing, in spite of his COI, or the threat he made to Wikipedia. You have reverted Milo, and he added your reverts to the 3RR report I made, and wants to take the case to Arbcom. He advised me to seek more help on several policy boards. Both Milo and I gave up aditing the article today after you reverted our edits. Driving away anyone who disagrees with you and then making minor concessions after they say they are going to Arbcom does not resolve the problem, especially considering the great lengths anyone had to go to to get you to even acknowledge there was a dispute (a dispute you were already aware existed). Your reverting and owning of the article is a big problem, in my view. And since there is such an ongoing problem with EVP POV pushing at this article, according to longterm editors, it should probably go to Arbcom.-MsHyde 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I said you were hired by scientists to discredit Wikipedia articles, wouldn't you be annoyed? Don't be surprised when I take offense to your statements. I have tried to be helpful about this thing. I've tried to incorporate the suggestions of those on the talk page to appease POV concerns. None of this seems to come to your attention. I no longer care what you think of my motivations, nor do I plan on discussing yours any further. Reign in your accusations and do something productive. If you think that's arbcom, then quit threatening it and do it. I'm out of patience in this regard. Continually I have asked for your participation in discussion, for compromise and working together to settle concerns. It's gotten me nowhere. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I would say that what you did was try to bully and personally attack me to keep me from rasing objections that had already been raised, while ScienceApologist was gone and the article had descended into a very POV state. You have been extremely hostile to me, in my view, and I think purposely so. I think you thought by being very aggressive, I would stop objecting and the article could stay POV. I am waiting for the longterm editors to get notice about Arbcom and file, also more help. From what I can see in the talk archives and the page history, this is a longterm problem. There's a huge recurring POV imbalance, aggressive EVP POV pushing, and Butler not only comes back again and again, but he says things like "I am not going to go away" and makes threats.-MsHyde 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Denial of actions is NOT an admission of guilt, Ms. Hyde. You are trying, above, to imply that because someguy took umbrage with your unfounded, and incorrect, allegations of emailing Butler, then he probably SI guilty. That sort of BS'ing doesn't work on most of the editors and admins that regularly review AN/I, and it's distinctly uncivil of you. As for Arbcom, let it go there. I'm more displeased with your hostilities than I am with any POV that SomeGuy may be pushing, because 3RR aside, he seems at least more communicative than you do about things. Doesn't make him 'right' about the topic, does make him more sympathetic regarding the reported incidents. ThuranX 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Here is the related COI section regarding User:Tom Butler, who has been blocked for 24 hours for COI and editing violations on the EVP page, including removing all mention of his association, so that he can then edit the page. The POV level for almost all editors on this page is at a critical level. ThuranX 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, your first reference is to a complaint made by recent arrival to the scene (MsHyde)—just after we had arrived at agreement about the entry. She immediately got into an editing war with Someguy0830, a person who had been working very hard to build a consensus. That first complaint seems to be mostly about MsHyde.

Those other two references are pretty specific to me but please not that they come from two people very new to the EVP discussion, and one who wants to prove I am delusional because of Spiritualism. All three are apparently determined to “win” at any cost. It is that tactic that traps me into becoming aggressive. That is my short coming, but since Wikipedia offers me no solution, and I am not going to simply smile and let misinformation about my field of study be disseminated under the guise of a trusted encyclopedia, what alternative do I have.

In my defense, when I came to the EVP entry, there were many statements that were not factually correct, and there was a personal attack on my wife and me, and directly at the AA-EVP. Clearly, left to itself, Wikipedia is incapable of a balanced point of view in regard to EVP. At the same time, Wikipedia is ranked 3rd in Goodle for an “EVP” search. There are at least three other web sites that have copies of the version I decided needed to be fixed. Since it poses itself as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a responsibility to be both factual and balanced.

The last bone of contention over EVP was the terminology used to describe both the skeptical view and the concluding remarks. “Skeptic” was used for a long time before MsHyde and Proponent for the other view. For a while, such words as “hypotheses” and “theory” were used and I was fine with all of those. MsHyde came in and changed “Skeptic” to “Science, and made the concluding remarks look like science had passed judgment on EVP and found it to be baseless fantasy. In fact, science has no looked at EVP and the statement and use of “Science” instead of “Skeptical” shifts the point of view way over to the skeptical side for the whole document. How does “Experiments performed by scientists have found no evidence of EVP” Sound to you? It states simply that MacRae is not a scientist an danything he said is unsubstantiated by “real” scientists.” It has not been established that’s “cientists have found no evidence of EVP” The reference is for Baruss, who is a psychologist.

At this moment, LuckyLouie has posted, “Being an AA-EVP member and fellow Spiritualist, MacRae does not appear to be Tom's competition, but rather a fellow proponent of EVP and life after death (or "the survival hypothesis" as they term it). Furthermore, I have nothing against MacRae or Spiritualists, but since only those with strong beliefs seem to get any positive experimental results, we must be careful not to represent such work as "science" when it really is more an ewxample of "pathological science", i.e. cases where there is no dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. --- LuckyLouie 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)” First, I do not think MacRae is a Spiritualist, I doubt that Lucky knows for sure and it has nothing to do with the subject. Lucky has repeatedly tried to discount EVP because of the involvement of Spiritualism. There is no evidential foundation for his innuendoes, it is prejudicial and a deliberate attempt to discount EVP without evidence.

The tactic taken by the Wikipedia Skeptic is to out stubborn the opposition. It is the skeptics who have mounted an organized effort to push a viewpoint. Did you notice the call to arms at the top of the page? “This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.”

Of course I am frustrated. And yes, I have threatened to take extra action. Since we do not have the sponsorship of Wikipedia, I have begun a “Concerns with Wikipedia” campaign. As long as misinformation is being distributed to kids using the internet for homework, I feel a social obligation to make people at least examine how information is collected and edited. All and all, I am not the problem here. Tom Butler 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the positions you espouse here in defense of your view of EVP are EXACTLY why WP:COI exists and is enforced. Citing WP:IGNORE to excuse WP:COI isn't wikipolicy. IGNORE is a corollary of WP:BOLD, but if you are confronted with specific policy (in your case COI), then you should adhere to the proper policy, not re-excuse it via IGNORE. That multiple editors have cited COI indicates you DO have a COI, and should desist from EVP and EVP-related articles. Further, your WP:POINT Violation below is egregious, and given your apparent familiarity with Wiki-Policy, you knew that could set you up for a block. It's been asked about, and I've voiced support for such a block. ThuranX 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Tom Butler has nominated this article for AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_voice_phenomenon. Does this warrant a WP:POINT block? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD. Yuser31415 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the user's aove admission of an Anti-Wikipedia campaign as result of his 'field of study' being, in his view, maligned by wikipedia to the detriment of students worldwide, I'd say yes, actually. Also, aren't editors actively working against wikipedia generally banned, like the ED crowd? ThuranX 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please contain your crypto-racism. There are several hard-working and (semi!)respected editors who also live at ED. - brenneman 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)