Just trying to head a conflict off at the pass, so to speak. Fred1296 (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA for promoting comedian Chris Rush. Fred1296 is also probably indef blocked user Tony159 (talk · contribs), who made the same edits to the same articles.

Fred1296 has also added small articles for Rush's book and three albums, the book has already been merged back into the article. Delicious carbuncle has merged/redirected the albums back to the main page for Rush [1] [2] [3]. DC has made comments on Fred1296's page (as have I) to discuss the matter, but Fred1296 has reverted the redirects repeatedly without adding any content, stating in his edit summaries "Good enough for a page" and "As good as anyother page in same category".

I'd hate to see a full-scale edit war break out over something like this, so more opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am a fan of Chris Rush, and since there wasn't any pages for him I decided to create them. I am however NOT trying to promote him. I am just working with the available information on the web. I do understand why the book was merged into Chris Rush sice it didn't have much for its own page, but to delete the three album pages are ridiculous. There are hundreds of other comedy album pages with the same or even less on it, yet nobody deletes those or merges them into the artist's pages. First Rush, Beaming In and There's No Bones In Ice Cream have plenty of info needed for an encyclopedia stand point. There is obviously some problem these editors have with Chris Rush or even myself considering it seems to be the same ones always trying to delete the pages. When I start to see other pages in the same category being deleted or merged like FM & AM for instance (which is identical to what I created) maybe then I'll be more understandable. Untill then I'm going to fight to keep these pages up and updated too, but when I'm costantly having to undo edits that are made from users who don't believe Chris Rush or any of his works are notable or famous enough it makes it a bit difficult. Thank You Fred1296 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence seems to indicate that these two accounts are likely the same person, but I would feel more comfortable seeing a checkuser on this one, as the idea that two different fans had created these pages is a slight possibility. --Jayron32 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony159, which I just started. Lets do this formally to put a nail in this one for good. --Jayron32 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that while FM & AM may be a bit sparse in the references department, it clearly meets the general notability guideline by virtue of having won the 1972 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. That fact does not address the (possible) block dodging issue... --Jayron32 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you in Mussolini-related matters. My point was that none of Chris Rush's albums appear to be notable unlike the example offered by Fred1296 of the George Carlin album FM & AM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you were... Nevermind. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI case has been rejected. Meanwhile, the album articles remain and Fred1296 has recreated a twice speedied article about a comedy club... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Fred1296 has been consistently reverting edits made by a number of editors, with the net effect being that he seems personally involved in promoting this particular comedian and the comedian's books and albums. Even without knowing if there's a relationship between this editor and this comedian, Fred1296 is exhibiting WP:OWN and, arguably, appears to be violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I admit to reverting edits and I believe the last one I made on First Rush deemed to be appropriate. I read the reason why it was merged into Chris Rush, and though didn't see anything that was remotely close to promoting him, I removed the statement to which had not been there in earlier versions. It was back to the same way it was when it received no complaints, but then its still merged again back into Chris Rush. Now I'm here having to write this and waist my time even though everything on the page had it's own references and that I said clearly in the edit summary that I had changed it back. This is becoming a big to-do about nothing. Why not go edit and delete the thousands of other pages that are not formatted correctly and have a bunch of BS on them, because my pages are to the best they can be and I'm always looking to make them better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...my pages..."??? Either we have a massive WP:COI or a massive issue with WP:OWN. You do not have any pages. They are Wikipedia's pages, and open for editing/deleting as per the licence you granted when you clicked "submit". At that point they have to meet notability and have actual reliable sources - not just ones that you say are notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to examine every word I say, your head might explode. As far as actual and notable sorces, the ones I put down are real and factual. Just because you don't believe to know them doesn't mean there less of a reference then anyother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she has been editing under different IPs, such as 75.22.138.39 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I remember right, he was only called that maybe a few times, during the original Dragon Ball. Throughout the rest of the series, including Dragon Ball Z and GT, he's reffered to as simply "Piccolo." As well, following your logic, he should have been renamed twice during the series, when he absorbed the powers of Nail and Kami. Since the use of his name is primarily "Piccolo" and not "Piccolo Jr.," then I see no reason to alter anything about his name simply because he was the child of the original Piccolo.--Iner22 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he is a Piccolo Jr. The characters from the "Dragon Ball" series have to call him that name. He should be called Piccolo Jr. forever. Piccolo Jr. is not his full name or nickname. The only nicknames he has are Ma Junior and the Namekian. He doesn't have a last name. He never had a last name. He's just Piccolo Jr. the fifth and final nephew of Kami, the fifth and final son of King Piccolo, and the fourth and final brother of Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine. He's not King Piccolo reincarnated, because first, he can't have his own child be his reincarnation. That's stupid. Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine would then call him dad and father, which he's not. Second, reincarnations always have their past self's same facial structure, stature, and voice. Piccolo Jr. doesn't. And third, reincarnations are always portrayed by the same actor and actress who portrayed their past selves. Reincarnations are always described to be like that and are always like that. Kami and his evil twin brother King Piccolo were voiced by Takeshi Aono in the Japanese Dub, while Toshio Furukawa voices Piccolo Jr. in the Japanese Dub. Kami is his uncle. King Piccolo is his father. And Cymbal, Drum, Piano, and Tambourine are his brothers. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr. are two different characters. So please, I want his biography changed back to way it was I had written it. --75.22.138.39 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see the type of rants we've had to put up with. He/she just keeps going on and on repeating the same points over and over and over again, despite multiple editors points out that the points are completely wrong. Its as if that by restating the points, he thinks that they will somehow become the truth. —Farix (t | c) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin here at enwp, but I am just a template programmer so I need help with this:

We have problems with Eubulides (talk · contribs). He is trying to do copyright infringement on a massive scale. He wants to unlink all icons here on enwp, for instance in different kinds of message boxes. His reason is to make the boxes more accessible to blind users, so that their image links aren't read out in screen readers. But as you guys probably know we are only allowed to unlink public domain images, since pretty much all other licenses require attribution and require that one can find out what license the image has.

He has single-handedly done massive changes and extensions to the guideline Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and since then used it as a reference for his demands.

When we refuse him to unlink an image in a protected template, he does this:

1. He makes a new very complex version of the template and puts it in the /sandbox sub-page of the template. His code makes the image unlinked, and makes any other images fed to the template also unlinked by default.
2. He changes the documentation of the template to fit with his new code, even though his code has not been deployed. And his documentation tells people to not link images, and usually fails to mention that we are only allowed to unlink public domain images.
3. He repeatedly puts {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the template, no matter how many times different admins have denied the request.
4. He draws a copy of the old image. That is, he paints a new very similar version. And he uploads it to Commons.
5. He sets the license to "public domain", thus not respecting the license of the image he has copied.
6. He adds a description that he made the image entirely by himself. He does not attribute the author(s) of the image he copied.
7. He then comes back to enwp and tries to make people use his new "PD" image as icon, so it can be used without a link.

No matter how much we try to explain to him he shows a total disregard for copyright, attribution and procedures here at enwp and at Commons.

For instance, one case involves the {{portal}} box here at enwp. It is used on over 2.4 million pages. For the discussions, see Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility.

(I have reported his image uploads at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Eubulides.)

I would appreciate if you guys investigated his edits and do what ever the procedures say you should do with them and with him. I'm sorry that I'm not read up on the procedures regarding this, I was just made an admin here at enwp since I handle high-risk templates. (The templates I code tend to become very popular, so they get protected.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he uploaded any derivative images besides File:Portal-puzzle.svg? That's the only one I can find, apart from possibly File:Compass_rose_pale.svg, though that doesn't seem to be being questioned. Note: I'm not an admin, here or on Commons, just trying to help out. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the consensus on Commons is that these icons are not copyrightable, so making new versions is perfectly acceptable. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portal-puzzle.svg for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the only issue here. He also unlinks other images. That is, images that others have made and that certainly are not public domain. And he edits templates (or demand that we edit for him if protected) so the default when an image is fed to those templates is to suppress the linking of the image. Thus all existing usage of those templates will have unlinked images. And he refuses to explain it properly in the documentation of the templates, so most new usage will also have unlinked images. And he does this on many high-use templates.

As I see it, if he is allowed to continue with this then we might get the following problems: Someone might sue Wikimedia for publishing their images without attribution, and people who want attribution for their images will refuse to upload them to Wikipedia/Commons.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that only be a problem with fair-use images (which shouldn't be used in templates) since all our other licences are compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, which all of Wikipedia is licenced under anyway? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the licenses for the images used in templates are usually more or less compatible. But almost all these licenses require that the author is attributed and that a copy of the license is sent along or linked to, thus we need to link to the file pages so one can see the author name and exactly what license it uses. Note that CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL also have this requirement. And that is a hard legal requirement, it's not just for fun.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the three options are to either to only use PD images, link to the original images, or attribute the authors as part of the template? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are almost right: But just stating the name of the author below the picture is not enough, you still have to link to the license (or show a visible URL to the license, or show the whole license text), so then you can just as well link to the image page instead. There are two parts here: The attribution and the license. Both parts are required in almost all of the licenses used by images on Wikipedia/Commons.

And a side note: In many countries (for instance in most of northern Europe) you even have to attribute the author when using PD images. I live in such a country, so I have to attribute the original author when I rework or publish a PD image. Thus in a strict sense I am no longer allowed to work with the templates that don't link the PD images.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are, since the servers are in Florida, so none of your Wikipedia work is published in Europe. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, since I am in Sweden, so when I do the save of a page then Swedish law applies to me. It doesn't matter where in the world the servers are, the author of the image can still sue me in Sweden. But the Wikimedia foundation that is in the US and has the servers in the US can't be sued for lack of attribution for a PD image. (Well, they can be sued, but will win the case.)

Anyway, that was a side note. The issue at hand is that non-PD images must have both the attribution of the author, and a link to the license text. And User:Eubulides is systematically removing such links from lots of templates. And he tries to remove the links from templates used on literally millions of pages. So I am asking that the admins here at Wikipedia deal with this problem. As I understand it I am not allowed to deal with him myself, since I am "to involved". (He has damaged templates I made, and unlinked images I made, and most of all I have been arguing with him for too long.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

• 13:18, 16 November 2009 Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:24, 17 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:40, 18 November 2009 User:Peripitus (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)
• 05:17, 19 November 2009 User:Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 05:44, 19 November 2009 User:Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
• 07:27, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 07:28, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 19:36, 19 November 2009 User:Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Team / Touchdown" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The editors involved include:

• Deanops (talk, contribs)

• Blocked: 09:26, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Deanops (talk, contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)

• Special Operations (talk, contribs)
• Horse M (talk, contribs)

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

• (Protection log); 10:41 Peripitus (talk | contribs) protected Team touchdown [create=sysop] (expires 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) (repeated recreation)[reply]

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This [[4]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

• 09:25, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (recreation of unreferenced article about non-notable subject that has previously been deleted after AfD)
• 09:06, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:

• Feelin' Fine (talk, contribs)
• 144.131.87.72 (talk, contribs)

• I have left ANI notices on both of these editor's talk pages -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (E/C) PimpdaddyMcPhee (talk · contribs) (blocked), Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs), 124.149.98.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.218.220.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also involved in this fiasco. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also Team Touchdown, which I have deleted and salted, from user Team Touchdown (talk · contribs), for whom I planned a username block if he tried it again; he has had the article on his userpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown. I think we just continue to delete, salt, and block: they are under-14s, they'll get bored in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have filed a SPI case on the involved parties included from this thread. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another oddity: Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs) was created by Horse96 (talk · contribs), an account with no edits. Horse96's only activity was creating Insertnamehere10, four minutes after creating the original account. The similarity of the name to Horse M (talk · contribs) caught my eye, as did the similarity of Special Operations (talk · contribs) and Deanops (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Millsy360 (talk · contribs) vandalised my talk page 3 times in quick succession: 01:46, 01:49 and 01:54. In between the last two, another editor came out of nowhere (only made one edit since creatign account): Bam.bam0406 (talk · contribs) 01:52. Bam.bam0406 has made no other edits, but I'm guessing it's another sock - the co-incidence is too high! MajorMinorMark, do you want to add those two to the SPI? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[5]] and vandalizing a user page [[6]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another sock User:BananaMcFats. On a vandalism spree. Crafty (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And another User:Jumpinpimp. Crafty (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Beat me to it but now the user is adding creating Teem Touchdown and adding the club stats to the Pumpkin pie article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Angrytown, has jumped out of the sock drawer.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BananaMcFats, Jumpinpimp, Angrytown all indef'ed, and added to SPI page. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie ^❤ 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) have been edit warring at User_talk:Firefly322 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_9 over BLP-violating comments, specifically [7] and [8]. Firefly322 has been blocked for 55 hours by PeterSymonds, but continues to restore the comments to his talkpage. William S. Saturn has passed 3RR on the RfD page, as well. Some more attention here would be appreciated. Nathan ^T 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked specifically what the BLP issue is, on the RFD talk page. This should not have reached this level. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should almost never restore comments deleted for BLP reasons without first discussing the issue. The fact that these comments violate BLP should be easy for anyone familiar with the policy to discern, and edit-warring over them past 3RR is unreasonable by any measure. Nathan ^T 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. If I passed 3RR it was unintentional and will accept the consequences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative, not punitive - so if your comment means that you will not revert any more, then we're done and no block is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're incapable of understanding what the problem is with edits such as [9] then Wikipedia might possibly be the wrong place for you. Firefly322 was lucky to escape with 55 hours IMO - I would have blocked indefinitely until he could state that he understood the problem and would not repeat it. Black Kite 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I have to agree with Black Kite on this one. How is it appropriate to discuss living people in that manner on Wikipedia? Certainly Orangemike and others get away with doing it about conservatives like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who they don't like, and I know we're talking about a mass murderer and not a political commentator in this instance, but it still isn't proper. Once it was objected to I think you should have let it be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything in WP:BLP that specifically covers edits like the above "71" diff. There's a difference between making concrete claims such as "John Doe killed his children" with no links to prove it and saying "John Doe is a very evil person" or "John Doe is a very evil person because he did X" where X is something very clearly true. I think we have become too strict if it is no longer acceptable to make moral judgments about a living person on one's own talk page that are based on verifiable truths about that person. I also don't see where such a thing is covered in the current BLP policy. It doesn't seem to meet the legal definition of defamation, for example, which is given in the first paragraph of the article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. That it comes on a user talk page (and, in this case, an RfD) makes no difference - the BLP policy applies there as anywhere. Nathan ^T 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point, really. "John Doe is a very evil person" regardless of context is clearly an opinion and thus original research. We're not here to make moral judgements about people, we're here to write an encyclopedia. The fact it's on a non-articlespace page is irrelevant here. Black Kite 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post did far more than assert that someone was "evil". Wikipedia's site mission does not include testing the limits on the legal definition of defamation. We're a nonprofit encyclopedia, and it would really be better if individuals who wished to test the acceptability of this statement did so at their own personal website. Durova³⁶⁶ 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on the comment made about Hitler on the user's talk page. However, I feel the edit on the RFD was not a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, it strikes me that blocking was no necessary -- this IMHO could have been handled with discussion or other less punitive measures, which should have been pursued first. Second, it does appear to me that there is not a consensus at the RfD, nor should an involved party close a contested RfD IMHO. Third, as to Nathan's suggestion that he "can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia," I think that may perhaps be just a bit of an overstatement. I certainly can. Himmler, Goering, Idi Amin, Bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Ayatollah Khomeini, Leopold II of Belgium, Pol Pot, and Vlad Ţepeş might all vie for that honor for starters. And certainly there is something different in one making edits expressing their view (as here) than stating a fact as true, as in an article edit, though I would agree that BLP violations (which come in different flavors) should be looked at carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those is a pedophile, a brutal tyrant and an Islamic extremist? Nathan ^T 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're stretching what the original statements in dispute actually said. I think the bottom line is that we should try to conduct ourselves in a professional and dispassionate manner. Since we are writing the articles on living people, it's important that we refrain, generally speaking, from disparaging them. I acknowledge the points made though that discussion shouldn't be stifled by tossing around BLP accusations too freely, but when NAMBLA and Hitler are getting worked in I think the envelope is being pushed too far. We should strive to focus on article content work and collegial discussion rather than engaging in discussion regarding our personal opinions of whether article subjects are evil, or just very very confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are very wise words, extremely well put. At the same time, I think the block was innappropriate. There were other wasy, short of a block, to be explored for this borderline (at worst) characterization elsewhere than in the person's article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid having editors complain generally about how liberals get away with murder vis a vis enforcement and conservatives get hammered? General complaints degrade the signal to noise ratio. In case it isn't abundantly clear, I'm speaking directly to CoM, who has a habit of inserting him/herself in AN/I threads to complain about admin abuse in general and american politics specifically (a topic where they are topic banned from discussing broad subtopics). Protonk (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's deletion

I feel it was highly inappropriate for Black Kite, as an involved party, to close the RFD. I hope someone will revert this action and let the RFD run its course since discussion is ongoing. At the moment it appears to be No Consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. It was the ANI thread which actually led me to the RfD, which had been open for ten days - and an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean I am "involved" in it. Very few of the "Keep" rationales were convincing, IMO. Black Kite 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through most of the discussion, and in the end I agree with Black Kite's closure. There was an opinion split among established editors, but the consensus to delete is fairly apparent based on the arguments presented. To be frank, Saturn, how is an outsider going to trust your word that there "appears to be no consensus" when you were so heavily involved in the discussion, replying to nearly everyone who supported deletion? JamieS93 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor close based on an opinion rather than a proper reading of the discussion by an admin who is involved in related discussions. But I think it would have to go to DRV now? Hopefully Black Kite will exercise better judgment in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Child said. Perhaps BK can revise it?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath. I think it's time to move on. I don't think a bad close requires admin intervention, so that probably needs to be pursued elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how commenting on an ANI discussion makes you involved in something. By your logic, if someone asks for a checkuser to be run on some accounts, and I run the check and post the results, it would be inappropriate for me to block the accounts myself, since I'm "involved".

Ludicrous. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the close. Black Kite articulated a reason not advanced by any other participant, but that's a DRV reason. What makes him an involved admin is his intense dislike of me. For examples, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Proposal:_.22Cry_BLP.22_blocks or peruse the archives of Talk:Rachel Corrie. If some other administrator would like to re-close the RfD, feel free. Black Kite is ineligible to do so, and should have known better. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the RfD in a manner opposite BK's but I want to note here that I vociferously object to the classification of BK as an involved admin in this case. Even a cursory reading of WP:INVOLVED will reveal that commenting in an AN/I does not make an admin involved in a content dispute. Nor does some allegation of personal distaste (Especially given that the RfD only tangentially relates to Jclemens). Protonk (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you treated it as a valid reopening, when even you seem to realize it was a valid close. You reversed Black Kite's decision, effectively, but on what rationale? Jclemens should simply have been reverted. Nathan ^T 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Jclemens is is no position to dictate who is or is not involved, and is certainly not entitled to unilaterally revert another admin's close. He should have been reverted. For the record, it is my opinion that Black Kite's close was correct. GlassCobra 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Jclemens should never have undone BK's close, and Protonk should have respected BK's decision. AniMate 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-flippin-believable. Jclemens has been EXTREMELY involved in both this and a related RfD (as have I, for the record). I cannot fathom how an admin can think it would be proper to undo another admin's XfD closure based on a perception of being "involved"...a tenuous perceptino that that...when Jclemen's own involvement is beyond dispute. I really, really wish Protonk had honored Black Kite's closure and not treated it as a legitimate reopening, but that may be a matter for DRV. The primary issue here is jclemens, and a desysop should absolutely be on the table here. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't have closed it if I had thought it would be such a shitstorm. Honestly I didn't know about the extent of the drama-rama when I made the close. I just tried to justify "delete" multiple times and I couldn't. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you found it so close a call (and I'm not criticizing that finding), it might have been better to just leave it be and wait for the next admin to come along. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "delete" or "no consensus" were both valid closes, however BK's close should never have been reverted. Closing differently than they did gives the appearance of legitimacy in regards to Jclemens actions. AniMate 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's a reasonable interpretation of "when in doubt don't delete" Protonk (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've undone my close. I never intended the original close to be a repudiation of BK (anyone who actually read the rationale couldn't have come to that conclusion). I'm not comfortable reinserting BK's close and I caution other admins interested in closing it to be mindful of the nuances at work. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk made the right decision, what was wrong was Black Kite's ignoring of the views of the editors at the RFD. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no official determination that this was a terrorist act, and it is not wikipedia's place to claim otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at the RFD page, it has been reopened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally recapitulating arguments from RfD will not be productive here. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn is singularly obsessed with labeling that guy a terrorist when he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That's been the issue for the last week or two. There is no end to it. Except someone making a decision, which someone tried to do today, to no avail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding unblock request

I believe this removed comment is relevant to the unblock request, but the user does not want me commenting on that page. That is understandable, so I am noting it here instead: The incident that led to Firefly322's block began with a personal attack against other editors, not just an insult against Awlaki. ~YellowFives 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow, might it not go back even further? For example, might it perhaps relate at all to, after your having had a dispute with Fire, your appearing at the page he created the following day to hit it with an AfD, and even now you are not withdrawing despite repeated requests and the clear consensus in favor of keeping it?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly mentioned the new article on a talk page I was watching, and I thought it was non-notable. That might well be the reason why Firefly does not want me commenting. That is understandable, as I said. I'm not complaining about the removal of my comment. I just said I the personal attack is relevant to this block, so I'm noting it here instead. ~YellowFives 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement here is through commenting at the RFD. Firefly posted a comment [10] which appeared to equate "BLP-screaming" editors, presumably including myself, since my delete rationale was BLP, with supporters of Islamic extremism. I would have responded there, except it was easier to just walk away chuckling. But there's no doubt that was a personal attack on anyone who cited BLP concerns at the RFD discussion. Perhaps made by an editor who stumbled onto the wrong website, I dunno. BLP is a policy here, and the editors who try to uphold it don't support any particular view, they just care anout the policy. Equating concern for BLP with support for Islamic jihad or terrorism or whatever - that's unacceptable. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and, in general, it is not appropriate for us to denounce even the worst evil-doers. Their deeds accurately reported speak for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather surprised, after all this talk of BLP violations, that YellowFives just wrote (in a not completely unrelated discussion) "Daniel Pipes hates Muslims." If such statements are in fact BLP violations (and in his case statements less innappropriate than that have been termed libelous), I think this deserves some attention. I would appreciate it if someone would take the appropriate action, or let me know what should be done. Wikipedia just can't afford to have editors writing such things on Wikipedia, as it raises concerns of lawsuits and is otherwise innappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally in favor of considering the bulk of BLP as an articlespace content policy, and restricting its use in other spaces to only the most egregiously disruptive cases. Editors must have decent freedom of speech for the purposes of making their points if we're to remain an open encyclopedia embracing a wide range of viewpoints. YellowFive's edit was entirely allowable (if unhelpful and unconstructive), and, frankly, I think the block against Firefly322 cannot be justified on BLP grounds (disruptive editing grounds now, is certainly a possibility). That is, if it was the edit I'm looking at [11], it's a straightforward expression of opinion making no specific factual claims (that somebody is evil is by definition a matter of opinion) and cannot be considered legally defamatory. The slow metastasization of BLP beyond its role as an enjoinder to be cautious and conservative when dealing with articles about living people is, frankly, disturbing. Ray^Talk 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crum's deletion

Highly inappropriate again. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:DRV. AniMate 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Undo the close and let the discussion continue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if someone else does that I will block them for disruption. FFS thecorrect venue for this in the first place was DRV. Viridae^Talk 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop confusing "decision I disagree with" with "inappropriate" Protonk (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk took the words right out of my mouth. If the close was "inappropriate" DRV is the correct forum to make your case. AniMate 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first close came about from discussion on this page the administrator Black Kite was involved in while discussion was ongoing. It should have never been closed in the first place. This is a complete disregard of WP:Redirect and the true meaning of BLP. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good close. Saturn is obsessed with labeling this guy a terrorist, and he wants the debate to go on forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What guy? The redirect redirects to an event, not a person. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you obsessed with the terrorism label? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. This line of inquiry isn't going to produce anything useful. The correct course is to go to WP:DRV if there are objections to the close. Discussion about the terrorism label is not something that requires admin action. AniMate 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obsessed. I'm irritated by this Wheel War brought about by Black Kite's terrible decision. DRV has been opened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. I probably malformed it. I think it's best if I step away for a while. I need to cool down. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens wheel-warring

Jclemens wheel-warred in un-closing the discussion and un-deleting the redirect. While he cited "involvement" by the original closing admin, he too himself was involved, and proceeding in that manner was highly inappropriate. He only needed to approach BlackKite and comment on it, or go directly to DRV. Grsz¹¹ 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False, he made the right decision. Black Kite disregarded the Keep votes and no consensus was appropriate. Jclemens did not close inappropriately while involved, Black Kite did. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a wheel war. The third administrative act is where WP:WHEEL comes into play. That being said, Jclemens act was amazingly inappropriate. If he disagreed with BK's close he definitely knew better than to use his tools in the conflict. He was 100% involved and familiar enough with our policies to know there were other routes he should have taken. AniMate 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Black Kite (who made the initial close) not involved? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he comment in the original discussion? No. Grsz¹¹ 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he comment here (thus involving himself) before closing? Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the "Everybody who ever disagrees with me is therefore unable to fairly judge any argument I've been involved in" way of looking at it. If that's the case, then I'd say he's involved. Grsz¹¹ 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BK was involved, but that really doesn't matter. When you see someone break the rules, you don't then break them yourself. AniMate 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that the "involvement" that Jclemens believes invalidated Black Kite's closure is BK's 2 posts in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9? I'm about to do some serious facepalming if so. Tarc (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Jclemens' statement above, he believes that Black Kite is involved because Black Kite dislikes him. However, Black Kite is actually only involved on a minuscule level; as he noted, "an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean [he was] 'involved' in it." GlassCobra 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackkite's closing statement demonstrates a strong personal opinion on the subject matter consistent with his involvement and discussion here, but isn't a proper weighting and evaluation of the arguments. He should have offered up his opinion in the discussion rather than impose his opinion and personal preference as overriding those offered in good faith by participants in the discussion. This is not the first time Blackkite has done this sort of thing. It would be great if he would exercise greater restraint. The integrity of the process and showing respect for fellow editors is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to nip this drama in the bud. What administrative actions are currently being requested? AniMate 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jclemens has disliked me ever since the Saint Pancake debacle and I doubt very much if he would've reverted the close if anyone else had made it. At that time he made great play of the fact that I supposedly wheel-warred to delete a G10 redirect (later supported by the community at DRV). Well, if that's the case, he has just done exactly the same thing - except it was a wheel-war to re-instate. Not only that, but he made this comment in the AfD ("Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up") and so was not only heavily involved, but made a comment which made a bad faith assumption on behalf of many editors. I think it's about time that someone asked this admin to keep away from anything that involves WP:BLP, and about his use of admin tools in this matter. Also, his claim that I can't close any XfD in which he's commented because I don't like him is frankly laughable. Imagine if we extended that to any admin who has had a dispute with another user. Black Kite 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, BK? Feel free to open an RfArb if you really want to. Until then, I will continue my practice of staying away from things you're involved in, and I would welcome it if you did the same. I never claimed to not be involved with the RfD; I claimed you were involved with me. You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it. This particular facet of this drama would have been avoided if you'd simply left well enough alone and let the next admin close it. Oh, and saying editors are arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy is not WP:ABF when multiple editors are, in fact, arguing for deletion in a manner inconsistent with policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "You're absolutely right--I would not have reverted the close had anyone else made it.". Had I the inclination to go to RFAR, that comment might well be a serious problem. But frankly, I haven't. I do see the good work that you do in other areas of the encyclopedia but we obviously have a major disagreement over the issue of NPOV/BLP on redirects. Not that I don't think you're wrong - I think you're very wrong, and I think the community position supports me - otherwise I would bow to consensus. But really, that's not a massive issue and I'm sure it's something that we can work round. Cheers, Black Kite 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate that, thanks. Likewise, I reciprocate in my belief that I am right--although I would appeal more to 5P and reason than the community; my experience is that what the community does (!votes) is strikingly different than what it says it does (enumerated policies and guidelines). I suspect that in other circumstances this would be a great conversation to have over a beer. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks is a bit of a red flag as well, as it appears this admin was looking to sanction users who made arguments he disagreed with. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss

• People at this discussion who are interested in the broader topic, as opposed to the individual behaviors, are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Section_regarding_neutrality_of_redirects. As you are likely aware, current guidelines are that NPOV (and, by extension, BLP issues) are not reasons to delete redirects, a fact about which editors (including myself) have strong opinions. If you have an opinion, I invite you to bring it to that page. I think it's past time people put up or shut up on the matter: are we interested in making our encyclopedia accessible, or more interested in making sure that redirects don't point in ways that convey objectionable opinions? Ray^Talk 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I really put much faith in a discussion premised on a logical fallacy and biased against one particular point of view. One can support the use of non-neutral redirects while at the same time drawing a line at BLP transgressions. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only present the world as I see it. If you take issue with my characterization, feel free to do so at the discussion. If you choose not to participate, that is of course your prerogative, but failure to participate doesn't free us from an obligation to follow consensus. Ray^Talk 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not override BLP policy, especially in a discussion that starts off on such a wrong foot. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

without it being a judgment on either side of the particular question, within the very broad limits set by the WMF, consensus has made BLP policy, and consensus interprets it. To the degree any pronouncement is authoritative, it's because we choose by consensus to honor it. Who else is responsible for Wikipedia , if not all of us collectively? We have all worked or studied in places where a central administration of some sort made policy, and everyone there had to follow it. enWP has no such administration, and no such dictated policies. What we agree on is policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, BLP actually came from the Foundation. Although I agree with the point you are making that consensus should be used to assess each situation on its merits. A blatant violation vs a technical violation (which may not be an in-spirit violation) is an important distinction to make and one which isn't made often enough. Orderinchaos 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens's POINTY behavior

Resolved

 – Redirect at RFD --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has now created Hiroshima terrorist attack, which was brought up in the above RfD discussion, in order to prove a point. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known issue; jclemens created this during the Ft. Hood redirect discussion, not just today or anything like that. That one at least seems headed towards an unquestionable delete, thankfully. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone care to remind user:KimDabelsteinPetersen, user:Atmoz, and user:William M. Connolley that they do not WP:OWN talk pages. They are repeatedly removing a discussion topic on Talk:Michael E. Mann. In addition Connolley has a direct WP:COI with the subject as they both blog together.WVBluefield (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified all three editors about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be related to the re-insertion of a private letter [12] by WVBluefield that has been republished in part by i Wired I think (the letters were originally obtained due to a hack apparently). No real opinion on the merits, although i wonder why the source itself can't be examined (and why the letter needs to be republished in full on the talk page). Also, WVBluefield seems to have hit 5RR on this. Aside from that, I'm not sure what administrator action has been requested. Seems that WP:DR should suffice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my contributions on the talk page is strictly prohibited, and 3RR doesnt apply. Nerv mind WMC's massive wp:COI on the topic. WVBluefield (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which exception to 3RR are you claiming? This isn't simple vandalism, since the other editors have articulated reasons why this material shouldn't be there. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have no right to remove my comments on the talk page, as they never provided one solid reason why they should. Where, exactly did they articulate a reason why the material couldn’t stay on the talk page? KDP's first edit summary[13], not the right place to "discuss" removing someone else’s talk page contributions, stated that the letter wasn’t reproduced by a RS is complete nonsense because the source is right there at the top of the talk page thread. The rest of the editors simply piled on. WVBluefield (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the letters are genuine or not. If they are, it's a copyright violation to reprint them on the talk pages. If they aren't, they are a BLP violation. Either way they have to go. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in any event, I've given 4 reasons why re-adding would be a bad idea on the talk page. However, since this is now under discussion there, hopefully things can be civilly hashed out there, and this can be closed. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be out of town for this weekend, but i will stand behind the fact that i removed the text. I did it because it was a forum like posting, with no relevance to the article in question - i also notified WV on his talk-page about this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments placed on WV's talkpage, by me and other editors[14], seem to have been removed right after posting this complaint, and while that is the WV's prerogative, it seems a bit rude not even to mention that we tried to establish at least some for of dialogue/rationalization for the removal of the talk-page comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straightforward 3RR by WVB. I'll go report it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already reported by Atmoz. There is a bit of a backlog at AN3; could one of you kind admins nip across there and sort it out please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that not so long ago, reports at AN3 were always handled promptly and efficiently by a very dedicated administrator. It's sad to see that things have slipped so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the good old days :-(. Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that WVB is deliberately erasing all traces of the warnings he was given e.g. [15] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot erase anything here and the record of the changes made to my talk page are archived indefinitely, I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll. I am more than happy to engage peopel who approach me in good faith and reserve the right to shit can the comments of those who dont. WVBluefield (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the unproductive remarks of a troll is clear incivility. Please block WVB for it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, right. Whilst you are up on your civility high horse WMC, please note that calling editors dense as you did last month to WVBluefield is easily construed as a personal attack. Glass houses and all that.... Pedro :  Chat  23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, chattering admins: the AN3 report associated with this still awaits your attention William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report has been actionned; thanks. This can now be closed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been harrassing me from the range of 166.205.xxx.xxx, for these last 2-months. He has 'in the past' boasted that Wikipedia can't do anything about. Could something be done about it? GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've meant to look into this and got sidetracked. this edit is most telling, and this user is making good on their threats. I think a range block on the 166.205 as nothing seems to come out of it. Pending someone looking at it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodday, if you like I can semi-protect your userspace. The down side of this is that it will prevent all new users, even the sincere ones, from contacting you. Let me know here or on my talk page if you would like this. ^Chillum 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the innocent to suffer, because of that dick. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list out some of the IPs? We may be able to construct a rangeblock that's smaller than the 65,536 addresses represented by 166.205.*.*. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may take awhile, I'll have to check my contributions. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some IPs he's used. 166.205.138.250, 166.205.132.99, 166.205.133.112, 166.205.132.96, 166.205.133.79. This particular IP 166.205.133.38, might be the smoking gun. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

166.205.133.38 points to the 'Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info about the ISP can be found here. They describe themselves as "non-profit organization established in 1996 to promote interoperability for wireless data subscribers and to provide a common Network Operations Center (NOC) for the management and distribution of IP addresses and wireless network identifier information." I don't know if it is an open network or if it requires membership. If they require membership then a collection of timestamps and IPs sent to them may allow them to suspend the abusing user, if it is an open network then little can be done short of semi-protecting the target pages or blocking the whole ISP. ^Chillum 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing can be done about him, then we better hang on to our hats. If unchecked? after today he'll be more bothersome. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The provider is used via contract by multiple wireless companies. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably for the innocent IPs, this tormentor is cementing my views on 'mandatory registration'. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the IPs you've listed, I think we can cut it down to 166.205.[132-139].*. What we should do is ask for a checkuser to look at the range and see if there would be any collateral damage to innocent editors, and then we can get that range block put into place. I'll email them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be terrific. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the users on that IP ranges are iPhones. That's probably why he thinks we can't do anything about it. His IP is dynamic. Anyway, I looked at 166.205.128.0/20, aka 166.205.[128,143].0. In this case, that'd be fine to block if you wanted to block 166.205.[132,139].0. There would be some collateral damage for one or two genuine anonymous users, but if it really is so bad that you want to block the range, you can. Please use a descriptive block reason though, so that the people that do get caught in collateral do know that they've done nothing wrong. I'll leave the decision on whether or not to block to you. --Deskana (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the IP is going around and reverting all of GoodDay's contributions every time they come on. It's not just the occasional act of minor vandalism, it's a protracted campaign against a valuable editor. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just applied three range blocks that are narrowly targeted (/24), but should cover all the IPs noted thus far. Please leave me any additional IPs that cause hassles, and I will keep blocking until the perpetrator finds something else to do on the Internet. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the range I suggested would have had the same effect due to the lack of users on some of the /24s, but that works too. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the rangeblock function accept a general purpose regular expression? Jehochman ^Talk 02:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. All it accepts are IPs and CIDR suffixes. --Deskana (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful to you all. Thanks, thanks, thanks. Hopefully that anon won't be bothering anybody again. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, about a month and a half ago, I was blacklisted from Twinkle for making a few bad reversions. Since then, I have been granted rollback rights and have been fighting vandalism through use of Huggle. I would like to continue using huggle, however there are situations where Twinkle is more useful, such as when I am using university computers (which do not allow most executables to be executed.) I would like to be removed from the blacklist. Feel free to look at my actions as a rollbacker. I believe that I have demonstrated better judgment since losing Twinkle. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The admin that blacklisted me has been alerted of the thread here. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently Nezzadar is going to keep coming back here every fortnight until I surrender. Fine, I give up. He defeated the point of blacklisting him anyhow, when he went and got Huggle instead, and then some silly administrator decided to grant him rollback too.

    But before you agree to lift the ban, I suggest you go look at why he was blacklisted in the first place, and then check out the results of all the other times where Nezzadar has asked for Twinkle back, been declined, and gone off in a huff shouting stuff like "I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't."[16]

    That's the only diff you're getting this time; I've already been through this three times. Hesperian 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Reinstatement of TWINKLE

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Testing the waters

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Restoration of Twinkle

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#New Account - Sinneed 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nezzadar should really have been granted rollback until the underlying issue were resolved. It's really all the same issue, and one shouldn't have been granted if there were still reason to block the other. Seeking out one while being banned from the other is essentially just circumventing the ban, unless Nezzadar saw fit to make sure the granting admin was aware of the Twinkle ban (and something tells me he did not, but correct me if I'm wrong). FYI, rollback is required in order to use Huggle. Equazcion (talk) 08:05, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Request I don't see.

Granting note here

And a thank-you here

Notifying user:Pedro of this thread. - - Sinneed 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request is here, at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. A user who was banned from Twinkle for the reasons Nezzadar was should never have been granted rollback, and I doubt Pedro would have granted it had he known. Equazcion (talk) 08:28, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That looks like wp:canvassing#Forum shopping to me.- Sinneed 08:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for removal of TW are here: (admin only). If there is the slightest hint he hasn't changed his behaviour I will removal rollback. Does Huggle need rollback to work? Viridae^Talk 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. @Kate (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Nezzadar has the tools now. It's up to him to ensure that he retains the community's trust in their use. Let's give him a chance to show that he can use them properly, but I propose that if any of them are misused, then access is denied to all of them. If he can show that he can use them properly now that he has them, then he should be allowed to do so. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick flick few the last few days worth of edits and came up with three problems:

• [17] Apparently good faith edit rolled back as vandalism without explanation. The IP was warned.
• [18] Same as above.
• [19] Same again.

And this is just randomly checking about about 40 reversions over the past few days. ON the basis of this I am removing Rollback and his TW access should not be restored. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Nezzadar

I had a feeling this would happen, and therefore am not angry about this. One thing I would like to say however is that from my time with rollback, I noticed a surprisingly high level of vandalism, and chased after as much of it as I could. Let me address the three edits, as well as the overarching problem of bad reverts.

The first of the I reverted it because it was factually inaccurate and was not cited. Quasi denotes something is "sort of." There is nothing quasi about licence agreements, breaking them can land people in serious trouble, and legally, they are contracts. This was reverted because it is, quite frankly, harmful.

The second I reverted because another editor had already reverted the change before, with a valid edit summary. In a choice between someone putting back removed information without an edit summary, and a person removing information with a valid edit summary, I am going to choose the second.

As for the thrid, this one was likely a mistake. My thinking was that this was unneeded, low EV, adverty information, which was not cited, and was on a high traffic article.

As for making mistakes, a few editors have come to me and told me that I made mistakes. Some I agreed with, apologized, and helped them do it over correctly so it wouldn't look suspicious. Some I rejected, as there was no merit to the requests. That is how reverts are supposed to work, everyone makes mistakes. Because I was already under observation, mine were noticed, but I am sure all of you have bad edits too. It's sad that only one person gave me the benefit of the doubt, but that seems on par with how admins operate. My one regret is that no one ever offered to help me, people just rushed to criticize. So much for community. At least there are some areas of Wikipedia where people still talk to each other about issues.

Nezzadar ^[SPEAK]

• Regarding the accusation on me forum shopping, perhaps I am, however since no one actually talks to me, even when I reach out on a limb and apologize, I have no other way of trying to improve. Asking the parent over and over gets tiring, however it is the parent's responsibility to guide, not just punish, and I think that WP admins make for rather poor parents in that regard. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to help in the past, and can say from experience that if no one's offered you "help" on this particular occasion, you might want to consider that it's because they've learned their lesson. You have a habit of jumping down people's throats when they give you advice. Your demeanor has improved on that front; recently you seem to be making a conscious effort (or taking pills), but only very recently, and I'm not convinced that it's carried over yet into your judgment of making reverts. I would try to be patient in terms of requesting that your rights be restored. Showing that you "really really want it" only makes people nervous abut your motivations, and your end-run around the Twinkle ban for rollback/Huggle doesn't put anyone's mind at ease. I'd focus on areas other than vandalism prevention for a while if I were you, before making another request, and by a while I mean a month or two. Again I'm not trying to berate you, but you asked for help and I'm telling you what I would do. Equazcion (talk) 21:47, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Nezzadar - wp:NOTTHEM - "...I have no other way of trying to improve..." - Just no. You improve by improving.

You continue to focus outside yourself in order to fix a problem inside yourself. In very general, this does not have a great history of working.

Read what was written here in response to your request: Each is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Read the responses to your (too many, too fast) requests to have twinkle restored. Each response is from someone who "actually talks" to you. Not all of what is said is useful: humans are speaking.- Sinneed 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the WP:BITE guideline, Wikipedia is widely perceived to be hostile to new editors. I believe it would be more accurate to say that some (more than a few) experienced editors are hostile to new editors. I hate vandalism, and I see lots of vandalism by IPs and some by brand new accounts. I see test edits that IPs revert themselves (if someone with a tool doesn't beat them to it). But I also see a lot of bad reverts of good IP and newbie edits, based solely on suspicion that an IP edit is a bad edit. I see a lot of rude edit summaries reverting good faith, but erroneous, edits. I saw one experienced editor accuse a newbie of vandalism for "correcting" a correct British spelling to American; most people don't even realize that there are different spellings in different national varieties of English. Occasionally, I've researched a newbie's unexplained, unsourced fact change or addition, and the edit turns out to be correct. It is not reasonable to expect an IP or other newbie to know about doing edit summaries, citing sources, or other Wikipedia basics. I hope that Nezzadar, and others, will bear this in mind as they crusade against vandalism. —Finell 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first reversion was made with an auto edit summary, you then gave the IP a warning. I won't get into the content dispute here, apart from to say that many people may feel that "quasi contract" is correct. (Do you have a reliable source to show that they're not quasi-contracts? Did you look for any sources?) The fact remains: you reverted a good faith edit (even if you think it's incorrect do you really think it was a bad faith edit?); you warned the editor (and that was the first contact anyone from WP had with them) and then when people told you it was a problematic edit you demonstrate why those tools were removed. Maybe it would be a good idea to go and welcome that IP editor? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some people go around welcoming every new user they find does not make it necessary for me to do so. The last time I welcomed someone, it turned into a huge mess (anyone remember this idiot?) I don't make small talk to random people anymore. I've been burned too many times by vandals, over-zealous admins, and random IPs to go out of my way to be nice to people. People just aren't nice. If that means that I can't be a soldier in the war on vandalism, fine. I'm proud of being a misanthrope, and I won't change my beheavior. As Hersperian wonderfully quoted me out of context, AGF isn't perfect. Neither am I, neither are you. Enjoy cleaning up the mess when things slip through the cracks. You chased away someone who genuinely wanted to help protect Wikipedia, and it has made WP just a little bit worse. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your method of trying to make everyone feel bad by saying they're getting rid of a tough and honest vandal fighter who tells it like it is and takes no guff from no-one will prove fruitless. Protecting Wikipedia isn't as much of a problem as it once was, because the tools are getting better and more automated, making it easy, and anyone can easily do it. Plus vandal fighter numbers are high anyway, probably due to that very ease. Right now the asset is considered to be the editors who are willing to do the more painstaking effort- and patience-ridden job of welcoming new users. Communication isn't an automated process. If we ever have a shortage of people willing to revert, inform people that they are idiots, and move on, we will surely seek you out -- however we presently have no such shortage. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 22 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar. In October when you were here, I recall stating "Re-read the purpose of the tool. Hell, we remove rollback for only a couple of minor transgressions - why would Twinkle be any different - and it's usually only temporary? Because you generally do good work does not ever give you carte blanche to bite, and otherwise use it wrongly". Nobody on Wikipedia is willing to accept the regular wrong use of a powerful tool, just because a lot of the time it gets used well; we don't take "the good with the bad" in this case. I was really hoping to see improvement - as was the admin who gave you rollback back. How you move forward with this is key: you will need to show a more-than-brilliant understanding of the vandalism policy and how/when to use powerful automated tools. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – In the process of so doing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About a week ago, I filed this move request at WP:RM. Now, another editor has come along and, without commenting on the talk page, moved Thomas Blackburn to Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn—a title that certainly appears to violate WP:COMMONNAME. Could I please get an administrator to move Thomas Blackburn (disambiguation) to Thomas Blackburn (since the parenthetical "disambiguation" is no longer necessary) and close the move discussion? (I can move Thomas Eliel Fenwick Blackburn to Thomas Blackburn (poet) myself and fix the incoming links.) It seems somehow wrong for me to have to file another move request to get this done, when the first one is still unresolved. Deor (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor who moved the page has indicated no objections, so, sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Deor (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.136.78.170 and User:Mcjakeqcool2 are both editing User talk:Mcjakeqcool claiming that McJ has been unblocked [20][21] . Obvious sock is obvious, could someone do the honours please.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk will need some protection ASAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is that the same IP as before? I wonder if it would be worth sending an email to the institution.--Crossmr (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username indef blocked, IP blocked for a day. TNXMan 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is blocked but still editing??? Check contributions - he's just edited McJ's userpage AGAIN! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can that. He's editing his own userpage with McJakeqcool spam. Anyone want to protect it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)

Could some administrator please take a look at the issue and decide whether Wdford has transgressed the limits of acceptable disagreement and is eligible for a topic ban? I had better things to do than to continue the controversy the last two weeks, but after an uninvolved editor commented on the low quality of the lead paragraph, I decided to clean up "the mess" that Wdford created with his previous edits to the lead. However, this only resulted in another edit war. His first edit since then made no sense at all, his second edit added a some information that was giving undue weight to some aspect, so I had to revert them both. His edits since then, aren't any better, he is actually confusing the (accepted) medical use of silver in clinical appliances with the (ineffective and potentially toxic) use of silver as internal medication - but I don't want to do any more reverts at the article today. Based on Wdford's edits I can only come to the conclusion that he is either trying to promote a partisan POV (advocating the use of silver as medication) or utterly incompetent, probably rather the second. In any case, he is making it imposible to work on the article, not only for me, but also for editors like MastCell. And now consider the previous history of the issue:

• Even before me or Wdford joined the discussion or started to work on the article, there were already two threads on it on the fringe theories noticeboard: 1, 2 and at least one thread one this noticeboard 3. So without doubt this topic is a contentions issue, and and a third editor was actually banned, first from the topic and then permanently for using a sockpuppet trying to avoid the topic ban.

• I have been in previous controversies with Wdford, and I can reasonably suspect that he is simply started to work on this controversial article to harass me. But this issue is actually less complicated than the preceding ones (it is not a race-related political issue, after all), so it is easier to establish why his edits are promoting a partial POV and are generally of a low quality - and I am tired of giving up on articles and running away from controversies anyway.

That said, I think the controversy at the article will continue until either one of us is banned. Or should I give up on this article to and wait until Wdford sabotages my work at a fourth article? Please take a look at this issue and decide on the appropriate steps. Zara1709 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created another section at the article talk page here. My description of the problem there is probably more concise. Zara1709 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this is beyond pathetic. As I have repeatedly stated, I am merely trying to get a balanced article, which gives due weight to the very important and valuable contribution of silver to medical practice, whereas Zara has repeatedly tried to focus the article on colloidal silver and argyria (a relatively small percentage of the total topic.) All my edits work toward that objective, as can clearly be seen from the history pages. Throughout this endeavour Zara has come up with a range of excuses to revert valid, relevant and sourced material which highlight the medically-proven usage of silver, while continually dragging the focus back to her own POV of colloidal silver and argyria - despite me pointing out several times that her own sources admit that the argyria risk is minimal. I have never tried to indicate that colloidal silver is a wonder-drug or to hide the fact that it has downsides, I have merely tried to put that all in perspective, using reliable sources. There is no content dispute here, just one editor who wants to give undue weight to the relatively minor negatives and downplay the relatively important positives, and who takes personally all attempts to show a properly rounded picture of the topic.

I don't know what happened with first edit - it looked fine on the preview.

I have not confused anything - my latest edits actually made the distinction even clearer, by splitting the two points into separate paragraphs.

The previous "fringe" history is not all that relevant to this prticular complaint, because the scope of the article has since been widened significantly, and my contribution has been largely on the expanded side of the scope. I have not removed the contentious issues, merely tried to reword the lead section to put them in perspective against the much larger positive contribution which silver makes in the broader sense - exactly as envisaged when the scope was broadened to begin with.

There has not been any previous harassment as alledged by Zara, merely disagreement over weighting - where once again some of us dared to argue for balance against Zara's personal preference. This is just a play for sympathy, by an editor who often resorts to protests at ANI when she can't get her own way on an article.

Wdford (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about trying mediation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wdford, you can not honestly attempt to deny that Lansdown (2006) is talking about silver used in "water purification, wound care, bone prostheses, reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, cardiac devices, catheters and surgical appliances.", whereas Fung & Bowden (1996), are talking about "oral colloidal silver proteins as mineral supplements and for prevention and treatment of many diseases". You can also not honestly attempt to deny that you wrote this:

Fung and Bowen also point out that “Indiscriminate use of silver products can lead to toxicity such as argyria.”[8] Argyria is a condition in which the skin irreversibly turns blue or grey (from accumulated silver), which can be socially debilitating but which is not otherwise harmful. However , per Lansdown, “Silver exhibits low toxicity in the human body, and minimal risk is expected due to clinical exposure by inhalation, ingestion, dermal application or through the urological or haematogenous route.

With the word "however", you are creating a juxtaposition, where in fact none exists. Honestly, you are unable to even read and understand two short article abstracts in medical journals. What makes you think that you could meaningfully contribute to an article, when we already have a medical expert (MastCell) working on it? The only reason MastCell stopped working on the article was that he was driven off by at least one fringe advocate (DHawker), who was finally banned from the article after several months. This is the end of the line, Wdford. If you can't admit that your capabilities aren't up to the task of writing an article based on reliable sources (which, in this case, are articles in medical journals) you need to be banned from working on the topic, so that other editors might create an acceptable article. Zara1709 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended. Lansdown agrees with F&B that it requires large-scale use of silver to cause argyria, and my quote shows that - you have simply left out the second sentence of that quote, which I included and which makes it all quite clear. The Lansdown quote however goes further than F&B, to speak about the toxicity of silver generally, whereas that particular F&B quote was only dealing with argyria. I am happy to remove the word "however", as it does not affect my argument or the intended sense of the paragraph.

PS - the Lansdown quote clearly includes ALL silver exposures, exactly as I said. Similarly, that particular line of the F&B quote clearly refers to ALL silver products as potential causes of argyria if used excessively, which is consistent with all other sources on that topic. I understood the two sources perfectly well, and I included them in the article to mean exactly what the original authors meant. My capabilities are seemingly quite sound actually - my only flaw is that I don't agree with your POV.

Wdford (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no juxtaposition, and none was intended." Wdford, do you want to push this into a discussion on the meang of the word "however"? Your comment on the article talk page is only correct in one respect: Your version of the article is rubbish. You are still failing to see that we have two sets of reliable sources. One set is about "colloidal silver", and its use as alternative medicine. The other set is about various acknowledged external medical applications of silver. Because we have two different sets of reliable source, Floydian and MastCell were discussing whether it is such a good idea to have one article on these two different types of use - which is an important and necessary discussion. I personally haven't made up my mind in that matter yet, because I know that, as long as Wdford - who isn't actually able to understand this difference as he has illustrated with his comments here - is making edits to the article, we're not going to get that distinction establish there at all. If we want to have an article based on the most reputable sources available (medical journals), Wdford has to be banned from the topic. Zara1709 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not failing to see anything. What Zara refuses to acknowledge is that the distinction between drinking colloidal silver and the other medical uses of silver is already made abundantly clear in the article as it stands - using her wording and her sources. We don't need a special article to pound on colloidal silver, as the unproven effectiveness and potential toxicity thereof are accurately stated here already, in dedicated sections. The only remaining problem is to agree on how much weight in the lead section to give the negative coverage of colloidal silver, vis a vis the weight to be given to the many other valuable and effective medical uses of silver. I think the lead is currently appropriate, by including a clear statement that silver is not toxic unless you overdose repeatedly over time (a view backed by reputable medical journals as well as government agencies, as my sources clearly show), but I am open to any other wording that gives the positive uses due weight. Wdford (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of edit made by Wdford today [22] seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel this is unhelpful? The information is relevant, it's valid and it's factually accurate - and it helps to give the reader a more rounded picture. If it's genuinely problematic I'm happy to reword it, but I am interested to know why it might be considered to be "unhelpful"? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the special sort of rounded so beloved of those who support crank theories. We know quite a bit about that on Wikipedia. But you're in luck, driving off the cranks usually takes many months and the burnout of one or two advocates of the mainstream view. Since the cranks never give up, you'll ave your preferred version in the end even if you get banned and another person writes it. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Well, the diff I provided seems to have been some form of copy-paste, almost doubling the length of the article. In the diff I gave, there are TWO sets of references, external links, foreign language categories, etc and other content sections duplicated. Please look at the contents for your diff:

   * 1 Biological effects of silver
   * 2 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 2.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 2.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 2.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 3 Other medical uses
         o 3.1 Historical applications
         o 3.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 3.3 Government regulation
   * 4 Literature
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links
   * 7 Biological effects of silver
   * 8 Use as disinfectant and antiseptic
         o 8.1 Use as disinfectant
         o 8.2 Silver compounds in the treatment of external infections
         o 8.3 Silver compounds in medical appliances
   * 9 Other medical uses
         o 9.1 Historical applications
         o 9.2 Current alternative medicine use
         o 9.3 Government regulation
   * 10 Literature
   * 11 References
   * 12 External links

There probably was some kind of inadvertent error involved as well. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerryh7 all suspected accounts were confirmed for engaging in sockpuppetry. I have indefinitely blocked all registered accounts. I also indefinitely blocked the IP user 99.151.120.90 for a period of two weeks. My question is whether that is a good block length for the IP (who edited as recently as the 18th). Feel free to adjust the block length if you think I made it too long or too short. LadyofShalott 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"indefinitely blocked the IP user for a period of two weeks"? :-) Probably a bit on the long side, but within reason. Tan | 39 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks is about what I would have done, considering how far back the contributions go. — Jake Wartenberg 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oops... didn't mean to say that, and did not do that! I've struck the incorrect part above. Thanks. LadyofShalott 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock. — Jake Wartenberg 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having increasing difficulty with Belov, who has repeatedly made unconstructive edits to articles such as Son Dam Bi and Kim Ok-bin. Belov claims to be a new user, but bold and aggressive editing and use of Twinkle suggest otherwise, and I'm also concerned that Twinkle is being used to edit war. Specific concerns:

• Inappropriate revert here and again here and here using Twinkle.
• Inappropriate labelling of edits as "vandalism" to restore disputed changes here and here, again using Twinkle.
• Unwarranted revert here merely because Belov was apparently working on the article at the same time I was, and again here.

Regarding the current content dispute at Kim Ok-bin, I have repeatedly identified the issues with Belov's contributions in my edit summaries and on the talk page, but has so far seemed content to dismiss theses concerns without properly adressing them. Best thing I can do is to step away from the article for the time being, but I would appreciate some assistance with the Twinkle/revert issues outlined above. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been getting help with my "vandalism" as PC78 called it. In the IRC chat (by Fetchcomms and Jake) and they have been helping me along. The editor PC78 seems to have ownership issues as well. And has told me not my problem, you can't revert perfectly good edits for no reason According to the Wiki policy "if you don't want your edits edited on Wiki then don't submit them." I don't see why this editor is reporting me. PC78 also has certain articles listed on her user page and that's actually proves her sign of ownership because she is not allowing editors to edit her favourite articles. And PC78 reverted my changes repeatedly after I explained my reasons. PC78 also seems to be going through my edits on articles that didn't include them. Another editor on that Son Dam Bi article had a discussion about it with me and we've resolved our issues on the Son Dam Bi article. Belov 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never referred to your edits as "vandalism" -- it's you who has labelled my edits as such. This isn't a question of ownership (which has nothing to do with watch lists), it's about the quality and manner of your editing. Regarding the diff you link above, that was in response to when you reverted me just because you were working on the article at the same time, something there was no indication of, and not something that IMO warrants a revert. You have not properly explained why community concensus regarding the layout of filmographies need not apply to Kim Ok-bin, or why you keep trying to change her name to "Kim Ok Bin" in the infobox, or why mention of her university need not be referenced with a reliable source; many of your contributions lack edit summaries and/or are marked as minor. And why is it you feel that "if you don't want your edits edited on Wiki then don't submit them" applies to you editing my contributions, but not vice versa? What makes it "ownership" if I revert you, but not if you revert me? PC78 (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I agree that Belov is misusing Twinkle and recommend that an admin remove his privileges. Auntie E. 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello people.

A user called Starrylight (talk · contribs) started editing different Indian film articles adding they are copied from other films without any sources. I reverted him and he turned to an administrator who informed him that my edits were correct and he should cite sources for anything he adds, else it would be in violation of WP:OR. He started adding sources. In the case of a film article, Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai, he cited bollycat.com and planetbollywood.com, two completely unreliable sources (which I clearly know from my experience while working on a BLP FA as they were invalidated). I reverted him and informed him that every source must adhere to WP:RS. He wanted me to prove that they are unreliable, even though I explained that according to WP:BURDEN, onus is on him to prove the reliability of a source, not on me to prove the opposite. Today I looked for a decent source and found an article from The Times of India, which supported the previous claim in the article, according to which the film is partly inspired from My Best Friend's Wedding. He reverted me again calling my edits vandalism. According to a CBS article, the director of the film denies having copied MBFW. The user insists on stating that the film is a remake, although clearly it is not a fact. The film is claimed to be inspired from MBFW, and the director denies it. That's how it should be presented. I'm not going to revert him again. Need your help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, we can also see that the user tries to enforce his WP:TRUTH. He says, "THe movie is a remake indeed as reported many places which is also common knowledge and the director denying it does not change that." Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly disagree with the version as conveyed by Shahid. I have already voiced my concerns and objections below in my report. This is not a retalitory or imitating report but a genuine report based on the experience over the last couple of days. I am also very tired from repeating myself and I feel the approach of Shahid depite his history or experience is objectionable in light of the way he handled this particular dispute. The manner has been incivil and threatening throughout and offputting as far as future editing goes. I am tired of the many accusations and hostility. I am one of those people who reads wikipedia a lot so I recognize neutrality and reliable references and full context. I have been in good faith and my account can be read below in my report. Starrylight (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into problems with this user. Althought I have tried to convey my objection to the claims made by Shshshsh/Shahid. Unfortunately I have gotten nowhere. From day one he has been threatening and non-co-operative but no attempt of a actual discussion on why he disagrees has been attempted. I am in no way trying to state my opinion. There are many references which support this both as part of Bollywood remake lists and the criticism that the director has received. I also feel the directors quote is taken out of context, and I am confident we can all agree that taking quotes out of context, borders on bias. The director will also make no admission, as that will have legal reprecussions as well as incur credit for the original moviemakers. If compared with the Ring, this was a US remake of a Japanese horror with credits. The remakes are common knowledge especially to us Bollywood viewers. I really did not anticipate such problems over this. Nevertheless, after the initial threat, I did attempt to find references and inserted them where applicable. Surprisingly, the user did not deem them reliable. I asked for an elaboration/substantiation as to why he ´thinks so. No answer received. There are grey zones on wikipedia, so he should be able to explain "decent" and "unreliable" references in this particular case, as the claim is his, and thus the burden of proof and argumentation is his. I raised the issue with an admin for clarity and the discussion is ongoing. Instead of waiting for an outcome, the user has moved to a different admin and been continuous unfriendly and threatening me with ANI reports. He also continues to accuse me of warning him when in fact I did not post any warning. I can not be held responsible for what other people post on his talk page. I stated all this to him but the accusations persist along with threats. He has removed all criticism and warnings on his page but objects to my removing his warnings. I do feel this is very demotivating, as I am being accused of all evils and this is not exactly how one imagines editing on wikipedia will be like. A very uncomfortable experience indeed. I trust somebody will be able to clarify the matter. Starrylight (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - please note that this message is clearly an imitation of my above message against the user. He has been adding unreliable sources and reverting me for replacing them under the accusation of vandalism when I actually added reliable source. As you can see on Talk:Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai#Help_needed - these sources are clearly unreliable according to another editor as well. But he just has his truth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the above "note" the harrassment by user is continous. I am not even allowed to make a report. This is not an imitation but I am genuinely fed up with the constant harrassment, threatening and incivil behaviour by this user. It is remarkable that even ones report can not be left alone for administrators to deal with. Instead this user will even ruin that. I have explained my objection in clear English, but I feel this user does not want to understand. This is very unfortunate behaviour and clear seeks to tamper with any attempt of bringing attention to their behaviour and baseless accusations. How many discussions must this user start before they actually feel content? This is not a discussion page but a noticeboard. Starrylight (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall being incivil or harrassing you, please put up diffs if you stand behind your words, otherwise they are not to be taken seriously. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have been incivil to me and harrassing me. I also don't understand your need to open a discussion in several places about the same thing. Maybe we should continue under your report.Starrylight (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of any harrasment from Shahid. I also was a participant, if a minor one, in the FA whose candidancy involved a lot of discussion as to what were and were not reliable sources. The sources Starrylight seeks to use have been judged to not meet reliable sources standards as per WP:RS, and thus information cannot be reasonably added to any articles based on only such sourcing. It should also be noted that claims that someone based one film on another are claims regarding generally living people, and in such instances must meet the much stricter WP:BLP standards. I sincerely urge Starrylight to read through both pages I have linked to. Unfortunately, I have to say that the material sourced from those unreliable sources, or, worse yet, simply from "everyone knows" unsourced "common knowledge" is not acceptable by wikipedia's standards. If the material cannot be sourced from reliable sources, then it cannot be added to the articles, and, particularly if statements regarding living people are involved, should be removed as inadequately sourced. It's as simple as that. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, I would call it harrassment when Shahid persistantly and repeatedly accuses me of being somebody I am not and for posting warnings on his site, which I did not. I stated this to him clearly, but his accusations without proof continue. I believe it was a very conscious decision to side track the topic at hand. It is harrassment when his approach involves threats and warnings without any attempt to discuss matters in a civil way. It is also harrassment when he now seeks to tamper with my report by starting a discussion under it. A disussion that has taken place several places now. Maybe we can continue talking under his report. Prior to inserting my references I did not know that these were deemed unreliable by wikipedia. I only had Shahid's words for it and that is why I asked him repeatedly for a substantiation or explanation. Starrylight (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand that you did not know what was and was not reliable according to wikipedia, it is more or less every individual's responsibility to know what is and is not acceptable. And the claim above that he was "tampering" with a complaint is also groundless. Individuals who repeatedly add inadequately sourced material relating to BLPs in particular are also, I think by policy, potentially subject to blocking, particularly when the material is derogatory, which making a claim that someone copied someone else's work is. You were also given a link to the RS page by Shahid earlier, which you removed from your talk page. I agree however that any statements identifying you with an anon vandal on another site are probably unacceptable. I however do not see any evidence of this discussion, so cannot comment on such claims. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably unacceptable? So it is only probable if Shahid makes claims which he can not back up against me. But it is not strictly as unacceptable when I in good faith insert references to back up information after being prompted for sources in an article? This discussion has been opened so many places by Shahid that it is difficult to keep track now. But if you look for it, you can find his claims as he has made them repeatedly. I did go to the links provided but these are general guidelines. There is no list saying so and so reference is unreliable. That is why I asked him to elaborate. He has been incivil and hostile from day one. Instead of discussing things as I see happens in other article discussion pages, he just started off with threatening warnings. He is tampering and that is not grounless. Look at the way he has started the tampering by discussing in the middle of my report when in fact he has voiced these things before in numerous places. I don't really see how you can seek to justify that. Afterall the noticeboard does not serve the purpose of lengthy discussions. He made a report and so did I. But as usual he objects to even my making a report. I don't really feel this is leading anywhere. But I would appreciate it now the relevant administrator can deal with the reports and I have voiced my concerns and objections. I don't expect you to understand but this has sincerely speaking been a very unpleasent experience. Starrylight (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Policy amended per consensus; user in question has anyway promised to "no longer respond to talk pages" anyway, so this issue is now moot. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some eyes on editor RogerZoel (talk · contribs · logs)? There's an issue regarding his signature that I almost dismissed as petty, but his responses and reverting point towards an issue that probably won't go away soon. In a nutshell, he refuses to have a signature that has a link to his userpage or talk, in violation of guideline WP:SIG: "Signatures must include at least one internal link". Now, he is just signing posts to my talk page with five tildes, claiming that there is conflict in the document and that Wikipedia is "not a police state". Sigh. If anyone has the patience to explain the issue to him, I'd really appreciate it. Check his latest contribs for more details; no point posting diffs here. Tan | 39 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you are quick on the fly. Calm down and give me time to understand the situation. No ned to rush people through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be calmer; you refused to acknowledge any understanding of the issue at all in three or four exchanges. Thus, I brought it here, for other people to comment on. Tan | 39 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, slow down, will ya? It takes time to read the wiki resources through. I'm not an "expert" wiki person like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) RogerZoel, the internal link in your signature is an important courtesy which makes it easy to keep track of participants in multi-editor discussions; it also makes it much easier for other Wikipedians to get in touch with you. (This being a collaborative project, that type of easy interaction is very important.) Just put a link in your signature – or just use the default signature, which contains a suitable link – and you'll be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little matter of Wikipedia:Assume good faith; when an editor comes along and says, "Hi! I think I should tell you that signing your name on talkpages is expected." the usual response is, "Okay". "Point me to where it says I should!" is probably inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I can't wait for LiquidThreads. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RogerZoel, there's nothing you need to understand. You have to sign your posts with four tildes, so it leaves your username behind. End of. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, edits like this and this are just plain disruptive, and I suggest a block if he doesn't start behaving himself sharp-ish. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing smacks of being rather WP:POINTy to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, WP:SIG indicates signing with 5 tildes is an acceptable option, if not a preferred one. The wording about requiring a link to your user page, talk or contribs appears to be directed toward people who do custom signatures but omit links. I guess it might apply here but it still makes the document contradictory, since earlier it indicates it's okay to sign using just the 5 tilde option. In this case the guy seems to be being disruptive, but still, the guideline seems to be an issue. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have to be working hard to parse every possible meaning out of WP:SIG, in order to find a reading that supports such an interpretation. More to the point, you would need to have set out to find some such interpretation, by hook or by crook. However, I have in the meantime made the following change to the policy: [23]. Since policy is a record of what the community expects of itself, and the community expects readable signatures, I don't think there will be any issue with this. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it lists it as one of the "other options" and devotes an entire section to it. You don't have to work hard to squeeze in my interpretation... you basically have to spend 5 seconds and read the table of contents. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sancho Mandoval - This IS exactly how the document is perceived by me. I knew I am not the only one who sees it in this way. I'm still reading through the discussion page which is so long and confusing. 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Gavia Immer's change as a reflection of what is expected here. When discussing things on talk pages, people need to be able to see who said what, and should not have to dig through the history to figure it out. Roger, please sign your comments with four tildes from now on to facilitate communication and good will in the community. LadyofShalott 18:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will no longer respond to talk pages as anyone can arbitrate anything they want to suit their wishes. Wikipedia is becoming a police state and that is such a failing for Wikipedia! Roger Zoel (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you people should be ashamed of yourselves! someone who clearly wants to learn wikipedia on his own pace is bullied and condemed because he wants to be left alone from those who want to strike up a casual conversation. calling him disruptive is uncalled for. this is a smart person who sees this site that can benefit from him. i've seen him examine every rules and regulations relating to whatever he is trying to do and even ask me how I see them to be. but because those who want to be his "friend" are offended when declines the offer attacks him as being unconformative to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.136.64 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.60.136.64, you are misrepresenting the situation here. A link is required in a signature to enable easy communication between editors. Having a fancy signatue without a link is not allowed. Signing with four tildes is the norm on Wikipedia, and has been for a long time, for the reasons set out above. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now a noble IP rises up to defend poor, maligned Roger! This train wreck (or, depending on your perspective, tilting at windmills) gets better and better. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit is marked as minor, too. It's the third (fourth?) coming of mcjakeqcool. Tan | 39 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is from Massachusetts, while mcjakeqcool's IPs come from England. MuZemike 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being serious. I was just pointing out the similarities. Tan | 39 23:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other disruption by User:RogerZoel

I request a short block of RogerZoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can take time to learn about the community's policies, guidelines, and practices. This editor's disruption is not confined to the signature issue. As his contribution history shows, this editor disregards collaboration toward consensus (he edits as a lone ranger), edit wars, appears to be pushing a particular religious POV, and is uncivil. We really don't need more editors running around behaving this way.

My contact with this editor was when he complained at WT:Manual of Style that an administrator was edit warring over whether to have spaces in the wiki markup for headings (which seemed improbable to me) and was biting a newbie (I thought he was referring to himself as the victimized newbie]].[24] (Today, looking at his contribs, I discovered that he was edit warring over spaces in the heading markup and other layout issues.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] His trip to the MOS talk page was an unsuccessful effort to recruit support for his side of the edit war.) I replied there about the heading markup (the spaces make no difference in the rendered page), and took the time to to reach out to help this editor. I left a Welcome on his talk page (the long version), and asked for information about the specific incident he referred to so I could look into it.[35] He left a brief, polite response on my talk page saying that he didn't need help, and he signed it with a standard signature.[36] Later, without explanation he delinked his signature;[37] I restored his linked signature for future reference.[38] He reverted my edit of my talk page, saying that delinking his signature was supported by WP:SIG.

In fact, the the Wikipedia:SIG behavioral guideline was crystal clear even before Gavia Immer's clarification:

Internal links

Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive.

That's the community's guideline. Showing the wikicode for generating a timestamp (as part of a more "artistic" signature or for any other reason) later on the page is not an alternative to the requirement of a linking signature.

More importantly, this editor utterly rejects that idea of editing by consensus. He disdains discussion with other editors[39] and has vowed to master Wikipedia:wikilawyering to get his own way.[40] In fact, his only purpose in delinking his signatures on talk pages is to make it more difficult for other editors to communicate with him. His typical response to comment on this talk page, often about his disruptive behavior or failure to follow Wikipedia's conventions, is to blank his talk page: Revision history of User talk:RogerZoel. When he does reply, on another editor's talk page, he is uncivil.[41][42][43][44][45] And he regards administrators' efforts to enforce this community's norms as imposition of a police state. This it the type of attitude that is poison here. I respectfully request action by an administrator to curb this editor's disruptive behavior.

By the way, he is not a newbie trying to learn the ropes. He made that point loud and clear on my talk page.[46]

Thank you. —Finell 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had to leave a post. I'm not pushing any religious POV. I haven't added or changed any religious content on any religious page or provided any views on religion. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits show that he appears to have acceded to community expectations regarding the .sig issue ([47], [48]). However since there are no rules against being acerbic or brusque, I do not feel that any additional administrator intervention is required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for user like, Toddst1(talk) to harass me on an issue that has already been resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerZoel (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's so easy to forget that 4 tildes, unless you resolve to make a habit of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add it and it wuoldn't at that time Roger Zoel (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is add 4 tildes before you hit "save page". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did that, but somehow for this instance it was freaky. Roger Zoel (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse describing RogerZoel as disruptive. While the signature issue is resolved (sort of. Nothing Sinebot can't handle), his incivility and failure to get the point are very disruptive behaviors indeed.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 04:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the sig rule and I have not been uncivil to anyone since it was pointed out to me from this. Roger Zoel (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that all of the "list of Nobel Laureates by age" were deleted in an AFD, but I don't remember the original name of the pages, so I cannot locate them. I bring this up because they have been recreated under different titles (List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates by age, List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry by age, List of Nobel laureates in Economics by age, List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age, List of Nobel laureates in Physics by age, List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine by age), but there's no point in nominating for deletion until the old discussion is found. Maybe someone can help? 209.243.6.249 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Noble Prize in Peace winners by longevity, though those (apparently, since I can't see them) seem to have covered only part of the content of the current articles? Deor (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After my recent tizzy with the Game Show Congress article, I was met with this post by a noted member of the game show community: "You want to make this all go away? Use your editing prowess and Wikipedia skills, armed with all the new information now at your disposal, to post new, better articles about these important parts of quiz and game show culture[…]dozens of other industry professionals past and present think the Game Show Congress is relevant. And there's no article because Bobby Peacock and a couple of buddies decide otherwise? That's wrong, and right now, you're the guy to fix it." I honestly have been totally unable to find any relevant sources regarding the article, and no matter how much I explain it, this user refuses to believe that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines — it was even deleted via AFD, which this person thinks is just a bunch of chums whom I got to agree with me. I don't know how to tactfully tell him that there's no way the article could be recreated by Wikipedia's standards, which he thinks are arbitrary and tilted in favor of established users. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just will never be convinced. The best we can do is try and get another member over there to explain just *why* the article was deleted (and Robert KS's post over there while the AfDs were running didn't help the article's case either, sad to say). Preferably it should be someone who was uninvolved with the whole thing. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sometimes it takes forever to get the point across, unfortunately. Ignoring the vested folks over there until they take the time to read and understand the rules regarding notability and community consensus would be a reasonable approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so here's the deal. User:Thestreamer keeps adding the French Digital Chart despite She Wolf (album) having already charted on the main French Albums Chart. WP:GOODCHARTS does not specify the digital chart as being appropriate. I tried to bring this up with the user on his discussion page User talk:Thestreamer#She Wolf / Shakira. Despite this the user continued to revert. See page history.

When i questioned the user's lack of willingness to discuss the issue he/she replied "I'm french, I know what I say about french albums chart". Now im sorry and correct me if im wrong but is this not just a complete disregard for wikipedia rules and concensus? I've never come accross an album page that lists the two charts seperately. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's not true, french digital albums chart is not a component of the main french chart, albums chart = just physical, that stupid but tell it to the SNEP (this is the same thing for french singles chart)

Example : French Digital albums chart, week 41, Renan Luce was number one (2 050 copies sold) but when you watch the Top 200 french albums chart he's not in the chart. I can not be clearer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a chart can indicate a No.1 position for the sale of 2,050 copies then that chart is inappropriate for WP - anyone buying 100 copies of a track can materially alter chart positions - as being insufficiently authoritative or independent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point exactly. The digital chart is not approved for use on wikipedia but said user above will not conform to consensus. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User talk:Kevinharte shows a clear history of a lack of compliance with Wiki policy. The editor doesn't appear to want to work within the community. Is there a possibility a experienced editor/admin can review and help out. Either we figure out they want to learn or they don't Either way it looks like it's taking up peoples time that could be used elsewhere. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer(Kevin Harte) - I don't agree,I believe I've learned how to use the site relatively well.What facts are you basing this on all of a sudden? The issues you raised were about a year ago and I've had no problems until now.I was trying to save an article from deletion as it was too biased.The user I had a editing debate with seems to think he owns the article (Ireland vs france)--Kevinharte (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits Kevin Harte made, consisting of removing pieces of the article, should have been discussed on the talk page, no question about it. I hope the user has learned that. Having said that, the article is strongly biased and I agree with the user that MickMacKnee acts as if he owns the article and he actively bites those disagreeing with him, as other users have also remarked upon in the last days. Kevin, please use talk pages in the future to discuss removing material, especially if it's sourced.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, it's WP:BRD. An editor makes a bold edit, which gets reverted, and then is discussed on the talk page. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in making a good faith removal of material from an article, even if it is eventually overturned by collective consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bigger issue with this Jeppiz than I do with Kevin, who was just basically blanking whole sections of an article, for which I warned him here Jeppiz however has continully made assumptions about me and my motives, and is making snide little comments here there and everywhere, presumably as a replacement for providing a single shred of proof for his many personal opinions on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer(Kevin Harte) thanks Jeppiz. I'll learn how to do that next time I'm going to edit an article.--Kevinharte (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can take a look at Mick's long history of blocks for disruptive and uncivil behaviour, and his repeated personal abuse of editors disagreeing with him in the last few days. I'm not making "snide" comments about Mick, I'm openly pointing out that he is a disruptive user who appears to be unable to comment on content rather than other editors. Several other users have made the same observations in the last 2-3 days.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can look at Jeppiz long history of evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness on the Afd, to make his appeal now for people to comment on content appear utterly ridiculous, and only designed to provoke. If anybody thinks that he keeps his comments on content, I seem to recall in about his fifth edit on the Afd he accused me of being a bitter Irishman, and he has continuously positioned this Afd as being about the British Isles in some way or another. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm starting to get upset now by all the personal attacks and the lies now. First, I welcome anyone looking into my history, I don't have a single block in contrast to Mick. What he calls "evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness" is his way of saying that I don't agree with him, and I consider it to be a personal attack. I have not called him "a bitter Irishman", so unless Mick provides a diff backing that up, I take it as a lie and another personal attack. His third comment is also I lie, I've merely pointed out in the debate about the France-Ireland soccer game that it's not the first team there's a controvery when British teams exit a tournament. Could some administrator please look into Mick's behaviour, both he and Wikipedia would benefit from him taking a few days to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mick's comments were meant in a horrid way, he may well be a bit upset about the footie and just needs treating gently. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Jeppiz has claimed numerous times, I am not upset about the football, and I'm not even an Irish fan, which is why none of his supposed conclusions about other things, like who's been doing what in that Afd, should be taken as read. It's a long read, but the evidence is all there in the Afd, and because of it, I have absolutely no problem calling Jeppiz an editor who consistently and purposely evades and ignores others, and is now pretty much intent on provoking me into an easy civility block. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, an editor with a long history of block for disruptive behaviour [49], seems to have gone out of line in the last days. I don't mind him being defensive of an article he has written the major part about, and several users in the AfD discussion have been very much engaged in it, including myself. However, I object to the repated personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by the editor. His history is rather long, so I provide just a few selected diffs of uncivil comment and direct personal attacks during the last days [[50]], [51], [52], [53]. In the discussion on this page about a third user, he calls my arguments for not agreeing with him ""evasion, obfuscation, interuption and intentional deafness". That is rather typical of his attitude in the AfD discussion where he agressively drives that everybody disagreeing with him are wrong. I've tried to point it out to him, [54] but with hindsight (given our infected history) it might have been better not to as I should have predicted how he would respond.[55] However, I'm far from alone in having that opinion. In the last days, several other editors have also commented on his behaviour [56], [57], [58], [59].Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That block log looks like something out of a Wiki-horror story...why has he not been given long blocks in the past? I would go for a longer-term block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A users block log is not (generally) an excuse to throw the book at him, this looks a bit silly if you ask me, a bit of a tit for tat heated discussion over a article for deletion discussion that is split down the middle, and nothing will come of it, I can't find a really uncivil comment, perhaps if you guys just edit different articles for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that everybody has different opinions, but I do think that "one of the nastiest and most repugnant editors", "Either your comment was simply ignorant of the facts (like you characterisation of my POV), or you are simply trolling, either way, you are all out of credit here tbh", "I've got no idea what crappy papers you read", "It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't." are not particularly civil. Neither is "I have had it with your crap.". In any case, I won't interact with the user again, I rather leave Wikipedia. As I pointed out, I'm far from alone in having made these observations.Jeppiz (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, I tried your suggestion, in fact I didn't think I'd need to try, I didn't think I'd cross paths with Mick after this bout of abuse. But sure enough I did, and when I reported him for violation of a 1R measure in place on the Northern Ireland article, half of his defence was an assumption of bad faith against me. I guess if someone keeps an eye on him, he can't get too far out of hand. Alastairward (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a rant, he is clearly very upset about the footie, and I am sorry you have been upset Jeppiz, he has gone now, probably off to bed, I'm sure one of the admins will have a strong word in his ear when he shows his face again. I myself have had a run in with him but he has grown on me, what can I say. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the diffs Alastairward provided, I cannot agree, even though I see that you stood up for him that time as well. This is a user who seems unable to deal with conflicting views and routinely resorts to personal abuse.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing routine about it. Your behaviour and Alistair's are pretty similar, which is why they provoked similar responses eventually. If either of you wish me to lay out the full package of evidence for either of your extraordinarily sustained campaigns of tendentious behaviours, I am only too willing to oblige. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, Alistair and I are not the only editors you've attacked and insulted, there are at least Grsz [60] and Kevin McE [61] just in the last few days.
• While I have definitely argued with you, I have not called you one of "the most repugnant editors" [62], called your contributions "crap",[63] called you a "lying hypocritical cunt" [64] or told you to "fuck off" [65], [66].
• Every time someone brings your behaviour to the attention of administrators, you come up with these vague and unsupported accusations that ones you've argued with have behaved in the same way. It is not a defense (then both should be blocked), and it's not true either, just a dishonest way for you to try to talk you out of it. I'm getting tired of having that same accusation thrown at me all the time and I take it as yet another personal attack. Either you provide diffs where I call you (or anyone else) anything even remotely similar to "fuck off", "lying hypocritical cunt", and "crap" or you stand exposed as a liar on top of everything else.Jeppiz (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I think with the many many examples of MM's long-term incivility including this, this, and especially this, MM needs to take a break from Wikipedia. Are there any admins on the Admins' noticeboard? Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved? MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have not made any previous comments about any of the other participating users. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you are involved in the current Afd debate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uninvolved in the current dispute, but have come across MickMacNee before. It seem to me that MickMacNee's constant challenging of editors who are in favour of deletion, collectively amounts to hounding and/or harassment, and is therefore disruptive. He would do well to allow the AfD process to run its course. If an editor asks a direct question then by all means respond, but keep it WP:CIVIL. I know the pain of having an article deleted, so can sympathise somewhat with MickMacNee's defence of the article at all costs in the AfD debate, but it is not the right way to go about it. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward przydzial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is once again vandalizing Barack Obama "Joker" poster, but his most recent edit might be a violation of WP:LEGAL. Can someone take a look? Gracias. APK because, he says, it's true 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward przydzial has been blocked per WP:NLT by User:LessHeard vanU. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's also surfaced on OTRS ticket 2009112110013776 .©Geni 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like a legit, albeit misaddressed, DMCA takedown notice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Other than all the crap about Obama, socialism, and fascism, which is just that: crap.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It's not sent to the designated agent and is therefor not legit. In adition consider this.©Geni 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Never mind. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute. I'm closing this before someone becomes so irate that they end up blocked. Black Kite 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 75.248.243.136 & 75.248.85.194 or a typical example

Looks like maybe a script warming up? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those do look like the output from some sort of text-generation program. I won't pretend to know what is being tried out here, but it doesn't seem related to building an encyclopedia and might be an attempt to test a future spambot. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks just like the output of Racter. ^Chillum 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's this individual, a long term problem at Satan IIRC. Block on sight, I'd say. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting immediate block of User:Lordofthetv for threat of harm. I need someone to follow the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Accounting4Taste. A8UDI 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now we need checkuser to get IP address. That way we can alert the authorities. Tim1357 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI. @Kate (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VIOLENCE. It says we have to report all threats. So we cant ignore this one— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

WP:VIOLENCE is an essay, not a policy. And it wouldn't override reality in any event. In my own experience of reporting these, police don't investigate threats of I'm going to kill you unless "you" can be identified. If Accounting4Taste wants to file a police report, he's free to. I'm sure the foundation/a checkuser would be happy to provide the police the IP address if he did such a thing. But if he doesn't care, then we don't need to do anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clearing that up. My interpretations was that we have to take all of these things seriously, no questions asked. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One should not ignore credible threats, but upwards of 99% of all threats fail the credibility test. I can only remember one or two cases in five years where there has been a truly credible threat of harm. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Childish vandalism and credible threats of violence are two different animals. Hence, my (now reversed) resolving of this topic and advice to rbi. @Kate (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User blocked by Tnxman307. @Kate (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Martindudziak has made a threat of legal action on TETRADYN Applied Bio Cyber Sciences, Inc.. ttonyb (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. TNXMan 05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal from Indonesia who has vandalized several movie studio, anime (especially Digimon-related), video game (specifically Street Fighter ones), and now, even ABS-CBN-related articles (some archived reports on the guy: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) has persistently returned time and did his misinformation thing without any sources and repeatedly ignored all warnings. Here are the addresses he used for the past two months (bold ones are the ones he used in the past four days):

• 114.59.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.191.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.137.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.135.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.151.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.166.74.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.165.82.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.70.50.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is a partial list of the articles he had vandalized:

• Digimon Tamers
• Digimon Frontier
• Digimon Adventure 02
• The Filipino Channel
• Digimon Adventure
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
• Digimon Data Squad
• Maalaala Mo Kaya
• DWWX-TV
• List of Disney television series
• Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
• List of MGM Television shows
• Capcom vs. SNK: Millennium Fight 2000
• Sony Pictures Television
• List of MGM Television shows

While I'm more leaning toward rangeblocks against the guy (202.70.50.0/24 is currently blocked, while another range he frequently used, 118.137.0.0/16, is also blocked), Nja247 has also suggested an edit filter. But any more ideas against this vandal? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a months long slow revert war at History of terrorism there has been an unsuccessful mediation attempt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism.

One of the participants in the dispute, User:Sherzo has not been active on Wikipedia since November 6.

The current problem on the article page is not so much the slow revert war, but the tone taken by the user using IP addresses to make reverts. See edit history of "History of terrorism". Here are a couple of comments from the last couple of days while revering edits made by a number of other editors:

• 15:37, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (rv, moron)
• 09:40, 21 November 2009 Domer48 (rv blanking)
• 08:40, 21 November 2009 86.25.181.202 (Shouldn't make assumptions, editors like you are the biggest problem on wikipedia why not try reading the talk or even examine the edit history!)
• 18:52, 20 November 2009 RashersTierney (Reverted to revision 326821230 by Haberstr; no edit summary that would indicate content change - strongly suspect the intermediate eds. by disruptive anon IP.)

The problem is that this anonymous editor (judging by the style of comments made and the type of edits made) has been editing this article for many months with a number of different IP addresses, So there is no point in blocking 86.25.181.202 as 24 hours earlier the editor was using 86.25.180.153. AFAICT the same editor has also edited with User:LSG280709 which they claim (using yet another IP address) that they can no longer use because they have forgotten the password (see edit by User talk:92.239.38.135).

So my solution to the uncivil disruption that this anonymous editor is causing is to block the article History of terrorism for new accounts and IP editors for a period of three months. This will still allow other editors to edit the article who hold differing views (such as User:Haberstr and User:Sherzo) and the anonymous editor providing that they create an account and build up an edit history. But it will also bring editing back into line with the usual levels of civility and levels of behaviour we expect from all editors editing this article.

I have posted this my intention here to inform other administrators that I am about to take this action, and to say that if they disagree with my action, just as an administrator can unblock a blocked user, so they can revert my block on this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]