Bojan Krkić

This article is constantly being vandalized. Is there some way to revert it and lock it so that no edits on it are made for the time being? I'm not too familiar with the process here. Alireza Hashemi (talk)

Hi there,

YOU can revert it yourself, by clicking on history and then undoing to the last stable version.

To get it protected, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask there.

Hope that helps, if not leave me a message!

Bluegoblin7 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [1] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk)

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. —Random832

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't delete articles with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there were templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to did not read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be interpreted that way. His explanation implied that he read, or at least skimmed the guideline ("The pretty templates came later"), and I was upset because this was clearly not the case (see my oldid link). --Thinboy00 @966, i.e. 22:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was exactly RAN's motivation, but I know that if I were uploading non-free images (I don't) I would write a brief, common sense description instead of wading through the red tape of FURG. That kind of instruction creep is exactly what IAR is for.

One thing about Wikipedia is that if you care deeply about something (as you do about every fair-use image using a particular template), you do it yourself. Trying to force other Wikipedians to participate in a process they don't care about and enforcing it with deletion is a destructive way to do things. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One attempt at a template for historical images is Template:Historic fur. I'll suggest Richard uses that (I have an interest in seeing historical images saved as well). Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that many historical images like this will fall into the public domain in five or ten years, and the vast majority of older ones are never likely to cause any problems in any way - there just isn't any copyright holder around any more. Mindlessly tagging and deleting them may be shooting ourselves in the foot a bit. They should be carefully reviewed and some should be given the approriate PD tag. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing is falling into the public domain in the US until 2018, and then it will be the pictures from 1923. Stuff from, say, 1943 won't clearly be in the public domain for another 30 years. It's publication + 95 years, which means we can't just wait until they fall into PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. RFC is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as RFC, Arbitration, Mediation I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .

[Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36|72.0.36.36]] (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when Pats1 (talk · contribs) got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{trivia}} from the Ted Ginn, Jr. article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Pats1 attitude

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks Ksy92003 I appreciate the review.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats 1 uncivil?

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Wikipedia processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 ^T/C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not thinkKsy92003's opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this from the beginning and it's absolutely silly. Pats1 has done nothing inappropriate. --B (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Has Pats1 action been civil? DId he assume good faith? Did he jump into a content dispute? Was there a collusion with chisjnelson and Pats1? Was the block threatened? Did Pats1 have the power to block? I think all of those things are important. No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17-0. Wait, no, I mean I don't see what exactly the problem is here. The posting of other people's messages here is making this extremely difficult to read, and if this is just a problem one user has with an admin, then it's really no big deal. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a simple matter - don't block people you're in a content dispute with. That's straight from WP:BLOCK. If Pats1 has not blocked, then no problem. If he has, it'd be challengeable. However, it does not appear he has, so there's nothing for us to do here. I broadly agree with Ksy's summary. Orderinchaos 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orderinchaos.. not the "agreeing with me" part. User warnings are not meant to "threaten" people for making certain actions that are the basis of a content dispute. If you know that something is in a content dispute, it's not really very helpful to warm them and threaten them with a block.

Also, to extend on the WP:BLOCK point Orderinchaos brought up. WP:BLOCK says "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." This pretty much applies to threatening to block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. That is there for good reason. Without this rule in place, any administrator can virtually trick somebody into getting themselves blocked. That's something that I think any admin needs to keep in mind when getting involved in conflicts.

There is something else that I think is worth noting. This may be a conflict of interest on Pats1's part. In the past, he and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) have had a friendly history in the past, and whether he was right or not, it's not a good idea for somebody who has the power to hand out a block to get involved with an incident between two other users and take the side of somebody they consider a friend, and then threaten the other user with a block. This could be seen as a major of conflict of interest if a block was, indeed, handed out. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being harassed by User:Coloane for making an unfavorable review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008 ([2]). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: ([3]). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC ([4]). There may also be a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia ([10]). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: [11]. If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion ([12]), and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (Caniago (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow WP:NPOV and supress the evil WP:COI as much as posible to preserve WP:Notable, respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGF. Igor Berger (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to WP:MEAT if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the WP:3RR policy [13]. which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that WP:MEAT only applies to the recruitment of new editors, no? Josuechan (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no absolute black and white area in canvassing. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am too lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some differences and you changed something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! Coloane (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coloane also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[14] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[15]. He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge [16] (please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!) and here (I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T) [17]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [18] [19] [20]. Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.[21]--Miyokan (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. Then you copied and pasted on the FAC page. And again, now you pasted it over here. Your speed in writing is much faster than before but not much improvement has been made. Coloane (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once again question this user's intentions on Wikipedia. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is charming, no?) Bogdan ^що? 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so? this is my IP from Ottawa, Canada. I don't mind much if you want to get more info from me. I am currently a neurosurgeon working in Ottawa. What else do you want to know? Coloane (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but Coloane does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. Alice^✉ 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I am not interested in you. I wrote you already on your talk page. If you are seeking a boyfriend or husband, please refer to related classified online. You just disturbed me a lot. If you think your English is wonderful (though this is not your native language), congratulations! please go to ask some one if they can offer you a place as an ESL teacher. Good Luck!!! Coloane (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above is a blatant and very public display of highly unacceptable behaviour, and a clear cut example of his tendency to launch personal attacks against others (and I find it difficult to imagine that he is doing so due to his lack of proficiency in the language). That he even chose to do this right here shows his contempt towards wikipedia policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen Coloane repeatedly cause disruption on Singapore-related articles, I am not surprised to learn about his conduct at the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In a discussion at Talk:2007 Southeast Asian Games, he made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, claiming that "Singaporeans...[are] basically semi-handicapped". He also edit warred with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport. After both users broke 3RR, he apparently resorted to sock puppetry; the IP should be added to his CheckUser case. Communicating with this user is difficult, as he frequently blanks his talk page. Perhaps a RFC or arbitration case is needed to further investigate his conduct and determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, you are still holding the grudge. I nearly forgot this incident which happaned long time ago. I think that I didn't go back to that article for sometime. Actually I did nothing wrong. For what I did is made sure the information up-to-date(i.e. report from 2007). I remember you Huaiwei also got warning of 3RR policy, am I right? of course I can blank or archive all conservation in my talk page, it is my account. For what you talked about sockpuppets is completely groundless. The IP you provided from above is from Malaysia. My IP is from Ottawa, Canada. Anyway, I just don't want to waste my time to talk about this. Regards! Coloane (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Coloane (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I still hold a grudge against you or not, I feel it is important to elaborate on your history of disruption on Singapore-related articles. The more evidence we provide, the easier it is for administrators to investigate your conduct. Note my use of the word "apparently", which indicates that I suspect, but am not sure, that you are behind that anoynymous edit. If you are innocent, CheckUser will help clear your name; however, if you are found guilty of sockpuppetry, prepare to face the music. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, there is no owner in wiki. It is not your private and Huaiwei's properties. Everyone can go to that page (i.e. Singapore or Singaporean topics) and edit. "Disruption" is not an excuse to block other editors to improve these articles. Coloane (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Coloane has made substantial contributions to various Macau-related articles. Given that few editors are involved in those articles, his contributions are much appreciated. His unfavorable vote against Russia FAC is said to be triggered by an editor's critical review on Macau FAC. But this cannot be the case as Coloane made his review on January 1, 2008 [22]. while the other editor made his on January 9, 2008 [23]. He is also accused of sockpuppetery controlling the accounts User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan. But the evidences being raised so far are: 1) there is an overlap in the articles they edit; and 2) they use "+" and "-" in the edit summary. It appears to me that the evidences are pretty filmy. Josuechan (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coloane may be disruptive (some of the diffs liked to above are troublesome), but after looking at the edit patterns of the three users -- Coloane, Josuechan, & Fbmmsu -- I wouldn't assume that they are socks of one person. First Fbmmsu has very few edits, so nothing definite can be said about that account -- although it is surprising that Coloane knows this user by name. Next, the periods that Coloane & Josuechan do not edit (assumably, when they sleep) is clearly different, & I identified one period of time when they both were online. While this does not provide definite proof that they aren't all socks controlled by one person, unless someone can provide better evidence than editting habits (as for using the "+" in comments, I do that too & my edit history would show that I'm not another sock), I'm satisfied that they are 3 different people at the moment. -- llywrch (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets or not, Coloane alone is still disruptive and doesn't seem to understand what is required in this project. It seems to be about tit-for-tat combat, rather than collaboration. User:Caniago's opening post describes the problem clearly. He doesn't like opinion provided on the FAC for his home town of Macau, and he "retaliates" by putting other countries (in this case Indonesia) up for FARC with very flimsy reasoning. When the reasoning was adequately rebutted and FARC is closed, he promised to put it back later (Feb 1st) with additional reasons. Thus, would I be wrong if I no longer assumed good faith with this editor? --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do really care the quality of that article, I don't think you would care much if this article appears on FAR. To have a star on that article is not that important. Why do you feel so sensitive? maybe this is the reason. Coloane (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it was starting to look as if Coloane, regardless of his faults, was beginning to be accused of every sort of misbehavior. I wouldn't have been surprised if someone added that he was stealing the toilet paper from the WMF offices & using it to decorate Jimbo's house! More seriously, the best steps for everyone involved in this would be to either take this to Mediation or open an RfC to see if anyone has some useful suggestions to resolve this. Cause the only thing we can do here is warn & block people, & blocks for this alleged behavior don't work very well. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - looking at some of the diffs in this case, I must say I have rarely seen more consistently egregious breaches of WP:NPA in a regular editor in my time on Wikipedia. I have seen no evidence of sockpuppetry and I don't think that should be alleged, but on NPA alone this user's behaviour needs to ease up and their threats to other contributors must stop if they are to continue without sanction. Orderinchaos 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at her userpage and contributions: Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs)

Here's a recent one. [24] Also, aside from her own edits, it's important to see the final product she signed off on. [25] Also, here's another great page she recently created. [26] No matter what country you live in, there clearly is no genuine political debate over private highways anymore than there is over public toilets. Tossing unnecessary politics in there as a justification to toss in a CATO reference is not acceptable behavior. The term "theistic rationalism" seems to be a POV fork of Objectivism, that is, specifically it's one rogue Objectivist's original research about the religious views of the Founding Fathers of America. Her attempts at regularly attempting to get pages supportive of Libertarianism featured (something I helped her with myself) suggests she's using Wikipedia as propaganda, something I refuse to help her with. I made this charge in the past under a poor assumption of bad faith, then apologized for it. She never commented on my claim, either way, whether, "I assure you, I'm a good editor!" or "You're a jerk for assuming bad faith!" Silence on such things is the sure sign of a troll.

From what I've seen now -- and I think a careful review of her contributions will confirm -- the bad faith allegation is justified. I don't request anything in particular -- just that the admins here give it a look.

As a specific example, see my own talk page:

• And why "POV" instead of "biased"?

Anyone want to tell me the difference, there? Any members of the Libertarian cabal that engage in personal attacks shall be ignored. If you are strongly pro-Libertarian or anti-Libertarian to the point that you think it will affect your better judgment, please do not respond. Zenwhat (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page on theistic rationalism because I went on Facebook yesterday, saw that an acquaintance of mine was listed as a "theistic rationalist," and I noticed there was no wiki page on it. So, I did some cursory research to find out what it was and created a stub. Please quit calling me "she" by the way; I guess people assume I'm female because my username ends in an "a," so if I ever change my identity I suppose the next one will be "The He-Man of Capitalism" or something. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally off topic, but I get called a she because of the ending "a" in my username all the time (and I've had this name for about ten years or so). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should change it to Sarsaparille? But "-lle" endings still sound feminine. Sarsaparillo? Then people will think I wandered here from the Spanish Wikipedia, though. I could go the Italian route and change it to Sarsaparilli. What about Sarsaparillu? Sarsaparilly? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine. Theistic rationalism could obviously use a lot more information and references, but that edit to Private highway has references and avoids weasel words. And what's wrong with "He-Man of Capitalism"? Natalie (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does stuff on Facebook fit the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V? Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Sarsparilla is explaining how he saw "theistic rationalism" on Facebook, and then decided to write an article on it, because Wikipedia did not have one. I can't see anything inappropriate with the edits, Zenwhat, so it is clear that you should have assumed good faith first, instead of spending this time trying to get someone in trouble.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I nominated Chocolate Thai for deletion and was somewhat successful, since the stuff was removed and merged into Cannabis. I notified Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs) of my intention to delete his article Theistic rationalism, since he said he created the article after seeing the term on facebook and he used one source for it, which was blatant original research.

He seems to have retaliated (violating WP:POINT) by creating the article Chocolate chai, then making a snide remark on my page about how (paraphrase) "I guess it's too late to include information about chocolate thai." Despite being an admin, he is a single-purpose account to push Libertarian ideology. Within about a day of pointing this out here, he announced his intent to sell his account on eBay, in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Zenwhat (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get the idea Sarsaparilla is an admin. He's certainly not a SPA either. You should perhaps read that link you posted. Leithp 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was? My mistake. He is, however, an SPA. See his contribs and his user page. Zenwhat (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat has no concept of what a POV pusher or single purpose account is. He accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being POV pushing SPAs, myself included, then can't provide any evidence to support the claim. For a laugh, see his current arbcom request and evidence page where he makes the comment "I was blocked by admin User:AuburnPilot, who has engaged in the same contentious editing of articles on Austrian economics, Libertarianism, and Market anarchism." You'll note I've never edited any of those pages, but I suppose that isn't relevant. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than a content dispute. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Sasparilla's edits. They are referenced, and the new article, while small, is also quite well referenced now and simply needs expansion. Zenwhat seems to be trying to misuse policy to win a content dispute. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Moved long thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Edit warring on episodes articles slakr^\ talk /

I don't really know the correct place to report this, but I've really had about all of Valrith I can take. The user makes editing Wikipedia a nightmare for other editors by constantly using reverts, "citation needed", and other tools to enforce the policies in a heavy-handed way. It may not sound like the user has done anything wrong from my description, but that's probably part of his/her point. Just check the user's talk page. It's littered with dozens of instances in which Valrith has annoyed other editors. This is just my opinion, but if Wikipedia still has a policy for exhausting the community's patience, I think Valrith is coming dangerously close to reaching that point. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout some diff's? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user's talk page contains a well-documented history of tormenting other users. Most of his/her disruptions come in the form of deliberately making editing difficult for other users by interpreting the rules in such a restrictive way so as to be absurd. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, how 'bout some diff's?--Tom 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at some of Valrith (talk · contribs)'s recent edits. It's amusing. This editor is strictly applying Wikipedia standards to articles about the adult entertainment industry. This, of course, takes all the fun out of writing fan articles about porn actors. Hence the complaints. ("but to say that Taylor Rain's breasts must be cited is going too strict with the editing.") --John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what JN's is implying by writing that Valrith's "strictly applying Wikipedia standards to articles about the adult entertainment industry", but reviewing his talk page, I don't see any signs of an uncivil or tendentious editor. Valrith might be opinionated, but so are many other Wikipedians. Lastly, I notice that AnonEMouse has exchanged messages with him, has left no warnings (nor has anyone else), nor has chimed into this thread. I suggest this thread be closed as "Not an issue". -- llywrch (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that it's not an issue that needs administrator action. --John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See [27] and [28] Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked this at AN3, could you clarify what the BLP issue is? It isn't obvious for those of us not familiar with the subject. --B (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He puts an external link on Frank Rynne which alleges illegal activity by the subject of the page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need User:FayssalF to look over this . He is familiar. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I should note that both users have been into this dispute for almost 2 years now. Back on 2007, i decided to deal with this issue and everybody has gone into informal dispute resolution (User:FayssalF/JK). It worked for a while but since i was the only admin left with the case, things started to get out of hand and the old behavior surfaced again. I then blocked both users (see here) for a week each. I believe those blocks had little effect. At the end i asked both parties to engange in a formal mediation process. So far, Opiumjones accepted while BKLisenbee has still had some concerns and never came back to respond to my querry for a formal mediation. I'd hope other admins take care of this alongside me. All details are found at User:FayssalF/JK.

Anyway, my usual message to both parties... A total respect of WP:BLP should be observed. Articles affected (directly or not) are Paul Bowles, Bachir Attar, William S. Burroughs, Frank Rynne and Mohammed Hamri. I have concerns about WP:COI as well since both parties have been showing a COI. They are both involved in real life disputes re the same issues. I've already informed all users involved in this that Wikipedia is not a battleground. In brief, users are advised to pursue formal mediation and if that fails, they are invited to bring it to the attention of the ArbCom. I urge some admins to take a look at this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again I agree to formal mediation. How should Arb com be approached? Note Google friendly violations of BLP in above cited BKlisenbee some concerns[29]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the dispute resolution process is a prerequisite to an ArbCom case. Please give it a last chance and see if BKLisenbee would accept the mediation. If not try an RfC.

The ArbCom expects that other avenues will be attempted first:

• For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comment (RFC) process will be followed. The Committee considers community input from the RFC process both in determining whether to accept a case and also in formulating its decisions.
• For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was personally attacked on the talk:Asian fetish by user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey. They chose to research me and not the topic of "Asian fetish". They've disparage me on the talk page and posted links to external forums I've posted too. Of course whatever views they perceive I have should bare no importance as long as I abide by wikipedia edit rules. These personal attacks are clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. I wish that this section is rolled back and the perpetrators are punished. Here's the entire section of the talk page with the personal attacks Tkguy (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy linking of prior text related to this incident

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Personal_attacks_on_Asian_fetish
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish

Just a note, I think what you're actually looking for is WP:OVERSIGHT. The instructions for seeking an oversight on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish

This user is a manifest SPA who edits on Wikipedia to promote his original theories about how Asian fetish causes suicide and other social ills. He apparently can't edit with NPOV because he holds rather extreme views, as evinced off-site, where he claims to be "fighting the good fight" on this article.

This user edit warred with User:Christopher Mann McKay and User:Kaitenbushi in late November, resulting in a page protection (and a block for breaking the 3RR, which was lifted because Tkguy claimed to have been tricked into it). He edit warred in December with User:Saranghae honey and User:Crotalus horridus to same result. In both cases, it appears all editors were against his disrupting changes on the talk page. He is currently edit warring with multiple parties. This page should not be protected again because the problem is with just a single editor.

A partial summary of his history is documented at my last ANI post on him, which elicited almost no helpful response. See also his patently frivolous RFAR, which he filed after threatening to name users as parties. He even edit warred with the clerks over the RFAR title!

I'm tired of this user's sterile disruption. I don't have a grudge with the user, and was just recently alerted to this dispute through an RfC. I intend to enforce a topic ban against him, and I will block him for editing the mainspace of Asian fetish. Does anyone disagree? Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am kind of disheartened by both sides of this issue. On the first hand, TKguy's behavior is problematic, what with the edit-warring and article ownership issues clear from the above. On the other hand, the discussion cited by TKguy seems to be inappropriate for the talk page in question. The discussion seems like it belongs more at ANI or RFC, and not on that page. I would not characterize the discussion cited by TKguy as a personal attack (though the discussions of his off-wiki behavior delve somewhat into the realm of revealing personal info. Seeing his off-wiki life discussed like that makes me feel uncomfortable), however the location of the discussions seems inappropriate. I don't see why that discussion cannot be redacted by WP:OVERSIGHT and why we also still cannot discuss the problems with TKguy's edit history. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can selectively delete the edits, unless someone thinks actual oversight is needed. I do think they were misplaced on the talk page, which should focus on the article, but procedural faults besides, we have an editor who persistently edit wars on a topic against everyone. As far as I know, none of the opposing editors have ever worked together. We pointedly disagree with out to handle the article, but we talk about our disagreements, rather that conduct sterile edit wars. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be best. If the edits were removed from the talk page history, but ported somewhere else so that we can still access them easily, perhaps as a subpage somewhere, that would be best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/More about Tkguy. And this way they can be easily deleted when the issue is settled. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what constitute an attack? Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with this assessment. I've read the above links and find this to be an accurate description of what has occurred and the current issue on the article. I would encourage everyone to read the above provided links in full before giving their opinion as well as the talk page of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cool Hand Luke is doing the same thing he does with sources on the asian fetish article, mis-represent them. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. And the arbitration proposal was not trivial as none of the 3 admin I asked seem to want to help with my personal attack issues. But the board wants me seek out help in the community so I submitted this incident report. I was personally attacked and I would like my attackers to be punished. Cool Hand Luke being one of them.

I can't see how this can not be seen as a personal attack. They are critique me and their perception of my views. They called me a racist and they put up links to offsite websites. Cool Hand Luke did this as well. more than once. But Cool Hand Luke is an admin and he should know better.

All these people are obviously pushing a pov on the article. Obviously I have a bias but I don't go deleting well sourced entries on the page like Cool Hand Luke is doing here. He's actually preventing me from adding or updating the Asian fetish page at all! Him along with User:Headwes and of course Crossmr. He merged User:Saranghae honey's POV pushing sandbox version of the page to the Asian fetish article here. And this is another person who personally attacked me. Tkguy (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these people are enforcing a neutral point of view on the article. After reviewing the difs provided by you and by the others, it is clear that, despite the fact that there is no consensus to make the changes to the article you wish, you keep making the changes. Per WP:BRD, once an edit is reverted, all parties should go to the talk page to discuss the edit in question. I see no effort made on TKguys part to work collaboratively. Also, it should be noted that no one except TKguy seems to charactarize the edits as "attacks" and it should be noted that no one at Wikipedia "punishes" anyone. What admins DO is to use bans and blocks to minimize damage and disruption to the project. Based on TKguys behavior, I would support Cool Hand Luke's suggested community ban, and TKguy should be restricted from editing articles related to this topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that 4 of the 9 arbitrators has rejected this case sited above by TKguy. They believe that it should be handled "by the community" and that there is " nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators." Sounds like we are to deal with this here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by punishing people. Ban them or block them. And you are obviously wrong about me not wanting to discuss changes. Nearly all the topics on the talk pages are started by me! Look at the talk page and look at who starts each thread. It's says tkguy on nearly all of them! Here are topics I've started:

Adoption, from my talk page

Phoebe Eng

Moe Tkacik

The Fisman Salon article

mail order brides

I am not even getting into the archives. These are topics I've started on the talk page. What do you mean that I do not want to discuss changes? As for those who don't think these are attacks. Well majority of the comments are from people who attacked me. I can't imagine any one of those admitting that these are attacks. Considering how they source their material and delete content for trivial reasons. User:Cool Hand Luke is the only person of the three I report who didn't submit and AfD for the page. Tkguy (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and User:Cool Hand Luke changed nearly the whole article by merging with user:Saranghae honey's restricted sandbox version of the article without gaining consensus. HOw is one person not gaining consensus OK while another person's is not? have you even looked at the changes I've made? tell me which one of them just point it out with a diff, what is wrong? I will assure you that I can prove that I deleted it for very good reasons. Please give me an example. Anyone. Tkguy (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do that on the talk page, which are for discussing the article. You ignore it. See below. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you conclude several of those discussions by claiming that there's no reason to oppose your edits and that all of the other parties are wrong ("its here to stay" stating intent to re-add paragraph after being advised doing so would break 3RR), and you continue edit warring, knowing that literally everyone opposes you. You know where the talk page is, but not how to edit collaboratively. That's why you should be limited to the talk page, which will prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saranghae honey threatened to delete the Mail-order bride section due to lack of sources. Yet at the time I added a source from Phoebe and Asianweek and User:Saranghae honey deleted the phoebe entry. and then make the claim that there are not enough sources to support this section! I added the phoebe section back in and people claim that the asianweek source is not good because it's about college students making statements. After the page was unlocked you overwrote the whole article with User:Saranghae honey's version which deleted the mail-order bride section. So I added the section with the deleted phoebe entry back in and two more WP:V sources. and you give me a WP:UNDUE and delete this today! You people made it obvious, it does not matter at all. this section will never ever be added to the asian fetish page. It does matter if there are many WP:V sources out there supports that asian fetish drives the mail-order bride business. And this is the nature of all the changes I've ever tried to make to the page. All of the them! Tkguy (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits (such as the diffs above) speak for themselves. I look forward to working with you on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an entry I've put in on the talk:Asian fetish, it's an example of the kind of editing I've done along with what kind of editing that have been done on the page. Much of the editing I do is to rid the page of the manipulation of source data. And no I don't believe consensus can be used to allow manipulated sources be placed in an article. That's a direct violation of WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. Tkguy (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example User:Saranghae honey wrote the following:

Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." 19:54, 27 December 2007

The actual quote is the following:

"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." colorq.com source

The colorq source went through a lot of trouble to specify both sides of the asian fetish issue. One side indicating it's a benign while the other side saying it's not. If you read closely you realize that User:Saranghae honey was trying to imply that it's general accepted by ALL the notion that asian fetish is benign when actually the source specifically specified only some believed this notion. I found that way User:Saranghae honey chopped the quote was an attempt to mitigate Asian fetish. Seeing how User:Saranghae honey wanted this page deleted and is continually deleting content from this page I can make this conclusion.

I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page.

Another example is the "Racial preferences in dating" dating part of the page. Originally this was written as claiming that a scientific study proved that asian fetish does not exist. That's so far from the truth. An article was written in salon magazine in which one of the authors of the study derived from the study that it proved to HIM that asian fetish does not exist. Please read the old version of this part of the page and my version and look at the study and the article being referenced. I assure you that my entry is an unbiased view of the article and situation. With that I believe I can actually delete this section as this guy was obviously stating an opinion and wikipedia is not a source for opinions. Or at the very least this section does not deserve to have such a prominent place and use up a lot of space on this page. It's a biased opinion from one man. And it's sad that such bias comes from an author of the study which brings into question the validity of the study itself. old Asian Preference in Dating section vs new Racial preference in Dating section

Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:

Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture. 02:45, 28 November 2007

The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:

"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."

My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.

I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. Tkguy (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Case in point. Ownership, accusing other editors of "gross manipulation." Tkguy here claims that consensus need not apply to his edits because user is correcting "manipulated sources." A variety of users have made clear their opposition to Tkguy's POV edits, but user feels entitled to ignore them. That's why this SPA should be banned from the mainspace of this topic. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I proved it right here that sources were being manipulated. If you prefer to look to this as me pushing my pov so be it. I am pushing the pov that sources should speak for itself. And this is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish. Tkguy (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether a non-admin's view is wanted here, but I support a ban. November/December was an odyssey in personal attacks and bad faith accusations on me (and others), partly documented here. Even in this thread Tkguy continues accusing me and User:Christopher Mann McKay of tricking him into a 3rr trap, despite having been warned beforehand. Kaitenbushi (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the real story. My 3rr block was reverted and User:Kaitenbushi got the 3rr block and User:Christopher Mann McKay got a 48 hour block for violating the 3rr rule on another page and for tricking me too on the Asian fetish page. Talk about all of this on the arbitration proposal and it's here. We already know that User:Christopher Mann McKay was blocked for 48 HOURS not 24 hours like everybody else 48 hours! This guy has no credibility.

I hope people see a pattern here. user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey already had their comments rollback but yet they were not banded, or blocked or not even a comment, I believe, was put on their talk page. And like I said User:Christopher Mann McKay was already banned for 48 hours partly for his work on Asian fetish. Yet, people are thinking that I am the problem on this article? If I have pov then it's because I am pushing to make the article abide by wikipedia's standards. Nearly all the entries on the article now has WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. issue. This is because there are no consequences for adding things that breaks wikipedia's policies. I will RfC on all these changes but it seems like the kind of people RfC on Asian fetish attracts are the people who think consensus can overrule the rules of wikipedia! Why were these comments rollback and nobody blocked or banned from the article? According to policies:

At least one things came to light it's official user:Crotalus horridus, User:Cool Hand Luke, and User:Saranghae honey are vandals!!! And as the WP:AGF states.

This section that was rolleback has many many entries in it (12 entries! Not 1 not 2 not 3, 12 entries!). It's not just one comment. It's multiple comments from each party. So multiple occurrence of vandalism warrants that these people can be assumed not to editing in good-faith. And it's apparent that these people are the people making all the comments against me, I say those comments and their editing must be examined before using them to determine whether or not I AM THE PROBLEM. If I am changing their entries then if it's vandalism then that should be ok. and anything that was changed and no regards were put to abide by wikipedia's standards then it's vandalism. And that's is the nature of the edit wars on Asian fetish 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support preventing Tkguy from any further disruptive edit warring on Asian fetish. It is long overdue. миражinred (speak, my child...) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break AF1

I will block him

— User:Cool Hand Luke

You may be arguably be involved in a content dispute with Tkguy; if so, the use of sysop tools would not be allowed.

This messageboard is not part of dispute resolution, though many people seem to use it as the first measure. Have WP:3O, Wikipedia:Mediation or Requests for comment/User been attempted? There was a request for arbitration that is being rejected. Likewise, a community topic ban via ANI should not be proposed until all other avenues have failed. If other means have already been tried, please point me to the links. Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration failed but remember it was initiated by Tkguy, not anyone on the other side of the dispute. In fact other attempts were made to reason with him, there was a proposal made on his talk page. He refused to acknowledge it and instead when it looked like consensus was clearly against him, he began making threats of arbitration and eventually filed it (and its now been rejected). 3O wasn't specifically request, but I was a bit of a third opinion, coming to the party quite late. To find the mess on the talk page, and I agree with everything that has been said about what is going on here. Not that 3O really applies here, its specifically for a dispute between two users. This is a dispute between about 6 or 7 in reality. Mediation and RFCU are both slow and neither are binding. In the meantime the edit warring and ownership issues will continue as its unlikely Tkguy would agree to not edit the article until the process is finished since he wouldn't even acknowledge the request to limit himself to a single revert a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message board is part of dispute resolution. With the dismantling of WP:PAIN, and WP:CSN many users expressed during the MfD process that those issues be brought to either AN/I or AN and separate boards weren't necessary. Since those boards were successfully removed and there wasn't an alternate venue provided for them, this is where they end up.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there only one problem editor, or are there more? Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a single problem editor causing the edit warring and causing the article to have been locked twice. If you look at the dispute you have about 6 editors on one side of the dispute, and only Tkguy on the other side of the dispute who has absolutely 0 support for any changes he wants to implement. He has ownership issues and a very evident bias in regards to the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So my editing is edit warring and their changes are not? And my editing is the problem? So tell me if people deliberately violate WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and if I change those entries. Is that edit warring? Tkguy (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if you can't persuade other editors to support your edits on the talk page to reach consensus then you cannot really see this as anything other then your view against that of the other established editors there. The onus is on the person wishing to make changes to obtain consensus when their edit is challenged so, if you do not have consensus on your side, then you are edit warring. I suggest that you should observe a voluntary 1RR, that is, if your edits are challenged you should seek consensus on the talk page and leave well alone if this is not forthcoming. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation, you should explain the problem and the desired resolution at Requests for comment/User. Broad input from the community will hopefully end any editing problems. Administrators can use the RFC/U as evidence to justify administrative action. If RFC/U fails to resolve the dispute, you could then file a request for arbitration or seek community sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of RfC-style evidence was posted at the previous RfC. User has been given countless warnings including prior requests to observe a 1RR, and even here the user insists that he is right and the world is wrong. I would have moved to RfC/U except that literally no user supports this editor's continued disruption, and there's no good reason to allow one user to get the page protected fore a third time. If normal formality gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, a quick review suggests that this editor is edit-warring against multiple others and has reverted somewhere around 5 times in the last 12 hours or so. Therefore, I've blocked Tkguy (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation. As to the larger picture, having spent a bit of time looking this over, a fairly clear picture of a tendentious editor is emerging - refusal to respect consensus or outside opinions, refractory edit-warring, stalling page improvement by refusing to let go of an argument that has failed to convince anyone, etc. That there is fairly good evidence of a single-purpose agenda and abuse of Wikipedia to push a specific agenda (in the form of links to off-wiki sources) is relevant though not central. We should not be allowing individual editors who refuse to edit collaboratively and who reject outside input to stall page improvement indefinitely - the fact that this single editor has driven the page into protection numerous times is A Bad Thing. We also shouldn't require a lengthy series of processes to deal with an obviously tendentious presence. In that respect, I'd lend my support to either a topic ban, or 1RR plus a rapidly escalating series of blocks for any disruptive behavior or incivility. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem—community sanctions should take some time and have a good cross-section of input. Incidentally, it appears that user has named seven editors above as vandals, POV-pushers, and tricksters. I think that's a pretty good indication of how singularly disruptive this user is. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but I hope that this issue doesn't fade in to obscurity as to often is the problem on AN/I. While it temporarily resolves the issue we do need much more input so we can put this to bed.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with MastCell, as well as with either of his proposed solutions, and have declined the user's unblock request. Sandstein (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel a topic ban is more in order here. We're not dealing with an established editor who only loses his cool in regards to a narrow topic. We're dealing with a single purpose account who came here with the intention of pushing his own POV on an article and has done nothing but succeed in locking up the article a couple of times and violating a number of policies. If he really wants to contribute positively to the rest of the encyclopedia, I say give him a chance to do that, but I think he's wasted any possible good faith that could have remained in regards to this article and this topic in general.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing magnetism

The problem is probably, in part, because Asian fetish, like Asiaphile, is an inherently-non-neutral title. The very name implies a slant on the subject. The two names are both names for a single subject, each with a different implicit point of view inherent in the name itself. Thus they attract in non-neutral editors who want to promote the name's point of view and exclude the point of view that is contrary to the one implicit in the title. I've suggested a merger into a neutrally named article before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile; it's also been suggested at Talk:Asian fetish#Should this article be renamed?; and there's even a consensus to merge and pick a better name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile/2004-12-14. Rather than have this problem carry on for another 3 years, with non-neutrality as its cause, it is probably time that we bite the bullet, stop the non-neutrality, and do that. See User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men for something that you are welcome to start a merged article with. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good content solution, and I support it. I do think the title helps attract extremists.

That said, any name change will not deal with this editor, who, after all, began his wikipedia career on Asiaphile before it was turned into a disambiguation. User has an agenda to promote no matter what the article is called. Cool Hand Luke 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments on Talk:Asian fetish, I support a rename. The exact title is negotiable. Uncle G's workshop page looks good to me, and he has a lot of experience with handling merges and similar matters. I think a title change and merge might help defuse the issue. *** Crotalus *** 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone request a blocking of his OWN IP due to wikiholism? --Damifb (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request it, but we won't do it. May I suggest WikiBreak Enforcer instead? ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that work for an IP? I do presume, like you REDVEЯS, that the editor meant "account" instead of "OWN IP".--Alf ^{turning on the light for REDVEЯS} 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant IP, because with a Wiki Break Enforcer you can still edit from your computer. OK, thanks for your answers... I'm laughing because I've been blocked in the past without asking for it lol!--Damifb (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "asking for it." ;) — Satori Son 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase the New Jersey Gambling Commission: "Edit with your head, not over it" David in DC (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

209.254.12.73 (talk · contribs) seems to be a good editor otherwise. However, with Sheng Long, he insists on removing maintenance tags from the article and removing it to a fancruft-filled version that was previously nominated for an AfD. He's been blocked on multiple occasions for this, and now his strategy seems to be waiting a few weeks before reverting the page. Is there anything that can be done about this short of longer blocks? JuJube (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that one's a little odd. I have left a note on the user's talk page requesting politely that he listen to the warnings he's been given about this. I do not know if this will forestall longer blocks, but I'm not sure what else to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This admin User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me has an extraordinarily long talk page that precludes easy communication when he makes actions that require comment from other editors. Not just the length, but the processing time, makes it hard to check the status of issues. Should it not be a convention that communication with admins be made as easy as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 January 2008

Perhaps suggest the SqueakBox solution. There were complaints about the length of his talk page as well, and he compromised to keep one page of all of his conversations, and his talk page with only the most recent discussions. I believe he trancluded his talk page to the "All page", so he has the very latest talk plus his discussions from the past all in one place without inconveniencing people trying to contact him. Although I'm not sure he can be forced to do much. Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a little note on his talk page. Maybe he just forgot to archive it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) The first step is always to ask. I don't see that MickMacNee has actually asked Clown to please archive. Most people will, if asked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the 10th of January, he has edited since. I don't understand the transclusion bits, sorry. It's a pain to keep going back to check things as he gets talk changes regularly so watching doesn't help. I would think you can't force anyone to do anything on WP, but there are policies about communication, especially for admins, and talk pages are the method of communication. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Sleep has been asked previously to archive, I found a comment from someone who said that they actually can't load his page when using dial-up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I have found 4 requests, on the 23 Aug 07, 26 Sep 07, 26 Dec 07 and then Mick Macnee's on the 10th Jan 08. DuncanHill (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisionally archived. Note that CSCWEM hasn't edited since the 11th. ^Avruchtalk 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been active today, with no acknowledgement of the issue. If all he wants to do is prat around vandal fighting and ignore his talk page then perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to close out Afd's, the fallout of which still hasn't been resolved yet. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noodles75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism only account. Latest edit today. Not current, so not eligible to be reported on AIV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit does not appear to be vandalism, although some of the others do. I don't think any admin action is necessary here as he has had a couple warnings over the last few days, but no final warning. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, content to watch, but isn't a Template:uw-vandalism3 as given here a final warning ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytona2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User self identifies as 13 years old and provides lots of real world info (School, hometown, DOB etc). Can someone check if this is appropiate and deal with accordingly? Exxolon (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it pending further discussion. See this for more info. Prodego ^talk 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His userbox indicates he was born in 1993, that means he isn't 13 (okay, he's 14, but still...) Corvus cornix_talk 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldspammer (talk · contribs)

I'm going on holiday in 16 hours, so don't expect much response from me. However, this user - who Ive had dealings with in the past - seems absolutely incapable of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. He's an altmed type, and not very civil about it either. For instance, in response to one person pointing out that he's citing studies that deal with dental treatments as evidence for blood treatments, he says:

An Alzheimer's patient might believe your argument that electroporation of the blood (BE) is completely unrelated to electroporation of other fluids because they have lost the abilities for judgement, reasoning, and higher level thinking.

He also claims that altmed is being repressed, and inevitably is promising and useful:

"Alternative medicine is any promising medicine that has not been adopted by and is not used by mainstream medicine, or has been shunned or suppressed by big pharma for political and trust (as in anti-trust monopoly) reasons."

And why is there no evidence of their usefulness?

Other examples of debunking involve drug trials where 1/100th to 1/16th of the effective dosage is used in the drug to be debunked. Even then the submitted results were tampered with so that no positive effects were tabulated, nor found their way in the observation summaries. Their conclusions were forgone: drug to be debunked is ineffective against disease. How surprising?

Other blood treatments have probably been conducted in a similar shoddy fashion to elicite the desired outcomes for the people funding the scientific studies.

...That's right, there's a conspiracy of fraud against them all.

These examples are pretty typical of him; frankly, I don't think he's able to write in an NPOV manner. I'm not sure what should be done, but surely something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with him? Let him talk. We don't block people for making bad arguments. What he said does not amount to libel. DGG (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just talk, yes, but he also is a major force for the creation of bad and biased articles on fringe subjects. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most immediate issue appears to be disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). - Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We dealt with that fine--an ed. moved the excessive comments to a talk page. I see he is not the only one saying keep at that AfD. DGG (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just that AfD, fine, but it's not. It's just that it was a convenient nucleus to set out some of the problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, as someone who's interacted with Oldspammer in the past... His focus is on very specific topics: "blood electrification" and Robert Beck, an entrepreneur associated with same. He's had real difficulty with basic policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I've tried to help here, but these issues are coupled with a readiness on Oldspammer's part to assign anyone who disagrees with him or cites policy to the vast conspiracy to suppress the truth about blood electrification. Recently, canvassing has been an issue as well ([30], [31], [32], [33], etc) - though Oldspammer has denied that these posts constitute canvassing, and continued posting to a highly selected audience, albeit in less inflammatory terms ([34], [35]).

The question of what to do is interesting. I agree with DGG that we don't block people for making bad arguments. Prolonged editing contrary to policy is a bit tricky. In this case, Oldspammer's edits are limited to a small series of articles. I think the best approach is to continue working with him and deal with these articles as we would any other - apply notability criteria, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I think the more editors work on these articles, the better, since my experience has been that Oldspammer is either not understanding basic Wikipedia policy or is unwilling to follow it. But a block would be somewhat harsh, based on what I've seen so far. A few more paranoid attacks on other editors as members of a pharma-FDA conspiracy, or more blatant canvassing, might change my mind. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other highlights include constant reference to a Big Pharma-FDA conspiracy ([36]), fact-tagging another editor's AfD comments: [37], and this canvassing gem, which I'd missed earlier: [38]. Again, I'm not arguing for a block, necessarily, but the problem goes well beyond a few bad arguments at AfD. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think mentorship would help him? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. He's a man with a mission, and mentoring won't change that. I don't think a block is necessary. As long as they don't cross over into tendentiousness, contrary editors serve a purpose in motivating other to make sure that our sources are top-notch and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a great holiday, Adam. When you get back you will find that Wikipedia is still here and there will still be things that need fixing. These things may or may not involve particular altmed editors and articles attracting same, but that is true if you didn't have a break. :~) Happy Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And see you when I'm back! Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently

Thread restored here since this is not a dead or solved issue, but was archived during a holiday pause. -- Fyslee / talk 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's barely edited in the intervening time, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to continue this thread. ^Avruchtalk 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I wouldn't have done this if I didn't think there was good reason. I am in the process of composing the next entry. -- Fyslee / talk 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith doesn't imply assuming you are right - in the absence of continued edits from Oldspammer that are disruptive, there appears to be no reason to repost this thread. WP:AN/I is not the place to continue a content dispute, and we should give Oldspammer the benefit of the doubt that in the almost month since this thread was previously completed he has had time to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. That is WP:AGF. ^Avruchtalk 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you give me a chance to show that I know something about this that you may not know, and know this editor better than you may know him. You did not do that and I find your actions (the stale tag and your comments here) quite offensive. Don't be so quick on the trigger finger. -- Fyslee / talk 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldspammer (talk · contribs) has manifestly not become more policy-compliant - recently, he has shifted to the Royal Rife article, insisting we base it on self-published promotional websites and issuing a blanket rejection of any PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed medical journals (because, don't you know, PubMed is linked to "the owners of the Federal Reserve System, Oil money, European aristocracy, Citigroup, media run by moguls, and so on, many of whom are involved in the pharmaceutical, chemical industries, cancer therapy industry, and involved in the US educational system via endowment grants via the tax exempt foundations." I wish this were atypical, but it's absolutely not, and the talk page has turned into Conspiracypedia. On the other hand, he has been editing rarely, and not at all in the last few days, so I don't know how urgent the issue is. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting example of his conspiracy theories is provided in a message to the now banned User:John Gohde. ("Birds of a feather.....") It is applied to editors right here, not just factors outside of Wikipedia. This example shows intent to carefully and deliberately game the system, and Gohde developed the plot even further and this evidence resulted (among other things) in him getting banned. It also reveals that we are dealing with an editor who won't be able to AGF, and thus will be incapable of editing in a collaborative manner. IOW he is unsuited to this environment and will only be a burden and a continued source of disruption. I think the original statement that he is "absolutely incapable of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE" can be extended to WP:AGF.

Added to all this, the belief in such conspiracy theories (to the degree this user obviously believes in them) renders the believer incapable of trusting V & RS, and thus an aversion to using them becomes manifest, and a strong tendency to favor highly unreliable conspiracy theory sources will lead to using them here, instead of V & RS. So many serious faults in one editor can spell nothing but trouble. He is a walking recipe for disaster, and we have been feeling its consequences here for some time. He has the zeal of John Gohde, but not the finesse, which makes it easier to spot the problems, and hopefully make expeditious action easier to take when necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about conspiricy theories true or false/ Everthing needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But we should not be talking about John Gohde behind his back, being that he cannot defend himsel, and he will be back within one year. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely. No reason not to discuss John Gohde just because he got himself banned (mutiple times) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like, but WikiPedia has more important thing to talk about than one user. Remember WP:POINT. Cheers, Igor Berger (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who' s dealt with him quite a lot after having Royal Rife brought to my attention by the article on it - which he created - being criticised in a major blog (Respectful Insolence] if I'm not mistaken), I'm going to have to agree with Fyslee and Mastcell - this user has consistently shown himself unable to not only to misunderstand NPOV, but to be unable to understand WP:RS, promoting self-published web sources, patents (with and quotemining from 70 year old publications, while rejecting Pubmed-indexed sources, as Mastcell describes above. He also has a tendency to take what a source says, then make claims (referenced to the source), that go well beyond what the source said, e.g. claiming that having been awarded a patent proves that all claims listed in or related to that patent are true. In the article's text. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong blog. this is the correct link. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, Fyslee, if you took my comments personally. It seems unnecessary, still, to bring this to AN/I given that Oldspammer has made 5 edits to articlespace since December 13th (out of maybe 15 edits outside of userspace total since the last AN/I thread died out). Outside of an accusation of a specific disruptive policy violation we don't need to rehash this again at this time. He has a very fringe POV obviously as it relates to altmed (primarily the work of that Beck guy, and his own experiments on himself) but a strange content POV isn't an AN/I issue IMHO. ^Avruchtalk 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Discussion is better. I am not "bring[ing] this to AN/I", since it was already here and was archived before it was settled. His POV isn't the main problem, it is his (in)ability to adapt to the editing conditions here, both in article and talk space. His track record indicates he is incapable of doing so and instead of going even further with RfC/U and RfArb, this AN/I is one way to bring attention to a problematic editor so others can keep an eye on him, since these inabilities will constantly plaque everything and everyone around him. Due diligence and all that.... -- Fyslee / talk 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, I was in the process of welcoming new users at the user creation log and noticed something strange. Please see this edit from User:Pvtpepperjack. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say usual vandal editing start. Viridae^Talk 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. He just said "burger king sucks". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a kid. I've deleted his userpage. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

209.217.75.171 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of a permabanned user, is back from a one-week block. Can we get another block on this please? See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#2008_section_break for more background. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. for 1 month. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed her request at WP:CHU and looked over her contribs and user talk page. She claims that she needs to change her name for "safety online". However, she also wanted - and this is the part that concerns me - to have her contribution history, almost all of it the posting of gossip to Daniel Craig, completely deleted from the account once renamed. I informed her of the privacy policy and am assuming good faith, but IINM, there was another user (now banned - her name escapes me, but I believe it started with "Tweety") who wanted the same done and was disruptive in doing it. I'm a bit concerned that this may be another iteration of that user. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do it. Her contribution history is tiny, today and yesterday only. No evidence of disruption, plus she says she is being stalked. I don't think we should assume she is a sock, but take her request at face value. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Since Parachute (the name she wanted) is taken, I asked her to choose another name so as not to wait a week. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navalcrowd1 (talk · contribs) has been inserting some extremely POV edits at Miroslav Filipović [39] [40] and Magnum crinem [41]. Warned twice now, and continued after final warning. Can someone block this guy? AniMate 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does not mind editing others' comments either as can be seen at User_talk:Jagoda_1. --Ubardak (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very unacceptable behavior, but it does not look like there has been any editing whatsoever since their final warning (which occurred at 05:59 UTC and again at 06:13 UTC). Their last edit was at 05:58 UTC. Please let us know if it happens again - a block would certainly be warranted at that time. — Satori Son 15:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raume.DE AF (talk · contribs) has been tagging articles as unreferenced at quite an impressive speed for someone who made his first edit about 20 minutes ago. I left him a nice welcome note, but I'd like someone to check and make sure this isn't a bot or some hidden problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on his page: 'Thank you, but your suggestions are entirely useless. The articles I am tagging mostly date back 2-3 years or more without sources and need to be identified. Go away.' Um...Yeah. HalfShadow (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what's going on there. He's most recently been tagging bios of Iranian academics, most of which are weakly sourced. But he's not doing it blind; he's making more or less reasonable edits to some of the articles. It's not vandalism and it's not a bot. --John Nagle (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a checkuser, the user may be doing some pretty good edits. But the user is showing signs of experience at an early stage. Rgoodermote  13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that checkuser is needed here. He could just as easily be a long-time IP contributer who recently registered for one reason or another. Also, use of sockpuppets for different tasks is actually entirely allowed by WP:SOCK. He is doing nothing that is against the rules here, even if this is a sockpuppet account. He was a bit rude in his response, but so what? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of that, but I had my doubts. Most long time IP contributors will add that to their userpage as to make sure that everyone knows they can trust the user, this is mostly a conclusion based of my time doing vandal patrolling I noted that a lot of the user pages I reverted the oens who were made by long time Ip contributors mentioned their IP. As for the experianced user, I don't doubt that the user may be a sock of an experianced user they have every right to hide the master from us if they do not want to be associated with certain tasks. Just out of curiousity I am going to ask the user. Rgoodermote  14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspecting a user of evil intent based on "signs of experience at an early stage" is what got us into a recent mess. Have we forgotten this so soon? —Random832 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In honesty I don't remember, but to keep this from turning into a Highschool Drama I will drop the conversation...but I am still curious. Rgoodermote  14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start by editing with a reasonable degree of competence and get accused of sockpuppetry, start by editing incompetently and get warned or blocked for screwing pages up. there's a name for this kind of situation. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the worst before given a chance...I think there is an essay on Wikipedia that talks about this type of situation.Rgoodermote  14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. Someone please blank both the front and back of this and protect the talk page as well? This kid will never be notable enough for WP, based on this nonsense. If not possible, or no one is willing to do this, then I will MFD the AFD for BLP reasons. Lawrence Cohen 07:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done (although an MFD of an AFD would be amusing because of the unwanted attention it would bring). east.718 at 07:13, January 16, 2008

Yeah, that was just my being POINTy to make sure something happened. Thanks Mattinbgn for blanking it. Would anyone object while we're on the topic to just delete the AFD? Let this kid get out of our Googlejuice completely. He's gonna have nonsense following him from all the web hits over this without us helping. Lawrence Cohen 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damnatio memoriae is not usually how we operate around here. east.718 at 07:17, January 16, 2008

Not even for BLP with minors? At the absolute least can we delete and recreate it as a protected page to nuke the history and BLP vios there? Lawrence Cohen 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blanked and protected deletion debate, not an article. As far as I know, an AfD has been deleted only once, and that was in exceptional circumstances. By the way, Google doesn't crawl wikispace. east.718 at 07:29, January 16, 2008

Blanking is sufficient, deletion would be Damnatio memoriae. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to leave all the BLP violations against a minor in the editing history? Deleting and recreating it as a blank AFD protected forever is the correct course under BLP. Lawrence Cohen 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sysop protections on both the AFD and it's talk are also both set to expire. I'm requesting that per BLP for a non-notable minor we:

1. Delete the page/salt
2. If someone really insists on the page existing for some reason, delete it, and remake it with all the BLP vios gone from history.
3. Then indef protect both.
4. Blank this whole section after we're done so Google doesn't crawl the kid here. Honestly...

Lawrence Cohen 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is not censored, and you cannot argue that what you are proposing is anything less than censorship Fosnez (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm saying we should censor this page, per WP:BLP, a core policy, to protect a minor. Lawrence Cohen 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "inappropriate commentary" in this AfD, apart from some frivolous name calling, which is hardly "inappropriate commentary" (Which infact has already been quoted by the press, so blanking it because of the mention of the word "Dickhead" is hardly a good reason.) I fail to see how your censorship of this AfD, that infact is only HARDLY covered by the BLP policy can help to "protect" this minor at all. The position held here by those calling for a blank is basically that of a "Wont someone think of the children??". A position that treats people under 18 as kids and the moment they turn 18 are expected to be fully fledged adult. Corey was drinking as an adult, he was taking drugs as an adult ("I was off my face") and may be charged as an adult. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and drinks like a duck, its a duck. Therefore he can be treated like an adult here as well. Putting your hands over your eyes and ears and creaming he's a minor!! in big bold letters is not going to change the fact that for all intensive purposes he was acting as a very irresponsible adult and is being treated like one by the international media. We should treat him like one as well. Fosnez (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Greetings, with full respect to Mattinbgn, as he is only doing his job, I would like to request the unblanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. Reasons given by Mattinbgn are Now that he has been charged, even news sources have stopped using his name and blanking his face - but this is not the case, the most recent article, which actually links directly to the AfD in question still clearly has his face visable and uses his full name. Fosnez (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care how outside tabloids hurt minors. We don't hurt them here. Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also - not the most recent story. Check [42] for just one example of how the real world is handling it. We should be equally cautious, especially given the contempt of court provisions we could be violating. Orderinchaos 09:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to be in contempt of court when the court hasn't ordered you to do anything, and Australian law doesn't apply to Wikipedia. If you're going to be encouraging an action, at least get the basis correct. --Carnildo (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting the AfD be un-blanked. News media around the world is linking to the AfD and now it's not going to be there for readers to see? What BLP violations is there in the AfD anyway? I could understand the article but not the AfD. It just doesn't make sense. ALLSTARecho 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors attacked him there. The actual news site quotes Wikipedians calling him a "dickhead". How does Wikipedia benefit from hurting this child? Lawrence Cohen 07:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that we are protecting him are worthless Lawrence Cohen, he will always exist in Google News and will always exist in Wikipedia's history. Removing his article page, and then the Afd as you have suggested just guaranteed that he does not have a neutral record of these events. The page can AND WAS protected to prevent vandalism. Fosnez (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other sources exist on the child doesn't mean Wikipedia should add to the offence. At least in Victoria his face is now blurred and his name suppressed on the television news. -- 07:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

This isn't a Victorian website. Fosnez (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming we are bound by Victorian laws. This is a courtesy I feel we owe a minor. If the State feels they have an obligation, what does that say to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The state doesn't write articles on Wikipedia. ALLSTARecho 07:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "inappropriate commentary" in this AfD, apart from some frivolous name calling, which is hardly "inappropriate commentary" (Which infact has already been quoted by the press, so blanking it because of the mention of the word "Dickhead" is hardly a good reason.) I fail to see how your censorship of this AfD, that infact is only HARDLY covered by the BLP policy can help to "protect" this minor at all. The position held here by those calling for a blank is basically that of a "Wont someone think of the children??". A position that treats people under 18 as kids and the moment they turn 18 are expected to be fully fledged adult. Corey was drinking as an adult, he was taking drugs as an adult ("I was off my face") and may be charged as an adult. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and drinks like a duck, its a duck. Therefore he can be treated like an adult here as well. Putting your hands over your eyes and ears and creaming he's a minor!! in big bold letters is not going to change the fact that for all intensive purposes he was acting as a very irresponsible adult and is being treated like one by the international media. We should treat him like one as well. Fosnez (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that this please be deleted per BLP. I don't know of any Wikipedia:Damnatio memoriae, and have never heard anyone even say this before on here. Wikipedia can and does erase history all the time with Oversight, or deletion and selective restoration. Lawrence Cohen 07:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that deletion would be going too far. The page has already been protected indefinitely (well almost, until 07:27, January 16, 2038) and the note that states that the unblanked version is available in the history has been removed, I don't really see any point than going any further. I agree with Matt on this one, blanking is necessary, and this is a perfect example of when to courtesy blank. The AfD has already been cited in 2 (3?) news articles with quotes from established editors calling the kid a "dickhead"; we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Spebi 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the benefit to us of leaving the edit history with BLP vios against a minor accessible? Lawrence Cohen 07:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised how conservative Wikipedia is - granted that now Corey has been arrested - leaving me to wonder why the big bold brave guardians of public safety aren't out looking for senior figures in drugs syndicates, white collar embezellers, people ripping thousands off the tax payers via tax or welfare fraud, people planning racist terrotist violence or people perpetuating domestic violence on family members and partyers - public comments have a legal implication

- but the case itself is of tremendous relevance in terms of media cultures, teen cultures, celebrity and even a sort of bogan media jamming. What other middle class kid could attract more attention than Wall Street or George Bush to be the most requested download on CNN?

TEEN party pest Corey has been a top-rating US news story as the tale of his riotous Narre Warren party amused and shocked global audiences.

On a busy news day where Republican US presidential hopefuls contested the Michigan primary, President George W Bush visited the Middle East and Wall St suffered a large fall, the story about a Melbourne teenager wild night topped them all.

American ws giant CNN said the story about the party - organised by 16-year-old Corey - while his parents were away on a Queesnsland holiday - was the most downloaded on its website today Herald Sun Melbourne

Corey is a real part of world culture today and therefore Wikipedia should document it - he is out there in the media - if you can think of a way to turn the article into an issue rather than a biography - and therefore avoid naming a minor that would solve the impasse

I think this decision to delete the article speaks more of conservatism, ignorance and blocking the circulation of information than protecting a minor and there should be more complex thought around this debate

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the action of deleting,blanking, and salting. Now since this article is stepping into a legal minefield, involves a minor, and is clearly against WP:BLP we should be seeking the input from the Foundation prior to any reversal of the actions as ultimately they will be the ones bearing any burden from further actions. Gnangarra 09:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gnangarra. Especially now the papers in Australia are starting to say things like "The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons" one after the other. Orderinchaos 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, agree with above. Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe this is off-topic, or off-the-point, but the actual AfD was mentioned on at least four radio stations here in Northern England. Not sure how useful this is, but there was a link to the debate (now removed) on two station websites suggesting to people to "save the MySpace kid", inciting possible single-purpose voters. But since AfD is not a vote anyway, it wouldn't have counted.

I have to agree, the courtesy blanking was the best thing in this situation. At least the girl who did a similar thing in England does not (yet) have an article on her --Solumeiras ^talk 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get is why this one became so big, when these sort of out-of=control parents-not-at-home police-battle parties are not uncommon things - even the 500 estimated attendees was not particularly unusual. One once happened at a neighbour's place and idiots were throwing broken bottles at real live people who had the misfortune to live next door. Orderinchaos 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

{{editprotected}} Posting here as both AFD and AFD talk are protected. I need an admin to please updated the AFD with the MFD message for:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

I am very disappointed that some care more about process and keeping history lying around than BLP. Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name legally suppressed in Australia

Can we please have an admin who is willing to exercise some common sense and decency please just BLP delete this all? Read here. The legal minor now faces child pornography charges in Australia. If there was any claims that I was overreacting on BLP here, it appears now that I wasn't after all. I would do this myself if I had the tools, but cannot. Is any admin willing to do the right thing under BLP here? Lawrence Cohen 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even that is not enough. I suggest going straight to WP:OVERSIGHT and e-mailing the oversight list. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I've read the courtesy blanked AfD, and I can't see any references to child pornography. I got the impression from what you were saying that people here on Wikipedia are making that link. As far as I can see, you are the only one to have made that link. Did the article, AfD, or DRV ever mention this? I've now read around some news stories, and it seems the police are throwing the book at him regarding what happened at the party. How various newspapers report that is proving interesting (varying from "child pornography charges" to "taking photos of girls at the party."). Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: happened well after the end of the AfD. (One of the hazards of writing about trendy things seconds after they occur...) Orderinchaos 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up on the MFD of the AFD. It was a recent development. He's a living minor charged with a crime--do we have many articles on those? Or pages? Theres no need for us to retain this. Lawrence Cohen 01:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the big deal about what was said at the MfD. Courtesy blankings should be enough here. The article is gone and should stay gone. The other teenager interviewed by the police has successfully remained anonymous (at least by comparison), which suggests that the only reason the name of the original one is known is because he became famous before the charges were brought, and there is enough information out there now for people to put 2 and 2 together when reading about this. It's a bit like the news stories in the UK. Celebrity XYZ was involved in such-and-such an incident. Police have stated that a 45-year-old man was arrested at the scene", or "Police have stated that a 45-year-old man is helping them with their enquiries". Everyone knows who they are talking about, but there is a degree of formal anonymity provided anyway. I agree that him being a minor does make things different. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending content from the MfD and emailed Oversight. I have no idea what happens from here, especially when the same claim is made here at AN/I! Can we all be careful please. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Name is NOT legally suppressed in Australia

His name is suppressed only when speaking about the charges that have been filed against him that do no relate to the party (I'm allowed to say that because I havn't specified what charges - Don't tase censor me bro)

The is clearly demonstated by the week in review article on News.com.au . There is also an entire page dedicated to his media coverage and linking off to other stories. Fosnez (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole area is a complete farce when it comes to reporting restrictions.

Consider this story from the BBC news website The victim "cannot be named for legal reasons", yet everybody knows who the victim is because a couple of months earlier, when the girl was missing, the press was full of stories about her being missing, and naming Studabaker as the suspected abductor! Even the most cursory search would tell you the name of the victim. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had a bizarre situation here in Perth once where a repeat offender (aged 14) who was so major as to get the laws changed by his offences (including mowing down a woman and child with a stolen vehicle) kept repeat offending well into his adult years and due to various restrictions noone could mention he was the same guy who committed the juvenile offences even though they were of exactly the same character, and some press did all but mention it. Orderinchaos 13:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he is putting in closing comments ending his comments by saying he is practicing to be an admin [43] [44][45]. I personally have never seen this before and I find it strange and somewhat disruptive. Posting a conclusion before the debate is over seems like it would deter and influence participation. Ridernyc (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldn't semi-close debates. Either he closes them or he doesn't. Leaving them "half-open" with a recommendation for an admin isn't very useful, as an admin still needs to do the work. Anyway, being an admin isn't rocket science, it doesn't need insane amounts of "practice". Kusma (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that today in the LGBT couples AfD and thought it was odd. People shouldn't be practicing closes in the actual AfD. I've since removed it. If I'm out of line, I'm sure someone will tell me. ALLSTARecho 09:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you're fine. :) Agreed that one should either close them or not. Non-admin closures can be done when uncontroversial, otherwise they should leave them to admins and use their vote to offer a policy-based opinion. Orderinchaos 10:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That gives me an idea. Thank you for the feedback. The Transhumanist 10:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Seek a RfC ({{RFCmedia}}), this is not an ANI issue SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Wikipedia lists this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The rationale behind this title has been that because the film was released outside the U.S. under this title, and that it is based on a British novel, that the article's title should reflect the title of the British film and book. There have been ongoing conflicts regarding this issue and there is currently no consensus.

The naming conventions state that when naming an article of this nature, users are to "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers". This film was released in the United States (population 300 million) as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The film was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (combined population approx. 100 million). Therefore, there are nearly 200 million English readers who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and only about 100 million who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, there should be no argument: the title of the article at the present time direclty conflicts with Wikipedia policy, and should be redirected immediately to the correct title.

Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being brought up on ANI? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because all other efforts to draw attention to the issue have been interrupted by cultural war and lack of participation from third-party editors and administrators. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's objection is correct. But just to address the issue briefly, check this out. Where there is a difference in national varieties of English, we should always favour the one that most closely relates to the article, if such a thing exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this should go to dispute resolution, not the incidents noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Adam amd Heimstern. Also, since there are redirects for the "Sorcerer's Stone" version, so what is the problem? BTW, under what title was it released in India? Or the rest of the world? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at it, it looks like dispute resolution is already in progress, and that it's showing consensus for Philosopher's Stone. Is this some effort to overturn that? The admin noticeboard is not a place to complain that the community is wrong, you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above. Admins do NOT have any authority in this area. We only have the ability to take action on the behavior of users, NOT on content disputes. If there is an open edit-war, and massive 3RR violations or incivility or other disruption, we can help. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the only place to go. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am preemptively closing this discussion. Seek proper Dispute resolution, with all due respect, this isn't it. SirFozzie (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

 – IP blocked for a month

Resolved

 – all obvious sockpuppets have been blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – sock blocked, 24 hours for IP, main account block extended

Resolved

Closed this. Admin was kind enough to notify us. Brought the fish. Others have supplied the chips. All done!Pedro :  Chat  23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may
 indicate a bug in the software. 
The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden)
from within function "Revision::insertOn". 
MySQL returned error "1114: The table 'text' is full (10.0.0.235)".