Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Viran reappears as "Flight Of The neo" with his vengeance

Flight Of The neo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as the first new incarnation of the yesterday indefinitely blocked Viran.

See archive of previous incident and Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He redirected the article Theory of relativity to his newly created vengeance article

And another newly created nonsense page, created earlier as Flight Of The Phoenix

It looks like he had prepared for this from way before his block. Probably some kind of experiment.

DVdm 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Decision made easy by the edit summary "Because ems57fcva called me crank on Admin noticeboard and DVdm laughed at me on his talk page. I seek apology from both. Also see Absolute Velocity Of Light. This is Viran." -- llywrch 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny and sad. Should we add another his name to our favorite flower's list of bad words? ;) 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs)

I don't get your cryptic allusion to "our favorite flower's list of bad words", but I agree with you about the "kind of funny and sad" -- especially since he's posting messages to Jimbo on his talk page. I don't know why he thinks Jimbo would read that particular Wikipedia page; I can't get the man to reliably read my emails to him -- & I've met him. (Maybe that explains why. :) -- llywrch 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sairilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a new instance of Viran, also started on 23-sep.

• Edit summary referring to his "question to Jimbo Wales"
• Edit summaries of recent contributions.
• "I hope you understand reason behind my constructive vandalism" on RHaworth's talk page.

DVdm 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, as before, the edit summaries made it pretty easy... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And, it appears that he's back...

Sairiliyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Per request. . .could somebody? (link) R. Baley 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Done/nevermind [1] R. Baley 10:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin should probably check out Viran's user page history (link to their comment on my talk page) R. Baley 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theory_Of_Relativity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speed_of_Gravity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DVdm 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

<moved to the right>

If you people check properly, it didn't began with vandalism. It began with my insistence to include my explaination to second postulate of SR. Some instances which can be termed as vandalism were aimed to block my sockpuppft account.

This is message to DVdm. I am usenet sci.physics 'Abhi'. I really felt sorry when I learned about Stephen Speicher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins, has Abhishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been blocked? See last entry. DVdm 13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out...". DVdm 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that funny, there is nothing he could do that could cause admins nightmares, or even use more than 5 minutes of there time--Jac16888 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neoshka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm 16:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The newest four are now blocked. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also check #9 (the IP) and #10 on Viran's user page? R. Baley 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's related... Odd, the IP is owned by Opera software [2] [3]. Looking more closely at it. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hi, I am rather new here. I was watching all this viram stuff. I do appreciate administrators for blocking such vandals. Hopefully my contributions will not be vandalised by such vandals.

Thanks to administrators once again.

virash 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(Restored blanked section, added the notice the user left when blanking) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Virash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Preparing userpage like before - DVdm 21:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This, aside from being mildly annoying, is highly amusing. Talk about telescoping... Spryde 04:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a hell of a lot more of them, all of them are blocked indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User 122.163.***.*** Vandalism

A user at varying IP addresses in New Delhi, India, all beginning with 122.163, has repeatedly deleted any edits by user Cullinane. For the vandal's background and motivation, see User_talk:Cullinane. For specific examples, see user contributions of 122.163.102.246 [4] and the Sept. 28, 2007, history of the article Logical_connective. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've range blocked for a week, I hope I did it right. :) Maxim_(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone may need to let our cousins at the Spanish Wikipedia know. He is adding his theory there and linking to his Geocities site. I reverted once with a "Geocities is not a reliable source" but my spanish is weak for anything further! Spryde 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa's frequent 3rr violations

User:Taharqa was today reported by me for 3rr violations on the Race and ancient Egypt article. Report can be found here. Here are the 4 reverts:

• 1st revert: 11:23, 28 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 28 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:06, 28 September 2007
• 4th revert: 12:53, 28 September 2007

This is the warning given prior to violating the 3rr. 11:57, 28 September 2007

This user has a very long history of violating 3rr and has violated the rule a total of 8 times in the past 5 months. The user ignored my warning that he/she was violating policy prior to making the 4th revert. The user called my report "misguided", shifted the blame to me, and also called my warnings "irrelevant chatter".

The Race and ancient Egypt was protected (at my request) due to the disputes that were occurring there, and thus User:Taharqa was never blocked. I am of the opinion that this user will continue to violate 3rr in the future if violations of policy are not enforced. This user has not admitted making any mistakes and I think that in order to prevent further violations of the 3rr this user should be blocked for a duration commensurate to the users previous violations of the policy. The longest block was for 5 days. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

When edit-warring and disregard of such elementary rules as WP:3RR have became a sort of habitude, the question must be posed if we are not in presence of a pattern of disruptive editing, and that's a problem. Maybe a RfC on the user would be in order, and if the problem persists after that, a request to the ArbCom.--Aldux 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Review User: Metros Editing History of Constantly Shadowing User: Hoopsworldscout Edits

I still continue to receive what I believe is unmerited harassment due to possible personal and/or political reasons from user Metros. He does not respond to any email that I have sent to him, nor any discussion on any page that I have made.

See page TODD FULLER. I added text “He is a pilot with about 100 hours….” with valid external, unbiased source, and Metros adds an NPOV warning tag. I have add the following text to the discussion page, so I copy for you below b/c I am fearful Metros will delete or revert this text once again:

"Self Added But Only With Valid Outside Sources (from page Todd Fuller)"

Subject has added text but only with valid external sources. See JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY, both articles have NO sourcing for some or all of their text, and have also been self-edited, but no NPOV complaint is established there. Please see User Metros editing history, he has displayed evidence of personal attacks due to possible personal and/or political reasons by reverting multiple edits on multiple pages edited by user Hoopsworldscout. See: SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSPORTATION and CHARLOTTE as examples. Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2. See SENSIBLE CHARLOTTE AREA TRANPORTATION page. User Metros immediately deleted that page when it was created, possibly due to political reasons. I re-established the page. Several users voted to remove the page, albeit, based on improper reasoning. Administrator JREFEREE ruled that it was a valid page, on the “articles for deletion” (established by Metros) talk page with plenty of proper sourcing, yet use Coredesat deleted the page once again. Wikipedia policy states that an article may not be deleted simply because you don’t like the “politics” about a group or its purpose.

He also, after deleting this article once, and after admin Jreferee ruled it was a valid article on the articles for deletion page (which User Metros) established after I reinstated article, proceeded to add editorial opinion pieces as sources attempted to cast the group Sensible Charlotte Area Transporation in a very negative fashion.

It is deeply unprofessional to edit and delete text on Wikipedia or harrass a user just because you do not like their politics.

I urge you to take necessary steps to curtail user Metros unwarranted and unfair behavior.

Regards,Hoopsworldscout 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin response)1. re the Todd Fuller article, i believe that the auto-biography tag was justified, and not added purely because of the pilot thing, although Metros could have handled it better by discussing it with you rather than just giving you warnings.

2.Although Jreferee is an admin, he/she didn't "rule" that way, it was simply a comment they made regarding their opinion, Cordesat ruled it should be deleted, whether that was right or not i don't know

How can they be harrassing you if they aren't responding to you?

--Jac16888 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Metros is harrassing me because he follows behind virtually every article I add or edit, and undoes many valid additions. See above. For example, once again please review articles JERRY MEEK and JIM GULLEY. These article have multiple statements with absolutely no referencing, and they are self-edited by the person or staff for whom the article is about. Do you see Metros going behind and deleting unreferenced text on these articles?

Also, on Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation page. Note that user Metros said article should be deleted a second time, after Metros deleted it the first time. Then, after admin JReferee said it was appropriate to have this article, b/c Jreferee said an article's existence is not based on whether you like the article - user Metros then proceeds to add editorials (opinion) articles as references.

How the heck does Metros get away with this, are we reducing Wikipedia to a tabloid driven by power hungry users like Metros? 75.181.35.199 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the editorials the first time. Jreferee did, actually. He added them, then you removed them and replaced them with editorials of your own. I simply reverted your removal of the text. Metros 09:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User Metros, if what you are saying is true, then why did you initially delete the article, and speedy delete at that, then decide to go back and edit the article? My sources were from the NEWS sections, not editorial opinion columns. Hoopsworldscout 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it because it show no notability for the organization. A valid speedy deletion that was later supported through the AFD of the article. Metros 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Profanity and Vulgar from a WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR So this is what we allow Wikipedia Administrators to get a way with??: "20:55, 25 September 2007 (hist) (diff) DHMRO‎ (are you f-in' kidding me? your Canadian website is the XM radio website?! stop this BS now) User Metros" [5] (Sept. 25th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopsworldscout (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the page was basically a hoax page and Metros was removing information discovered to be either misleading or an outright lie. Honestly, I would be much less civil in my summaries if I found an article which was basically a sham job trying to claim something they are not. Spryde 05:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax page or no hoax page - this is irrelevant. What is relevant this is public domain, for the world to see. Would an editor or writer of a newspaper such as the New York Times get away with putting that text in print?? Hoopsworldscout 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but this is not the real world. Admins are editors with a mop. That is all. They have opinions and biases just like we all do. If I ever became an admin, I would not change my ediitng style and that includes speaking my mind in edit summaries. Spryde 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John adding possibly libelous material to David Hicks article

User:Prester John insists on adding material to this WP:BLP on David Hicks which is not properly referenced, and possibly libelous. Here's the DIFF. User:Prester John is adding text which says the David Hicks is in the Taliban and al Quaeda, but we can't say things like that unless they're properly sourced. If a 3rd party claims he's in al Qaeda, then we have to say "3rd party says he is in al Qaeda", not "he is in al Quaeda".

The Talk Page discussion has been going on for some time about this, but User:Prester John is being disruptive by editing but not participating in the community discussion. I also wrote on the Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board (scroll to bottom of page) on why I think the material is libelous.

User:Prester John has a history of edit warring on this David Hicks article, has been previously blocked for being disruptive on the David Hicks article, and a history of going through the Wiki articles of Muslim people to make them look bad.--Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The material I think could be libelous is still there on the article. A revert to a previous edit will correct it. However, I'm concerned with 3RR rules to do it myself. Thanks, --Lester2 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Again admins are subjected to this users gross misrepresentations. There is is virtually nothing in the above that statement that is correct or even true. Lester shoul be blocked for blatant lying, wasting time and failing to understand even the basic tenents of Wikipedia. 'All references in the comprehensive David Hicks article state he was a member of the Taliban and trained with al Qaeda. Why? he admits it himself, freely. He has written about his Taliban experiences to various members of his family, has described events in great detail to both the Australian government and the United States government. reputable news organisations such as Reuters and AP and the Australian ABC have many, many articles which describes his involvement. What is truly astonishing is that the only person in the entire world who denies he was a Taliban member is Lester2. I have descibed the situation to him, and his complete misunderstanding of WP:BLP on his his talk page yet he still seems determined to try and smear me in this forum. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference that was provided next to the text did not satisfy what the text was claiming. The TV program treads very carefully around the words, and asks as a question "is he in al-Qaeda?". Then they play sound bites from some people who think he is. But that's not good enough for an encyclopedia to say "he is in al-Qaeda". There's a fine and subtle difference in wording, and the TV station is playing it safe, whereas we're not. If we had to use it, we would have been better attributing the claim to the person who made it.

And apart from whether the contents are libelous, it completely disrupts the process of collaboration and consensus to bypass an on-going discussion on the article's talk page. And it's also disruptive to edit-war, which is what was happening. This disruptive behaviour has been happening on the David Hicks article a lot lately--Lester2 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the dispute but have been watching it as it has a tendency to erupt, and has done so a few times before. As the man himself is not presently in a situation to defend himself for one year (it's explicitly prohibited by the conditions he signed to get out of Guantánamo) and everything is filtered, it may well be a WP:BLP violation to publish that something is true when we only know what is claimed. It is however valid to state that something has been claimed, and who by. It should be noted that User:Prester John and User:Brendan.lloyd were both blocked 2 weeks ago for edit warring on this very same article. Furthermore I fail to be convinced by diffs like this that a serious intention to resolve the dispute exists. Orderinchaos 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous WP:ANI report just days ago ANI Archive also for disruption and edit waring + a stern warning from Admin user:Eagle 101 on the talk page here --> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks warning against edit warriors who don't use the Talk Page first.--Lester2 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the original ref did not support the statement, but I just replaced it with a link to a USA Today article that directly states "He trained under al-Qaeda, met Osama bin Laden and served with Taliban forces fighting a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks". There's no longer a BLP issue here because we have a reliable source stating this. If other sources can be produced which contradict this claim, then I'd of course be open to rewording, attributing, or moving this statement. - Merzbow 08:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation about the subject wasn't supported by the initial reference provided. Merzbow recently added a reference that does support the claim, Before deleting the initial poorly referenced accusation, I wrote my intentions to delete it on the Talk Page. I don't know why User:Prester John didn't join the community discussions back then. Straight to edit war as first choice instead of talk page, like some kind of sword fight with the opponent. This whole issue could have been resolved on the talk page if 'Prester John' had been willing to join in. I'm sorry to have bothered the Admins with it. --Lester2 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The deliberate misrepresentations by this editor are really starting to get tedious. He knows full well that I addressed his concerns and directed him to references here, directly on his talk page! Is he seriously suggesting that because I took his issues directly to his talkpage, instead on the article talkpage, that I am not involved in community discussion? His entry above misrepresenting my "joining in", or in essence lying, on a forum such as this shows an astonishing amount of bad faith, and should earn him a block. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Prester, the personal message you sent arrived after any edits I made to the article. All I'm asking you to do is use the article's talk page first. Your current style of reverting without discussing is upsetting people all over Wikipedia, For example, today on the Australian Greens party article. Same thing. --Lester2 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Irishguy refusing to discuss actions

Hi folks. Below is the text of a discussion I had with Irishguy regarding his deletion of some external links. This text is excerpted from here.

The discussion was ended when Irishguy deleted my most recent response [6]

Part of the history of this is that early in the discussion I insulted Irishguy (called him a 'dick'). Unfortunately this caused him to get his "back up" to the point where he's not willing or able to discuss the matter rationally. My hope is that any admin reading this will either tell Irishguy he's being unreasonable, or alternatively will explain to me where my reading of WP policies is incorrect.

Excerpt from Irishguy's talkpage removed. Its still in the page history if anyone wants it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, my last response above was immediately deleted by Irishguy, and that's where things stand. RedSpruce 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be upset if you called me a "dick" too. You could get blocked for a vio of WP:NPA and incivility. Irishguy is right, you can't post or link to sites that are copyvios or require a fee to use. You told you this and you kept pushing. Unless I'm missing something, I'd say just let it go. I've also let Irishguy know this thread exists, which you should have done.Rlevse 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hang on a sec. Linking even to potential copyvios is unacceptable, yes, but there' no rule against linking to subscription-only sites, just as JSTOR or Grove Music Online. I use Grove for reference non-stop. Moreschi ^Talk 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes sites requiring subscription and registration are to be avoided, see WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. Rlevse 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect are you familiar with the contents of JSTOR and similar services? Without the right to link to them most of our science articles would be severely crippled. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL applies to links that are not citations. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct pay site links can be used for refs, but not elsewhere. I that impinges the science articles, well, I didn't write WP:EL.Rlevse 19:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was stupid and reprehensible of me to insult Irishguy. This dispute probably would have been settled in a matter of minutes if I'd stayed cool. Thanks for notifying Irishguy of this thread. Since he is deleting everything I post to his talk page, apparently without reading it, there wasn't much hope of me doing that myself.

As I point out to Irishguy above, there is no evidence that the site in question includes copyright violations, and ample evidence that it does not. As I ask of Irishguy above, if there is a WP policy prohibiting external links that might contain copyright violations, please point me to it. It seems unlikely that there is such a policy, since it would exclude the entirety of the world wide web. RedSpruce 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment on WP:EL, only to say that I presume this conversation was moved here based on my recommendation here: [7], a malformed RfC on Irishguy that RedSpruce filed yesterday. It seems this discussion has taken place in several places [8], [9], [10]. I thought here would be a last, good place for Redspruce to come for consensus on inclusion of his link(s) regarding WP:EL, not his campaign against Irishguy. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum for discussing this content dispute; please use the article's Talk page or EL's Talk page if the dispute appears to emanate from a discrepancy in the policy. --ElKevbo 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what are you asking administrators to do? This looks like a content dispute to me. --ElKevbo 14:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the RFC. I echo ElKevbo, this dispute does not require admin attention at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought some brief attention and a comment from an admin might be enough to bring this to a close. I also thought this might be a good place to complain about an admin refusing to discuss his actions. The WP:EL Talk page makes sense as a place to discuss EL policy. RedSpruce 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy isn't exercising admin authority here and should be treated like any other user. They are well within their rights to stop responding to repeated questions on the same subject. You are at risk of flogging a dead horse here. Admins do not have any authority to resolve content disputes. If you require further advice on external links raise it on the talk page of EL. This thread is now disrupting the admin board and should now cease. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

About the prohibition to link to registration-only sites... I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. --Iamunknown 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly [11] (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) [12] (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" [13]. He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've informed Rex of this post. Anyway, you are right. The point of talk pages is to discuss, and anon's are not excluded from this. When you consider that IPs are actually less anonymous than accounts, the whole argument is frivolous. Someguy1221 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin), I have added a message to rex's talk page informing him that he is incorrect. I find it strange that such a long term editor is unaware of such a core-policy--Jac16888 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the anonymous IP wasn't entitled to discuss. They're not entitled to vote. Which is what this anonymous IP kept doing. Rex 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you completely remove my comments for the first two times? Also, again, this is not a vote. 84.145.195.64 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to !vote, too. Someguy1221 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They're allowed to "!vote"? What the hell does that mean?Rex 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A perfect opportunity to employ the new shortcut WP:!VOTE. Joe 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a mere reference to the fact that admins are free to ignore vote counts when deciding the outcome of a discussion. It's the arguments that are important, not their origin. Everyone (short of banned users, of course) is free to engage in discussion. Everyone is free to cast their vote, and admins are free to ignore as many unsubstantiated votes as they want. Someguy1221 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someguy is, of course, correct, but even were Rex's pronouncements accurate, they would nevertheless tend gratuitously toward the uncivil and acollegial. Although I cannot imagine that this behavior, though less-than-ideal, should merit anything more than, for instance, Someguy's friendly corrective—there doesn't appear to have been any significant disruption, and it doesn't seem that a block would prevent any future disruption—I suppose it should be noted that the community have, in the past, looked with disfavor on Rex's occasional incivility and that, in view of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz, the community have, from time to time, undertaken to block Rex for that incivility. I don't expect that anyone should think a block to be in order here (even in view of what some might perceive as a pattern of disruptive incivility), and I surely don't suggest that any broader community discussion should follow, but I raise the issue only in order that those who have in the past suggested that the community consider further action (e.g., a ban, which I would of course oppose) might note anything else that might be relevant. Joe 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And still you keep taunting and insulting me, Rex "Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid.Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)" 84.145.195.64 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Rex. If he persists with removal of comments from talk pages, he will be blocked again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex, anons can vote. But the closing admins often discard their votes - the more reason not to get stressed over that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be why I'm confused right now. Nevertheless this whole - tiring- ordeal has inspired me to take some action against this.Rex 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

The two reversion of the IP's comments are also in violation of his 1R parole again. Is he limited to one revert per page per week or one revert per page per day? At least here are the other examples I could find of two reverts per page per day within the last seven days. Edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2; edit, revert 1, revert 2. Sciurinæ 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to 1 revert per article per week. Which I monitor closely.Rex 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after having checked your 'more than 1 reverts', I advise you to take a closer look. Edits only qualify as reverts when they're (near) identical. Clearly, not the case. Since when is adding a dozen references a revert? Rex 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm..... you are cutting it pretty close. One can argue that you are breaching your 1RR parole with these edits, so I would advise you to thread carefully. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

tread carefully. Gtrevize 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts within 24h also means overstepping 1 revert per article per week. Also, there are clearly two reverts (in whole) in case one, while in case two and three you did not only revert but change other parts as well, meaning it is still a revert, or the whole revert parole would make little sense. Here's the link to the parole and another shortcoming becomes obvious: you were to explain your content reversions on the talk page. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus moves name of Picasso painting to make his point about Potsdamer Platz

Rex Germanus is so eager to delete anything German sounding from Wikipedia that he did not hesitate to move the Picasso painting Dora Maar au Chat to Dora Maar with cat to Dora Maar with Cat in order to prove his WP:POINT at Talk:Potsdamer Platz, his desired move to Potsdam Square. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a French title by a Spanish painter. What does it have to do with German? --Golbez 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

sigh, it is Rex' obsession that no titles on en-wiki should contain German elements like Platz. He now apparently started extending his campaign to French just so people cannot say "but, there are also French titles, why not German". This is a textbook case of drawn-out WP:POINT. dab (𒁳) 22:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Not only he breached the spirit of his parole, he is also disrupting WP with unnecessary moves. One more incident and the user will be blocked for one month (last block was of one month, reduced to 12 days after discussion in this board. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said many times before ... I do not specifically target German. German contributors are just 1000 times more likely to use German titles because they either think English hasn't got the proper word, or because they don't know the words. Also, I only speak English, Dutch, German, and a bit of French so the range I'm able to translate or know whats being meant is limited. The cat painting, was not WP:POINT the IP presented it to me, I found numerous references to the English name and c'est ca. Rex 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled over the move without seeing the discussion here. I have blocked Rex for 24 days, doubling his previous 12-day block, since I believe in the educative virtues of the exponential of base 2. If this goes against the plans of the admins here, do feel free to adapt it to your liking.

I'd like to stress that the block is not only for the blatant WP:POINT, but also to honour the whole career of this contributor. The number of calls for a more civil language, more civil behaviour, more constructive actions, etc on his talk page speaks for itself. I believe that people should be here to serve Wikipedia rather than utilise it; from my observations, this user either wants to use WP for a personal crusade, or is so deeply deluded that he mistakes his chronically disturbing edits for constructive behaviour. In both cases, I find his contributions to be more of an annoyance than an asset. The signal/noise ratio is just too small.

Of course, should my block be based on incomplete observations, or should this block happen in an inconvenient timing for a rehabilitation attempt, do feel free to adapt it. Rama 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this block. This user comes over as a right time-waster. --Folantin 10:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in this discussion, i support this block too, especially after seeing this racist comment about the entire German nationality [14], aimed directly at another user, although Matthead did not help the situation by being uncivil, and by starting an AFD on one of Rex's articles in the middle of an incident.--Jac16888 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm the response you quote was a reaction on Matthead (the guy who listed this thread) calling Rex explicitly a racist. I do not seeing Rex comment - "Germans are not a race" being a racist remark; but more as a response on being called a racist. I think Matthead is out there to get Rex, and he seems to be clever in trolling Rex into uncivil behaviour (the deletion suggestion of a harmless article (Lodewijk van Beethoven) and the aggressive response on who-ever dared to comment for keep seems to be merely anact to "get even with Rex, and get him banned". Indeed after calling Rex a racist he came running here to get Rex blocked on losing civility. To be honest, if I look what happened here I agree Rex went too far; but he was provoked by Matthead, who did not even was reprimanded. I would suggest the blocking admin(s) to investigate User:Mattheads behaviour in this case, and block him too; for the same length as Rex. Arnoutf 12:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the "Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned." comment Rex made earlier is also highly inappropriate. That said, it takes two to tango, and both Rex and Matthead showed little reluctance to join the dance; though Rex really seemed to go the extra mile here. 84.145.229.133 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although perhaps the first part of the comment is understandable, but the second part "2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes" in regard to germans, is undeniably racist. However, i do agree that Matthead should be investigated too, since he seems to have only being trying to inflame the situation.--Jac16888 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments #1 and #2 both refer to allegedly being called a racist. Comment #2 means that Rex considers racists "low lifes". No racism there IMO. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Rex's block history I sadly can only support the block. Despite numerous blocks for 3RR, WP:POINT, incivility and even an ArbCom case he regularly falls back into his old rut; Rex has made a good deal of good contributions, but he seems to be unable to let go of some old, bad habits, and I'm at a loss how we could get the message across to him in any other way, as all other means of normal discussions and even ArbCom invocation failed to do that. 84.145.229.133 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why he hasn't been banned for good. His admitted anti 'german(ophone)'s and his 'nationalism scale' are both clear indicators that he operates from a POV mindset. A look at his block log shows he's not going to change his ridiculous agenda-driven behaviors. His Dutch genetics are better comment above indicates that he doesn't act against German titles out of genuine concern for the project, but because he's a flat out bigot. Throw him out, lock the door behind him. Why do we keep coddling trolls and jerks? This whole problem of '4 warnings in propmt time' 'steadily escalating blocks and if one's missed we must start over' and all this stuff, it's bullshit. Throw out persistent, unchanging, unchangable trolls, vandals, and POV warriors when it's clear they won't change. a dozen blocks in increasing time lengths and he keeps being a bigoted troll warrior. Throw him off. ThuranX 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. Whenever I've seen this editor at work it's almost always been in the middle of a tremendous ruckus, usually over some hair-splitting point. He's clearly got a bee in his bonnet against the Germans and he's here to push his POV. Time to show him the door. --Folantin 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User is now demanding an unblock, based on the fact that an uninvolved admin did the blocking. No doubt, if an involved admin had blocked, he'd be complaining then too. ThuranX 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex history is far from clean, and he tends to be anti German. When he is not involved in German articles his contributions are usually useful and relevant. Also note thatr Mattheads record is far from clean; and I think him listing Rex here (after first calling him racist) is an attempt to eliminate an opponent of his point of view through a nasty way.

In this light I think an indefinite block of Rex would be too strong, but I would not object a topic ban for Rex on Germany / German naming related topics. Arnoutf 16:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request. Will someone please tell me again why we allow this editor to go anywhere near anything German-related? Moreschi ^Talk 16:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, that's easy. some editors and admins insist that no matter how obvious or egregious the editor's actions are, a full set of warnings must be issued in a timely fashion, according to the bureaucracy, and any interruption in their issuance requires that those seeking to 'unduly persecute' the editor must start again at step one. Matthead and Rex ought obth to suffer long blocks, if not permanent bans, but this won't happen, because we're 'better than they are', and must show it daily by enduring their crap, ensurign that if four timely, escalating warnings aren't issued in the requisite 24 hour period, then we must start over at step one. This means any editor can simply insist that they get warned up to and including step three, leave for 24 hours, then begin again. infinitely. They get those of us seeking to improve the project wrapped up in bureaucracy while they push bigoted agendas. ThuranX 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rex was warned for this behaviour before this incident. There's not many warnings that are more clear than an RfAr. Also, there were enough warnings on his talk page as well about the current incident, even though Rex may have missed them because they weren't accompanied by a correctly coloured box and a pretty icon. I don't think the argument that he wasn't warned has any value here. Eugène van der Pijll 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think Matthead should be heavily punished as well. His behaviour in Lodewijk van Beethoven nomination is abject for much the reasons outlined by several editors in that discussion. The message of this cannot be that you can troll someone into a long block and get away free yourself. Arnoutf 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I thorroughly agree. ThuranX 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, blocks/bans are intended to prevent/end disruption, not to punish editors. Avb 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I might be aware of that, and all the warnings and prior discussions about Rex and his behaviors serve as good grounds for stopping Rex from his continuing pattern of behaviors. ThuranX 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic-ban

I've proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Moreschi ^Talk 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the topic is the issue. If Rex Germanus can't revert war on German subjects, he'll just do it on Dutch ones. The fact that he's already been through at least one arbitration case, is on 1RR, and is still being disruptive, as well as the lengthy block log, suggests he is unwilling to abide by our policies. I propose blocking him indefinitely, and unblocking him if and only if he promises to respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and refrain from disruptive activity. Maybe move your topic ban proposal here so as not to split the discussion. Picaroon (t) 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy close?

User:After Midnight speedy-closed this MfD minutes after I opened it, apparently under the mistaken impression that I was requesting a change in policy. My argument is that the pages nominated for deletion are a violation of existing policy. Would someone mind taking a look to see if the speedy close was appropriate, and offer an opinion? I've already discussed with After Midnight and we couldn't reach an agreement. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that this is here instead of DRV as I requested, but from the time stamps, it seems that this may have been destined as such. At any rate, for further details of my opinion, people should see the discussion at User talk:After Midnight#Speedy close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I too believe this discussion would be more appropriate at the talkpages of either RFPP, PPOL or PT. In full disclosure, I do have my own personal saltlist. MfD is usually appropriate when there is a reasonably clear dispute about policy - let's have the dispute first. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone disagree that someone who regularly works OTRS issues has a legitimate use for a private saltlist, under WP:IAR if nothing else. My argument in this case is that the specific pages listed for deletion are a pretty clear violation of the protection policy. (Well, Navou's just has one title on it, I put it there because it was in the list.) But WP:PROTECT is already pretty straightforward about the circumstances in which cascading protection is to be used, I don't think we need instruction creep about private salt pages if people comply with the existing policy. Individual pages that contain inappropriate protection can be deleted on a case-by-case basis. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like to keep the salt list so that I can clear it out regularly, I can't do that over at PT. I don't personally believe in indefinite salting, thats my reasoning for the page. When I get home, I may post something somewhere. Lets discuss this. Navou ^banter 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is MfD. I do not think it should have been pre-empted by a speedy close. I urge AfterMidnight to simply revert his close and open it again in the interest of avoiding overcomplication. DGG (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this. This was all a WP:POINT nomination of my handful of cascading protected pages which Videmus Omnia simply disagrees about because he wants me desysopped. There are only three article titles that I keep on User:Ryulong/PTL because not of ownership issues, as Videmus Omnia brought up in the MFD, but because they're ridiculous titles and rumors that I've heard throughout my reads of other websites. And the RFC (that he also brings up) was under cascading protection for reasons I've already told him. And it certainly did not stop any RFCs from happening. The primary reason it was in my list is because I forgot to remove it once the sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson were completely dealt with. I thank After Midnight for his speedy close, because this harassment by Videmus Omnia is just getting ridiculous now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, Ryulong, that's a bad-faith accusation of harrassment. I specifically said in your RfC that you shouldn't be desysopped. And I haven't interacted with you at all since your RfC except for two conversations on your talk page, hardly harrassment. Please assume good faith, this is just a disagreement. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly where is the policy that says admins can't maintain their own folders for cascading protection? This looks like trying to use an xFD debate to force through a policy change and that needs wider discussion within the community as a whole. The close pointed you in the direction of the correct places to discuss this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I've said already, I am not asking for instruction creep on private saltpages. The policy is already crystal clear on when cascading protection is to be used. The nominated pages are in violation of that policy. Can we please have the discussion on whether this is correct at the MfD page instead of here at WP:ANI? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I, there is nothing stated in the protection policy that mentions (let alone forbids) the use of any administrator keeping a page of protected titles as a subpage. Out of any of my cascading protection subpages, there are currently only 5 entries on User:Ryulong/PTL that are pages that have not existed, but that I am positive should not ever be made because they are complete and utter rumors or the creation of someone who just wants to use Wikipedia as a free webhost (User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach was created as an easy way to delete all of the BJAODN pages once the MFD was complete, and the cascading protection was just an idea afterwards to make sure that they weren't recreated at that location).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Beach contains a number of pages that were unrelated to the BJAODN MfD [15]. :P -- Ned Scott 03:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything at Beach was deleted and undeleted through the massive wheel warring that occurred. I copied the logs into Microsoft Word, did a replace, and then pasted it. Also that ended up being unprotected shortly aftewards. If anything, that can be deleted, but it might be necessary for historical purposes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It used to be tagged with the BJAODN banner, which categorized the page, which is why it got deleted/restored. The point remains that no one took the time to stop and look at what they were deleting or restoring, or if it was actually related to said MfD. At this point I'm very much off topic, and it's not that I'm mad at anyone, but it was just one of those things that got under my skin.. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I think I've been pretty clear that I feel that I was within my admin discretion to close this and that if people diosagree with that, then we can discuss it at DRV. Unless someone is asserting that I acted in bad faith, I don't think that this is a topic for ANI. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving to DRV, then. Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrouni's departure

His leaving reeks of fishyness with the weird request to show up in the next 1.5 years. He also says he is on an "epic quest and seems to be almost obsessed with becoming an sysop. According to User:Silver seren's talk page, he appears to be only concerned with "looking good" at RfA. Since Kkrouni is already assumed/associated with User:Cowboy Rocco who is known to have many sockpuppets, maybe this should be looked into further. T Rex | talk 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit odd, I went through the talk pages, and he said that he would return under another name, and apparently left clues via accented letters on Marlith's talk page. I went through the history, and it seems like he did this by accenting characters in the order "ymkr" and "my mom". Neranei (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation of redundant articles

Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

Reasons:

1. Covered material already in Wikipedia under American cheese and Processed cheese;
2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

Here, here, here and here

Other information about Cody:

1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Is anybody ever going to block this guy for disruption? This is at least the third time that I know of that this guy has been reported here, and nobody does a thing. Corvus cornix 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy is interesting: his contribution list doesn't list *one single* edit to a talk page - not even his own. (Checked the last 2 months or so). Hard to have a dialogue... --Alvestrand 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said at least once before, this is clearly User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Codyfinke6#Blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also tagged as a sockpuppeteer.  Mirandargh  03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:PHG

PHG (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-pushing and tendentious editing since early September, and all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed: (RfC he is ignoring) (mediation offer he has declined)

• He is trying to claim that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299/1300, and he has been inserting this information in multiple places around Wikipedia.[16][17][18]
• He's also been trying to claim that there was a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols.[19] We've been discussing this extensively at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, with multiple archives just within the last few weeks, but he's resisting all community input and continues to edit war.[20][21][22]
• I tried an RFC, but he's ignoring that too, or he just creates another dozen threads on the talkpage with counter-accusations and personal attacks.[23][24][25] I have repeatedly offered to take things to mediation, but PHG has declined.[26]
• I've also tried posting for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and multiple WikiProjects, but it's such an obscure point of history, it's difficult to get many people commenting.[27][28][29][30][31][32] Plus we're trying to "prove the negative," that no, the Mongols did not conquer Jerusalem.
• PHG also keeps muddying the waters by adding more and more information (much of it from medieval primary sources)[33][34][35][36][37][38] to Franco-Mongol alliance, to the point where the article was over 150K in size, making it very difficult for anyone else to read it unless they wanted to devote hours to sorting through it. He even tried edit-warring to keep me from archiving the talkpage.[39]
• He seems in clear violation of WP:OWN. When his material is changed, he often reverts the changes, but when other sections are added, no matter how well-sourced, he deletes them as "original research".[40][41]
• He has also been resisting all attempts to allow the article to be split to a smaller size,[42][43][44] and further confuses things by issuing multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him (calling them vain, incompetent, a liar, vandals, etc.), and he's so good at Wikilawyering, and he types so much text, it makes it even harder for other people to sort through.[45][46][47]

From what I've been told,[48] he has used these tactics at other articles too,[49] using multiple primary sources, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and, perhaps scariest of all, creating articles that look like they're well-sourced, and then pushing them through to Featured status, but in actuality he's either sourcing them to unreliable sources (like primary sources, hobbyist websites, or marketing copy on the back cover of a book), or he's twisting what sources say. For example, he created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and nommed it for FA within two weeks of creation, even though it had gross errors of fact[50] (like about this absurd "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" between the Mongols and the Knights Templar).

Things have now escalated to the point where he's creating other articles to push his biased POV. He created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, which I moved to a more palatable Mongol raids into Palestine. Then despite resistance at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Disputed, he today made another article, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, which I tried to redirect, but he just reverted me.[51]

In my opinion, this has gone well into the realm of WP:POINT now, as he is creating multiple POV Forks. He's also pretty much "camped" on this subject, not working on anything else (just look at his contribs, for weeks). Now, I'll freely admit that I'm actively involved in editing this topic, so I really need some non-involved assistance here. What should the next step be? Thanks, Elonka 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How about inventing a totally new guideline, which I am terming Block and Proxy; Go for a short term block of PHG and request a third party evaluate PHG's references and contentions and to argue for PHG's edits? Edit per the consensus then arrived at, unblock PHG and request their comments. Outright reversion would result in extended/indefinite block.

or

Simply block PHG outright (term to be determined) for violation of OWN and POINT, review PHG's contributions and adopt any that appear to be reasonably sourced? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Simply block" LessHeard vanU for his inappropriate comments on an inappropriate venue which look like an attempt at intimidating a superb contributor? Or admonish him to think twice before posting such comments in the future? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that most of this is way over my head given lack of knowledge of the subject. I am concerned by the creation of Mongol conquests and Jerusalem given that it appears to me looking at the the contributions to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (especially the responses to the RfC) that the consensus seems to be that the sources do not support any conquest of Jerusalem having occured in the period in question by the Mongols. It seems I 'm not the only one worried by the development - see this page move by Danny [52]. This probably should be investigated further - especially by anyone with knowledge (or access to the relevant sources) about the period in question. WjBscribe 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some diffs of personal attacks would be an easy matter for administrators to deal with. POV pushing is difficult to deal with, but incivility is straightforward. Tim Vickers 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True, there are some user conduct issues that are easily judged superficially, whereas this requires a much greater depth of analysis. Given that administrators have no greater editorial authority, these sorts of problems where content and conduct are not readily separable are much more difficult to deal with in a satisfactory manner... WjBscribe 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing can be dealt with step by step. It's tedious, yes, but not impossible. Let me begin with this coatrack article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. If the editor continues tendentiously inserting the same Wikipedia:Fringe theories give appropriate user warnings, and if he ignores them, request a block. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(update) I am concerned that PHG is trying to further confuse the matter. The AfD so far is a resounding "delete", but PHG has now moved the article to yet another title, Mongol raids on Jerusalem, even though the AfD is still in process. He's also stripped a lot of the Jerusalem-related information out of Mongol raids into Palestine, and is instead stuffing the article full of other information that he's copy/pasting from Franco-Mongol alliance (I'm not sure why, perhaps to make it even longer and more difficult to follow?). I'd recommend:

• Reverting Mongol raids into Palestine back to its original state before PHG started messing with it, and
• Moving Mongol raids on Jerusalem back to Mongol conquests and Jerusalem while the AfD is running
• Somebody non-involved telling PHG to just go hands-off on this topic while the AfD is running, and go work on something else for awhile?

I'd do it myself, but don't want to get into yet another revert war with PHG, especially since things are already confusing enough.  :/ Anyone else want to handle it? --Elonka 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. I only expanded your article Mongol raids into Palestine with more information about the Mongol raids in Palestine, can't you see? (it used to be 99% Jerusalem only, but now content properly reflect the title, with new material on 1260, and 1271 campaings). Is it unacceptable to expand your own articles now? Also, the change to Mongol raids on Jerusalem also reflects your comments about "Conquests" being point of view, so I am merely following you here. Best regards. PHG 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to the Defense

Dear all. So, here's the other side of the story now. Elonka has been adamant in denying an Alliance of the Frank with the Mongols, inspite of numerous reputable sources describing this event. Let me remind here I am the creator of this article, as well as most of its content.

• Article name: Elonka lost a vote by a far margin when she first tried to have the name article changed (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move)
• Article content: she forcefully insisted that these were "only attempts at alliance" despite numerous sources to the contrary, and used a 3:1 discussion to claim "consensus" and engage in multiple reverts for her version. I have always accepted her version, but only insisted that both views be represented (inclusionism): "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance". She recently lost her 3:1 "consensus" however, which became a 2:2, as there is only one editor'comment from an ancient discussion, which supports her stance.

Now, to answer the specifics raised by Elonka:

• 1) The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb, and Elonka has been deleting it: here.
• 2) Tens of scholars do consider as fact that there was a Mongol alliance with the Franks, and there is ample explanation and referencing about that in the article Franco-Mongol alliance. Elonka initially claimed that all this was false, but had to acknowledge all the references were true, after doing her own research. She still insisted on branding this as "attempts towards an alliance only", but she is now only supported by one other editor on this point, and User:Srnec has come with a nice compromise, which I have adopted.
• 3) Elonka claims personal attacks, but these are essentially non-existant. I did say I doubted her competence when she claimed that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank, an historical absurdity to anyone who has the barest knowledge of the subject. That's about it. I declined once mediation, as the discussions were becoming endless and Elonka was loosing her argument anyway (the title), but I will accept mediation gladly should it help the matter.
• 4) Elonka has indeed made a post on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but it is leading nowhere, as her point is slim, and goes against quantities of major sources.
• 5) When there is contention, I believe the best solution is to go into specifics and support everything being presented (and challenged) with reputable sources. When the article, originally an 80kb piece came under attack from Elonka, I simply developped the specifics and the references (300 now!), which I guess is quite fair. She now sees that her argument is contradicted by a huge quantity of sources... but now claims I have been floding her with such information.
• 6) I believe I have always respected Elonka's edits, when they are sourced. I erased once a long paragraph which I considered original research, but then left it and even expanded it when Elonka reinstated it. The current article being in dispute, my position (and that of several other editors) is that it is too early to slice it, and that discussion about factuality should be resolved first.

Now, I have my own concern about Elonka's editing. She has consistently been deleting referenced sources that she dislikes (fully detailed in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance for those who are interested). She consistently corrupts sources to fit her own point of view (same Talk Page). I believe that on Wikipedia we should faithfully respect sources, and balance contradictory opinions by reputable sources in a NPOV manner.

Fundamentally, I think this is essentially a matter of Elonka being unable to loose an argument. She will go as far as corrupting sources and attacking her fellow editors on a board such as this one. She has been attacking this article (Franco-Mongol alliance) from the beginning, and now has a hardtime backing from her initial position and recognize she may have been wrong in some way. She likes to posture as an expert of the Templars, but her lack of knowledge of the Crusades has been exposed repeatedly (like writing that Antioch was part of Armenia). I am a longtime recognized editor of Wikipedia, and I am afraid Elonka's behaviour is highly POV, partisan, and quite unbeneficial. According to her TalkPage, she seems to be a quite controversial editor, who is putting a lot of emphasis on self-promotion. There seems to be a lot of ego at work here. Best regards to all. PHG 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see verification of the most serious assertions such as misuse of source material. Elonka has made the parallel claims regarding PHG's use of sources. Please substantiate the assertion with specific diffs and examples. That's something we could address at this board. Otherwise, since both editors are on record as willing to seek mediation, please head to dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Just look at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All details are listed there. Regards. PHG 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

User:Elonka/Work1 has proven a fecund field of aggressive ultimatums aimed not at resolving anything, but at getting opponents blocked, too often successfully. WJBscribe again provides the illusion of third-party review: it is supremely unlikely that he arrived here unprompted.Proabivouac 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I provide "the illusion" of nothing. I reference a page move, takpage discussion and admit to not having the necessary knowledge of the area to make any judgment. I am frankly tired of you (someone who has been exposed as having made long term use of a sockpuppet to evade ArbCom sanctions) running around attempting to smear everyone else who has, by contrast, edited this project in good faith. Your increasingly desperate need to show misconduct on the part of your critics has become tiresome and fankly disruptibe. The deleted page contains a draft of Elonka's post here - I'm not sure why you flag it up so dramatically. Your contribution here is intended only to stir up trouble - back off. WjBscribe 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am seeing a clear pattern where User:Elonka first tries to delete references and misinterpret sources to fit her point of view (numerous clearly documented instances on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance), and when she looses her argument escalates into major general accusations on such pages as this one, slandering her oponent. Regards PHG 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is now the second time that PHG has accused me of slander.[53][54] Which is added to his previous tendencies to namecall, such as a previous opponent in a content dispute who he accused of vandalism,[55] or attacks me for being "vain".[56] or "bossy and authoritarian."[57] I am getting quite tired of this incivility, steady stream of personal attacks, repeated false accusations, and now that he's upped to "slander," implied legal threats?? I again ask for administrator assistance here. It seems clear to me, that PHG is just arguing to be arguing at this point. For example, look at this comment on my talkpage, where he is discounting the comments at an RfC, saying that they are "ancient."[58] When in actuality the RfC was just started two weeks ago. It no longer seems to me that PHG is arguing in good faith. His posts always sound very polite, but when you read them he's consistently ignoring all community input, and he's indicating that he has every intent of just continuing to revert and edit war, while launching increasingly uncivil counter-accusations at anyone who disagrees. --Elonka 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Actually I am the one being attacked and slandered here, so I do not think it is attacking you just to say that. I don't know how best to qualify it, and I must admit your methods are sometimes irritating, but other editors have also commented on this. Let me quote Arnouft: "Your repeated reference to you being important in getting Templar to FA; and open doubts in accepted academics that do not support your view on this issue, seems to indicate (to me at least) that you are claiming all Templar related articles as your own (ie be careful about the WP:OWN guideline yourself as well)" [59]. I also corrected in the minute my comments from "Aren't you being a little bit bossy and authoritarian here, one-sidedly deleting content?" to "Aren't you being a little bit rude and unrespectfull of others here, one-sidedly deleting content?". I think that's rather kindly said, towards someone who had just deleted 35kb of content in one stroke. Please kindly respect others's work and edits Elonka, and be open to the variety of scholarly opinions on a given subject. Best regards. PHG 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike how the dispute has been degenerating. I urge both participants to stop accusing each other of incivility and concentrate on resolving the content dispute at hand. Reducing discussion to the level of mutual accusations in incivility is never helpful. Actually, I've got the impression that PHG has behaved commendably in the face of blatant disregard for his work, which includes a purposefully derailed FAC and now a rather questionable AfD. Elonka has the reputation for never being able to let go, for needing implacably to triumph. I don't imply that this is necessarily a bad thing for a wikipedian, especially one who regularly deals with trolls and kooks, but in this particular case such an approach is not really called for. Guys, please be more considerate and respectful towards each other. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ghirla. I tremendously appreciate your support and intervention. PHG 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, please reconsider. The FAC was not derailed for personal reasons, but because the article had deliberately false information in it, like a claim about Jerusalem being "captured by surprise" by the Mongols and Knights Templar.[60] This isn't a minor point of trivia where a date is off by a year, this is a major rewriting of history. And to call the AfD "questionable" is mind-boggling, considering it's a WP:SNOW "Delete". Ghirla, I'm actually surprised at you, considering how much you have been a staunch defender of getting good information into Wikipedia, and how much trouble you yourself have had with POV-pushers. Please, I encourage you to actually look at the information that PHG has been trying to put into Wikipedia. Let's be clear what he did here: PHG, an editor who supposedly has multiple FAs to his name, created an extremely biased article in August,[61] sourced it to dubious sources including pseudo-history websites, and then two weeks after creating it, he nominated it himself for featured status,[62] without going through any other kind of Peer Review or GA process. When concerns were raised at the FA nom, he would label them as {{done}} even though he hadn't fixed things.[63] And the really scary thing is that he was being praised for "great scholarship",[64] (and Ghirla, you even gave him a barnstar[65]) because the article looked well-written and well-sourced, even though it was full of crap.

If there's one thing we need to focus on here at Wikipedia, past the petty squabbles, past the incivility, past the endless chasing of sockpuppets, it's the one clear goal that we're here to create an encyclopedia, and that our Featured articles are supposed to represent high quality work. PHG's behavior is especially scary in this regard, because he has shown that he has learned how to game the system. He knows how to make an article look accurate and well-sourced, even though it's full of garbage. And even more scary, is that when he's challenged by multiple editors about his sources, he refuses to back down. He continues to edit war, he resists community input, disregards RfC comments, ignores talkpage consensus, and just keeps posting these false counter-accusations and long messages about obscure points, to further confuse the community about what's going on. One of his tactics has been to quote from books and websites in French, to make it look like there may be genuine scholarly disagreement on some points. But I speak French, and I have access to large university libraries, and I've gone and looked up the sources that PHG has been using. I've read the original French for myself, and he is misquoting sources. It pretty much horrifies me that anyone (especially you Ghirla) is buying into PHG's tactics. Please Ghirla, I know you mistrust me because of a Piotrus incident from a year ago, but I thought that at least we were on the same side in terms of one thing: promoting accurate information on Wikipedia. --Elonka 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by PHG

PHG has moved Mongol conquests and Jerusalem during its AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem). This is disruptive and looks like an attempt to evade a consensus to delete the article.- Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive about PHG's wish to improve the article. One could make a sound argument that his action is legitimate and to the point. What I don't understand is why two or three wikipedians have to endorse and second everything that Elonka says, no matter what the subject. If one follows their comments for an extended period, he may conclude that Elonka is infallible, which is probably not quite true. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Regards PHG 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's work together to sort this stuff out. You're obviously a serious editor, so I am hopeful that this situation can be resolved by mutual agreement. That's always the best solution. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. PHG 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: close the thread and reprimand Elonka

Close the thread and reprimand Elonka for repeated abuse of this board to short-circuit the routine content dispute. This is getting tiresome. This is not a Wikipedia complaints department. If the user is grossly tedious and requires a thorough investigation, try RfC. If some share my point that user RfC is almost always useless, ArbCom is the right venue to investigate a complex pattern of abuse. There is also a community sanctions board. Instead too many users come here to try getting the upper hand in content disputes through seeking sanctions. Utterly reprehensible and must be stopped now. --Irpen 19:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "complex pattern of abuse", as PHG is a prolific contributor in good standing. Elonka erred in bringing her content dispute to this noticeboard, because this is not the place for settling legitimate content disputes. The theory of a Franco-Mongol alliance has some following and lies within the boundaries of normal scholarly dispute. It adds nothing to Elonka's argument to misrepresent it as a "fringe theory". --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such history of abuse, but if you supply diffs I'll gladly consider your evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Evidence to Consider Regarding PHG's Conduct

Dear Administators,

I had no intention of posting on this thread due to my history with PHG, but given his solicitation of the involvement of others, I believe it might be useful for the reviewer to consider the following arguments. As a point of note, I am not here to exchange barbs with anyone, least of all PHG; however, Elonka raises legitimate points regarding his conduct towards other points of view and other editors.

PHG has displayed the same behavior on the Franco-Mongol alliance as he has on India related articles, and it is only because I noticed this same pattern and other users' frustration with it, that I involved myself in this process. Our debate however pertains to the Indo Greeks and related India articles. Anyone familiar with this topic knows that there is a high degree of uncertainty around it and that even the most eminent scholars cannot draw firm conclusions; however, PHG has insisted that his and only his perspective be maintained on the article pages. This is the net result:

*Misrepresentation of sources: PHG repeatedly claims sources such as A.K. Narain (eminent historian on the Indo Greeks) as support for his aggrandized map of the Indo Greeks. A.K. Narain actually gained fame for demolishing the Indo Greek theory of W.W. Tarn (a self declared lover of greece--he is known for his unobjective romanticization of Alexander). Here is Narain on the topic: "Menander's kingdom shows Indo-Greek power at its height. He ruled from the Kabul valley in the west to the Ravi (river in Pakistan) in the east, and from the Swat valley in north to northern arachosia in the south" (Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003.p.122)

In spite of this, PHG uses Narain's name on an overly augmented map showing the Indo Greek realm throughout all of northern India and into even the peninsula (which is not supported by any legitimate historian).

Narain again on overexpansion: Gujarat: "The fact remains that there is no evidence that either Alexander or the Indo Greeks conquered Gujarat: the account in the Periplus is just a sailor's story". ((Narain, A.K. The Indo Greeks. BR Publishing Corp: Delhi. 2003. Page 118)

Yet the reader is given this overextended map that reaches into Gujarat with the further injury of being told that this is Narain's perspective. Furthermore, the Indo Greek coin book that PHG uses as a reference for Tarn contains a map. But that book was compiled with another author in an earlier period. Narain himself provides his own map in his most recent publication "The Indo Greeks" 2003 which is in line with his actual written scholarship and the smaller more sober view of Indo greek territory.

This is just one example of misrepresentation of sources (others can be provided upon request).

*Violating Agreements: User vastu (the most civil editor in the debate) negotiated a compromise map that all parties agreed to [[66]]. As soon as vastu become inactive, user PHG violated the agreement and created an even more flagrantly augmented map. When asked why he reneged, he simply said that it was against his "better judgment", in spite of the fact that by his own admission, PHG said that Vastu's map was more in line with scholarly representations. Moreover, he claimed that "new information" had come in his way from an art historian's writing (mario bussagli). But Bussagli just recycles Tarn's defunct theory of a grand strategy by the first Indo Greek demetrius to recreate the Mauryan empire and that he invaded india out of a show of support for buddhism--all speculations by Tarn without an iota of evidence. So clearly PHG just waited for a convenient opportunity to restore his biased perspective.

*Original research: If there is no evidence for his view, then PHG will find a primary source and interpret it himself to suit his view. The best example is on the Chandragupta Maurya page:

"Chanakya had trained Chandragupta under his guidance and together they planned the destruction of Dhana Nanda. The Mudrarakshasa of Visakhadutta as well as the Jaina work Parisishtaparvan talk of Chandragupta's alliance with the Himalayan king Parvatka, sometimes identified with Porus.[28] This Himalayan alliance gave Chandragupta a composite and formidable army, which is said to have included the Shakas (Indo-Scythians), Yavanas (probably Greeks), Kambojas, Kiratas, Parasikas and Bahlikas." (Phg's edit included the writing above and the primary reference below)

“ "Kusumapura was besieged from every direction by the forces of Parvata and Chandragupta: Shakas, Yavanas, Kiratas, Kambojas, Parasikas, Bahlikas and others, assembled on the advice of Canakya." ” —Visakhadutta, Mudrarakshasa 2 (from the French translation, in "Le Ministre et la marque de l'anneau", ISBN 2-7475-5135-0)

Just as Elonka pointed out, PHG inserts these blocks of primary source material and spins the implication. In contrast, here is Nilakantha Shastri (one of the most eminent scholars on the topic) on the so called "Composite Army":

"In the play [Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta] the battle of intrigue proves more efficacious than the arbitrament of the sword. None of the Mlechchha chieftains haven names which can be regarded as standing for genuine Greek or Persian originals and the appearance of the Hunas in connection with the Magadhan conflict of the fourth century B.c. exposes the true character of several incidents narrated in the play." (Page 147, "Age of the Nandas and Mauryas")

Anyone familiar with this period knows that the huns did not appear on the Indian political scene for another 700 years. But phg insists on including it because it mentions the greeks. This leads into fanwank.

An even more egregious example was in his reference to Indo Greek influence on Indian coinage. User PHG insisted that Alauddin Khilji ( a 14th century Turkic sultan of Northern India) created a coin that was influenced by the Indo Greeks simply because he inscribed the title “Sikander al Sani” or “the Second Alexander”. He provided no references, yet edit warred to keep that in place and stated that it was yet another example of indo greek influence on indian coinage. In actuality, prior to the advent of the muslim turks, no mention of Alexander of Macedon is found in Indian sources. This was indicative of Alexander’s impact on the Perso/Islamic experience. PHG's edit:

" Influence Of Indo Greek Coinage

As late as the 13th century, the Sultan of Delhi Mohammad I (1295-1315), one of the first Muslim rulers of northern India, would use on his coins the title Sikander el-sani ("The second Alexander"), in a reference to his famous predecessor in the conquest of India [29] ." [[67]]

However, this is not influence, but rather, it is an example of political propaganda or conceit. Where is the actual numismatic influence? There is none. He has committed original research in this mention because he is interpreting an artifact in accordance with his views.

• Fanwank-PHG clogs up once concise yet informative articles with topics he wants to hear about. The best example is on the Yamuna page:

Read PHG's rationale for writing about Seleucus (who did not go anywhere near the Yamuna River in India). He writes : "Very simply, suppose I am reading an article on the Hellenistic world, and mention of the Yamuna turns up (something like "Alexander never reached the Yamuna"). Then I would click "Yamuna" to know more about it. Knowing how it was discovered by the Greeks, later, following the expeditions of Seleucus, is most interesting and relevant PHG 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) [[68]]

The fact remains that neither Alexander nor Seleucus reached the Yamuna. So why the mention? Merely because it has something to do with the Greeks? Should I also add in discussions of how the French and the Portuguese all “discovered” the Yamuna even though the later two never conquered it either? This is clearly fanwank.

*Amalgamation of Separate Maps into One: User PHG created an aggrandized map of Indo Greek territory, but claims that he is just incorporating separate points of view. When asked repeatedly why we can't have three maps to show all perspectives, he remarked that it " Can't be more NPOV" [[69]].

However, it just looks like one big map showing a progressive expansion instead of three different perspectives. When pressed on the fact that this would confuse casual readers, he simply remarked "vandalism" and did not answer [[70]]. Why not have three separate maps? Because he would lose his monopoly on perspective.

*Blanket and Baseless Accusations of Vandalism: Whenever legitimate edits are made, PHG automatically refers to them as vandalism because he does not agree with the perspective (see Indo Greek, Mauryan Empire, Chandragupta, etc Pages).

*Usage of Obsolete and Suspect sources: Aside from using views of the Colonial writer W.W. Tarn as the sole perspective on the Indo Greek page (he attempts to use an art historian named bussagli as cover since he simply parrots Tarn's theories. Art historians do not command the same understanding of the topic that actual dedicated indo greek historians such as A.K. Narain and his mentors, such as the British historian Whitehead, do), PHG has also used inaccurate maps, such as the german one mentioned below, as references:

"Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north (Mathura). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king." [[71]]

In spite of the problems with this map, which even the supplying contributor (Sponsianus) criticized, PHG retained the map and referenced it. Moreover, the Oxford Map is also cited, but it looks nothing like his amalgamation: http://www215.pair.com/sacoins/images/maps/indo_greek.gif

*Article Degradation: PHG degrades article readability and approachability for the casual reader by unnecessarily inserting large blocks of primary source material. The result is so atrocious that these pages become masters theses in his attempt to defend his perspective (i.e. "Preliminary Greek Presence in India" and " Evidence for Initial invasion" on Indo Greek page)[[72]].

How can an elementary school student begin to learn and appreciate this article with these overly pedantic attempts to defend his perspective? This is an encyclopedia article and not a dissertation.

*Incivility and attempts to discredit others: Setting aside PHG's baseless attempts to characterize my perspective as "marginalized" and "isolated" (three other editors, Vastu, Pavanapuram, and Windy City Dude all posted repeatedly to cite their support), PHG also attacked numerous individuals, including the most courteous, Vastu. Here is vastu's post on my talk page:

"I was looking at the Indo-Greek article recently, and was indeed dismayed by the state of the map - I saw the jibes that some of the contributors took at my credibility while I was away, citing my original map as proof I dont know the topic - and frankly, I dont know whether I can be bothered contributing anything - after seeing some great articles slowly ruined over the past year (some of which were featured status), I have started to doubt wikipedia's system. Thats why I didnt sign on for so long (only recently to create some articles for Indian comics)." [[73]]

Is this what we want for our most polite contributors and would be editors? Total demoralization at the wikipedia process and loss of interest to contribute?

The fundamental problem is that PHG's prolific contributions are being conflated with quality. And his veneer of cheerfulness masks contempt for other editors (fortunately, we have seen this contempt on full display with myself, Elonka, Pavanapuram, Vastu, and Windy City Dude).

Now, I am not here to engage and argue with his defenders (who will concentrate on levelling charges at me rather than responding to the legitimate points I have raised about PHG), and this is only a small measure of the full impact of PHG's actions on wikipedia. I am here only to posit further evidence for the review board's consideration. I am available for any of their questions.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rodsan18

The user is tagging multiple articles that they created for deletion based on the fact that as they work for the UN they should not be the ones to write them. It this an acceptable reason. I'm sure the user is acting with good intentions and not meaning to be disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who is affected; a particular group is making issue out of these due to confidentiality reasons. - Dragonbite 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of all the deletion templates. Until this matter is sorted out here, please do not reinsert the templates. I do not doubt your good intentions here, and I am assuming good faith, but let's allow the matter to be sorted out rather than getting into a revert war. Your reasoning is, quite frankly, baffling to me. Are you saying that there are people at the UN who are making an issue about the existence of these pages? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Dragonbite 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At a quick scan, a lot of these articles look to be of dubious notability anyway. ELIMINATORJR 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple you missed, RepublicanJacobite. As for the dubious notability I agree, but isn't dubious notability a case for AfD (or possibly {{prod}} rather than simply blanking and adding a non-standard speedy template? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who had actually deleted a couple of them (I've restored them until this is worked out), I'd say that regardless of the template applied, lack of assertion of notability is sufficient for speedy deletion, full stop. The ones I saw really didn't assert notability. But, given that it's contentious, I've restored 'em to let someone else look at them. - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am affiliated with UN too. Writing articles about UN-related subjects need permission (for me). I was informed. So I suggest Wikipedia itself, if the community wants to retain these articles, send permission request (for images too for all language Wikipedias) by contacting Ms. Renu Bhatia, Deputy Executive Officer, Department of General Assembly and Conference Management by sending email at bhatia@un.org. Thank you. Please send me a copy (cc) via my email only. - Dragonbite 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's going to work... the bell has been rung, and they're in the 'pedia. If the images truly were appropriately licensed when uploaded, we don't need permission to use them. We certainly don't need permission to have a bio of someone on the 'pedia, either. I still believe notability is not asserted for most of these, but that's just me... - Philippe | Talk 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if deleted from Wikipedia some are still available on the mirrors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles were actually based on third-party sources published. But why can't just respect request by original author. Thanks. - Dragonbite 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with those above who question the notability of many of these individuals. I had the same thought as I was reverting the speedy requests. The notability, it seems, is rather a different issue, though, than the question of whether we need "permission" from the UN to have articles about some of its employees. Could they not all go to AfD as a group and let the matter of notability be sorted out there? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works Rodsan18. We don't need to ask permission from the UN to talk abotu a subject in Wikipedia. It's not our duty to contact you; it's the UN's duty to contact the foundation if there is a complaint. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While true, I don't find that relevant. The {{db-author}} is a valid speedy deletion criteria. From the couple of articles I have looked at, he's been the only contributor (cats, linking, & formating are not substantive edits). What is the basis for ignoring our speedy deletion policy and keeping the ones that no one else has contributed towards? -- JLaTondre 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that this seems to be primarily an issue between the U.N. and its employee(s). There doesn't seem to be any outright gross violation of WP policy with the articles, so an appropriate judgment of what's best for the encyclopedia needs to occur. That said, both lack of notability needs to be given due weight and the db-self request ought to be a robust tie-breaker in favor of deletion. If they're truly notable, someone will add them back. Studerby 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 is a criteria for when administrators may delete things immediately. It is not a criteria for when they must do so, absent other considerations. This issue came up in respect of another user very recently. Sam Blacketer 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please just respect deletion request: CSD 7:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - Dragonbite 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A deletion request is not the same as a deletion order. It is perfectly legitimate for an administrator to decline to delete an article even if it meets several speedy deletion criteria. Sam Blacketer 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an order but it still needs to be respected nonetheless? - Dragonbite 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who want to look over the articles should see User:Rodsan18#United_Nations-related_subjects. This is the set of 35 articles that are listed there as being related to the UN. My view is that a number have notability, and others don't. Perhaps this might be acknowledged by setting up a group AfD for the ones that lack notability? Once the articles have been created, copyright has been released and there is no reason to go back. It's only a question of notability. EdJohnston 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the position you're in, please understand that we're trying to figure out what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If the articles that you submitted are notable and appropriate, we can't just go around deleting them all willy-nilly. If they're not notable, then we sure as heck need to get them out. The issue between you and your employer is not something within which we care to be involved, probably. As Studerby said above, we're trying to make a judgment upon what's best for the encyclopedia. In my case, I'm leaning toward speedy-delete on the ones that don't assert notability and AFD for those which are of questionable notability. My guess is that most of them will end up deleted. - Philippe | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A group AfD is exactly the suggestion I made above. I think it is the best way to put this issue to rest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? I think Wikipedia should be sensitive to security problems; may I suggest office action? The Evil Spartan 00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the notion of "security problems" comes from, to be honest. I'd agree with RepublicanJacobite here - group AfD for the apparently non-notable entries. Or for all the entries; let the WP community decide what's notable in WP terms. I'm not sure that {{db-blanked}} appies in all cases either. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This has never occurred to me before, but surely the very idea of CSD: 7 violates WP:OWN, since, the moment they hit save, the article becomes free to all, and surely by existence of CSD 7, except when mistakes are made in the name(even though a re-direct is more appropriate), they are breaking WP:Own, by assuming they are within their rights to have a page deleted because they want it to be--Jac16888 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the deleted content is still available to admins, and complies with GFDL. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to delete anything. Everything ever published is still recoverable, unless it has been oversighted. If there are no other significant contributors, and the deletion would not harm the encyclopedia, I see no problem with honoring the author's CSD request. If someone else feels strongly about a specific article, they can request a restore, and work on it. Dean Wormer 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will argue against that idea. When one nominates a page for speedy deletion, they're still leaving it up to others (and/or the deciding admin) whether or not the deletion notice stands, or if the article gets deleted. The original creator can place a hangon notice, or another editor can merely remove it. --健次(derumi)^talk 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I note belatedly we're discussing G7, not A7. Still, some other editor or admin could remove the tag if they feel the article should stay. --健次(derumi)^talk 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view, and I should stress this is merely an opinion not a decree of any kind, is that these are borderline notable people at best (and probably not), that the articles were created in good faith under circumstances that nevertheless give rise to conflict-of-interest questions, and that the original creator is making a good faith request now. I see no special reason not to honor that request. I would be very concerned if we get into some kind of weird "gotcha" mode where someone has created an article that perhaps should not exist, and only decide to keep it because they want it deleted. If any of the individuals are of any super special notability, I am sure someone else could create a brand new article from scratch.--Jimbo Wales 10:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been bold and deleted all the articles that IMO qualified for deletion as non-notable biographies. The following biographies remain;
  • Jeffrey Tao
  • Alberto Reyes
  • Elisabeth Heyward
  • Pavel Palazhchenko
  • Igor Korchilov
  • Jean Herbert

and the following non-biographies.

• • United Nations Interpretation Service
  • United Nations Art Collection

Some consensus to what should happen with these is now required. ELIMINATORJR 11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Were this an AfD I'd be saying "delete" to all but the two non-biographical articles, for what it's worth. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly; some are borderline. Reyes probably passes WP:MUSIC, whilst the Russians may be notable for their books. ELIMINATORJR 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

US Petrochemical

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldchem (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the last version that was deleted (it's been deleted 8 times now), it was deleted because the article did not assert notability. However, I'd say it's quite marginal, and probably needs a few reliable sources added together with a bit more background as to the importance of the company. ELIMINATORJR 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• The issue is now, at least nominally, at DRV. Joe 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [74] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [75] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [76] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [77] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [78] [79] [80] [81] Removes tags [82] and has ignored requests to discuss [83] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]]. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather lame edit war. The photograph (taken, incidentally, by UnclePaco) is being inserted onto the page without any caption to suggest what it is, and supported only by a single sentence ("New York is one of the places where many Dominican's (sic) emigrate to.") which doesn't really need to be there at all because it's sourced in the previous paragraph. Personally, I'd leave it out. But this is a pointless revert war; neither editor has technically broken 3RR, but repeated edit-warring after warnings is actionable, so I suggest stopping this right now. ELIMINATORJR 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The War (documentary)

I think there is a problem here. Not sure if it falls under the spirit of BLP (I know it isn't a biography) but the controversy section on the article is longer (twice as much?) than the actual article and the documentary hasn't even fully air. I am bringing it to general admin attention as it may get further problematic in near future. -- Cat ^chi? 23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph (about profanity) as it appeared to be partially original research. I think it was cited to this. The citation just said "Newsweek, September 24." and did not give a title. "The War" tends to get lots of hits in the Newsweek archive, though that article was the most likely one. All it says is that some affiliates complained and they are producing 2 versions; it makes no mention of assumptions of what cities will play which version, has nothing about the etymology of FUBAR, and there is no evidence of widespread criticism based on the Newsweek article. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop User:MartinBot

it's too buggy, see [84] -- ∂ 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

4 bad reverts from yesterday listed there, is it still doing bad things now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Most recent edits look good, however there's a few bad ones: [85],[86], [87]. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

these bad reverts are from the last hour. -- ∂ 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. And he's been blocked indefinitely [88] by User:Akradecki... that's what you get for reverting an admin, naughty MartinBot!! ~Eliz81^(C) 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's been blocked? 'Cause the bot reverted my addition to this page less than an hour ago ([[89]]). ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.132.138.68--Block evader

IP address blocked one day for vandalism, promptly evades block and continues vandalising as 72.132.135.30. Primary target is Pashtun Mafia. Both IP addresses are registered to an ISP in Richardson, Texas. Can an admin deal with this? Thanks. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• He appears to have been blocked, and the page semi protected. Dean Wormer 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block review request - ScottAHudson

Hi guys, I have blocked ScottAHudson (talk · contribs) for a week following his disruptive editing to Big Brother (US)-related articles. He has some fairly significant WP:OWN issues and, as his contributions show, steadfastly refuses to use talkpages for discussion. I have blocked Scott on a previous occasion for harassing Betacommand, a block which Crazytales reset for IP-socking. As I don't think I've ever blocked the same user twice, I'd really appreciate a review just in case someone thinks I haven't got my head screwed on tight enough. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I had a quick look at the AIV report made against this user, and it seemed like a block was necessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this block was a necessary action to be taken to prevent further disruption. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. A clean block of appropriate length, considering behavior over the last month. Dean Wormer 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thank you. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny

This user is currently on what can only be described as a unnecessary rant. I was "wiki-friends" with this user in the past, but now am reporting her here. User would like to leave Wikipedia. She has left vulgarity on my user talk page, as well as the admin Phil Sandifer. She is clearly trying to get blocked (based on edit summary she left here. User should be blocked and her page be deleted (at her request; she already tagged it for speedy). I am concerned that this user may continue to vandalize/act uncivily Wikipedia unless she is blocked. - Rjd0060 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this report, her User page has been deleted. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done from here, as far as her vandalism and vulgar edit summaries. - Rjd0060 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in an hour. I don't think a block is necessary at this point, but I will block her if she makes further disruptive edits. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was point out this erratic behavior and WP:AIV directed me here. I see that this page says I should notify her of this report, should I do that even though her user page has been deleted and her user talk page has a "RETIRED" tag on it? - Rjd0060 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She socked in order to use profanity: [90], and was open about it. Even if she's trying her best to get blocked, maybe we should oblige. The Evil Spartan 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was not really a sock, per se. Same IP though, as she is my caretaker/nurse. And logged in while I had left the room. I had logged out, and she logged in, and I thought I was still logged out. Truth. But, I understand if I am not believed as there are so many liars on Wikipedia. Jeeny 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite dramatic. She should go on a week long Caribbean cruise with ScottAHudson. Dean Wormer 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She may continue to vandalizeact uncivily as she is clearly waiting to get blocked/banned (as evident from a number of edit summaries including this one. - Rjd0060 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe she could find Dexter in the Bahamas. [91] Funkynusayri 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably inappropriate. Dean Wormer 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate trolling. ThuranX 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whew, take it easy, boyos. Funkynusayri 14:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks (violation of WP:NPA and WP:civility)

I am compelled to post here due to several personal attacks and borderline harassment by User:PelleSmith. I have tried my best to engage in a discussion with this user but unfortunately it has always ended in rude and uncivil behavior including personal attacks. I will try to point out a few examples. Here [[92]] he clearly was clearly uncivil and attacked me by calling my edits "absurd". He has further stated that although HE KNOWS that he is being incivil he still wants to make that comment. When I respectfully asked him to behave in a civil manner and avoid personal attacks, he commented that he will CONTINUE with his incivility and personal attacks until 'I stop frustrating him'. [[93]] He has displayed several more instances of borderline incivility. In the past he had resorted to name calling by starting a sections like "Amateur Hour" and "Amateur Hour Redux" on Talk:Islam in the United States where he accused me and some other editors of being "amateurs". I did not report this incident at the time to allow him a chance to change his behavior. However it seems that it has persisted.

I have respectfully asked him to behave himself and act in accordance to WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF and WP:NPA but instead of trying to correct his behavior, he keeps asking me to report him to the admins if I want to. Here are my comments on his talkpage [[94]]. All he does is to ask me to 'report him to appropriate venues' just because I pointed out his incivil behavior in reply to his post on the article talkpage. [[95]]

In addition to PelleSmith, User:Alarob has just made a personal attack on editors here. [[96]].

I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with other editors views, but personal attacks, bad faith convictions about others, not respecting consensus and stonewalling using wikipedia process like making someone reply to the same point over and over isn't really in the spirit of a true wikipedian.

I would appreciate if you take some action to stop this menace and restore the civil atmosphere. NapoleansSword 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real attacks here, just invocations of WP:SPADE. The only possible exception is the "absurd" remark and even that one is the mildest of attacks. A quick look at the article and its talk page suggests a serious need for improvement, regarding both content and the behavior of involved editors (including yourself, I must say). Raymond Arritt 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about WP:CIVILITY? And I would appreciate if you point out where I displayed incivility? Yes, I agree, the article does needs improvement. NapoleansSword 05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alarob's claim that those who disagree with him about that article are sympathetic towards the murder of Muslims in the US in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks is certainly incivil. His mention of race is also bizarre since two of the people he is attacking are not white. Arrow740 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes true. He has further said that he made those claims after 'discussing' with his friends and neighbors (off-wiki) about us. Hardly good faith. Again I do not see how User:PelleSmith's behavior cannot be considered incivility when he HIMSELF has agreed that he is incivil and would continue to do so at 2 different places. PelleSmith says: "I've been less than civil a few times, I'm not going to pretend to be a saint, but what you are trying to do isn't going to work." and "The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. S/He also justifies his behavior on confrontation and says that he/she will continue it by saying "when you start dealing with the problems presented by this information in the entry instead of dancing around them I'll stop being frustrated. Until then ......" (The links to all these statements are above). NapoleansSword 13:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

ResolvedThe Evil Spartan 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Saudi Arabia page has been all but blanked out and its history has disappeared. Can admin please look into this? -- Slacker 08:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was page move vandalism. The Evil Spartan 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs)

I've just blocked Wilyonwhe3ls (talk · contribs) for 24 hrs for vandalism, however I'm not 100% sure if it also violates the username policy. (If not, why not?) It seems to be a vandal-only account, does anyone have any reason not to expend it to indefinite? — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent like 10 mins cleaning up his vandalism, but no one responded to my report at AIV. I didn't know whether to also report him to WP:UAA because I didn't know whether copying Wily on Wheels was an offense. However, this is obviously a SPA and should be blocked indef (Which is what I thought you were gonna do...) so no quarrels from me. Anyway, just my 2 cents. :) Spawn Man 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised the days featured article, and other puerile amendments over a range of subjects. If it is a SPA per Spawn Man I am at a loss for what purpose... Fairly obviously not here to build the encyclopedia. Only other consideration is that this is their first day, difficult to ascertain what their intentions are. I support an indef block, but keep account creation open - if they want to reregister and actually contribute then let them. LessHeard vanU 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying you're wrong, but they must've been here for more than one day to become familiar with characters such as Willy on Wheels... Spawn Man 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.LessHeard vanU 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked indef. Possibly a throwaway single-use account, but best to take the road of caution with VOAs, in my view. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 10:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I was asking myself why it wasn't indef blocked, after reading the discussion.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Posnaniensis

User:Posnaniensis' account was registered on 2007-09-29 and the first few Special:Contributions/Posnaniensis edits there to rename articles into Polish equivalents, [97], [98], [99]. What is discouraging that this move campaign was made without proper attribution in regards with WP:RM, there were made no arguments for move, move itself was not registered on RM board, etc.( therefore I removed these move "requests") It looks like this is the single purpose account, as the user confirmed, that he's not able to contribute in English on his userpage. May I ask contributors to take a closer look to this contributors edits. Lokyz 09:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Death2

Something strange going on here... Death2 created Carl-Michael Eide, then later nominated it for an AfD ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl-Michael Eide). The only responses there were from someone noting that Death2 had created the page in the first place, and me saying "strong keep" as the individual is clearly notable. The AfD was concluded as a keep. On the page itself, a while back Death2 had removed a link to a relevant interview on the grounds that the website hosting it asks people not to link to it without permission. As websites have no legal control over who links to them and as WP:EL doesn't comment on the matter, I felt this was a poor reason not to include a relevant link and I returned it to the page. Now I'm getting flamed by Death2 (User talk:Bondegezou#Delete), who I note has been previously blocked for being uncivil. What's the appropriate course of action here? Can I remove Death2's flame from my Talk page? Is there any guideline over webpages that ask not to be linked to? Can an admin get Death2 to be less aggressive? Bondegezou 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You can move any messages from you talk page if you want to and you can archive talk messages whenever it suits you. As to a guideline about links, WP:EL is the only one I'm aware of and it says nothing about the opinion of the website itself. This users behavior toward other editors is obviously inappropriate, as they have already been blocked twice - 24 hours by Durova and currently for 31 hours by Redvers. Assuming the behavior continues when their block is up, their wikilife is going to be pretty short. Natalie 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bondegezou 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Igor "the Otter"'s anti-Semitism

I consider [100] this a gross violation of AGF and CIV; Igor the otter is resorting to anti-Semitic attacks to push his point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only case he's done that? Use "subst:uw-agf3". Rlevse 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Igor was "discouraged" from editing the Holocaust Denial article by JP Gordon. I think that Igor is basically a troll. Have a look at that talk page. He has been warned and blocked by ad min before.: Albion moonlight 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See this in reference to Albion's comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FFS, people, this is obviously a troll. He's not here to contribute productively, he's only here to push his ridiculous POV (Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, fringecruft in general). Look at his contribs, old revisions of his userpage, his talk page. We have no place for such types: blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly concur in the block. There's no place for stuff like that in civilized discourse, including Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Only problem with this block is that it was overdue. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Why the holy feck was he not blocked earlier? I have more compunction about blocking PENIS vandalism, this is ridiculous. Moreschi ^Talk 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because an admin would've come along and disagreed with the block on grounds that "he's just being ganged up on for holding an unpopular viewpoint", or "why not try 12 escalating blocks before indef?", or "he just needs mentorship (which I personally am not interested in providing) rather than a block"? Or perhaps it's just because Guy isn't here anymore. My, I am feeling cynical today. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cynicism being an excellent cure for naivety, another of Wikipedia's problems. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was a shitty little Nazi asshole without redeeming useful edits. --Stephan Schulz 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Contributions seem limited to undoing people's work and promoting holocaust denial on talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange editing by User:Hindu-Boar

Hindu-Boar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} to quite a few Bollywood images, most (all?) of which seem to have OTRS permissions. Perhaps I need to stock up on good faith, but it seems very strange to me that a new editor would do nothing but add speedy deletion tags to images. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the source (Bollywoodblog.com) does not allow their images to be used for commercial purposes. What is the problem for removing the correct license tags I placed on the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog. Check the source says {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} and then check the license provided on Wikipedia which is is not the same. The license on Wikipedia cannot be verified, there is something fishy about it and it caught my attention. You reported me to Administrators? Why? Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert my edits without first checking my claim? Seems to me like your upto to something. You should not revert other people's edits before checking their claim, it does not matter if someone comes out of no where and the first thing they do is add correct license tags. This is not strange, everyone who starts editing on Wikipedia starts this way.--Hindu-Boar 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about AGF Angus McLellan. It may be unusual for a newbie to recognise and tag non-free content, but Hindu-Boar should probably be given a barnstar or something instead. Speaking of AGF, the evidence is that these images are not freely licensed. Can some OTRS person check otrs:1087514 and explain this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. the OTRS ticket see here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man but that does not prove anything. I want to know who gave permission to use non-free images from Bollywoodblog.com here on Wiki? Why can't there be a license tag on the images that we can easily verify, without needing to look for OTRS people? I believe the license is fake, and is made in a way to use non-free images for free but without anyone's knowledge. I am gonna report this to Bollywoodblog.com also.--Hindu-Boar 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements at Isotretinoin

I know ANI isn't the right place to report this but I just don't edit here much anymore and I don't want to write a whole RFC. An anonymous user has been adding unsourced statements to isotretinoin over the past couple months, claiming for instance that the medication's current dosage is recommended "for unknown reasons". Other claims include that low dose treatment is just as effective as the dosage approved by the FDA, and that high dose treatment is 4x to 8x as expensive. The anon has removed citeneeded tags and totallydisputed tags repeatedly without adding any references, and they have reverted any attempts to rewrite the article in a less opinionated fashion.

If someone can please take this over, or at least explain to the user of WP:CITE "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor," it would be appreciated. Thanks. Rhobite 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor who keeps removing 'fact' tags from the article seems to use a different IP each time, so there wouldn't be anyone to block. Since there are no recent IP editors who appear helpful, semi-protection of Isotretinoin might be considered. (At least, no IP editor has added a reference during the entire month of September, though some have added claims). EdJohnston 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits are infrequent enough that long-term semiprotection is probably not a good idea. I'll semi-protect it for a few days to quiet things down... if anon IP edits again start disrupting the article to the tune of many times a day, then you can go to WP:RFPP and request a new round of semi-protection. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears's fifth studio album

Resolved

Some hyper-enthusiastic Britney fan has changed the title of this article to Blackout without any sources. The article itself has been changed back to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, but not the talk page. My concern is that since the Blackout article is tagged for speedy deletion, if it is deleted, the talkpage for Britney Spears's fifth studio album will somehow disappear too. Can someone who is more technically inclined than I am please lend a hand? Thanks. Jeffpw 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User : Devanampriya

Dear All,

I believe I need to clear up my good name on account of Giani's attempt to slander me.

• Any incivility that occurred was due to Giani's numerous attacks on users such as Vastu (see Indo Greek discussion)and myself. Simply because we disagreed with user PHG and attempted to negotiate with him, we were marked for attack. Vastu, you will note, refrained from response in spite of numerous provocations.
• I was not using or attempting to use sockpuppets to prevail in an edit war. I, like many of you, have other obligations and cannot always edit from my main computer. I sign on when possible. If you'll take a note at the edit history, the I believe the 3RR rule was not violated either through IP address or my SN. If it was, I sincerely apologize and I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again.
• Take a look at Giani G's contribs. He has been exclusively cyberstalking me ever since user PHG--who is under review for original research and tendentious editing--put him up to it. All of his edits recently have been kneekjerk reverts without even responding to my points. They simply accuse me of vandalism. From the moment I sign on, he is on my tail needlessly.
• Even his associate Aldux noted that at least one of my edits (see Porus page) had merit. And when I made corrections on the Alexander page (i.e the image of Alexander with his elephant cap) where it said "Alexander's Conquest of India", all I did was change it to "Alexander's conquests in India" which is more accurate (over 85-90% of India was untouched by him). Even though Giani changed it and drummed up some irrelevant reason, the other editors recognized the merit of my argument and retained it.
• He has repeatedly slandered me with accusations of Nationalism simply because I correct mistakes pertaining to India. So is it not natural for me to then respond and accuse him of eurocentrism?
• Giani's blatant accusations of vandalism have been attempts to cover up for his uncertain knowledge on many topics. He simply attempts to impose PHG's actions (which are under review above) and not legitimately respond to issues. This is counter to wikipedia's philosophy.

This of course calls into question Giani's motivations. He is clearly engaging in tendentious editing, much like PHG, and this I believe should be noted by the review board. Please let me know if you have any questions. Again, I apologize for any unintended missteps. If I can be of any assistance in this process, please let me know. My edits, as you will note from my accompanying comments, are meant to ensure the accuracy of these articles--I wish I could say the same for other editors.

Regards,

Devanampriya 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Audius Mtawarira

Resolved

They is extraneous text at the end of this article, which I cannot attribute to any edit. The text is overt vandalism. Whay can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Part (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was transcluded onto the page through {{Zimbabwe-bio-stub}}. I reverted it. WODUP 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jamietna23

Resolved

Jamietna23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This editor's soul reason for being here seems to be to upload images of dubious copyright validity and then repetitively insert them in their corresponding articles. Despite numerous notifications, they continue to do so. I've attempted to communicate with them, as has at least one other editor I'm aware of. Perhaps an admin could take a look? Thanks, Into The Fray ^T/C 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report the same person. There have attempts at discussing this with the user.[101][102][103], they clearly have no concept of copyright violation, and even upload images under a different name when the original one gets deleted[104], and their 'contributions' to Elisha Cuthbert are clearly violating WP:3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also guessing that Special:Contributions/67.68.245.48 and Special:Contributions/65.92.130.191 (both BellCanada IPs) are the same user, logged out, to try and avoid 3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone look at this, it's getting silly. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are clearly copyvios. [105][106][107][108] With that in mind, and the editors lack of communication, I would be surprised if the others weren't. The editor hasn't given any copyright info on any of them. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I third the request for attention. User keeps uploading unlicenced images, regardless of being warned numerous times and does not respond at all to communication. --Kudret abi^Talk 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Pretty obvious copyvio case. Wizardman 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt attention and also removing all the copyvio images. Best, --Kudret abi^Talk 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:FourthAve

FourthAve (talk · contribs) was banned for one year following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve. The ban term was reset a couple of times for socking and expired earlier this month. This morning, FourthAve returned to Wikipedia and immediately resumed the activity for which he was banned, posting to the talkpages of a former administrator who opposed him in the arbitration case as well as the arbitration clerk who closed it, with posts including personal attacks, harassment, and a legal threat. As a result, FourthAve has been blocked indefinitely.

The arbitration decision provides that upon return from the ban, "FourthAve is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators. Bans made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans." Pursuant to the decision and FourthAve's conduct in deliberately resuming his misconduct immediately upon his return, I request that three administrators endorse a ban on this user. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"you dimisssed it as only a dictatorial drag queen L. Ron Hubbardite Steward would. Any failure of any Wikpipedian to advance $cientology is a banable offense, particulary when the drag queen, Ron Hubbardite YOU is exercised about his/her view of truth (yes, you like to be called Brenda). Ban me again. I may sue you in Florida."

Ya, endorse ban, legal threats, violation of parole. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This isn't the behaviour of someone who wants to build an encyclopaedia. We can manage without them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And I will be the third. Posting to the arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (EC). Completely unacceptable behavior.--Kubigula (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely endorse a ban. ELIMINATORJR 17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse a ban. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sluggish today...

Resolved

- my network was being sluggish today. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

...anyone else noticed?? --Solumeiras ^talk 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Ney article has become a battleground.

The Jean-Paul Ney article is a bloody mess due to the POV-pushing of various parties (CastroSUX and Castelmore are currently the two worst culprits) and an edit war that has been ongoing since June of this year ([[109]]). At the beginning, it was mostly anonymous users edit warring (Tamiflu42 admits here [[110]] to using two different IPs (128.178.124.121 & 83.219.98.225) to make edits, requests an end to the edit war and suggests settling the issues on the talk page) after which anon 82.67.185.164 soon became the most active editor (changes to this article are nearly the sum total of this user's edits [[111]] until the aforementioned CastroSUX and Castlemore became involved in August ([[112]]). (My personal suspicion is that the anon 82.67.185.164 and CastroSUX are one and the same person.) Attempts to settle issues on the talk page have failed, with all parties involved rewriting talk page comments ([[113]], [[114]], [[115]]) and making various threats ([[116]]. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 have also carried the war to Castlemore's talk page ([[117]]]]) wherein Castlemore made the accusation that CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 is, in fact, Jean-Paul Ney himself.

At this point, the article should be protected from editing until various issues (including any conflict(s)-of-interest and the factual basis of the claims in the article [the sources used are highly suspect, including Mr. Ney's personal website]) have been worked out. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 should also be strongly cautioned against edit-warring in future. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take a slightly different approach to this article than usual. The edit warring is not that severe and the article needs work. I don't think locking it down is the best approach. Instead I am going to institute a state of 1RR. Anything more than 1 revert by any user will result in a short block. Any type of threat, personal attack, or harassment will also result in a block. I have also blocked User:82.67.185.164 for the legal threat on the talk page. Anything disputed should be discussed on the talk page, but the dispute and a slow edit war should not stop needed improvement. I will copy this comment to user talk pages of those involved in the dispute and the article talk page, so there will be no "I didn't know" excuse for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Any approach that will lead to the article's improvement and the end of edit-warring, sock-puppetry, article ownsership, etc., is fine with me. I have no axe to grind on this topic, nor any preferred outcome other than a proper article. Thanks for taking this on, Mr.Z-man. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this article. I came on to just take a look at the translation aspects and to correct awkward syntax, and haven't had time to really do much else. Your approach seems a good one and is productive as well since it allows the article to continue development in a positive way. (olive 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Userspace Salt Pages

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

More allegations and disruptive editing

Resolved

User:SqueakBox is usually a moderately good editor, but gets carried away on subjects that he has a problem with. In addition to his repeated blanking of articles of high importance to WP:PAW, he has made so many accusations of pedophilia and "pedophile activism" towards other editors, it's getting to be a joke now. I'll list the most recent examples, to make it simple.

After I reported him for possible socking, he continued his habit of accusing oppositional editors of "pro pedophile activism" (the name of the article that he continually bombards with POV pushing sentiment).

He then deleted the three possible sock tags that I placed ([118][119][120]) on his possible socks' userpages. When I warned him that they were required by the accepted policy, he reverted them again. He is now attempting to speedy delete the sock report that contains the evidence against him. Dyskolos 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers have confirmed several times that there is no link between Squeakbox and the three users whom Dyskolos claims to be his socks. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Read my complaint. This is not the subject, hence my listing of the sock evidence on the appropriate board, as opposed to here (BTW, IP tracking is not the end all of sockpuppetry). I have listed one disruptive comment and six clear contraventions of policy (three after warnings were given). Could you now please carry out the process properly, i.e. argue why such editing is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and then declare the topic resolved.

Thank you for your co-operation Dyskolos 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dyskolos seems to be engaging in forum shopping here. Obviously were the checkuser results inconclusive the SSP might be necessary but given that the accounts he claim to be SqueakBox edit from a different continent, allegations of socking seem to be rather far fetched. I agree with Sam that there is nothing further to be done here - if anything these allegations have already had more admin attention than they deserved. WjBscribe 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, an admin ignores the actual complaint. As explained ad nauseum, I am not complaining about the SqueakBox - Pol64 connection. If I were, yes, I would be forum shopping. My complaints relate to his consistantly disruptive editing which includes page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon by admins like yourself. We should not be tolerating partisan and disruptive editing, especially when it involves the bullying of others, ignorance of consensus and the wrecking of a fine resource.

Now, please give me some response in relation to the listed complaints, as opposed to the complaints swept under the carpet elsewhere. Dyskolos 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making new accusations without diffs, please don't, SqueakBox 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The diffs of the new "accusations" (in fact, mere confirmations of violated policy) follow directly after the diffs of my changes, as explained. Providing the first diff link, when no intermediate edits were made, allows the admin to follow the incident through. But this is irrelevant for as long as these admins continue to employ the Chewbacca defense. Until some lightbulb turns up, I might as well give up for now. Dyskolos 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to continue this I want the diffs for your allegations of "page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon". otherwise following scribe's advice would be a good idea, SqueakBox 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the header, I will not be listing all of these violations (this is not a RfC), although you have previously blanked the articles on APA, Danish Pedophile Assoc, History of Pedophile Activism, one of Tony's articles (can't recall now) and 90 - 95% of the PPA article without consensus or AfD. Your record of accusations includes agendas, pro-pedophile activism and clear implications of pedophilia. These are all things that you have done, which I do not currently wish to bring to justice. You should be happy about this. I have provided diffs for the violations of policy. If an admin cares to click forward three times on each diff, they will see all six violations in full. Dyskolos 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't the whole story, is it? SqueakBox 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If its already been confirmed that those aren't his sockpuppets, how is the tag removal a violation? Shell ^babelfish 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The sock enquiry was in process when he reverted six times, and three times after warning. 205.196.208.17 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian rock redirects

Resolved

 – for now

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) has just created dozens of redirects, all to Russian rock and Bard (Soviet Union); most of them are on terms that are only tangential at best (e.g. redirecting European Music, Acoustic songs and Guitar rock to Russian rock). As I've already had an exchange of views with him today on a completely unrelated matter (repeatedly changing the results of an archived AfD to what he thinks it ought to be - this was his "explanation"), I don't want to take any action myself as it will no doubt lead to an accusation of stalking - and I'm not sure any policy's actually being broken here as he hasn't overwritten existing content - could someone else take a look at his contribs today and either decide there's no problem/offer suitable words of advice, as appropriate? (Looking at the talk page, this is not the first problem with POV-pushing from this user, to say the least.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My favorite new redirect is Good music. Obviously these are bad redirects. Someone needs to either fix them, or delete them. — Moe ε 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message. Obviously some of these redirects violated WP:NPOV and some were just misleading. There were some that were just blatant typos that were redirects to the wrong location. Most I tagged for speedy deletion per {{db-r3}} and some, like the acoustic redirects, I redirected to Acoustic music. — Moe ε 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all the POV redirects have been either deleted or re-redirected now. Marking this as resolved for the moment, but this user probably bears keeping an eye on. Natalie 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another ClaimJumperPete Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – 21:53, 30 September 2007 Academic Challenger blocked "Mytur Banisdirty" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

ClaimJumperPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently at it again.

Mytur Banisdirty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s first post was to WP:RFCUN, "asking to clarify that the use of this username won't be contested." [121]

Following this request, he created what he titled his "Lineup", a list of CJP socks with their number of vandalisms and commentary about their success rate (made in CJP's signature "hillbilly" dialect).

When User:Aecis checked his contribs and noticed his smoking gun, the user stated "Actually, its a friend of mine that's making all those accounts. He told us about it in the truck yesterday and we couldn't stop laughing. I'm not the one doing it, but I am his friend; I don't know exactly where that would place me on the issue." [122]

Aside from the obvious evidence, this matches ClaimJumperPete's MO of getting amusement from "putting his head inside the lion's mouth" using his socks. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways: [123]

User seems to be mass merge tagging articles and later redirectifying them. That seems to be the case for the past 5000 edits at least. Is this acceptable behaviour? Are episode articles banned?

-- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual episode articles aren't banned, but they still have to meet WP:NOTE just like every other article. That is, they don't get a free pass on notability just because their parent show is, if you get my drift. There are currently vast numbers of individual episode articles which could never meet WP:NOTE and thus should be merged into their parent "season" article instead of on their own.
WP:EPISODE lays out the procedure pretty well. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not merged. They are blanked/redirectified. WP:EPISODE doesn't require mass merging. And I see no centralized discussion for such a thing anywhere. -- Cat ^chi? 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does...there's a logical progression here that has to be met. Series, then season, then individual episode. Each one must meet WP:NOTE. A lot of people assume that since multiple independent sources can be found for the series and the season, that means every individual episode deserves it's own page. This is, obviously, not the case. Merging (mass or otherwise) is the appropriate policy-approved way of dealing with a non-notable episode from a notable season (or notable series). Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no "policy"-approved procedure for this. Guidelines are there to help us write better articles. They are not licenses for deletion without discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using merge tags, and waiting for discussion, so yes, it's fine. This has been up here many, many times for when I was being WP:BOLD in redirecting, so it has come down to that. To answer your question, by WP:EPISODE, most episodes have no chance of ever needing to exist. We have somewhere over five thousand episode articles (possibly way more) that need to be taken care of, so that is what I am doing. TTN 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of taking care of is removal of over "five thousand" articles without undergoing any deletion procedure. Such AFDs will most likely fail if my experience is any indication. -- Cat ^chi? 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try something constructive like coming up with a reason that these articles are notable? Otherwise, TNN is just engaging in cleanup. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain what to say here. What is the metric for notability for episode articles? If all episode articles are to be deleted, I want to see a general discussion for it. Or else someone, if not me, will mass revert the mass merging. -- Cat ^chi? 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD, he can redirect as he pleases. If people push back, he needs to discuss. There is no special notability for episodes- just the standard form. He should, if people revert, discuss individual groups of articles on the List of Episode page. — i ^said 01:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree. TTN is editing way too fast on tagging and redirecting the episode articles. Being bold is one thing but redirecting an episode without checking if it has sustained its notability is another... TTN, please stop and gain consensus before redirecting any more articles. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way I or anyone can discuss at the rate of his tagging. I would think any show with the cultural impact as 24 to be notable. I do not know what reason is needed to establish notability... Why is Shakespeare's Hamlet notable? Why is any book or movie notable? The idea that a show itself is notable yet none of its episodes are worth a mention simply baffles me. If something is not notable, why is not AFD used? -- Cat ^chi? 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the pages are not being merged. "Merge" implies that all or at least some of the content is being moved into the target article; this is not the case, they are just being redirected. For such a large list of articles, there should be some sort of centralized discussion, possibly one discussion per series as to" should they all be merged (some episodes may have notability for specific reasons that others in the same series do not), how much should be merged, etc. I think this is taking WP:BOLD a little too far and bordering on WP:POINT. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war getting personal

There is an edit war on Office_Open_XML user Hal has decided to make it personal [124] Calling me "You are just a sad little person." This is against wikipedia policy WP:NPA as far as I understand it. This is a comment on me , not the subject. I have already filed a 3rr violation on hal for removing a referenced edit 4 times. Kilz 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Block Review - Netmonger (talk · contribs)

I've blocked User:Netmonger for 24 hours for his recent harassment of User:Wiki Raja, culminating in an extremely harassing and vulgar email sent to Wiki Raja (I will forward a copy to any admin who requests it). Mr.Z-man 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Request forwarding, please. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To first go over what happened, Wiki Raja engaged in extensive vote canvassing related to a straw poll at Template_talk:Sri Lankan Conflict. An editor then posted a comment at the straw poll indicating he was canvassed by Wikiraja.[125] Wikiraja subsequently moved the editor's comment from a subsection of it's own, to a much less prominent position hidden among other discussions.[126] I reverted his edit, and he reverted back. I reverted again, and posted the {{uw-tpv2}} warning on his talk page not to edit other user's comments. Wiki Raja removed the warning with the edit summery "rm. vandalism", [127] but heeded the warning and stopped moving the other editor's comment on the talk page.

After that, from what I can see, User:Netmonger undid Wiki Raja's edit 2 times, adding back my original warning, and even posted on WP:AIV that Wiki Raja was removing the warning on his talk page.[128] When he was advised by an an admin that Wiki Raja could remove the warning from the talk page and he shouldn't add it back again again, he replied "I agree with what you said on my talk page".[129] From what I can see that indicates he didn't know user's could remove warning from their own talk pages, and when told by the admin that they could, he listened to that and stopped adding it back.

In the meantime, Wiki Raja added a message on Netmonger's talk page[130]

This will be my first and last time that I warn you to stop posting on my talk page.

I admit I have no idea about this email you talk of, but would you mind explaining how you got to know about it and if you are certain it is genuine? I'm not sure what email address was used, but for the record, the email Netmonger once sent me was from his personal email address (a Gmail address), not something like "netmonger@gamil.com" or "netmonger@yahoo.com" or a similar address. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything Netmonger did that I would consider harassment. He did revert talk page warnings until he was told that it was ok for WikiRaja to remove them, but I can't imagine that deserves a block. Could you forward that email over to me as well please? Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Removing warning on your own talk page is exempt from 3RR and Vandalism. I looked at what was forwarded to me and... There are somethings odd about it. Based on what I was forwarded, Netmonger knew Wiki Raja's email before this incident... or did he? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki Raja does have "email this user" enabled, he would not need the email address. If you are referring to the header, I believe that was automatically done by MS OutlookGmail when it was forwarded to me. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (modified 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Hon203 (talk · contribs)

This user has been prolifically edit warring within the past 24 hours on Afghanistan-related pages, such as Ahmad Zahir‎, Asad Badie‎, and Ehsan Aman‎. He keeps changing phrases like "Afghanistani singer" to "Afghan singer" and filed a WP:RFAR over the issue. Besides the major 3RRing on Ehsan Aman and almost-3RRing on ohter pages, he has resorted to personal attacks, calling users racist [131][132] and tauntingly assuring them that they will be banned [133]. Not only that, I believe Qbzad (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, or the other way around, as both accounts have warred over Afghanistani/Afghan. I've reported Hon203 for 3RR, though I'd like wider input. hbdragon88 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Afghan singer" is the correct phrase. Calling someone racist should not be considered personal attack. Instead of reporting just one person, you should have reported all the people involved in the edit war. You don't sound as a neutral person, this probably means that you dislike Hon203 based on his ethnic grounds has stated that that's what he is.--Hindu-Boar 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a wild guess at what my ethnicity is. I claim complete ignorance of the ethnic groups in in the Middle East. The only remotely Middle Eastern thing I have done is to dispute a rfu tag for an image of some Afghanistan leader that was killed in the 1990s. WP:AGF, please. Hon203 espeically came to my attention because complete new people often do not know what WP:RFAR is, plus the pattern of edits from Hon203 and Qbzad was extremely fishy. The other two parties have done anything like that, as both have long contribution histories before this recent edit war. hbdragon88 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here on Wiki, especially regarding what they claim or say about themselves. You say that new users are bad people but those who have been blocked multiple times for edit-warring are the good people? That way of thinking is totally stupid. Beh-nam (talk · contribs) and Anoshirawan (talk · contribs) have both been editing the same exact articles for several months now, and User:Anoshirawan is considered a new editor. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam have the same agenda, make same particular changes, (example: changing "Afghan" to "Afghanistani" everywhere they see it, targeting Pashtun ethnic group but never do they mess with other ethnic groups of Afghanistan).--Hindu-Boar 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring. --Haemo 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

• [134]
• [135]
• [136]

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

• [137]
• [138]
• [139]
• [140]
• [141]

Examples of changing sourced information:

• [142]
• [143]
• [144]

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

Resolved

User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)