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

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: [1]

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), what content 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)

I would agree that this behavior is quite disruptive. Particularly disturbing is the fact that AWB is being used to make controversial edits. IronGargoyle 01:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Notability. There has been centralised discussion about the notability of episodes: WP:EPISODE arose out of one such discussion a couple of years ago, and has recently been rediscussed (see WT:EPISODE). The guidelines for establishing notability of fiction articles is undergoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and the actual necessity for separate guidelines for fiction is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability. As to centralised discussion about the appropriate action to undertake regarding articles which fail the above notability guidelines, then this can be found at the talk pages of WP:TVE and WP:TV-REVIEW, Wikipedia talk:Television article review process. If anyone has a concern about any issues about episode articles, regarding notability through to the processes surrounding such articles, then it's probably worth checking out any of those pages and contributing to constructive debate there. Gwinva 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not say that this is what to do. It says how to determine if episodes should get articles. This is just mass redirection of episode articles with little or no review. WP:EPISODE does not say whether or not each of the episode articles redirected was notable or not, nor does it say that episodes should not get articles. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just randomly reviewed ten of the most recent thousand edits made by TTN (talk · contribs), all the episode articles I saw generally had zero references and no real world context. Likewise they were chock full of things that WP:EPISODE says to avoid, including trivia sections, quotations, in-universe writing, and extremely detailed plot summary sections. Again, this was only a 1% spot-check, but I did not see any issues with TTN`s clean up work. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why redirecting articles without checking the notability is considered "clean-up work". WP:EPISODE is a guideline on creating new articles, it is by no means a guideline set for deleting articles. WP:NN clearly states that discussion must be present, and that suitable consensus must emerge for the redirection of articles. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take Indian Summer (Dawson's Creek episode), one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of TTN`s clean-up work. On August 25th, TTN added [2] a {{mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to Talk:List of Dawson's Creek episodes#Episode notability. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged [3] into the episode list. Reviewing the final, pre-merger version of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what WP:EPISODE says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He also redirected all the episodes in List of 30 Rock episodes, and multiple reviews can be found for every episode. This was discussed and ignored on the talk page. Lots of shows episodes, especially older ones don't have second party information, but some do, and it doesn't seem to effect his redirecting them. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles were really bad before he redirected them. That said, regarding the discussion linked to above he closed the debate himself and claimed consensus despite two people disagreeing with him and only Ned Scott agreeing with him. That's not consensus to merge/redirect. As for articles containing trivia the correct approach is to merge that into the rest of the article and then delete the trivia section, not simply to merge/redirect. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 04:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews for episodes does not mean you will have real-world information to place in said articles. As for the reviews themselves, they were somewhat questionable, being from http://tvsquad.com and http://buddytv.com . A consensus does not just include the discussion on the immediate talk page, but also what the community at large had decided about excessive plot summary (WP:PLOT). -- Ned Scott 07:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but then what is the purpose of starting a debate if the outcome is predetermined per consensus on WP:PLOT? I'm neither jumping on his back nor am I disputing that most of these articles were bad. What I'm disputing is the way he did this. If he was going to be truly bold he could have redirected without wasting other editor's time with futile debates the outcome of which he was just going to ignore anyway. What is the purpose of tagging so many articles using AWB when the debates were futile and the obvious outcome was to redirect rather than merge? EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have a group of artilces, of which say 10%, 20% or 50% can have their notability established, do we have any guidelines on how they should be dealt with. Is summary redirection based on BOLDness the correct way to deal with this? - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can establish notability for those articles — and you would like to see them survive — you should do it; absent that, they are good candidates for rediretion. --Jack Merridew 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And before more people jump on TTN's back, I'd like to point out that he has yielded to past requests, taking more time with these issues, giving fair notice, and starting discussion about these redirections before they happen. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the relevant TV-related wikiprojects what their opinion is on this issue? >Radiant< 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage, a Task Force in WikiProject Television. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me if someone else has said this, but TTN is not deleting anything, since the episode articles remain in the revision history. I don't believe s/he's an administrator, so s/he isn't actually capable of deleting anything. Merging is a completely acceptable action for anyone to perform on any article they feel it's appropriate, and is in fact suggested as an alternative for deletion (here and here). There is nothing about TV episode articles that makes this any different, and there is no special guideline regarding editing episode articles. WP:EPISODE is only concerned with notability, so beyond that they are subject to all the normal editing rules, including the deletion policy. So this discussion (which should take place somewhere else, since it requires no admin intervention) should take into account the fact that there is no reason episode articles are special or otherwise exempt from the normal rules and practices. Natalie 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

Let me reword my original argument since there seems to be a confusion. When an article is low on quality, you improve them. I do not mind several article improvement drives on episode articles. We do not have a deadline so in the course of several years this can lead to multiple good articles. If an article does not immediately have adequate sources, the recommended action as per community approved procedure is written here. In this case that was not attempted. In fact the last three steps were avoided all together. Process is important. There are many low quality articles on wikipedia. Each suffering from valorous problems. Unless an article suffers from an urgent problem such as WP:BLP it is almost never blanked. Blanking is a last resort not the first.

Usage of {{merge}} is entirely improper as nothing is ever merged as a result. I also observe that all these mass merging is preformed by a specific group of editors that impose their consensus to the "local" people working on the articles. An imposed consensus is no consensus by very nature. Some of these users have no other contribution.

The WP:EPISODE guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the 16 April 2007 version. Between then and 26 September 2007 article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline [4]. I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Wikipedia community as a whole.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (WP:NOT, WP:V) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months...[5]. The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. Fram 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From where are you getting the idea that merging is never appropriate? I note that the very page you linked suggests "if appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." The notability policy, which has been derived out of consensus by the community as a whole, is the policy by which these articles are being merged. I would also like to underscore Fram's point by noting that the sky is not falling and all of these articles can be retrieved by anyone, since they are not being deleted. Natalie 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I think what we have here is a breakdown of communication all around. In my mind, at least, the problem isn't necessarily that these articles shouldn't be merged; it's that what TTN is doing is not merging them. Merging implies that information from the article being eliminated is incorporated into the article it's being merged into. TTN's standard practice seems to be to simply redirect articles en masse without any effort to incorporate the information into the article he redirects to. I've noted a similar modus operandi by other people who have been redirecting many articles while citing WP:FICTION as a reason, and think that there may be a need to clarify this point, since we end up with people angrily editing and creating lots of AN/I and AIV reports as a result. Rdfox 76 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point exactly: it's only a merge when you actually retain some of the content in the article. Many of TTN's edits have not even vaguely been in line with that statement, and even then regardless of the merits of the actions themselves his (her?) handling of the situation has been "counter-harmonious" to say the least. I understand exactly where White Cat is coming from on this. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect.[6] So? Fram 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has merged over 5000 articles such that none of the content from the individual article was retained in the merged article. Statistically and logically it is impossible that none of those articles had content worth retaining. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A large number of these articles contained identical or near identical summaries from the List of episodes article. Also, summary is easy to generate, and we have no shortage of editors willing to do it. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's your argument here? It's okay to completely blank an article because eventually someone else will perform the rest of the merge for you? That's wildly irresponsible, and a crap argument to boot. If TTN is so hard-pressed to merge that many articles then he needs to put in the time to do it properly. Right now he's just wiping out whole swaths of information and dragging the overall quality of Wikipedia down, regardless of how "easy" it is to find the original article content in the edit history. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice TTN has been noticeably absent from this discussion, yet he continues to redirect articles. I've asked him to comment here. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN has said on his talk page that he will not comment here. Mr.Z-man 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more to say, he's not doing anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass removing article content is a problem. Some of these allegedly merged articles contained enough information that disqualifies them from being stubs. So they are "full articles" and not stubs. Altering a guideline and converting it from a "MOS guideline" to a "notability guideline" without adequate discussion is a problem. TTN isn't even willing to discuss the matter which is also a problem. There most certainly is a problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is even revert waring over his "bold" action despite the lack of consensus. In this case a discussion was overwhelmingly against a merge or let alone a redirectification. [7] was redirectified anyways despite having enough content to disqualify even as stubs. Granted these articles are not featured they aren't stubs either. -- Cat ^chi? 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His priorities--his choice of which articles to modify first--seem very shady for someone not doing anything wrong. In trying to determine what the actual, practiced standard for episode notability is, I looked over the television shows which have featured articles (as I take it those are supposed to set the example for other articles in the category). While I did not look at all of the shows, I looked at enough to realize that virtually every featured article for a television show on wikipedia has a full complement of individual episode articles that contradict TTN's interpretation of the guidelines for notability, but from skimming his extensive edit history, he doesn't seem to have even attempted to apply his modifications to shows with featured articles--other than his very recent (10/4/07) attempts to apply those modifications to The Wire, with its famously small audience--although he has applied many thousands of them to articles with lower traffic.

Although I can see how his interpretation may be valid, it contradicts the example set by most or all featured articles in this category, and I am inclined to respect their combined example over his individual objections. If his interpretation is widely acceptable by wiki standards, then it would be more honest for him to apply it to the featured articles first, and have it demonstrated as part of the standard for featured television articles. While I understand his stated objection that he can only modify so many articles at once, it looks like bad faith editing when he attempts to change the de facto standards for the entire category of wikipedia television episodes by altering all of the articles with low readership first, and intentionally flying under the radar of the featured articles with high traffic.

He has also stated explicity that he will sneak in "silly messages" on low-traffic talk pages to prove a point, something wikipedia seems to expressly discourage. Apparently it's an official wiki policy that the number of people interested in a subject does not in and of itself constitute noteworthiness, contrary to TTN's own guidelines for modifying or deleting these articles. The more I look at his history, the closer it seems to systemic vandalism and selective modification of articles where he believes he can get away with it (as shown by his "testing the waters" with silly messages to see if anyone will revert them), rather than trying to apply criteria uniformly across the entire category of articles. Wiki describes bad faith editing as "deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism", and TTN's modifications seem to be edging very close to this precise description, although I have the impression that he believes these practices are constructive when he's doing them. --24.90.146.245 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there certainly is a problem. -- Cat ^chi? 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN has stated on his own talkpage in a discussion regarding WP:FICT that he doesn't see much chance of being able to pull off his redirection-without-merging and "discussion is unnecessary, consensus is unnecessary" tricks on high-traffic topics. He specifically says that he plans to mostly stick with "picking off smaller ones," because he feels that "once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones." The way I read it, it appears to me that he's trying to establish a precedent of eliminating episode and character articles by working "under the radar" on lower-traffic topics before attempting to do anything to the ones that would attract a lot of attention. Looking through his talkpage archives, I also see dozens of comments and complaints per month about his method of indiscriminately mass-redirecting episode and character articles to lists without any discussion or even an explanation in the edit summary, including ones from before WP:FICT went into effect. I don't know how often he's gotten warning templates put up as a result, because he has a habit of deleting them, and digging through the history to find them is enough of an annoyance that I didn't try it today. Rdfox 76 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something... how exactly does TTN have special authority to decide how the standards will be applied, and enforce his decision over any and all objections? I understand that he thinks his application of the notability guidelines is valid, but it is obviously not accepted practice. He demonstrates his awareness of this by avoiding the most popular shows, for instance generously decreeing that all the Simpsons articles can stay, because "they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles". I don't know how the notability of several articles in a category gives automatic notability to the others, but if anyone can see the hidden sense in that, I'd like to hear it. It sounds more like an excuse to avoid articles where he knows he won't be able to unilaterally enforce his own vision of what wiki should be. If he doesn't need consensus to enforce whatever interpretation he pleases, then does anyone else need consensus to revert his changes wholesale (much as he applies them wholesale to begin with)? And at what point can it be blocked as vandalism, since apparently he is engaging in revert wars in the process? --F.dolarhyde 15:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

After having looked further into the issue, there are several things I want to underline. I can see how TTN feels his interpretation is backed up by the guidelines, but it would be much less offensive, less destructive (fewer people would spend days and weeks typing up information that will only be discarded), and less devious, if: 1) TTN weren't taking it on as his sole responsibility and mission to bulldoze through thousands of lower-traffic articles, but was backed up by other notable contributors sharing this duty; and especially 2) it were applied to the highest profile articles FIRST, not after he's wiped out the pages for hundreds of less-popular series.

If I'm a new user, unfamiliar with TTN, and I want to create a set of articles for a new series; I'm going to read the guidelines, and then look at the featured, high-profile shows to see an example and confirmation of how to construct accepted articles for a television series. If I see that they avoid creating articles for most individual episodes, I'll think twice before doing that for a new show. But what I actually see now, is that they nearly ALL have articles for each individual episode, and that nobody is putting "merge for lack of notability" warnings on most of them. As a new user I'm not likely to go look up one of the several hundred obscure anime series that TTN has seen fit to reshape to his idea of the notability standards; I'll look at the highest-profile series for examples. I may then spend weeks typing up information for individual episodes, thinking that it's in line with the approved, featured, high-traffic show articles, and then have him come along with his back-door bulldozer and wipe most of it out.

This practice creates an unwelcoming (if not outright hostile) environment for new contributors, and without good cause. His talk page shows many dozens, possibly even hundreds, of users he's discouraged by his way of going about this--several who have entirely abandoned wikipedia as a consequence. If he's as sure of his version of the notability guidelines as he claims to be, and does not intend to harm the site in the process, then the high profile articles--which serve as role models for new articles--need to be retrofit first, before the countless deletions he's applying to lesser-known articles.

This would serve both as a good test of whether his reading of the guidelines is a sustainable practice, and serve to spare new contributors: from working hard at finding, creating and contributing content in good faith that will mostly be swept away by his interpretation of the guidelines. The only argument in favor of his doing the low-traffic shows first is that it's easier for him to get away with unpopular changes, even at the cost of substantially damaging the "good faith" of this subset of the wiki userbase. Rather than show any compromise or respect for the community that has created all of these pages, his talk pages show something close to an eagerness to spite most of those creators en masse. It may be a rewarding power trip for him to single-handedly reshape the face of WikiProject Television from underneath; it would be much less destructive for the contributors (and would generate much less destructive ill-will and mistrust in the community) if he joined with notable contributors who share his views on fiction guidelines, and together they approached these changes head-on, starting with the highest traffic articles, where everyone can be aware of the changes from the top down. --F.dolarhyde 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT is an official policy. WP:EPISODE is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following WP:FICT ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in no consensus or keep anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy. Tagging all nn episodes results in complaints about his behaviour at ANI. Going for the "small" shows first to evade major fan outcries (that would again outvote the policy) results in accuses of POINTy and biased behavior. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I'd say. Fans who really care about their TV shows should spend their time in establishing notability and create real world content, maybe write a good episode article, but not create excessive plot summaries. The redirects allow fan-editors to recreate articles with their notability asserted in the case they can. If I had more time and weren't that thin-skinned, I'd support the enforcement of WP:EPISODE much more than I already do. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"when other options have been exhausted"... Which any other option is even attempted? Yes that is right none. Mass redirection is unhelpful. The more productive way to deal with poor quality articles are through article improvement drives. How many have been attempted on the episode articles before the merge (not merge in actuality mass-redirectification)? I find it hard to swallow that all of the episodes of the 24 TV series is automatically non-notable. All movies are automatically notable even if they haven't even been produced yet, why are episodes of TV shows that aired internationally for multiple seasons automatically "non-notable"? More people watched them than theater movies so they received a greater reception by simple logic. This mass redirectification based on how "lowly" fans are is disruptive. It is not in line with WP:FICT at all. -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also with your approach we would not have any intermediate steps between a featured/good article and a stub. -- Cat ^chi? 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems you're confusing wiki-notability with real-world notability. Wiki-notability is established by reliable sources. As far as I can see, TNN gave fans several weeks to find third-party reliable sources for any episode. If they can't or won't do that for at least one episode, that's a pretty good sign that (1) no such sources exist, making the episodes non-notable by wiki-standards, or (2) no-one cares to improve the articles in the immediate future to establish notability. In both cases, "other options have been exhausted," allowing deletion. But the articles aren't deleted, they only get redirected. And you're right, movies (exactly like most TV shows and books) are notable, so they get an article. But not every act of a movie gets an article. Not every chapter of a book gets an article. And not every episode gets an article, unless wiki-notability has been established. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. Notability isn't temporary and if something is notable in real-world, it most certainly is notable here. Every article on wikipedia starts out as a stub. What you are doing is banning stub articles on fiction.

As for your point number one: how do you know weather or not they exist in all of the 5000+ articles that were mass removed. They might not exist right now but they might be added in an article improvement drive. We do not have a WP:DEADLINE.

As for your point number two: that attitude isn't how wikipedia articles are written. With that rationale all stub and start class articles would need to be removed.

Every chapter of a book and every TV episode is not the same thing. TV episodes also have acts and arts. A TV episode or two occupies the same time span as a movie. It is a series of movies. When you add up every episode of a TV show they almost always add up to something much much longer than an average movie.

Why should each individual harry potter book get an article? Because it is a series of books. Or how about Star Trek movies? Why should the episode articles be destroyed when there are eleven movie articles? Even Tribble gets an article. I see no requirement to mass merge TV episodes in general into one article.

Then you start asking the questions "What makes the list notable if the contents of the list is non-notable?" or "What makes the show notable if it's episodes aren't notable".

-- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the issue of reliable sources -- To people like TTN, nothing is a relaible source, whether it's an official site, a fansite, or media-related site. I could claim that there was an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody where Zack & Cody snuck off to a Hannah Montana concert, did cocaine with her backstage, had three-way sex with her, and made her reveal her secret identity, with all the links as evidence, and it would still be deleted. Of course, anybody who knows of both these shows, knows that would never happen, so such an article would deserve to be deleted. ----DanTD 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm (currently) not banning anything, especially where I see merits. Having dozens and hundreds of episode articles without established notability for long times however looks like "having no merrits". If I have the wrong impression in a case (we're all human), prove it by establishing notability and the case shall rest in your favor. The suggested improvement drives can only improve an article if there are sources to begin with, but those don't seem to exist. Again, if you think they exist, prove it.

TV episodes obviously have about the same consumption length as movies and books, but they are doled out in a much higher frequency. It takes about half a year to make a movie; it takes about a year to write a good book; it takes an average of about two or three weeks (1 year divided by 20 episodes, disregarding the pipeline time) to produce a TV episode. Remember, an encyclopedia focuses on the production of a piece of art, and there is obviously much more secondary information available for a work that took longer to produce. So comparing of TV episodes to acts of movies or chapters of books holds up much better than comparing them to movies and books directly.

Besides, (this may be a case of differing opinions, but Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) happens to agree), subjects should IMO grow from within. If there is enough (sourced!) material and encyclopedic treatment, info may be split out into subarticles. Creating dozens of stubby subarticles in the hope that reliable third-party sources exist somewhere is not the way (Top-down and bottom-up design) – summarizing the information in a list until it can be broken out is much better for encyclopedic coverage in the long term. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example of the overzealous attempts at enforcing WP:EPISODE that TTN is carrying out, see the discussion of his recent merge-tagging of Category:Kim Possible Episodes in its entirety, with his immediately shooting down any attempt to justify any particular episode's existence. Note that some of these episodes first aired as recently as three weeks ago, yet he's claiming that the episodes will "never" manage to be able to demonstrate notability, regardless of how much work is put into them. Rdfox 76 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Edited to fix my screwup that resulted in no link to the category, and ANI being miscategorized at a KP episode. Whoopsie! Rdfox 76 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Randomly surveying twenty of the articles in that category:

• None of them had any third-party references (eighteen of them had no references whatsoever).
• None of them had any real-world information (barring trivia)
• All of them were composed of plot summary, trivia, quotations, or some combination thereof.

Forget merge tagging; If I had the time/effort/tools/patience to deal with inclusionists, I would have merged all of them on sight. If you want to help out, just type up paragraph summaries for each episode and stick them on the episode list, as is the step recommended before splitting into individual episode articles. That was half of the point of the merge tags. TTN is doing nothing wrong in terms of merge tagging and redirection. Just like Durin and his crusade against nonfree images, TTN is simply enforcing poorly-enacted Wikipedia policies and guidelines on a massive scale and getting loads of crap for it. There might be something to say about his unwillingness to discuss, but that's about it. You Can't See Me! 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not immediately delete articles without sources. If that is an argument all stubs must be deleted right away. Also articles like James C. Jones should also go. As for the guidelines as demonstrated above, they never had any consensus for such an alteration to begin with (Sure I can alter any MOS guideline to a Notability guideline and butcher an entire topic of my choice). It is simply an article development procedure. Please do not complicate this exclusively for fiction related topics. -- Cat ^chi? 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't compare the deletion of images with the deletion of articles, You Can't See Me. With "Durin's crusade" against unfree images, these images will have severe copyright problems if they are left unattended by admins. With articles, the same implication doesn't apply and needs suitable consensus before deletion. TTN is redirecting articles without consensus. The process of finding lack of notability is illustrated at Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, and TTN is not trying to find sources for the articles, merely redirecting. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessary agree with the approach and rate that TTN is tackling these articles, but there is fair-use concerns (among other issues) with excessive plot information; yes, it's not as strong as the need to protect WP from non-free images, but it does exist (see WP:WAF#Fair use). There is timeliness needed for non-free images as by April 2008, WP's board has stated they all must be tagged with rationale, or be deleted. There is no such timeliness for plot descriptions, but still, the less time they spend in such a state, the better. --MASEM 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN is also failing to follow the rules set out in WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE for dealing with non-notable episode articles. He does not bother with the {{Notability|episode}} templates, nor does he actually merge the articles he tags for merging after asking one of his preferred admins to close the discussions, he merely redirects the articles en masse without any merging of information from the article or transwiki-ing the material to either the Annex or a specialty Wiki. He also asserts that the implementation of WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE constitutes a "larger consensus" that automatically overrules any objecting consensus that may be developed on article discussion pages, thus making it impossible to defend any article that may actually be a stub--or possibly passing the notability requirements--as inappropriate to merge or redirect, thus completely ignoring both WP:IAR and the facts that consensus can change and that contrary opinions need to be considered in building it. WP:CCC particularly applies; the first I had heard WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE came after they had already been implemented. I don't see any links in the current new-user welcome templates (or the policy articles to which they link!) to the locations where such policies are discussed and developed; I suspect that, like me, many Wiki editors don't even know where you would look to find out about impending policy changes, much less contribute to discussion about them. How can a true consensus on the issue be gained if most of the userbase doesn't know where to look to participate? Rdfox 76 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE does not have a "large consensus" or any consensus behind it as a notability guideline. It should be reverted back in being a MOS guideline. If an episode notability guideline is necesary, that can be drafted separately and be put into use if it receives approval from the community (everybody, by that I don't mean a 'select' group of users). -- Cat ^chi? 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, TTN is not merging the articles, but he is not deleting them; he is redirecting them. Furthermore, he is not redirecting them on sight: he is slapping merge tags on them. That should give the regulars at those articles the following message: clean up or merge, because this article isn't looking too good. I don't believe any single person would have the time to strip down every episode article to its bare essentials; it takes a taskforce to do that. So rather than waiting, TTN just redirected the articles. Rather than complaining that he's not merging, merge them yourself. Also, if you think that WP:EPISODE does not have large consensus, then go change it. If it does not have consensus, you'll get away with it. If you get reverted quickly and repeatedly by different editors, then it does have large consensus. There's no point in saying, however, that it does not have large consensus without testing it. You Can't See Me! 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A close look at TTN's redirects demonstrates that they are less "careful examination and assessment" and more "slap a tag on hundreds of articles, ignore any objections, and redirect anyways." As others have mentioned, there is no effort whatsoever to actually do any work to merge. None. Zero. Zip. If you question this, the automatic reply is that there is nothing of value, or that you're just a fan of the series who doesn't know any better. Talk pages get a boilerplate statement that demonstrates TTN hasn't actually read through the pages. There are also numerous examples of mistakes from the rapid-fire approach, including this tagging of an article about an entire series, and these incorrect redirects to a disambiguation page[8][9][10] - which then have to be fixed by other editors. In fact, the overall attitude seems to be "somebody else can clean up after me". --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note, as the most recent example I've seen of this attitude of "I'll just zap 'em all, and someone else can handle tidying up all the problems it leaves behind later," his most recent comment on Talk:List of Kim Possible episodes. For those who don't want to check the link themselves, the short version is that, after several people spent a couple of days bashing their heads against the wall trying to get him to work with them, I found out that there actually is already a KP Wiki, and recommended, as WP:FICT suggests, transwiki-ing the disputed articles over there, redirecting only AFTER the transwiki process is completed. TTN's response was, "That can be done over time by the interested editors. It's easy to take information from redirects, so that won't be a problem." He has yet to respond to the questions posed about that reply--in particular, my asking why, when WP:FICT says to transwiki BEFORE redirecting, he feels that the articles should be redirected to the list page first, then transwikied. Rdfox 76 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You expect any human being or the wikipedia community as a whole have the capability to deal with the speed of his tagging. Are you seriously suggesting that he has attempted improving all 5000+ of the articles before he has tagged them? How much effort do you think he spent per article? And mind you we are only looking at TTN's edits. There are others who are also mass tagging pages and later rectifying.

What is the rush? The WP:DEADLINE? If this is acceptable behaviour, why do we need TTN or others for all for this? A bot can mass redirectify pages more efficiently if there is a general ban on character and episode articles. His actions aren't even in line with the policies/guidelines he is allegedly enforcing.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

At least TTN has started to bother with merge-tagging articles before he mass-redirects them, even if he's not using the notability tags that are supposed to be used before a merge proposal. I've seen other users, such as User:The Prince of Darkness, who just do the mass redirect without any warning. I can understand the desire to reduce the amount of articles about fiction on Wikipedia, but I have serious problems with the methods being used to do so, including unwarned mass-redirects; changes of MOS guidelines to general guidelines with little fanfare; a liberal dose of Wikilawyering; and a general unwillingness, on the part of those carrying out the campaign, to discuss, compromise, form consensus, or even consider other points of view. Rdfox 76 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with TTN is that he isn't merging anything, he is deleting these pages without placing any useful information into the List Of Episodes. Over in the List of My Name is Earl episodes, which he wants to "merge"/delete all, User:Magioladitis suggest keeping the episode pages around for a few days so they can be approved, while TTN says that they can just be reversed after the merge to be imrpoved. He "really doubts" the articles can be approved and he "doesn't care," and passed on my question on what he did to try to improve the articles. Instead of merge and re-direct, he should do what he is actually doing and go for Articles for Deletion. Notthegoatseguy 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're problem is that he isn't merging, then why not merge the episodes yourself? You have access to article history, so you can easily draw information from that, and I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about the subject matter of some shows than TTN. Bettering Wikipedia is a community effort; there's no way you could possibly expect any one single user to perform a merge of this scale. You Can't See Me! 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

The problem seems to be spreading to character articles: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Group of users blanking Star Trek character articles... -- Cat ^chi? 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this comment in the Talk page of List of My Name Is Earl episodes quite revealing: ""Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance [for episodes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthegoatseguy (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean this diff also mind this diff which demonstrates that he isn't following WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. -- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then again, most of the articles in question aren't following WP:NOT#PLOT, and removing policy violations isn't a bad thing. I have been involved in only a few of these disputes on episode articles, and while I don't agree with everything TTN does, it's very one-sided how all the complaints are about his actions, and none about the experienced editors who create and/or defend articles which are nothing but (or in the best cases almost nothing but) plot summaries, and then are amazed that their policy violating articles are redirected (not deleted, despite what they often claim). We shouldn't be focusing solely on one editor trying to solve this problem (with errors in tagging and judgment, like most of us), but also and perhaps perhaps more on the editors creating the problem in the first place. I'll give an example: when DanTD creates The Misery Chick this month, he is creating an article which is basically one big violation of WP:NOT. The only good thing to do with this article in the short term is to redirect it to List of Daria episodes. It looks to me like you would then complain about my action (the redirection), but not about the initial creation of the article, which caused the problem in the first place. Not following a guideline is not so bad when you do it to get rid of something not following policies... Fram 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said, thanks. And I have redirected it. --Jack Merridew 15:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(didn't last) --Jack Merridew 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be better to reach a consensus first rather than impose your will? There obviously is a lack of agreement as demonstrated with above comments. What is the hurry? -- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason for that; I undid your redirection. Frankly I can't see what makes it "one big violation" of any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Plus, the fact that you tagged all the other Daria episodes(unlike The Misery Chick, which you just ditched) doesn't exactly make writing here so pleasent either. Now, I had hope for a while that transwiking the articles would make things easier, but that hope died when I tried to do it. ----DanTD 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you check the link a gave above, you'll see that I linked to your undo. You are adding unencyclopaedic content to Wikipedia; please stop. I tagged some of the episode articles after your undo, including The Misery Chick; see WP:BRD. I will look at the other episode articles when I get the chance. You might want to find a few sources for those episode articles you wish to keep. Given the probability that they don't exist, you might want to bone-up transwiki-ing them outta here. --Jack Merridew 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Need I remind you that the whole criteria for "unencyclopedic content" is at best questionable? I'm pretty sure I have on numerous occasions. ----DanTD 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We've met? I don't recall where. Anyway, unsourced, non-notability-establishing, material about fiction written in an in-universe style is unencyclopaedic content. And that's multiple, reliable, third-party sources that are non-trivial and specific to the subject at hand. Try a wiki that's not an encyclopaedia for that sort of content. --Jack Merridew 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we haven't met. But I have called the rampant misuse of the guidelines as an excuse to delete every episode article. ----DanTD 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

“ WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY: Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ”

“ WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. ”

Articles on wikipedia are neither expected nor required to follow policies and guidelines on creation (unless they violate something like WP:BLP or WP:C and have legal implications - nut that does not apply in this case). Guidelines are there to guide towards a finished product. They are not a license for inclusion or deletion. Instruction creep should be avoided especially on disagreements. All discussions on these mass redirectifications are more of a one sided instruction creep...

There is a process which articles develop which you may agree. Articles develop starting as stubs weather they are related to fiction or not. Most articles are not featured quality so most of them are not in line with numerous guidelines or policies. This same problem exists on fiction related and non-fiction related articles alike. For example: Garret Hobart, the 24th vice president of the United States, is not in line with WP:N. Mass redirecting all US vice presidents not in line with WP:N would be disruptive. I am picking this outrageous example simply to illustrate my point. My point being that same concept applies to articles related to fiction and articles not related to fiction alike. Both kinds of articles suffer from the same problem. However lack of quality is not a license for deletion. Notability should be established slowly on an article by article basis with attempts to improve the articles quality before bulk deletions. It should not be used as a license to bulk delete tens of thousands of articles without discussion or despite discussion.

Also text on WP:NOT#PLOT contains a lot of "should"'s and "should not"'s and no "must"'s or "must not"'s. No argument against that... But the lack of it is not a license for non-discussion deletion. Of course nor is it a license for non-discussion inclusion. Of course articles related to fiction should contain information more than a plot summary if they are to ever become featured but WP:NOT#PLOT is more of an expectation from the finish product rather than an inclusion/deletion criteria.

Redirectification is a kind of defacto deletion as all content on articles are mass removed often without a discussion. Any restoration of the information is also reveted by the redirectifying party - a defacto protection. Deletion and protection can be conducted without the use of admin tools like that but would almost always be disruptive. Content being in the history is of no use to the reader.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Experienced creators are expected to create articles that don't flat out violate one of the main policies, like WP:NOT. This has nothing to do with instruction creep and everything with maintaining our core policies. The article in question was created a week ago, so it isn't a question of picking on it right after creation. The author clearly wasn't intending to make it policy-compliant in the short term, and I fail to see why you defend that attitude. I don't expect the article to be featured quality immediately, that's a bad strawman. But you seem to imply that you cannot first create a stub indicating why the episode is notable, and later flesh it out with a plot summary where needed.

Claiming that Garret Hobart, an article completely unrelated to the scope of this discussion (first error), is not compliant with our notability guideline (second error: I complain of a policy violation, you of a guideline violation), is quite laughable (which is the third error in that one claim), as it makes a clear statement of notability, and provide sources in the external links section (or is the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress not good enough for you?). Claiming that "wikipedia is not a plot summary" only is vald for finsihed articles is completely laughable as well, as that means that one can never use it as an argument (no article is ever finished, is it?), making it completely irrelevant. I doubt that people have included it in the policy only for laughs. Apart from mixing all these things, you also still mix redirection and deletion, despite your last point trying to rectify that. All in all, a lot of wikilawyering and no serious discussion.

I suppose it is of no use pointing out that the article should never have been created, according to WP:EPISODE#Process for creating articles on television episodes, a guideline both you and people like DanTD know very well? Complaining that people should not redirect according to a guideline which wasn't followed in the first place is rather hypocritical. Fram 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously aren't aware that WP:EPISODE was rewritten by an "elite" group of people without any real discussion or consensus. It was a MOS guideline not a notability one. The tone of this pose is a personal attack. I refuse to reply to it any further. I am no laughing mater. -- Cat ^chi? 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(If you change your post, please change your signature (timestamp) as well.) I don't think that the tone of a post can be a personal attack. The post was direct, certainly, and uncivil, perhaps. That's my way of reacting to experienced editors who start wikilawyering and using straw man arguments.

As for your point on WP:EPISODE: which version do you refer to? Something even older than e.g. March 2006[11]? As my arguments are already contained in that one.Fram 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on Garret Hobart is not irrelevant to the topic. What TTN is doing is saying if one doesn't fit, they all must go. ----DanTD 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

People complain about TTN redirecting episode articles because they don't follow WP:EPISODE. I give the argument that we shouldn't focus on the redirection of the articles, but on the creation of them, which shouldn't have happened in the first place. White Cat then starts about an article which has nothing to do with either TTN, WP:EPISODE, or WP:NOT#PLOT, but according to White Cat with WP:N. How, then, is this relevant? Perhaps it would be more relevant if you explained why you create articles consisting of nothing but a plot summary, even though that goes against both WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress. Articles that only contain a plot summary aren't banned. Nor is there any consensus what-so-ever to mass blank them.

Articles on episodes aren't required but recommended to follow WP:EPISODE a mere MOS style guideline. Even as a MOS guideline it did not have a whole lot of consensus behind it as MOS guidelines generally aren't expected to have community wide agreement as they are often over trivial style issues such as the order of names of Japanese people. What MOS guideline should I use for episode article related styles? None exists.

On the other hand notability guidelines do need a good amount of consensus. If not no one will take them seriously. Hence why I can't take something as unstable as WP:EPISODE seriously. As a MOS guideline there are some sane remarks I agree with but thats it.

I take WP:N seriously, I take WP:BLP seriously, I take WP:CIVIL seriously, I take WP:NPA seriously as well as dozens of other pages. I am looking at 8 August 2007 edition of WP:FICT and I see a significant difference. I do not see an accompanying community wide discussion at all. Page history contains other significant alterations without an adequate discussion as well. Furthermore the same people rewriting WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT are the ones mass redirectifying fiction articles. For example TTN who has not showed up here much is actually among the people editing the guideline. People who actual write fiction related articles aren't present in the discussion or are a minority. Meatpuppetary may be the case. This kind of covert meddling with policies or guidelines is disruptive. Sure I can rewrite any guideline simply to give me a legitimate sounding way to mass blank/merge/redirectify/vandalise/whatever an entire topic of my choice. If a policy or guideline is altered or created in a manner not in line with WP:CON it is void. Surely nobody is suggesting that we should alter guidelines and policies on our whim simply to use it for our own personal needs, right?

If I were to mass blank/redirectify all stub articles of any kind as per WP:NOT, I'd be blocked for WP:POINT but when TTN is doing it he is nearly given a medal for it. Ultimately your statement is in conflict with WP:STUB and the purpose of stubs. You seemingly expect articles to be featured quality on creation. That violates common sense as well.

-- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Work in progress"? Let's take some random articles tagged by TTN. The Big Splash[12] was nothing but a plot summary six months after creation. Truth be Told had no improvements except a list of guest stars in four months[13]. Won't Ask, Won't Tell has no improvements in a year and a half[14]. The Storm has no improvements in three months[15]. Power Trip / To Heck and Back was only expanded with a trivia section in over a year.

You will probably be able to find exceptions, but to call these "works in progress" is not really an accurate description. These are either abandoned, or the editors consider them finished. These go against NOT badly, and any discussion of how our guidelines came to be (it seems to have evolved from an "elite" group of people to "meatpuppeting", so I wonder what you would call them if you took CIVIL and NPA not seriously) is secondary (and avoids the previously mentioned fact that the Episode guideline has been virtually unchanged since at least March 2006[16]). These articles, many many thousands of them, violate our policies and guidelines and don't improve over months and even years. Letting them sit in that state just "because they are stubs" is useless, and makes a mockery of our policies and guidelines. Only blaming the people acting upon them, while ignoring those creating these problems in the first place, is very one sided. Blaming it all on the people rewriting guidelines against consensus makes me wonder which versions you do prefer. From FICTION, January 7 2006[17]: "If you find articles (particularly stubs) on fictional characters (and places, concepts, etc.) you may want to be bold and merge them into an appropriate article. This allows the information to become more organized and easier to access. However, if you should do so, do not delete meaningful content.". Oh wait, this explicitly states that it is a good thing to merge such articles, particularly stubs even. Perhaps, just to makes things clearer, you could point us to what versions of which policies and guidelines you feel (more) correctly represent consensus, so that at least we can discuss something concrete instead of those vague allegations against the meatpuppeting elite. Fram 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there's WP:STUB itself, which says that stubs shouldn't be merged just for being stubs. TTN also makes no effort to improve any of the articles he tags, nor does he make any effort to merge information, instead just redirecting it with an attitude that seems to be, "I can do it myself; someone else can clean up the mess I leave behind later." Likewise, it seems highly counterproductive to just mass-tag articles without notifying the WikiProjects concerned with the articles in question of the plan to do so; notifying the WikiProjects might well obviate the need to do the tag, by getting people to conduct an improvement campaign.

However, given past history with people trying to discuss, compromise, or otherwise build consensus with the people pushing this as their pet issue, that might not work anyway, since the attitude tends to be that it's "impossible" to improve the articles in question, based purely on their subject matter, without any evidence that it wouldn't be possible beyond the assertion of impossibility, and not deigning to answer any questions regarding the exceedingly murky details in WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. As I saw someone point out in one of these discussions, if this group's standards were expanded to cover all of Wikipedia, we would have nothing in between stubs and Good Articles. Rdfox 76 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But they aren't merged "just for being stubs", they are merged because they are policy and guideline violating stubs. Furthermore, I have not said that TTN is faultless, but why would he need to improve the articles he tags if even the editors who created them can't be bothered? He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that most episode pages are overkill, and has no interest in improving them. I see no reason why he should either. And he doesn't leave behind a mess, he leaves behind a better encyclopedia. As for notifiying the projects: they are by now more than aware of what he is doing, and in most cases, no improvements are forthcoming. As for your second paragraph, you still fail to see the problem with those creating these articles, or with the articles themselves, making this discussion (which is already way too long) completely pointless. As long as you have the opinion that articles which are nothing but plot summaries should be allowed to stay that way indefinitely because it may perhaps someday that some editor turns it into a decent article, you will only be able to see fault with those redirecting such articles, and not with those creating them, making a useful discussion and looking for a possible compromise fruitless. Fram 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean that the articles that are nothing but plot summaries shouldn't be merged; I hope that's not what people think I meant by this. I'm talking about articles more along the lines of, for example, Stop Team Go, which is, in my opinion, currently a borderline case as regards Wikinotability; it already covers two of the guidelines in WP:FICT (plot summary and critical reception--in this case, fan reviews, as there are few major critics who review individual episodes of ANY television show, much less a "kiddie cartoon"), and has analysis of the psychological implications of the episode's McGuffin that, while currently OR, can be investigated and possibly sourced and improved, which could then meet a third notability requirement (real-world influences on the story). As for the fourth requirement, I've been digging through discussions that the production staff have had with the public, looking for information germane to that particular episode; some nuggets have turned up, but I haven't yet incorporated them into the article.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the mass-tagging of these articles like TTN has done, by just going and setting a category tag, is questionable at best, since the people doing it refuse to consider whether some of them are close enough to notability that attempting improvement should be done instead of simply merging them. No, articles like Graduation (Kim Possible) shouldn't be on Wikipedia (and yes, it's on my target list for a complete rewrite that will hopefully put it more in line with the guidelines), and unless an episode article is less than a month or two old, even one that's merely a short plot summary should be merged. However, ones that have information beyond the plot summary should be improved, not eliminated.

Irony: There are six Kim Possible episodes that won't have their episode articles merged in any event, because they made up the two stories that Disney Channel randomly chose to designate "original movies" instead of three-part episodes... despite being produced as three-part episodes, and counted as such towards the "65 episode rule." However, because they're officially designated as a "movie" by Disney's marketing types, they're considered automatically notable. Don't you love semantics? Rdfox 76 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"

You will probably be able to find exceptions, but to call these "works in progress" is not really an accurate description. These are either abandoned, or the editors consider them finished.

That's not true at all, Fram. In my case, what actully happens is that I have to wait for an episode to be shown in reruns again, so I can get more of the details straightened out. If not, then I'm ususally busy with another article. But even that doesn't mean anything to TTN. If it's an episode article, he wants to shoot it down, for no other purpose than to build his own edit count! I know of plenty that could use rewrites, extensions and other fixes, which his kind of deletions & redicrections will take those chances away from all of us! And I STILL say we should reverse everything he does, or most of it! ---- DanTD 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You need the rerun for what? To get your plot summary more accurate, in depth, detailed? That is not exactly what we are waiting for, and doesn't solve any of the problems with these articles... As for "for no other purpose than to build his own edit count!", please don't use personal attacks, it doesn't help your case. Fram 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's something else to consider. If an episode has to have elements of the real world in order to be accepted, then many of the episodes of American Dragon: Jake Long should never have been deleted at all, since they contain real-life New York City landmarks, and other elements. ----DanTD 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough. By that logic, all episodes of Law & Order need articles. And all episodes of Friends. Setting alone doesn't justify the 'Real World Elements' condition you posit above. However, an episode of Law & Order which specifically addresses exploitation of WTC 9/11 heroism and recompensation, as I believe at least one has, WOULD have an argument for a uniwue episode article. In such a case, the reflection of a real world series of events and the creative team's reaction might be notable, especially in the context of the articles which I have read regarding treatment of 9/11 in the media. If such an article mentioned the episode, in any particular context, it would satisfy at least MY interpretations of episode notability. Even with all that, you'd have say, Guest Stars list (regular cast being backlinked to the main article), Plot summary, two para, (one law, one Order), and perhaps two to three para about the subject matter's importance, making for, with the lead, a 7 paragraph article. That's a notable article to me.

TTN's efforts, while brusque and occasionally curt, are solid edits. Any editor who feels an episode deserves the article can revert and discuss, and improve the article. However, I've followed out a number ofthe links, and so on, and I've yet to see anyone pick a link to an article and say 'but this had all that and got redirected anyways, WHY?". These articles represent a range from overeager editors to fancrufty articles packed with trivia, word for word plot summaries, and so on. Most of these articles should've been nominated for deletion instead, but the crash on AfD would've been absurd. Every Wikiproject would've defended their own, the deletionists and inclusionists would muster up in brigades, and accusations of POINT, PROCESS, IDONTLIKEIT, and so on.

No one seems to object to the assessments of the articles: Lacking in citation, real-world context, overly detialed plot summaries, trivia lists, peacock terms and images, and so on. No one denies that all material is available via the Article Histories. No one denies the article material can be retrieved and improved by such a manner.

As such, I thoroughly support the redirecting of all these episodes, not one is NOT subject to reversion and improvement. Given that tagging, talking and so on often went unheard, and since anyone who creates an episode finds the article in his/her watchlist, we can assume many editors simply ignored the taggings. Let's move on. ThuranX 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, let's not move on, as long as these articles are being given hatchet-jobs by people like TTN! The trouble with people like him, is that he fails to see how many of these regulations contradict one another, making writing them impossible without alerting the deletion radar. We can use citation, real-world context, guest star lists, etc., and they still get tagged for redirection or deletion. Either way, we can't win. And don't try to tell me that lie that "any editor who feels an episode deserves the article can revert and discuss, and improve the article" either, because even when we do, he deletes them. This is wrong, and he and his defenders need to take a hint. ----DanTD 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What hint would that be? One of your comments above was revealing, I think. " If an episode has to have elements of the real world in order to be accepted [...]" No, that is not at all what is asked. An episode may be complete utter fantasy with no connection to the real world at all and still have its own article, as soon as the real world has commented in depth on the episode. Are there any reliable sources (not TV.com, not any fan forums, not an amateur webzine) who have commented at length about the episode (not the series, not the actors, but the episode) or about a specific aspect of the episode? Then you may have a good reason to create and keep a separate article about that episode. If not, bundle it into a list of episodes (or a list per season, if the seasons are long enough). It's fairly simple, actually. Fram 09:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The hint would be that he's too uptight about what's acceptable, and takes things too far. And yes, he is doing this to build up his edit count. His own user page states that his one goal is redirecting episode articles. You claim that an episode can be pure fantasy "as soon as the real world has commented in depth on the episode," but by that criteria, nothing can be written. As for your remark about "reliable sources," as I've repeatedly stated on these talk pages, if you take away the fansites, official sites, tv.com, the Internet Movie Database, and sites like that, THERE ARE NO SOURCES LEFT. ----DanTD 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read TTN's user page again. It states or implies nowhere that he redirects episode articles to build up his editcount. It gives no reason at all, and it is your interpretation that that is the reason, making it a personal attack. Again, stop it. As for the rest of your post: for the episodes for which that is true: too bad, then they may not have a Wikipedia article. But there are enough episodes of TV series that do get extensively reviewed in newspapers and so on. Take a look at things like this review of the final episode of The Soprano's from the New Zealand Herald[18]: coupled with the many, many other reviews and discussions of this episode, it should be fairly easy to create an article about this episode, and lo and behold, Made in America (The Sopranos) has quite some background material (real world references). So your claims that "nothing can be written" is false, but the episode has to have received some specific attention. As we are running in circles and I don't seem to really get through to you or White Cat, I'll not contribute to this way too long discussion any more unless new elements turn up. This page can better be used for more pressing matters than this content and policy interpretation discussion. Fram 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram, above. This is the usual grousing from the usual suspects who seem to believe that their fan-driven enthusiasm trumps larger, established, consensus-driven policy. Folks, if you really care that much, just transwiki the information to a wikia where you can write as much in-universe detail as you want without having to worry about, how to say it ... encyclopedic standards. As it is, this is not actionable and I would suggest that User:White Cat/07's and others' actions are verging on disruptive in these continuous efforts to thwart the good faith application of a core and fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Eusebeus 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what TTN's user pags says, it's clear that he is doing it to bring his edit count up. I used to think he was editing them because he didn't like them or find them useful, but I was wrong. As for your comment about articles being created on the basis of "fan-driven enthusiasm," I'd have to say you're wrong too, Eusebeus. Yesterday I noticed somebody who created an article for an episode of Supernatural asked TTN why it was being deleted, and got no answer. I pointed out that writers of these episodes are all getting the same crap from him, and got flamed for it as much as I'm getting here. For the record, I'm not a fan of that show at all.

One aspect of the policy is to discourage featured music when writing an article, but most for most episodes of Beavis and Butt-head, featured music is a key element, with the exceptions of scattered episodes in later seasons. The New Zealand Herald article on the series finale of The Sopranos may be okay, but that goes back to my argument on the Who Shot J.R. episodes of Dallas. Unless the episodes are that huge, they're worthless, and might as well not exist. Also, one major problem with newspaper-based references, is that the newspapers that run them, tend to save them only for a short period of time, before they demand that you subscribe to their service in order to read their articles, and even then they only go so far back in time with them. Try going to The New York Times' website, and see if you can find a link to the Communist Workers Party's disruption of the 1980 Democratic National Convention, and subsequent attempt to assasinate Jimmy Carter. You won't find it there. You'd have to go to a library to look it up on microfilm or microfiche.

As for transwiking these episodes, I have tried to do so, but it has been proven far more difficult than I thought. ----DanTD 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear to you, and only you, that TTN is pursuing an increased edit count. To me, it's clear he's interested in clearing crufty writing about how cool Hannah Montana's hair is out of an ENCYCLOPEDIA. This is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, it requires context. Real World Context to validate notability is first. If No one notable in the real world gives a crap, then no article. Two, whatever the real world writer finds interesting needs to be tied to the context of that episode, which means that an article solely consisting of an assertion of notability in the lead, followed by a ridiculously expository plot retelling, and a trivia list saying 'so and so mentioned it in the New York Times' also fails it. This really isn't tough stuff to get. IF you really feel each article matters, go start a wiki for that show. Butthis continuing descent into a tirade and personal attacks against TTN is not helping your case. Have you yet found an article which was redirected which held solid reliable citations about Real World Context(I should copyright that), gave a brief plot summary, and a section discussion the Real World Context(r)? If not, then you know you have no legs to stand on, not with policy, which is clear to many others in this section, and not on errors. Errors might suggest he's moving to fast, or genuinely indiscriminate. I suspect that if asked, TTN, could provide specific cases where he found an article met quality standards and left it alone. Can you find a mistake? ThuranX 20:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

• We have clear standards governing encyclopedic content. Upholding those standards is laudable. Dragging the issue to AN/I is not. This discussion should be closed and, moreover, serves as a clear endorsement of what TTN has been doing. Eusebeus 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Alterations to the policies are controversial, making his edits based on the controversially altered policies controversial. There is no endorsement that I can see. "Upholding those standards" (based on consensus) through mass deletion is just not an acceptable way to approach to the matter. We would not have anything but featured articles if that were the case. Or even featured articles can be removed if you interpret WP:NOT "right". Deletionism is one thing, but this goes far far beyond that. How is this inline with WP:CON or WP:CCC? Hmm?

  This attitude is quite hostile. You are supposed to work with people and yet you are showing them the door. WP:NOT has been quoted many times but I think this combative attitude falls under WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Probably the lamest kind ever...

  -- Cat ^chi? 21:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  This kind of thing is what I've been trying to tell them. You can edit out how cool Hannah Montana's hair looks in one episode or the other, without deleting the whole thing. TTN simply seeks to delete the whole things. Also, looking back at that New Zealand Herald article, I didn't see as much real world context there as Eusebus claimed there was, compared to other TV shows. Most of what I've seen there only existed within the world of the cast of The Sopranos.

  One other thing, regarding the question of how encyclopedic an article is or not; When I wrote that article for the KP episode A Very Possible Christmas, the only non-encyclopedic thing I could find was one comment on the the talk page. ----DanTD 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  The key issue isn't the specifics but the reluctance for TTN and others to even engage in a discussion. Edits to policy and guidelines should have self-evident reasons. Major alterations such as... umm... A COMPLETE REWRITE needs a consensus that is accepted community wide BEFORE being applied to the guidline page. "Hey I made a few edits, likey?" (directed at 3, 4 people) is no way to alter a guideline. -- Cat ^chi? 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Balderdash. I have attempted to engage you in discussion on pages such as Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes, Talk:Oh My Goddess! and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters, I've gotten nothing but disruption and you avoiding the core issue - the non-encyclopaedic nature of your articles. You seem to have made no edits whatsoever with an eye towards actually addressing the concerns editors have expressed about these articles. You have been disruptive and duplicitous — and that is all.. --Jack Merridew 11:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  I've just reviewed A Very Possible Christmas and found it wanting; all plot and trivia and no conformance to guidelines. I redirected it to the LOE and commented to that effect at the merge discussion. --Jack Merridew 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse TTN's efforts. --Jack Merridew 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  That isn't surprising. You have been endorsing him on many of the episode pages where you have no edits. This repetitive imported/imposed "consensus" is part of this overall problem in my opinion.

  No single user or a group of users should be imposing a consensus in this matter on a topic by topic basis. If something needs to be done and there is a disagreement over it, dispute resolution must be observed. Disputes and disagreements on Wikipedia are not resolved by the use of brute force. Dispute resolution is slow and painful at times but has no alternative. Hence why I am not mass reverting TTNs actions even though I have an editorial right for doing so.

  Also what is the rush? Why should the pages be mass removed as soon as possible? Is there a legal threat stemming from the existence of these pages such as a WP:C, or WP:BLP violation? I do not believe so. If there is no reason for an immediate action there does not need to be an immediate action.

  As for Oh My Goddess!, you will ignore whatever I have to say as you did so before with the episode articles on Oh My Goddess! episodes which were also redirectified by you. So there is no point in participating in a discussion with a predetermined imposed consensus. So please pull the other leg... Next section is evidence enough on the nature of how these "discussions" are conducted. I can "discuss" that after the overall problem mentioned in this entire thread is resolved. I do not have any reason to rush unlike some people.

  -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  Just because I've not edited some non-notability-establishing article does not mean that I have not read it. If I see him comment about some articles, look at them and agree, I'll say so on the talk page — where my edit will not go to waste. If I feel that an article is not likely to be able to have its notability established and that it is unencyclopaedic, why would I bother editing it?

  As to 'the rush', this is already an overly drawn-out process. It needs to move faster. You have made no valid arguments addressing the concerns expressed about your articles. You have not added a single source or edited them in any way to improve them. Your attitude seems to be one entirely focused on obstructing others who trespass. While we talk in circles on talk pages, more tv episodes are created and more unencyclopaedic articles about them spring up like silverfish between encyclopaedic pages. Editors who create such articles are the real problem.

  I've ignored what you said? All you say is give me more time — well, it's been months and you've had time. --Jack Merridew 10:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For most of these articles, saving the plot summary is more trouble than it's wroth. It's not that valuable, and we are never in short supply of people to write summaries. More often than not, they need a complete rewrite in order to summarize the same information but with less detail, or because they're written really badly. What's the point of WP:NOT#PLOT if we don't do anything about it? And, as I've said before, TTN is listening to people, and has taken much of our advice about giving time for cleanup and for discussion. I don't dispute that there should be a better way for us to deal with these things, so people don't get so mad about it, but TTN isn't violating any policy, and this is a discussion for another talk page. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This really demonstrates the rather arrogant and condescending attitude that certain editors have with regards to this issue. "Not that valuable" really means "I don't like them"; "saving the plot summary is more trouble than it's worth" is just another way of saying "I can't be bothered, since I don't like them"; and "never in short supply of people to write summaries" just means "someone else can clean up my mess." --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that is how I feel. But if you are going to say that, I must ask, do you think it's fair that we have to clean up the mess left behind by other people in the first place? A single user can be responsible for dozens if not hundreds of episode article stubs and plot dumps, with no regards to if an article should exist or not. They were created in this way, and yet you say we cannot remove them in this way? And no, it is not because "I don't like them", and I take offense to the accusation that I would be so shallow. For your information, the last few days I've been helping set up a big transwiki project for WP:DIGI, setting up things on an external wiki on WIkia, because when I can (I work full time, and I do have a life outside of Wikipedia) I do want to give this stuff a home. In life, as in Wikipedia, we are forced to set priorities for ourselves, and believe it or not, most of these articles are in horrible shape, need to be rewritten, and even if fixed up will still usually not have a home on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this kinds of edits, they are controversial. If an article is just a plot, there are two ways to fix it: you can either delete it or expand it. Why is "saving the plot summary" any trouble? It just sits there at worst. Looking at the featured episode articles, plot summary is half or one third of such articles content. So the plot summary is an important fraction of a good article and not garbage. Lack of other sections should not be a license for redirection. Other sections seems to be reception and production. Typically only fans and people who watch the show have access to a plot summary (by watching the show), anyone else can gather any remaining information. Each TV show is subject to ratings by default by being on TV (notability != popularity so even non-popular shows are fine). This information exists. TTN is definitely violating the word and spirit of WP:CON. -- Cat ^chi? 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pages protected

I have fully protected the episode pages as they had descended into edit wars. I protected them in the state I found them in regardless of whether they were redirects or articles at the time. Please follow the dispute resolution process to try and come to some agreement. Once the matter is resolved, unprotection can be requested at my talkpage or at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 12:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

offering a clarification: the pages referred to are the individual episode articles of season two of Farscape; I redirected the articles after much discussion on Talk:List of Farscape episodes. --Jack Merridew 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: [[19]], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning.[20] Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John

Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks#Satanic_symbols page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.

'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page , which continued for some time afterwards.

I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive. Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here consider [21] this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Does categorizing another user's good faith edits as a "drive by" constitute civil discussion? I have never met this user before, so I don't know what provoked such a thing. Can someone explain?--Mostargue 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this guy has quite a history.--Mostargue 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. The actual discussion that I had with him is irrelevant, I only wanted a third opinion on his tone. Also, WP:CIVIL states "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.". I am wondering whether or not calling another user's good faith edits a "drive by" is considered civil. Because according to my interpretation of the term, it refers to a situation in which a person drives a car and shoots at people. That doesn't sound like a very nice analogy.--Mostargue 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to. ---- WebHamster 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Wikipedia policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan#Climate_Change_.2F_Asian_remark page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers, Daniel 05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum. Shot info 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Wikipedia, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Wikipedia campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Wikipedia. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John#Please_stop, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of this section? ThuranX 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was closed. Orderinchaos then removed the "resolved tag" and ethically forgot to inform me, allowing all and sundry to have a nice little gripe about me without giving me the chance to respond. Not that there is much to respond to. Do I respond to the UserKirbytime ip sock that is upset I reverted his changes to my userpage? Do I respond to Orderinchaos who erred in not informing me of his unilateral decision to reopen this case? His misrepresentation that I called for the desyoping of Hesperian because I "disagreed" with him. (I in fact was calling for an apology for calling me a racist. There was no apology so I question his constitution for adminship). Do I address his absurd insinuation that because the "allegations" of my outing have been repeated over the past few months, that "I" somehow raised it myself? Do I address the nonsense of serial edit warmonger Lester2 who would do anything to get me blocked just so he could continue his BLP violating POV pushing slandering of current Australian politicians? Or shall I just wait to see how this hatchet job turns out? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

huh? you complain about someone not going out of their way to give you the opportunity to respond and then sarcastically outline that you are not going to respond... very odd PJ. You're editing across the board is becoming more and more counterproductive to the writing of a good encyclopaedia and the encouragement of people to contribute in good faith. WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I removed the resolved tag after most of the discussion above - merely because it seemed to no longer correctly describe the route that the discussion had taken. It was more an acknowledgement of events on the ground, as it would have been puzzling to some that an ongoing discussion had a "resolved" tag on it. Also, the "allegations" bit has been misunderstood - a claim was made about your real-world identity, and I had no wish to repeat the claim. My argument on that was only that one is only "outed" if the claim is true, and as the claim has not been established as either true nor false, it remains an allegation. (I would also argue that even if true, more info would have needed to be released to qualify.) That being said, I strongly agree with the warning - that is not the level at which we should be conducting debates on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you have not addressed why you removed the resolved tag, and then failed to inform the party concerned. Does this sound like the actions of an ethical adminstrator? Also, what was the point of speculating where the origin of the outing allegations came from; "i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not"? Did you have any evidence at all for this random slander, or were you just "throwing it out there". I would question whether that is admin behaviour as well. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

stop trying to distract the conversation with wordplay. You sound so offended anyone could have thought that you were a model wikicitizen! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

and on the theme of PJ being a model wikicitizen, BigHaz has suggested I bring up my latest issue here:

I just came across this where the editor in question has used the edit history of my user talk page in order to identify the IP address of an editor with whom he is in dispute. This and many other links are under the seemingly devious title of "Evidence" (I refer to link 1 under the heading 1 x).

This editor (PJ) himself seems to have successfully enforced a gag order on Timeshift to prevent him from revealing what is apparently a huge conflict of interest of PJ's when editing Australian political articles. My impression from previous conversations is that PJ is a former Australian parliamentarian who edits on wikipedia for purely partisan purposes and Timeshift had proof of this but has been blocked by admins from using it in discussions because PJ has chosen not to volunteer his identify on wikipedia. Yet despite being the beneficiary of this policy of anonymity, this editor is using a dossier type technique in order to formulate an attack on another editor based on underhanded research such as researching the editor's IP address.

It must be against policy to do this kind of thing, probably the same policy PJ is using against Timeshift. Don’t wikipedia editors have a right to edit in peace without being researched by editors with which you are supposedly having content based disputes? WikiTownsvillian 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't comment on what's happening here, but in an unrelated case, a page of this nature by an editor involved in a content dispute with others was successfully MfD'd as a misuse of userspace. Orderinchaos 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, people really need to stop speculating about PJ's alleged previous career. I have never seen PJ say that he worked in that field, all I have seen is repeated gossip and rumours. It's really, really inappropriate and it needs to stop. With regards to the "evidence" page, admittedly, I haven't looked at recent versions of it, however, I and others have been aware of it for some months now (in fact, it was another Australian administrator who originally told me about it), but from what I have seen of it, it is very different to that MfD'd page that you (OIC) refer to. The versions I have seen of this page have simply been preps of reports he has made to the AIV, ANI and/or 3RR noticeboards, which I think the community has established is a valid use of userspace. I must admit that I myself have also used my userspace to compile evidence, such as here, for example. If PJ has strayed into using his space inappropriately, I think we should tell him and ensure that he gets back on the straight and narrow, rather than a forced deletion of a page that he uses to draft valid reports. Sarah 10:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Free Matt userbox MfD

I saw that via the Jehochman RFA, and nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt. • Lawrence Cohen 23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a notification of this MFD here to ANI, but it was removed here by User:CO. I am re-adding it here, as it is directly relevant to the harassment of Elonka and Jehochman. the Userbox appears to be a response to this old ANI thread where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate & User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman. More are located at User:Prester John/Userbox. If it's significant, this happened a long time after I posted it and he left me note about that removal. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Hatred: Those prior Prester John userboxes that Admins deleted in May, were the cause of religious flamewars among Wikipedians. See this prior ANi for one case of a Wikipedian who tried to retaliate after being baited by Prester John. I see a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance from Prester John. Here's another ANi involving complaints about Prester John's anti-Muslim edits. Yet the anti-Muslim theme still continues with Prester John's Wikipedia activity. Just skim down Prester's edit history and you'll see that 95% of his edits involve articles about Muslims. You'll notice Prester John editing articles to cast Muslims in a poor light, or praise politicians who have taken a perceived anti-Muslim stance. Even as this current ANi has been taking place in the past few days, let me point out Prester's latest article, and the talk page will explain what's wrong with it. I ask the admins to look at whether this sort of slant is good for Wikipedia. --Lester2 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please back up claims of "religious hatred" with specific evidence in the form of diffs. Your post borders on incivility and trolling. Arrow740 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I voted to remove the user box (and, it was intended more as a "probably not the best idea" rather than "delete now, no matter what"), the "Free Matt57" box controversy is getting a whole lot more attention than it deserves. I say we move on. If there are other issues (which you seem to be talking about) then they need to be addressed properly - not here tacked on to the ultimately pointless "Free Matt" user box issue. The whole idea of user boxes is a joke anyway, hence i keep mine to an absolute minimum - just the projects, and no politics. --Merbabu 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should get a lot more attention. It demonstrates that some admins think that admins' actions should not be disputed by non-admins. That is a very worrying attitude. Arrow740 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since I blocked Matt, I suppose I should record that I don't object to the userbox and I certainly don't feel offended in any way. Its fair comment imo. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

I think the following quote is problematic. It is from User:Prester John.

“ The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way ”

Of course I am not going to contradict the statement with examples from history and current events... Not because I can't but because that isn't the point of userpages or this page...

-- Cat ^chi? 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to try to attack someone, you'll have to explain yourself a little better. How is it problematic, exactly? Arrow740 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is problematic about it? Yahel Guhan 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an attack. For it to be an attack there needs to be war. I am merely exercising "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" from Wikipedia:User page. How does that statement helps us write better articles? How is it in line with Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content? Isn't it provocative? -- Cat ^chi? 09:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer. -- Cat ^chi? 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to clarify what the problem with it is. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars continue

I wish User:Prester John would stop conducting edit wars as his first option, and use the talk pages instead. Right now he is edit waring on the John Howard article. Currently up to 3 reverts:

• Previous version of article
• 06:26, 9 October 2007 added text: "As a result of prudent financial management"
• 14:20, 9 October 2007 added text: "The strength of the Australian economy"
• 00:58, 10 October 2007 subtracted text" "The Hawke/Keating government had inherited part of this debt" (from John Howard)

(All edits involve either adding glowing praise about the economics of John Howard, or removing criticism of John Howard economics)
Yes, 3 reverts fits within the general 3RR rule, but in Prester John's case, it breaks the spirit of previous blocks, and previous administrator warnings against edit waring:

• 05:47, 13 August 2007 Prester John was blocked for an edit war on the same John Howard article. (Block Log)
• 04:59, 16 September 2007, Prester John was blocked again for conducting an edit war on the David Hicks article. Link: Previous ANi report
• 02:38, 17 September 2007, Admin User:Eagle_101 issued Prester John this stern warning -> Talk:David_Hicks#Blocks, and told Prester John that "Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert."

Since then, Prester John has shown complete disregard for the previous Admin advice, and has been continuously reverting without discussing. In the current edit war over John Howard and the economy, there is an active community discussion about that very subject here -> Talk:John_Howard#Economic_Management_section. Despite Prester John's revert war, unfortunately he has refused to join the community discussion on the subject he is reverting.--Lester 02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone see this dude making any sense? He constantly makes these long winded false accusations on this notice board about general editing procedures. Sure check out the diffs he is talking about. See the use of edit summaries. See how the discussion on the talk page he refers to is about a totally different issue. Check his recent edits and decide if he is stalking me or not. See if he didn't already post this a couple of paragraphs above. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering previous Admin warnings to Prester John to avoid edit wars (not just 3RR) it's surprising that Prester John considers this a false accusation that he is involved in an edit war. The (above) diffs all relate to reverts Prester John has been engaged in, and all are on the subject of John Howard's economics. This revert war has been going on since September (diff).

So that's at least 2 weeks of reverting others edits on that subject, while an active discussion was also ongoing for 2 weeks without Prester John's participation. This is completely disruptive editing, because the editors that have been involved in that discussion feel their time is wasted when Prester John romps in and reverts the content without bothering with the discussion page, despite being warned against this behaviour previously.

It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war, as those who are engaged in discussion won't feel they need to join the edit war as the only means to counter Prester John. As Prester John pointed out, I mentioned this before, yes, but unfortunately the reverts just continue, and the diffs at the top of this section are only those from the last 24 hours.

I ask administrators to look at the previous ANi against Prester John for edit waring (linked above, 16 September). Read the comments from the other admins who warned Prester for edit waring on 'John Howard', 'David Hicks' and 'List of notable converts to Islam' articles. In the previous report, Administrators commented with despair that warnings and blocks were not enough to discourage Prester John from edit waring.--Lester 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the particlar edit was OR with no cite and was reverted by myself and at least one other editor, other than PJ. I note that two other editors also reworded it to it's present state only to have Aussieboy revert it (twice). I think PJ isn't at fault with this particular example as he is doing what we should do here at Wikipedia. If there is an editor at fault, it is the one including uncited OR. Shot info 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very gallant of User:Shot info to show support for Prester John's side of the edit war, however, it should be noted that Shot info's first edit to the John_Howard#Economic_management section was in the past few hours--Lester 05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not supporting PJ, just pointing out the facts rather than your take on it. And???????? So what if my first edit to this section was in the last few hours. That would just be similar to your edit history in John Howard, would it not? I note that you seem to be defending the recent addition of OR material with no cite, and using PJs removal of it as some sort of action against PJ. This is most odd, telling an editor not to do what we are supposed to do. Shot info 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending any side in this. But what we have is an edit war going on, and it renders the discussion page completely useless when other editors engage in a revert war without discussing. Regarding the issue of references, if you read my ongoing entries in the discussion page, you'd see that I considered none of the references added by either side to be satisfactory. So for either side to use references as an excuse to edit war is unsatisfactory. Follow Wiki rules about deleting content and stop edit waring! --Lester 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

<koff> "It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war" versus "I'm not defending any side in this.". Uh-huh. So what is the purpose of this AN/I again...? If you are serious about the "edit war" you will stop the edit warrior. Who I note you have made mention on this discussion on his talk page...without asking him to stop his warring. So could you explain to the viewers here, why you are bringing PJ's edits to light, while condoning AussieBoy's? Surely you're not trying to make a mockery out of this noticeboard? Shot info 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did ask Prester John to refrain from edit waring on the John Howard article in September (here's the diff) but he deleted my message and called me a troll, so I don't think he responds to warnings. This is why it requires admin help to shut the war down. Now we have new people being drawn into the edit war, some of whom haven't been known to engage in that before, so possibly some warnings may be appropriate for new-comers who revert without discussing. In Prester's case, apart from the numerous previous ANi's, blocks and warnings about edit wars, the community Talk page on Howard Economics was started in September specifically to discuss what he was reverting back then, and still is reverting.--Lester 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See how difficult this is Shot? He can't even recognise the point you are making. He is so blinded by hatred for me he can't see anything else. He doesn't even see Aussieboys constant additions. He just can't see multiple editors removing Aussieboys unreferenced original research. He just sees me editing and feels the need to file a bogus complaint somewhere, or write the same complaint again and again and again with slightly different wording. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do simple facts (whether well-referenced or not) become "original research"? The reference I gave establishes that the Australian Government debt in 1996 was way under half the OECD average. There is no "original research" there. It is also true that the Hawke/Keating Government "inherited" debt from the previous government. I am happy to provide a reference for this. AussieBoy 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are happy to provide the reference, then why have you not done show when your edit was removed because it was uncited and looks a lot like WP:SYN (but without a cite, who can be sure, and per WP:BLP it was deleted). This was pointed out to you but rather than add the source, you just readded your your original edit with the oddball summary "adding balance" (para.). Feel free to improve the article by citing contentious information in a biography, otherwise unfortunately policy tells us to remove your edits. Shot info 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the discussion page, the issue claimed by each side that the other's references are no good is not a valid reason to enter the revert war. Reverts should only be used in cases of obvious vandalism. Modification and discussion are what should be used.--Lester 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REVERT WAR ESCALATES: Please, Administrators, do whatever it takes to shut down this revert war. Others are now joining in. The thing just escalates if it is not stopped. See John Howard revision history, and the Talk:John_Howard#Economic_Management_section discussion about the economics content that is being reverted. Everyone stays within their "allocated" 3 reverts, but that's not a good way for Wikipedia to operate.--Lester 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if the reverters on all "sides" stopped reverting, took a deep breath, and took a more concillatory approach. Pages should not have to be locked down. --Merbabu 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody would think that with Lester's additions of contentious material into a BLP, he is intentionally fanning the edit war flames, just to create a nice long stream of reverts to come here and complain. Of course, if he discussed the merits of his proposed edits first, sought consensus, discussed the appropriateness of RS' (you know, what we do here at Wikipedia) then his edits wouldn't need to be reverted. Curiously he knows this, which is why he warns other editors not to remove his poorly sourced contentious material as “the admins are watching”. Shot info 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All information I have added comes from major Australian broadsheet newspapers, and many other editors on the discussion page have agreed that the sources are reliable. As stated before, both sides accuse each other of having poor references, so the revert war continues. How will it stop? I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that all reverting by all sides should stop.--Lester 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It will stop when you learn to discuss edits that you know are going to be contentious on the talk page and gain consensus before making them. Looking at your contribution history, you repeatedly make a controversial edit and complain when it is reverted. While I can understand that this process is stimulating and enjoyable for you, I'm finding it tedious to continually have to check over your contributions and root out POV additions to political articles. --Pete 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If people were sincere about respecting others' efforts, they would move the content to the talk page for discussion, rather than just deleting others' contributions and hovering over the article with the revert button. Discuss before reverting, otherwise it gets other contributors upset. Skyring (Pete) and Prester John not only reverted my cited information, but they also reverted numerous others who tried to contribute to the John Howard Economics section. The article's history page reveals all.--Lester 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. Let me say it again. You make edits you know are controversial. You don't discuss them first. You then edit war and complain here when they are reverted with an edit summary saying "Please discuss."

Looking at your contributions, it isn't easy to find an edit of yours that doesn't turn out to be hotly contested. It would be far less disruptive if you put up your intended edit for discussion first, get input from others and then find a consensus. Like, take your own advice, you know? --Pete 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The substance of this AnI is not a content debate. Wikipedia editing policy is to be bold. Lester does actively participate in talkpage discussion. Prester John inconsistently does, and on this occasion hardly did at all, except belatedly. What this is about, is the conduct of an editor who has the uncanny knack of skirting under the radar where other editors are punished for doing the same thing. Where is the consistency? I was blocked at the same time as Prester John previously for supposed disruptive editing on David Hicks, when I made two minor reverts on that article 5 days apart, in stark contrast to Prester John's massive, non-consensual, unexplained reverts, yet I was given the same 24hr block and was told by Eagle101 (at topic "Block for Disruption of David Hicks" on my usertalk) to discuss first, revert second. Why shouldn't the same standard be applied equally, including to Prester John? Why shouldn't continued infractions by editors who have been well and truly forewarned be treated just like others who have been disciplined for the same or lesser cause? --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Prester John is again inexplicably deleting references (again followed by belated and inconsequential participation in the talkpage discussion) on Children Overboard affair. The references deleted were for facts that he had previously insisted should be referenced. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

A few days ago I noticed an editor, PalestineRemembered, on a few articles regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His edits concerned me, as they did not seemed make the articles more neutral or more informative, but instead more according to what appeared to be PalestineRemebered personal point of view regarding the conflict: [22]. Another thing that concerned me was that he was using the edit summaries for personal political comments and soapboxing: "Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there."

Due to these concerns I decided to take a closer look at his efforts and found them to be very concerning. Many of his edits were in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality:

• The Hebron Massacre refers to the death of sixty-seven Jews (who "died of natural causes" in a violent mob riot?).
• [23] - he removed information sourced by several reliable sources.

On the discussion pages he was soapboxing and made no secret of his personal opinions and intentions on the articles regarding the Israeli-palestinian conflict:

• "I think you're playing the propaganda game of the Israelis with this listing. They're proud to be so effective at whatever they turn their hand to, so your list is further evidence of that, but contributes little to understanding what was going on. In 1947, they could excuse all their actions because they were fighting the British for blocking immigration and not giving them a state. In April 1948 they had no real excuse for slaughtering predominantly women, children and the old."

• "You're taking the side of the bullies in this affair, the people who are ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, and want the massacre of 1929 in Hebron to be twisted to prove that Arabs are diseased. The fact that real practitioners of Judaism lived in peace with Arabs is poison to their way of thinking, and they apply heavy pressure to stop that evidence ever coming to light."

He also aggressively promoted the use of partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism.com as sources on Wikipedia: "Defenders of Israel have huge problems with www.jewsagainstzionism.com because these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused. The fact they they're real practitioners of Judaism" [24]

Browsing some of his edits, I also noticed that PalestineRemembered has had a mentor for quite some time. However, as the above diffs makes it clear, this has failed to change his behavior into something that is even remotely acceptable. I therefore request that an admin now step in and ensure that PalestineRemembered do not continue his disruptive behavior and policy violations.

As it is obvious from his discussion page and his extensive block log, which include no less than eight block from this year, for disruption, 3RR etc, he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like stirring for the sake of it, PalestineRemembered is well aware that his editors come under heavy scrutiny, take it to the article talk pages. Catchpole —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree with everything PR has done, it's a little unfair to criticise him for removing references to www.hebron.org.il (a settler website) but also for adding references from www.jewsagainstzionism.com. Several Israeli contributors have insisted on (and got away with) using partisan sources such as CAMERA in the same way that PR has referenced jewsagainstzionism, i.e. in cases where it is directly quoting people/documents. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what CAMERA or POV of other editors have anything to do with this ANI, I did however see this new article which makes me suggest that, together with all the rest of the evidence, perhaps this user should be topic banned. --Gilisa 14:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

'partisan websites such as jewsagainstzionism' refers to a Haredi website which posted a translation (not impugned) of a talk given by an eyewitness survivor of the 1929 Hebron massacre. It is not a hate site, but is excluded, because the survivor showed not enmity against Arabs, notwithstanding the horror he witnessed, but charity whereas the person who removed it posted a document (equally valid as a document) from a site run by people who, on that site, call virtually all Palestinian Arabs, MPs in the Knesset, Palestinian officials, 'terrorists', and even accuse Netanyahu of supplying superior weaponry to the eternal enemies of Eretz Israel. I think either both sources are acceptable, or neither. But, as has occurred to date, to have PR challenged for citing a Haredi source while allowing PR's adversary a free run with the mirror site's material is hardly an instance of neutrality. Nishidani 21:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's no evidence the jewsagainstzionism website is a Haredi website, please see Talk:Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) for past discussion demonstrating that it is a personal anonymous website that has nothing verifiable to link it to any organization, Jewish or otherwise. It fails as a reliable source and should be removed if any editor is indeed trying to use it as a Wikipedia reference. --MPerel 03:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that 2 Hareidi users have already declared it as a hareidy website and evidence to it is on its web page; they only quote from Hareidi Rabbis what else of evidence can persuade somebody that this is more Hareidi?--יודל 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OKay. The contested site simply repastes what can be found on Neturei Karta International. Jews United against Zionism,' associated with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, an Haredi Jew = http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/KaplanInterview.cfm. What's the problem now? PR has simply got the wrong site for the right cite.Nishidani 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hated Google Test is a complete waste of space and I would hope that PR requests {{db-author}} asap. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied the article as pov-pushing, an attempt to prove a point and a neologism with no assertion of notability. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for having created something that appears not to exist anywhere other than the over-creative imagination of one Wikipedian editor. Perhaps I should recreate "Hated Google Test" as a significant part of WP:POLICY, along the lines of (but perhaps more important than) WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:BEANS. PR^talk 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the existence of WP:GOOGLE? Aecis^Brievenbus 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am (and was). WP:GOOGLE says "Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance" and then some other stuff explaining why hit count must not be depended on. Maybe someone has a better example than I thought of, but it won't be easy to find any evidence this clear-cut that could go into an essay aspiring to become a guideline. PR^talk 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Karl Meier is largely consistent with what was described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. That RfArb was closed early with no further actions taken, "as the dispute being arbitrated has been satisfactorily resolved by the major parties." It might not be such a bad idea to reopen the RfArb. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where the allegations here are true, they are minor and not actionable, and where they are serious and actionable they are false. Going point-by-point:

• PR absolutely did not allege that the Hebron victims "died of natural causes"; indeed, in the very diff you have linked, PR stated that '"Killed in mob violence" or "died in riots" are correct, "mass-murder" is not.' His argument, which one can agree or disagree with, was apparently that "mass murder" implies a level of systematic intent which may not have existed in this case. Nothing to see here.

• • indent comment (by Jaakobou) - you were not involved on the 1929 Hebron Massacre article, and the sources linked clearly do show intent. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The first reference is not in any way reliable; it is the website of the Hebron settlers, a tiny extremist group of radical Jews who occupy the center of Hebron along with a huge number of IDF soldiers and Israeli police. They are widely treated as such in world media, including centrist-conservative Israeli newspapers. See On tape: Palestinians harassed in Hebron ‘cage’, Yedioth Ahronoth, Hebron settlers filmed throwing rocks at Palestinians, Yedioth Ahronoth, Hebron Settlers Attack Palestinian Neighborhood, New York Times, Jewish settlers in Hebron claim they have history on their side, Sydney Morning Herald, etc etc etc. The second reference, while seemingly reliable, says that one Palestinian policeman joining in the melée, while the article contradicted it.

• • indent comment (by Jaakobou) - you were not involved on the 1929 Hebron Massacre article: the website represents the Jewish municipality of Hebron and it links to a History book requested by User:Nishidani (i made a phone call to validate the source). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou is an Unreliable Source for this, and his challenges to User:Eleland's good summary of the specific points contested are specious. I was there. Don't take my word for it though. There is a long discussion on this, and it is still under discussion, by those interested, on the talk page. Any attempt to deprive PR of a voice in that discussion will only stack the vote, not against PR, but against the problem raised. I support PR's continued presence here, as I do not oppose Jaakobou's though he demonstrably culls his material from a website run by a hate group (I can supply the evidence from their own website if required), that of Kiryat Arba, which is amply cited on pages not related to Kiryat Arba.Nishidani 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, this assuming bad faith is exactly the reason i initially refused to translate the hebrew page for you. this and the lowering down the death toll (revert on 21:11, 18 July) from 67 to 59 even after i noted that the discrepancy (13:15, 16 July) is because 59 died immediately and 8 more died from their wounds in the hospital later. I was at first only a tad angered by your explanation that gilbert must be right because "Martin Gilbert is Jewish," (09:47, 19 July) and noted to you that (1) it doesn't matter that he's jewish, and (2) that this could be because of selective reading (something you denied at the time), but what clinched it for me was that you actually did later admit that it is a case of selectively reading the material. btw, i must thank you for that swift attempt at character assassination.

p.s. you've forgotten to address that you did in fact requested the book be inserted, and also assumed that i have not validated that the source is reliable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are your serious actionable claims, which ring hollow. Your other claims are true but irrelevant; PR should try to keep his opinions to himself when they don't directly relate to improving the article, but such statements are hardly a serious disruption, let alone one worthy of administrator intervention. Furthermore, one of your examples is a semi-private discussion in his own user-space - who cares?

Finally, you report the blocks, but ignore the context. Three of those blocks were completely erroneous; PR was falsely accused of copying citations from a neo-Nazi group; he in fact cited a newspaper article which he hadn't read, instead of citing a credible scholarly book which he had read, and which cited the newspaper article accurately. Subsequently User:Jayjg called him out as a Nazi sympathizer without any evidence, and a "lynch mob" atmosphere almost prevailed until PR proved beyond any doubt that his source was not the neo-Nazis. Prior to that, Jayjg blocked him for making an on-topic editorial comment [25], to the effect that prominently labeling Israeli politicans by ethnic or sectarian identity was "harmful in society and ... damaging to the project." And most recently, we have a 3RR block which was overturned as an ambiguous situation, and a fifteen minute block "to think about which mentor you would be choosing. Anyone can unblock you if you come up w/ a name before the block is expired."

In summary, these charges are inflated beyond all reason, and the discussion here should be closed. Oh, except for the "Hated Google Test" thing, I don't know if he meant that to be in WP: namespace or what, but it's just weird. Maybe we could, you know ask him instead of handing out the pitchforks and torches, again. <eleland/talkedits> 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is grateful not to be blocked with prejudice as has happened repeatedly before

I'm doing my best to act in a responsible and consistent fashion in articles and Talk. Edits such as this (the first one I'm being challenged on) strike me as entirely proper. If a particular notable commentator (or public relations spokesman - or even propaganda operative) has commentated on a particular incident in world affairs, we should use his terminology for the event. His terminology is likely to be POV - so what? To quote him in any other fashion raises all kinds of issues, perhaps including BLP. The encyclopedia should not be going there.

The second charge against me seems to relate to standard international useage of the term "occupied territory". It's hardly POV on my part to assert that we use the recognised term - in fact, it's more than a teensy-weensy bit disturbing I should be taken to AN/I for defending a standard useage.

I won't bother going through the rest of these accusations point by point, I think we can take it as read that they are trivial. (Has anyone, ever, been taken to AN/I for creating an article? Particularily one that most editors would probably like to see included as policy - the thing I've called the "Hated Google Test"?)

But I will comment on the CSN and subsequent ArbCom Workshop and ArbCom evidence on the case that bears my name. I pleaded that the Committee examine the case properly and arbitrate definitively on the accusations against me. Opinion for doing so swung in my favour, reaching 4-1 (my memory, anyway?), before swinging back and being defeated. I will continue to assert that if vile accusations of "taking views and references from Holocaust Deniers" are bandied around in a reckless and provably false fashion, then they should be unequivocably retracted and apologised for. Simple justice demands no less.

Lastly, I have a plea of my own - it is clear that there are editors around who damage the encyclopedia (I don't include my current accuser in this case, I'm not aware our paths have ever crossed). Such editors: (Have removed my listing cluttering page PR^talk 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

All in all, there are really serious problems, up to and including outright disruption, going on in the project. But I'm small fry indeed in the scale of things! PR^talk 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything here but an adventitious act of prosecutorial wikilawyering bullying based on spurious evidence, and am ashamed that such trivial accusations should be raised to clutter up the machinery of arbitration, which is better dedicated to serious matters.

Worse. Karl Meier's factitious jeremiad includes two pieces of 'evidence' involving passages in which I was in conflict with User:Palestine Remembered. I have some tough and stubborn all-Israeli(i.e.'Hear no evil, see no evil' attitudes) adversaries in these controversial pages, as full of POV as a po (and no doubt they see my editorial work in a similar light). I have personally seen however no grounds for taking these adversaries to arbitration. One fights these things out on the talk page. It's the actual page that has to be free of POV, not the talk page.

Since I have just noted, and been amazed by, this snooping, dossier building and then 'denunciation' to the authorities, I haven't given this much thought, since I thought that went out sometime before the end of the first half of the last century. But if the frivolous character of the accusation requires close analysis, I'm ready to weigh in with one, starting with the fact that on long-standing pages, Great Britain was (until I noted it casually this morning) arraigned (in the most objective prose, NPOV) as being corresponsible for the Holocaust. I could multiply such examples by the hundreds, and with this absurd POVing in NPOV dress throughout wikipedia, anyone who undertakes to clean it up gets, while no doubt having a POV hidden or otherwise of his/her own, into huge edit battles by people more familiar with wikilawyering than the principles of forensic evidence and the rules of neutral historian writing. Nishidani 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Block him. Wikipedia is not a place for false propoganda, and that's the cause he wants to use it for. M.V.E.i. 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So "true propaganda" is OK, then? -- ChrisO 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It has become a Wikipedia tradition to drop in on one of these pages (AN/I, CSN, Arbcom) every month or so and try to get PR banned. Usually this involves some regular participant in the daily cafeteria foodfight of WP's Middle-East-related talk pages leaving the fray for a minute, wiping the applesauce and mayonnaise off his fingers and tucking in his shirt, then marching to the principle's office to announce in precocious adult-like tones that PR has been misbehaving again. What a load of balderdash. Again.--G-Dett 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So says PR's "wiki-lawyer" and another chronic soapboxer. This is really boring. Despite the apologia, if PR himself can't see how his behaviour here is problematic, he's going to wind up the same way as M.V.E.i. below. <<-armon->> 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we ban all pro-Israeli editors instead, it's not as if the result would be any different save for the POV which gets across. The monthly whining about the existence of opposition is laughable. Letting the Wikipedia Jews (bad word?) have their way with the Middle East articles would be productive only in their own eyes. --Saber^Excalibur! 09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

comment regarding PR (by User:Jaakobou)

Disclaimer:

1. I have an overly prolonging conflict with PalestineRememberd, but seeing that his friends decided to advocate for him, i've decided to list the recent issues i've had with him.

2. noting the advocacy situation, i will not list down anything that might be presented later as a content related COI - i think it would be difficult for anyone to follow up what is true and what is false and i'd be worried that the conversation could get distracted from the main issue.

1. evidence to support the old blocks.

Due to consistent harassments by PR, accusing me of, "a long history of disruptive behaviour on TalkPages", (sample) where he'd add a link to an old and complex ANI he was not even involved in, and after i repeatedly told him that his accusation is false and asked him to stop, i've decided in my anger to go back and inspect some of his history.

i went back 1500 edits and started going up - and stopped after a month and a half.

issues from November 5, 2006 to December 19, 2006. - in short, i think there's evidence to support the old blocks.

2. harassment regarding my rich history (according to PR)

As mentioned above, there's an issue of him following me around telling everyone how rich my history of harassing people on their user pages supposedly is. i've not only explained to him that he misunderstood this (quite old) issue (he was not involved in) and requested him to stop on many occasions, but also reached the point where i was forced to place warnings and even opened an ANI to this issue.

example exchange - (easy read link - start: 21:29, 26 Aug. 07) ===== this was his response to my note about a very disruptive edit.

This situation escalated to an ANI after he insisted on repeating the attack - The AVI - closed without any administrative involvement to either the issue of abuse, or his status as "Mentorship challenged" (after his CSN).

after he continued his abuse, i've opened a forth ANI (first two were about him repeatedly accusing me to be a war criminal) demanding at least the issue of the mentor be resolved - and it ended with me finding User:Geni to be his a mentor.

ANI - no. 4 - i note that in this ANI User:Carlossuarez46 has expressed clearly that, "Users are given latitude as to what comments to keep and delete from their own user talk. However, removal of material is recognized as having read it, and now s/he's been warned of the harrassment you claim. If s/he conducts further harrassment, please report it - and link back here so that whoever has to deal with it knows that this editor has been warned of it before."

well, this issue has not ceased and here are just a few recent links:

• his response to my note regarding a disruptive edit - (talk:palestineremembered).

• his response to me explaining something i discussed with his mentor - (talk:battle of jenin)

• jumping in to attack me for raising the issue of disruptive edits by Eleland. - (Wiki:Village pump, assistance)

3. regarding the issue of PalestineRemembered mentor.

I believe User:Geni has been a very reasonable and neutral. whenever i raised an issue i'd be challenged by her with proper questions and was forced to prove my case fully - to which she'd make (pending if my case was convincing) comments to PalestineRemembered requesting him to explain his edit or avoid making an obvious breach.

I've been recently getting a tad frustrated with Geni's lack of response to the accumulative and exauhstive nature of the problem, to which i recieved a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with.

I have great respect for Geni as a reasonable and logical editor, but considering the community did believe there was a problem, I questioned why she hadn't made her position clear when she volunteered to mentor PalestineRemembered. Obviously, i would not have approved a mentor who thinks there was never a problem to begin with.

In short, I believe she's been quite helpful as an outside WP:3O, but hasn't really fulfilled the mission she signed up to.

summary

personally, i feel PalestineRemembered

1. has been a major disruption to content disputes breaking policies whenever an opportunity presented itself. (despite advocacy by his friends)
2. has not learned that repeatedly attacking others with false assertions was wrong.
3. is not only still in breach of the post-CSN mandate he's been given but he's been doing it knowingly.

I hope that some steps be made to resolve the issue, be it a periodical ban, topic ban, a more constrictive mentor and editing mandate, or other. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process and ANI

So. . .is this page part of the DR process now? It's a lot of material (and sub-headings!) for an 'incident'. R. Baley 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote we just delete any article having to do with Israel, Palestine, abortion, or pedophilia.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:13, 10/8/2007

Seconded! <<-armon->> 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Jaakobou's comment on PR

You called me a 'racist and a bigot' (and others 'antisemitic') for citing Sir Martin Gilbert's History of the Modern World on Hebron's massacre (59 slaughtered, as opposed to 67, the difference being that between immediate casualties and the final death toll), simply because I noted to you that he was Jewish, pro-Zionist and one of the most eminent historians of the modern world, i.e. several grounds for your not contesting him as a RS. You should sort your problems out with PR on the talk pages and not get involved with lobbying attempts to get rid of a person you find unwelcome because PR has in the past used language and accusations of a kind that you yourself have used. As I say, I don't worry about these accusations - water off a duck's back - we're supposed to be serious adults in here, not whingeing kids- and don't scurry to some legal mechanism to denounce the person who mouthes them. You needn't take my example, but all this interest on your part in getting PR banned is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, and trying to make the task of getting your own pronounced POV over more easy.Nishidani 10:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. i replied to you above for the 59/67 issue and the accusation of unreliability.
2. i'm fairly certain i did not call you racist by that exact word, but rather called your comments and notes racist and bigoted. just to explain this, i note you that you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron website is run by many people with criminal records.^[26]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou have a history of calling people he disagrees with racists and simmilar. // Liftarn

Jaakobou posted a diff to illustrate his reasoning, so read it and respond accordingly instead of making a blanket statement like this.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:02, 10/8/2007

If anybody following this tedious exchange wishes to have documented why Jaakobou cannot be relied on as a reliable source to recount what happened in the discussions alluded to in here, take the last example.

Jaakobou writes:

(A).'i note you that you declared that the Jewish Community of Hebron website is run by many people with criminal records.[33]

(B). I orginally wrote: 'The book, itself a legitimate source for all sorts of details, is hosted by the Jewish Community of Hebron, which is, as I noted above, run by many people with criminal records, and (has) a meticulously documented history of hate, violence, theft and murder in that area.' (See your note 33)

I.e. I said the Jewish Community at Hebron is run by people with criminal records (check, to name but the most egregious of many examples:Moshe Levinger, Noam Federman, Baruch Marzel, and for the nonce, Baruch Goldstein, whose criminal record is posthumous but who is revered there for shooting 29 Arabs at prayer, mainly in the back, to celebrate Purim*.) I did not say their website is run by criminals, as Jaakobou cleverly twists those clear words to argue I did. Their website features David Wilder's articles, their spokesman, who accuses Netanyahu of all people of supplying Arab terrorists (Arafat) with guns with those superior in firepower to the ones in standard use in the IDF, Israel's past governments as regimes, all Arab members of the Knesset as 'terrorists', all Arabs in Eretz Israel as 'terrorists', and denounces the creeping AIDS (Arabs in Disguise Syndrome) threatening to destroy Zion with its terroristic infections. But that is another matter.

As I have said, the difficulty in editing pages with Jaakobou is that one has to persist over long stretches of Talk in explaining to him elementary aspects of English syntax, grammar and what is or is not implied by a standard sentence in that language

To anticipate and avoid a useless thread that may arise from my wording. Please don't jump at the phrase 'to celebrate Purim' here. If one is agitated, read before drafting a reply Ian Lustik's For the Land and the Lord American Council on Foreign Relations (1988) (1994) Preface. Nishidani 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To get get back on topic. Can you explain how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates PR's behaviour? Also, I looked at the diff Jaakobou provided, and it looks like some pretty bigoted soapboxing and poor behaviour on your part. You didn't provide any diffs where where he calls you a racist, but I don't see how it's germane anyway. <<-armon->> 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou's notorious unreliability in articles and now his apparent distorting evidence to an AN/I is highly relevant to the discussion. It's pretty rich of him to accuse others (not me, for some reason?!) of racism when he jeers at editors over their nationality. Here is his response to Alithein, a French speaking pro-Israeli who has stated that the equivalent article in the French Wikipedia (which Alithein wrote) uses better references: "best i'm aware, this is the english wikipedia, if the french version is unbalanced (what else is new), that is not my issue to solve" From an editor who repeatedly insists on putting non-English references into the encyclopedia (and is refusing to translate the texts) this is pretty astonishing behaviour. Also suggests he rates academics and scholarly work generally pretty low - as we see from his treatment of well-read and articulate editors in here. PR^talk 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - Another example of Jaakobou's creative treatment of sources was elegantly dissected here this morning. PR^talk 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that diff that qualifies for the descriptions you're asserting. Furthermore none of it matters, even if everyone agreed with your assessments. You're forming a conclusion about a person to say whether not he's reliable based on your interpretations of his past statements, which is just not a tactic that has any place at ANI -- or anywhere else on Wikipedia. We don't generally make decisions about whether or not to trust a person based on a character assessment. Someone asked how Jaakobou calling you a racist exonerates your behavior, and you responded by citing more of Jaakobou's behavior. Rather than implying that the complainer is himself guilty and therefore somehow shouldn't be the one to complain, talk about yourself and the things people are complaining that you said instead.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:25, 10/8/2007

Role of the mentor

There is a serious problem here, if you don't mind my saying so, but I question whether it is entirely (if at all) PR's fault. Previously, the community imposed mandatory mentoring, but it failed to specify the conditions, timeframe or goals of such mentoring. So how can we evaluate the success of the mentor's role?! Perhaps PR and Geni (the mentor) bear some responsibility to come up with their definition of PR's shortcomings and their own goals for improvement. However, the burden should fall largely on the community.

Karl suggests that an admin intercede. Well, it's hard to say that PR is flawless, but I'm not sure if the community has done its part to ensure a good mentoring framework. What would you all think of the suggestion that an admin intercede in order to clarify and strengthen the mentoring arrangement? Maybe set clear and (somewhat) measurable goals? Only then can we give a fair assessment of PR's conduct within a mentoring set-up. (Or assess Geni, though I hear few complaints there.)

Alternatively, if the community is unwilling or unable to articulate what it wants out of mandatory mentoring, I recommend that the mentoring requirement be rescinded and that (hard as this may be) folks revisit the need for action due to PR's conduct.

I wish to avoid evaluating PR's conduct here myself. Instead, the community set up a process (mentoring), which it either needs to make work or abandon. As we say outside New England, fish or cut bait. My two cents. Good luck to all. HG | Talk 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have to absolve you from the atrocious charge of being "a buddy" of mine - an accusation liable to cause you big problems (and very distorting anyway, however much respect I have and show for your judgements).

I have no great problem with being "mentored" by User:Geni - indeed there are big advantages to this arrangement. Between the 15th of September and the 7th of October (over 3 weeks!) it had protected me from repeated carpetings and kickings.

And this despite the fact it's moderately tiresome to be constantly defending myself from ludicrous allegations on the special UserPage I set up for this purpose. (Leastways, as best I can tell, most of the allegations have been wrong and the remainder have been trivial). However I sometimes wonder if Geni is getting more sick of the arrangement than I am and I have offered to let him off. PR^talk 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that viewing the complaints as trivial as a mistake. In the other cases the explantion should have been given before the edit.Geni 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou claimed that he'd "received a response that she not only does not see a problem, but also that she never believed there was ever a problem to begin with." Is that true Geni? <<-armon->> 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there was a problem to the extent that some suggest. In adition I would argue that past attempts to deal with what problems do exist have been poorly thought out due to people attempting putting shuting out POVs they disagree with ahead of trying to come up with a reasonable solution to the problem.Geni 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that past descriptions of the problem have been over blown, and some of the past "solutions" were completely unacceptable. The first CSN proposal for a ban is a flagrant example. My stated willingness to unblock and undo that "solution" forced the matter to ArbComm, where most of those advocating or implementing the solution realized that the real problem was both different than, and much less severe than, originally claimed, and that the "solution" was the wrong move. I also agree with Geni's analysis of the poor choices about how to engage in dispute resolution on the part of PR's opponents. GRBerry 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) OK well here's what I think is a fundamental problem. Both yours and GRBerry's comments show, a) at the very least, a minority viewpoint on how disruptive PR is, and b) assuming it's just partisan game playing. I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish. I've compared PR to User:M.V.E.i. who's just got blocked for a year -same pattern, opposite POV. Please note the complete lack of apologia for M.V.E.i. from "the usual Zionist suspects" (or more correctly, those perceived as such). M.V.E.i. was shown the door, and that's good. Conversely, we have yet another debate about PR's behaviour. The point of mentorship should be that PR improves -and not just according to the people that didn't see a big problem in the first place, and the immediate end of his disruption. PR must start contributing according to both WP policy, and the community's standard of behavior or be shown the door. So far, about the only "improvement" I've seen is that PR has learned not to mention editors by name when launching personal attacks because it allows plausible deniability. Great. <<-armon->> 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would advise anyone interested to examine the three diffs just provided by User:Armon and confirm them to be completely innocuous. Closer examination would suggest my words were puzzlingly restrained "We should not be labelling sources by their ethnicity. That's the kind of thing that the South Africans used to do." PalestineRemembered 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PR^talk 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by the Party PR's contested edits are assumed to offend

Karl Meier out of the blue notices an editor, PalestineRemembered, doing edits that worried him. 'They didn't make articles more neutral and informative' (i.e. he/she was behaving like half of the wiki community, and very much like Jaakobou, his/her adversary in these proceedings)

(1)Meier then charges PR with using edit summaries for soapboxing and cites:-

'Internationally recognised as Occupied - a status having significant daily effects on the life of all who live there.'

The first part is correct, since the International Court has established in a virtually unanimous opinion that the West Bank/Palestinian territories is 'Occupied Territory' despite the article in Wiki that messily endeavours to obfuscate the obvious.

The second part is waffly, and useless, it is hardly a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia editing. If anything, a word to PR to keep things brief and to the point, would be enough. Secondly, it is meaningless, so cannot be soapboxing.

Meier says he had the impression (1) PR's edits weren't making articles more neutral (neither are those of PR's opponents on the relevant controversial pages, so big deal). And a loose phrase in an edit summary is 'soapboxing'.

From this, he hits the panic button. Wikipedia is under threat, let's look closely at this PR chap, and, if my intuitions are right, get her banned (all this on the extremely loose and fragile basis of the original intuition, based on a general impression and one useless piece of pseudo evidence).

Meier then proceeds to a forensic examination.

(1)The edit putting 'death' for murdered or whatever on the 1929 Hebron Massacre Page.

This evidence is useless because Meier hasn't read the talk page there, as is evident from his comment that in writing 'death' PR was suggesting 67 Jews died of 'natural causes' in a violent mob riot. Actually, had Meier read the page, he would have known that 2-3 died of 'natural' causes, in so far as it is natural to have a heart-attack from shock on witnessing one act of carnage, or surviving some weeks to die of shock in the aftermath. The problem was that 64-5 were slaughtered, not 67, hence if you refer to 67, died doesn't create problems, whereas 'slaughtered/murdered' falsifies the record. Having followed my tussle with Jaakobou over this, PR knew that the key word is problematical, and suggested a change. I don't agree with it, but it is an innocuous suggestion that makes the verb in the sentence cohere with the facts of 67.

(2)Refers to two pieces of remonstration against two of my contributions to the Talk pages. PR here, in my view, completely misunderstood the purport of my evidence, but then so do many others (perhaps I don't explain myself well). It is no crime on a talk page to express your POV. Virtually everyone working on Israel/Palestinian articles has one, and to single out PR for this means you must then line up Jaakobou and several dozen others, myself included, for expressing POVs on the relevant talk pages. I object to PR's confusing bad partisan and irresponsible blindly Zionist editors, of which there are many, with 'Israelis', but we know where PR is coming from.

(3)PR's use of a partisan website jewsagainstzionism.com The evidence culled from that site is not contested, since, as I showed, it was copied and pasted from a respectable reliable source, namely Neturei karta Jews United against Zionism. You can get hysterical at 'Jewsagainstzionism' perhaps, but not against 'jewsunitedgainstzionism' since this is a legally qualified site. PR didn't search around sufficiently to get a good source, Okay, but the material she cited is acceptable as MPerel now notes, if sourced to Weiss's Haredi site.

True, on the talk page, PR adds 'these folk are outraged that their faith is so horrendously abused', a remark that, referring to a very small Haredi sect happens to be true. That Haredi sect is very small, but it carries on what was the majority opinion of Orthodox European Rabbis before the foundation of the State of Israel. The majority were horrified at Zionism for theological reasons, i.e. that secularists were doing the work delegated by Torah tradition to the Messiah, a blasphemy. So there's nothing wrong in PR reminding us of this forgotten fact.

(4) PR has a mentor, who has 'failed to change' PR's behaviour into something that is remotely acceptable.'

Excuse me but of the three issues raised, most editors whose work I am familiar with regularly fall into errors of this kind (a certain loss of patience, an intemperate outburst, a controversial edit. I am dealing myself with text and page disruptions by several anonymous or abusive posters (not reported, it's too time consuming). Nothing in (1) (2) (3) merits scapegoating PR, particularly since most of the evidence refers to conflict edits with me, Nishidani, and relates to comments of exasperation with me on a talk page, and I have found no reason to complain, unlike Karl Meier who, inexplicably, now rushes to my apparent, yet unrequested, need of assistance. I dislike someone jumping into our momentary conflict, and exploiting it for the purposes of banning the other person. I have found, in our exchanges, nothing that has troubled me, (since I have had similar conflicts with many other pro-Israeli editors and have not found it necessary to resort to arbitration) on the pages we both work on, and therefore am inclined to suspect this whole accusation is a , pretext for trying to get PR off Wikipedia, at least by adding another black mark on the record. I should be the person to complain not Meier, who has not worked on the pages cited in evidence against PR, were there 'disruptive behavior and policy violations'. In my view, there hasn't been anything serious of the sort.

(5)'he has already been warned extensively about soapboxing and biased and confrontational editing.'

Yes, and has visibly improved, though problems remain, but in the evidence presented by Karl Meier there is not a skerrick of material that would warrant more than a polite, stern rap over the knuckles for lapses of memory about the rules, of the kind many of us customarily receive here. This whole jeremiad is pretextual and embarrassingly POV.Nishidani 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't appreciate the POV comparison and allegation. you have something note-worthy? open a proper ANI. otherwise, do me a favor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No favours. You waste an inordinate amount of time in futile wikilawyering when not POVing articles. I prefer to contribute to Wikipedia, not to waste other people's time and attention on immature whingeing to peers and authorities. 'If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen', don't worry the cooks Nishidani 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Geni

I would tend to argue that PR's behaviour has improved however he has continued to POV push and edit war although the second to a more limited extent. He has got better at discussing things on talk pages although he often needs prompting. One problem is that he does not appear to be able to take criticism of his actions seriously. The hated google test being a case in point.

As to his relation with other editors I do not believe that he functionally able to collaborate directly with Jaakobou at this time.

As such I believe some form of sanctions need to be put in place. However the problem is with coming up with sanctions that PR will take seriously and accept. At this point in time the conflict is so linked with Jaakobou that to an extent the two must be dealt with together. To that end I propose that PR should be banned from editing for one week any article he is found edit warring with anyone on. Where Jaakobou and PR are found edit warring with each other both should be banned from editing that article for one week. In addition I would suggest a 2 revert limit be imposed on PR with a 24 hour block from editing imposed if it is broken.Geni 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm highlighting Geni's proposal. Geni, pls revert highlighting if you wish! HG | Talk 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying questions. (1) Initially, Geni, you indicate the POV pushing is a bigger problem than edit warring. However, your sanction proposals seem to deal with the edit warring alone. By what means do you think the POV pushing should be identified (e.g., by whom), and what sanctions would you recommend for any continued POV pushing? (2) Are you saying that PR is only having difficulties -- again, with regard to POV pushing -- in settings with Jaakobou? If so, I'm curious about PR's efforts at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎, where Jaakobou is absent. Has PR successfully avoided POV pushing there in your (or others') estimation? If so, that would support your read of the situation. Thanks for your consideration and patience, HG | Talk 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I don't know. (2)PR has had conflicts with others that is why I in his case I suggested the week bans from articles be put in place for edit waring with anyone however the conflicts with Jaakobou are particularly problematical.Geni 19:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

off course he has problems dealing with me, he's certain i'm a war criminal.^[27]

i don't believe that contesting edits such as inserting this template^{(18:04, 26 Sep.)} and also removing references to telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME.^{"tele-daud","Crucible","azure",Time} ([28]^{18:00, 26 Sep.},[29]^{21:07, 26 Sep.}) should qualify as justification to suggest i should be banned so that PR will accept whatever sanction is suggested.

I also don't think that his reactions, attacking me with "history of harassment" accusations, not only on conversations that have little to do with him[30] but also if i ask him to find a reference to an assertion that "massacre" is clearly the word used by large sections of opinion.^[[31] or just notify him that his mentor (you) told me to not try and continue working with him on a "article issues" page he created. [32] should have been ignored like this by you.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about these sorts of "pox on both their houses"-type solutions. Yes, Jaakobou needs to try and disengage with PR, but the real issue here is PR. If there's a case against Jaakobou, that's a different situation. <<-armon->> 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

trying solve the issues in this case useing an isolated system model wont work.Geni 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK so PR trolls and stalks Jaakobou, calling him a war criminal, etc etc. Jaakobou gets pissed off and what, gets sanctioned because he complains about it? No. If there's a case against Jaakobou, it should stand independently of his fights with PR. <<-armon->> 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented of stalking; the comments occured on Talk:Battle of Jenin where both have long-term involvement, and on my talk page where both had previously left comments (thus likely watchlisting). PR also did not "call Jaakobou a war criminal", although he did ask an unjustified and provocatively phrased question in a way which strongly implied his own suspicions of the answer. Furthermore, this issue was already discussed extensively and resulted in a community remedy. Not even Jaakobou has accused PR of mentioning the "war criminal question" since that time. <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the role of the mentor in this case needs to practice more tough love. I don't see any evidence of you correcting or guiding him. PR has a serious problem with letting go of past issues. For example, he continuously refers to my statement that he was "buddy-buddy" with HG and I believe he refers to it here. Nevermind he misunderstood what "buddy-buddy" means. Even when I've disengaged from the debate, PR uses my statement out of context as some sort of weapon in his wiki-crusade. The mentorship hasn't made progress, I don't see that happening and I believe that if mentorship is failing. the CSD case needs to be reopened and PR needs to be dealt with, his problematic pattern of behavior really needs to be addressed properly (perhaps via topic banning?). I also find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record as brought up by HG, shouldn't a mentor be aware of his ward's activities? Kyaa the Catlord 01:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

you have no idea what I am aware of.Geni 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful. Kyaa the Catlord 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not until now used the text "no problem" in this debate.Geni 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - Geni is aware that PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one) and she's managed to come up with a suggestion that circumvents all the raised issues. in retrospect i'm not entirely sure Geni's proposals are in good faith, but i agree that they could be considered. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the mentorship has made significant progress, but Geni's proposal is better than none at all, so I'll support it. JoshuaZ 15:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought my mentorship under User:Geni has made huge progress and been tremendously useful. I've been careful about my edits, reverts and so forth (I wasn't aware I was still short on Talk participation, but that's a fair comment), no harm done, I'm pretty careful anyway (otherwise I'd not still be here, now would I?). All complaints went via Geni - which was brilliant, most times I felt I was justified, one time I made a simple mistake, once s/he told me not to take any position on policy, twice s/he told me I'd crossed red-lines, things that were politically incorrect - I abided with each of those injunctions without complaint. (Well, I complained belatedly about the last, to counter-balance the allegation that Gina was being too soft on me). Turns out that Geni was being harrassed and bullied for not bullying me properly, but I didn't get any clue of that until the last few days. (incidentally I've not exchanged e-mails with Geni, all correspondence on open diplay).

There were no complaints about my edit-warring - which I don't do anyway ..... so the only slightly sour note is the remedies high-lighted. In my humble opinion, they're nothing but a recipe for mischief, particularily when I'm on a roll, writing a whole bunch of new stuff, adding changes bit by bit, because they can be used to trip me up (with permanent affect, as far as I can tell?). User:Kyaa the Catlord already got me blocked for a non-existent 3RR once, that's because I'm productive, not because I've ever been an edit-warrior. But I can live with them with no problem.

Ultimately, the project will have to decide whether inserting good information into I/P articles is acceptable or not, and, if some of it is to be allowed, where the red-lines have to be drawn. With the help of my mentor, I now realise that a Palestinian's biography cannot use the word "massacre" for a particular event (even when it's being implied he lied over it) and the very well known web-site JewsAgainstZionism are guilty of having an "extreme minority view" and cannot be cited for the eye-witness testimony of a Rabbi. Knowing of these red-lines will definitely make my life easier and less stressful in future. Actually, I can wriggle round the immediate effect of the last restriction, because the interview I wish to use is on the Jews Not Zionists web-site, and for some reason the second site *is* acceptable. PR^talk 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Option re: POV-related conduct. In answer my Q1 above, Geni doesn't know quite how to handle what Geni terms "POV pushing" by PR. Presumably, this includes PR's input on Talk pages and how he handles user conduct issues. How might Geni handle PR's POV-related conduct? One option would be to require Geni and PR to use a tighter mentoring arrangement. E.g., PR's editing/Talk-ing could be vetted in advance by the mentor. I myself had proposed a very strict mentoring arrangement. At the time, PR rejected this -- and who can blame him, esp since it wasn't stipulated by the CSN/ArbCom. Still, a mentoring arrangement along these lines, perhaps not as strict, deserves consideration. HG | Talk 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HG As the chat inflates, all purchase on origins and their contextual reality is swamped by hearsay and the habitus animorum, as Tacitus would put it. Back to first principles, then.

User Karl Meier raised this complaint, using evidence of what he says (I am surprised) was his casual encounter of PR's edit and POV statements in discussions on two issues with me. The whole gravamen of this trial's accusations rests on a representation made by a third party (whose own page reveals an esteem for two editors whose work is strongly anti-Islamic) who out of the blue takes his complaint to the Wikipedia community. Two pieces of evidence adduced are false, as I have explained elsewhere here. Two POV-pushing pieces to me were the result of a request to Pr to address private disagreements to me on the relevant pages, since I on principle have not enabled my email option. I like to keep everything in the public purview, unlike many, who coordinate strategies for controversial pages. I have deep disagreements with PR but personally have found nothing problematical in the way PR challenges my edits. I am afraid that this whole procedure looks like a kangaroo court, pushed by people with records decidedly adversative, on political grounds, to PR, and has degenerated into farcical wikilawyering and forum shopping, when the gravamen of the charges relates to a private on line exchange of edits and opinions between me and PR. Nishidani 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. As the mentor, Geni's concerns are significant and deserve to be addressed. Those concerns go beyond Karl's complaint (I'm pretty sure). Unless you're saying on procedural grounds that we should set aside Geni's concerns, then a productive outcome here would be to deal with the mentorship. (If you are a supporter of PR, then this would be to your advantage, since the failure of the mentorship leaves PR worse off vis-a-vis the CSN/ArbCom.) My 2 cents, take care, HG | Talk 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that User:Geni's mentorship has failed, I'd suggest quite the reverse, it's been highly successful. Everyone of my "contentious" edits has either been explained (6 or more?), apologised for (1) or arbitrated by Geni (3). I wasn't actually satisfied by Geni's conclusions (as I've explained), but I abided by them with no complaint (well, until I was forced to prove that I thought Geni had been biased against me, not biased in favour of me). Despite having said goodbye to Geni, awarded her a Barnstar, and having greeted an alternative mentor, I'd be very happy to stay working with the arrangement as before. All I (and you) need request is that my mentor (old or new) not be harrassed by people who just want me out of the project at all costs on content dispute grounds. PR^talk 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

If whatever User:PalestineRemembered is really disruptive (I haven't loaded a single diff and am completely ignorant on the mater), sanctions can be imposed. WP:RFAR may be better for this as WP:CSN is undergoing deletion.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please put my case to the RFAR, the Arbitration Committee. Actually, what I really want is full consideration of, and a conclusion to the earlier ArbCom case that bears my name, which I am confident was either not about me, or else was a gross abuse of process. My previous experience of being dragged in front of ArbCom apparently contributed to an unpublished conclusion which improved the operation of the project. Clearly, if I wrestle in the mud, the ArbCom (like the community) will be forced to hold their noses and probably cut up quite rough - but I am confident they'll judge me much, much cleaner than anyone I've wrestled with.

To all those who hate my participation - keep your chins up. I may appear to be extremely careful, aggravating you terribly without ever (yet) damaging articles or being in real breach of the word or intent of policy - but I am only human. Keep plugging away and you're bound to trip me up and force me into some capital breach one day.

Lastly, back in May, a top member of the project tried hard to persuade me to let the first ArbCom drop. I defied him/her and begged for the procedure to go ahead. In future I promise to be more cooperative and have more faith in you/others to act in all our interests. Whether I will ever stop making waves is difficult to say, but that's not my intention. I really am here to put good information (and tolerable writing) into articles. PR^talk 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

simple question.

are you ever going to raise the "history of harassing people on their talk pages" issue again? because i don't see you've either addressed this one or anything else raised for that matter. in fact you repeated the attack on a conversation not involving you.^[33]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These remarks ought to be reason for an instant indef block. How can he get away with trying to drive an editor of an article like that? EconomicsGuy 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please start a user RFC or something (yes I know RFC is a dead process). This isn't being productive in my opinion. -- Cat ^chi? 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a RFC to determine that strongly hinting that someone is a war criminal to gain the upper hand in a dispute is a gross blockable offense under WP:NPA and (ought to be so) under WP:NLT? EconomicsGuy 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're re-treading a dispute which was extensively discussed at WP:CSN and resulted in a binding remedy - ie, the issue was closed. Jaakobou's persistent repetition of these charges may have confused you. <eleland/talkedits> 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomicsGuy "War Criminals" aren't banned from editing wikipedia provided they stay in line with our policies and Guidelines. If he violates any Wikipedia guidelines or policies that is one thing but we are not an international court to trial him over "War Crimes". I do not know the details but please focus on whatever wikipedia policies or guidelines he violated instead. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually nobody is saying that somebody should be blocked for being a war criminal. During a long dispute on Talk:Battle of Jenin PR at one point asked Jaakobou, a male Israeli Jew (ie, subject to mandatory military service) whether he'd been in the Jenin area in April 2002. He kept asking a couple of times, and finally posted a rather strange rant on my talk page, to the effect that Jaakobou should confirm or deny whether he was a war criminal, and think carefully because he might wind up in the Hague. This served as the launching point for another pitchforks-and-torches "ban PR!" campaign, which resulted in binding mentorship. EconGuy seems to be suggesting that the "war criminal question" should have been grounds for an instant perma-block, which is contrary to the decision of the CSN (which is not known for its moderation anyway...) <eleland/talkedits> 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the CSN sanction for the "War criminal" issue was "enforced mentorship" as a "last chance" - i see no justification in (1) asking a "male israeli jew" if he's a war criminal as some way to bully an editor out of an article. (2) proclaiming the issue was closed when it's clearly not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was talking about blocking PR not Jaakobou which given my comment would make no sense. One question though. Given those questions he asked Jaakobou do you still wonder why PR keeps appearing on ANI? Could it possibly be that PR might be the problem and not everyone else? As for mentorship I'll just say that whoever thinks you can reform someone who makes such serious personal remarks rather than comment on the content instead should reread WP:NPA. There is no such thing as a reformed troll, mentorship or not. If I or anyone else had asked PR if he was a terrorist or not 3 times I would have been perma banned for sure. EconomicsGuy 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify and evaluate proposal(s) at hand

There are multiple proposals on the table. Perhaps it would be wise if folks -- esp those NOT fairly involved parties -- could help sort out the proposals here and evaluate them. From what I can tell, the options range (1) Karl's original request to (2) suggestions to move to another process (e.g., RfC or ArbCom), to (3) dismissing the matter. In addition, I peronally would like to highlight the importance of evaluating (4) the enforcement proposal of Geni (PR's mentor) above, if only because Geni's role is mandated by and presumably should be backed up by the community.

So, do you need more information to evaluate these options? If so, how would you like the info presented? If not, based on the info available, which options do you consider most reasonable? Thank you. HG | Talk 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least, PR needs to be topic banned from Mid-east articles for trolling and pov-pushing. If s/he isn't a WP:SPA, then "Palestine Remembered" will have the chance to learn to abide by WP standards without editing his/her hot button topics. Mentorship was supposed to stop PR's disruption, but it hasn't. <<-armon->> 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If PalestineRemembered is going to be banned from Mid-east articles for pov-pushing, so does Jaakobou. Both editors are coming from diametrically opposing POVs, and removing one of them might mean the articles are edit warred on a bit less, but they will be completely lop-sided. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • why don't we just block me instead?. Number 57, just because we argued about the designation of Ariel and you think it's "clearly not israeli territory", does NOT automatically make me "diametrically opposing" PR's POV or PR's behavior. well, you did claim i'm the second largest POV puser on wikipedia (at the time when your friend was under CSN for a possible community ban), so i request you avoid using this to promote your pro-palestinian POV by defending a person who removes 6 good sources in one blow (telegraph.co.uk, the Observer, Azure Magazine, nationalreview.com, ADL and the TIME) and creates pages like Hated Google Test after being here for over a year. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • • In the edit Jaakobou refers to, PR rewrote a sentence that was grossly POV-pushing, and a serious misrepresentation of source material: "The battle [of Jenin] attracted widespread international attention due to Palestinian allegations that massacre was committed and as a result of inflated reports on body counts by Palestinian officials and Jenin residents." PR's edit did indeed entail the removal of "6 good sources," but those six sources had been misused, and PR's rewrite (by no means perfect in its own right) introduced good sources of his own. In other words, this is a content dispute. Jaakobou's case for the banning/blocking of PR is equal parts content disputes and once-resolved but newly exhumed grudges.--G-Dett 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • how were each of the 6 sources misused exactly? and let's say they were. does this excuse his insertion of that template? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Jaakobou, discussions on the use of sources are content disputes not relevant to ANI. The template you mention was a simple misunderstanding of the use and purpose of templates; PalestineRemembered blanked that template more than two weeks ago. You were already told by the administrator who deleted the template that it was irrelevant (User talk:Jaakobou#Forum shopping), so I'd urge you to drop it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
              • that is ot what the archiving admin stated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Firstly, this is not because we argued about Ariel; it is because you are a relentless edit-warring POV-pusher who has assumed control of several controversial Middle East-related articles such as Battle of Jenin and Muhammad al-Durrah. I am not defending PR here and he is not my friend in any way, but I am saying that if one POV-pusher is banned from certain topics, so should others be. As for accusing me of pro-Palestinian bias again, have you any evidence to prove this? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the issue of Ariel, which we both know will never be disengaged, is fair enough example that you have a certain POV on the topic. no one is asking to ban G-Dett, Nishidani, Eleland, Avi, Isarig, you, or any other person with POV here - i really don't see how you equate his policy breaking activity with that of the "normative POV pushers" and add the equivalent of "it's all or nothing!". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Whilst I don't deny having a POV on Ariel in "real life" (indeed, I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it does), on Wikipedia I stick to using established facts. The fact is that Israel has not annexed any area of the West Bank except East Jerusalem, and therefore there is no way in which Ariel could be said to be in Israel. Your claim that Ariel is in Israel, or weasling that it is not possible to say it isn't, is thus a blatant violation of WP:POV and puts you firmly in the nationalist Israeli camp. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • it just means that we have difference in POVs, it makes us normative POV editors (something you vehemently deny) - on point: you're not addressed any of PR's breaches of policy and only wanted to include everyone on the same page. i've not seen you make the equivalent "let's include everyone on the same page" claim when User:M.V.E.i. was in clear breach of policy.^[34] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
              • No, the point is that I stick to using facts on Wikipedia, whilst you stick to pushing your POV. Plain and simple. As for User:M.V.E.i., I am not familiar with his/her edits, so why should I get involved in that case? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with that case, and I find Jaakobou's comparison to be utterly outrageous. The user was blocked for posting multiple extremely racist rants. Not racist in the Jaakobou-ian sense of "he said Zionism is bad, so he's racist", but in the sense of explicitly denying that a given ethnic group is human at all, and are in fact "HORSE SHIT" who should all be "shot dead". PR has never done anything remotely like this, as Jaakobou well knows. <eleland/talkedits> 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • In Karl Meier's list of questionable material two pieces of 'evidence' clearly reflect a lack of knowledge of the debate. He was patently wrong in saying PR's edit on 'death' constituted bad behaviour. It corresponded to a problem in the text, still unresolved. (2)He was wrong on the Baruch Kaplan evidence, which is reliable since it is posted on a site, by Neturei Karta, as well, and the charge that this is a hate site is untrue. (3) PR's remonstrations with me, were simply that, remonstrations I was at liberty to ignore. Particularly since PR requested the possibility some days earlier that I enable the email function. I didn't, preferring all communications, personal or otherwise, to remain in the public domain. Those two passages were personal communications, which I welcome,and for which I bear responsibility because I inadvertently forced PR to use a public page for what was intended as a private communication.

• • I do not therefore understand why PR's challenges to me can be adduced by third parties, since I found them innocuous. Nota Bene: here PR's adversaries have not been offended, but are jumping on basically a difference of opinion between the undersigned and PR. I have not raised a complaint, since the whole matter is petty, and I ask myself regularly, why are so many people not a party to our dialogue so keen to harvest this trivia in order to get PR banned from participating on pages they themselves work on, with undisguised POVs no less visible than PR's, if more competently, in some instances, disguised? This looks very much like a nasty pretextual challenge by adversaries exploiting other people's material to gang up against an editor they personally dislike.Nishidani 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I therefore ask that one suspend this whole matter, while I enable my email: for my refusal to do so is directly responsible for PR's use of a public page for what was a private communication, in the only two pieces of 'evidence' which remain as marginally valid for deliberating on whether PR has exceeded the limits. Nishidani 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mentor" Geni under attack (by PR)

Worth noting is that almost every person who has ever "defended" me, plus every person who has ever offered to "mentor" me, and even some people I was disagreeing with (but in a collegiate fashion, so it's not always been obvious), have suffered some form of (sometimes very nasty) personal attack. I was pondering how much I'd document this - seeing the additional harrassment this discussion has generated, perhaps it's a good thing I don't quote anyone in this respect. However, I think you get the message - the three examples below are just the most prominent people of the last 8 weeks when this practice, if anything, has been less marked than before.

Geni attacked

My mentor, User:Geni is being attacked, here and on a special page set up for the purpose (it's been deleted). Harrassment of this kind is atrocious - I've had lots of exchanges with Geni, none of them mutually congratulatory. Because of the harrassment of him/her, I was forced to select two of our disagreements and accuse him (rather credibly) of having acted ideologically - not in order to be personal, just to even out the balance. I'm not sure whether I've been a good mentee or not, but Geni has apparently been forced into a corner and had to publicly tell one of my accusers to stop making a nuisance of himself.

HG attacked suffers allegations against his good-faith

User:HG might have been my mentor but (despite my regard for him), we were not agreeing on anything and I rejected him. His mediation on an article around that time was rejected with the absurd accusation of his being "much too buddy-buddy with PR".

A mentor blocked

A possible mentor "SpecialJane" was found to be a sock-puppet and was blocked. Perhaps it was necessary to block this special purpose account? I don't know, but it's bound to have cast a chill on anyone preparing to act in a collegiate way towards me. (This blocking was touted around as if it reflected on me, casting further chill!).

Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? Kyaa the Catlord 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have opened an AN/I on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. PR^talk 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Same throughout my experience

It is less obvious now than it was, but every discussion concerning my participation has brought out lots of people who have wished to "defend me", usually resulting in attacks on their good faith. Some of those people are almost certainly watching now, but don't wish to join in because of what they've suffered before - and an increasing suspicion they'll be on the losing side, since with tactics this nasty, I'm bound to be forced off the project one way or another, no matter what the justice of the case.

Pointless attacks on me

While I'm at it, and in case you're new to the attempts to stop me, please note that, with some 3,000 edits in a year, only one of those edits, ever, is generally agreed to have been offensive (and it's been dealt with). You'll not see lists of questionable diffs I've made, no such lists have *ever* been presented. This is in startling contrast to disciplinary cases against (all?) other editors (ever?). Note how, in this case, the accusations against me concern my differences with User:Nishidani, who rejects this accusatory chorus. The new allegations against me really are trivial, just as all but one of the old allegations were. PR^talk 10:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief comment by HG

(Regarding PR's subsection about HG, reply moved:) I agree (w/Kyaa) that I have not been attacked. Per my previous request, I ask that PR strikeout (not delete) the above heading and the second sentence. (Note: Also, I did not propose to mediate, in the formal sense, so it is inaccurate to say that my participation was "rejected.") Thanks. HG | Talk 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Take your intrusive demands out of this portion of my evidence, please. There is no question that the allegations laid at your good faith (whether they amounted to an attack or not), are part of a pattern of harrassment against anyone who attempts to deal with me in a collegiate fashion, as I believed you were doing. If it is not your intention that I be free to defend myself at this AN/I without harrassment, or you believe it right that anyone in these processes "defending" others be harrassed, please come straight out and say so. PR^talk 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, most folks would assume that I do welcome PR to defend himself, and did not imply otherwise. I'm merely disagreeing here with PR with the aspect of his defense concerning me. HG | Talk 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take your tanks off my lawn. I'm a highly cooperative person, who has always done everything you've asked, and there is no reason or excuse for the vandalising harrassment of my entries to this evidence page. Please lean on "buddy-buddy" to do the same. PR^talk 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, PR, I did move it. I think what's happening is that you expect your comments above to be left alone, as they would be for an Evidence statement in ArbCom proceedings. In AN/I, commenting on such sections is usually acceptable etiquette. Still, I may be mistaken, and out of respect for your wishes, I've placed a dividing subheading leaving your section intact. I am not trying to harrass you or vandalize your comments. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Ok? I can appreciate that this is an unpleasant experience and I'm not trying to make it any harder for you. Please sit tight and give folks some space to think this thru. Take care, HG | Talk 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, User talk:HG, I knew I could depend on you. Now, what do I have to do to stop other people vandalising my contributions to the AN/I that bears my name and harrassing me on it? Harrassment means "making life unpleasant with unwanted and in-your-face comments" - which is what I've been getting. What are you going to do about it? PR^talk 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is an attack there? I raised a valid concern that HG may not be a suitable mediator. I did not attack him, I just questioned his impartiality. HG understands my concerns, it is beyond time that you put away the victim card and comprehend that the world is not aligned against you. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<snip, comment moved below. HG | Talk 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)>

Taken from Specialjane's userpage: "This user is a sock puppet of Dereks1x, and has been blocked indefinitely." A proven sockpuppet being blocked by an administrator per policy. Do you believe that WP administrators should not enforce policy? Kyaa the Catlord 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have placed this harrassing nonsense here twice. I have opened an AN/I on this conduct, below, the first official complaint I have ever made on anyone. PR^talk 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made my comment in that subsection. Please feel free to read it at your leisure. Cordially, Kyaa the Catlord 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology from PR - it was wrong of me to suggest that User:HG was "attacked" with the comment "too buddy-buddy with PR", because he has previously objected to my describing it as an "attack". I have struck out the offending word (which never appeared in the body of my entry). Like many others, HG wishes (and is entirely right) to reject being dragged into the mud-pit the way I've been dragged in, even when comments which are clearly prejudicial about him are levelled.

However, I'd be interested to know what HG thinks of another comment that appeared here "this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations" which I think is aimed at him. (It's false, HG was never my mentor, but I cannot see who else it can refer to). May I refer to this as an "attack" on you, or is it just an allegation against your good faith? I'll point this question out to HG, though I believe he will be unable to respond for some hours, I trust he'd prefer to comment on it here. He may prefer to ignore it and delete this rider to my apology, I have no objection to him doing that. PR^talk 11:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, I appreciate your apology and the strikeout. But it still feels like you're trying to milk the "buddy-buddy" comment for more that it's worth. (1) Kyaa wasn't alleging "bad faith" (i.e., my trying to hurt Wikipedia) -- but merely concerned that I'm too much on your side to mediate on Jenin. As I've always said, I feel more honored (or humored) than insulted by Kyaa's impression. (2) Right after your apology, you continue to do it. You say Kyaa's remarks were "prejudicial" -- that's overstated and, I'd add, Kyaa hasn't repeated his words elsewhere, as you have. Further, you talk about what "HG wishes" regarding you being "dragged into the mud-pit." Please, PR, don't write about what I wish, write about your own wishes. I am willing to be "dragged" into focusing on you and your situation, but I'd like to do it efficiently and calmly. By exaggerating and dramatizing (e.g., mud-pit), you both worsen your own case and you make the work of "outside" parties harder. (3) Likewise, with the "two mentors" quote, it looks like you are trying to provoke more drama. For heaven's sake, PR, stop trying to find more "attacks" against me (or you). You're acting as if"the best defense is a good offense" -- however, the opposite it true. At this juncture, your best defense is to not be offensive, not go on the offense, and not to take offense. When I said please sit tight, I meant, wait patiently, don't stir any conflicts. PR, you asked above, "what am I going to do about it?" What I am doing is giving you the best advice I can, to tell you what I think is in your best interests. Sit tight and simply watch, simply trust, what I and other folks are going to do about the situation. Maybe you won't like the outcome, but I don't think your current line of agitated activity will strengthen your defense. Be well, take care, HG | Talk 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reminder to sit tight and leave it to others could be wise indeed. Is that what worked for me the first time round, when I was effectively blocked for so long? Looking at the record, I cannot be sure, it may have done. And if a "take no prisoners" approach to truth'n'lies threatens to make discussion of the real issues more difficult, then I'll leave it to others, initially for 24 hours. PR^talk 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GHcool

It doesn't look like this has been brought up yet, but PalestineRemembered has been exceptionally obnoxious on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and participated in some edit warring in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I won't go into the whole story, but I'd like to add for everybody's consideration the following two falsehoods that PalestineRemembered has been unethically and dishonestly promoting and soapboxing virtually non-stop for the past month or so:

• The Accusation: "We seem to have quotations in [the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article] from 'historians' even less credible than David Irvine [sic]." -- PalestineRemembered. Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Reality: David Irving is the notorious English Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian exposed as a fraud and a racist in a court of law. He associates with neo-Nazis and served a prison sentence in Austria. Not a single reasonable person takes him seriously as an academic and a historian. The research of the historians referenced in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (namely Joseph B. Schechtman and Shmuel Katz on the "traditional" side, and Benny Morris on the "revisionist" side) are controversial, but no reasonable person would claim that any of the above historians would be exposed as frauds and racists in a court of law, nor do they associate with underground groups dedicated to racism, race-supremacy, xenophobia, and violence. The comparison is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. Since this accusation has been made, the weight given to the above scholars in "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" has shifted greatly and for the better. Now the "traditional" side is represented mostly by the research of Efraim Karsh with supplemental material from Katz and Schechtman. The "revisionist" side is still represented mostly by Morris with supplemental material (in my opinion, too much material) by Simha Flapan. Other historians' research that defy such categorization are also included prominently. The article is much better now than it was in the beginning September 2007, but the accusation and response above are still relevent. Not surpringly, as of this writing, PalestineRemembered continues to compare reliable pro-Israeli historians with the writings of David Irving while calling them "hate sources." On October 13, 2007, he disgracefully applied this comparison to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.[35]

• The Accusation: "Israel is expelling those who dare to criticise it (eg Pappe)." -- PalestineRemembered. Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• The Reality: Israel is a free country with laws concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press similar to the United States. Israeli politicians, editorialists, and reporters use this right every single day in their newspapers. Haaretz is especially well known for its criticism of Israeli policies, but Israel's other two leading newspapers (Yedioth Ahronoth and The Jerusalem Post) also criticize Israel virtually daily. All three of these newspapers are translated into English and are readily available on the Internet.[36][37][38] There is an organization in Israel called B'Tselem that is devoted to documenting and criticizing abuses by the Israeli government. Knesset ministers of the left and right wing regularly criticize Israel as strongly as Ilan Pappe ever did. None of the above have any fear of being deported or "expelled" from Israel. The standards for academic freedom are also similar to that of the United States as evidenced by the New Historians. The case of Ilan Pappe is a strange one, but it is a downright lie to say that he was "expelled" from Israel because of his controversial research. The truth is much less dramatic. Pappe supported a British academic boycott of Israeli academics in 2005. In response, the University of Haifa suggested (but did not force) that he apply the boycott to his own self since he is also an Israeli academic.[39] Two full years after that, Pappe voluntarily left Israel and took a position at the University of Exeter.[40] As far as I know, Pappe has never been arrested or tried for his views by Israeli authorities or the University of Haifa.
  

--GHcool 18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment on this because it so confused, the evidence presented does not concern anything that was raised by this AN/I, or anything that has been added later. The edit-warring allegation is laughable, there are a series of content-disputes, which GHcool is probably "losing" (but not to me). He's been editing there at 4 times the rate that I've been doing. Perhaps he's fed up that a pro-Israel editor has agreed with me that Schechtman is a hate-source - but then, isn't that what Talk is supposed to be about? PR^talk 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Inanity

Forgive the strong titling, but being familiar with PR's long history of blocks based on the most ludicrous of pretenses, I am quite shocked to see the campaigning against him continuing here once again. Despite having read and re-read the entire discussion here, I cannot make heads or tales of what this latest attempt to permanently ban PR is based on. There is no evidence to back any of the complaints being put forward, old issues that have already been the subject of community discussions and decisions are being re-aired as though they are open and pending issues, and the entire thread is riddled with personal attacks that do nothing to improve the project and indeed seem to have forgotten the project altogether. With respect, I ask that specific diffs providing evidence of a specific problem not dealt with in earlier discussions be represented here. Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed. This is waste of time, energy and good-will and I see no reason to subject PR to any further srcutiny in view of the lack of any solid complaint. Note that if such evidence is provided and the community feels it is worthy of further discussion, the appropriate venue for this would be either a User:RfC or ArbComm. With respect, Tiamut 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Failing that, I ask that the entire case be closed.' User:Tiamut

I second the request. This is farcical to put the best light on it, and slightly sinister when those who promote this banning campaign are extraneous to the original charges, which concern only myself and two pages where I and PR happened to disagree on two edits.Nishidani 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa the Catlord harrassing me on this page

It is highly misleading to imply that EconomicsGuy is some kind of uninvolved editor applying the usual standards of the project. Everyone seeing this must be puzzled how an AN/I on something so damaging to the processes of the project can be archived without action in less than an hour. PR^talk 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read EliminatorJR's closing remark as criticism of both yours as well as my remark on that thread which is also why I disengaged. You should try that sometime rather than attack anyone who dares to speak to you or edit your part of the debate. It is getting very obvious that you are comletely unable to absorb and constructively use any criticism of your actions. Your attack against HG above is clear evidence of this. When on trial for assault don't punch your own defense team. EconomicsGuy 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Hi. There is nothing misleading. Nobody is claiming EconomicsGuy is uninvolved. Wikidemo 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be achieving anything, and none of the participants are exactly advancing their cause. ELIMINATORJR 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kyaa the Catlord is harrassing me on this very page by posting nonsense into the middle of my evidence, and doing something similar on my TalkPage here. I request this be dealt with firmly - it is likely part of a pattern of disruption which, amongst other things, destroyed the attempts of an independent person to rescue an article that is still, 8 weeks later, a train wreck. PR^talk 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I offer no defense. If an administrator finds my actions to be disruptive, I will submit to any punishment granted for the actions that PR has reported me on. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is an open discussion area within Wikipedia. If you add a statement to this page, anybody else on Wikipedia including User:Kyaa the Catlord is free to comment on your statement. I see nothing nonsensical or improper about Kyaa the Catlord's comments. Whether you agree with them or not the user is entitled to say them. Conversely, your removal of the statements is improper - other people's talk page comments should never be altered or deleted without a strong valid reason and you have no such reason to delete them. You removed the comments twice and they were reverted twice by different users. Further, your calling the comments Kyaa the Catlord "vandalism" is improper. Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism unless they clearly fit the definition here. These did not. Kyaa the Catlord placed a very mild caution on your talk page to say that you should not have deleted the comments. The notice used, {{test1}}, is the wrong one - it is an automated template that says you did it as an "experiment." In fact, you removed the material deliberately so the correct notice would be a stronger warning.

By accusing Kyaa the Catlord of "harassing" you, posting "nonsense", and committing "disruption" you are essentially accusing the user of bad faith. I see no evidence of bad faith at all. Please Please assume good faith. Do not accuse other editors of improper behavior without good grounds. I have not had anything to do with you or any articles you edited, as far as I remember, so I will try to stay neutral. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are getting into some personal conflicts here on Wikipedia that are unnecessary. If you can concentrate on writing and editing articles, and not worry so much about what other people are doing wrong, you will not have these conflicts. If you are in a mentoring situation then other people have obviously discussed this with you. Wikidemo 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of harrassment - "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

User:Kyaa the Catlord has carried out this behaviour 3 times today, even before this last threatening implication I'll be unable to have civilised discourse with anyone anywhere in the project without idiocy being inserted. Please note, this is the first time I've made an official complaint against anyone, Kyaa has done it against me twice, one time getting me blocked with a malicious 3RR report (lifted with exoneration once I'd appealed and it was examined). PR^talk 13:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please speedy close this thread as yet another example of pointless trolling. It is this kind of thing I spoke about on the MfD for CSN. Why do we continue to put up with this when it is obvious that PR's worst enemy here is himself. EconomicsGuy 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - EconomicsGuy's comment was made while this was an independent section - 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Motion to close

If there are specific, actionable claims here, I have been unable to detect them. PR was ordered to mentorship without any specific conditions of that mentorship; therefore, no incident can be said to have violated the conditions. In any case, the hostile free-for-all atmosphere of this posting is accomplishing nothing. Therefore I move that this discussion be closed as beyond the scope of ANI.

If serious concerns about PR's behavior still exist, they should be taken to ArbCom. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was in line with the above comment 10 sections (not counting the "sub-sub" sections) and 4 days ago. . .still is. R. Baley 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever but please remember that per the discussion on CSN mentorship was meant only as a substitute for a ban if it actually worked. For that reason it is not unreasonable to discuss if the mentorship is working or not and any editor should be allowed to voice their concerns freely. To claim that mentorship was agreed upon unconditionally is a misrepresentation of the debate in question. But as I said; whatever, because this is going to end up on ArbCom sooner or later anyway. To think otherwise is an illusion. EconomicsGuy 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

geez, Eleland. he's only harassed me twice to defend you... and you've done the same, only not as vigurously, to defend him [41] ... you sure you're unable to detect anything actionable?

i still have't seen PR adress any of the issues mentioned and promise not to repeat. i move to topic-ban PR until a new metor and provisions are clearly stated, that is, if the community deems he deserves another chance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of harassment without providing any evidence. Your linked diff is of me telling PR that he made a mistake in asking you the question, and noting my confusion at your refusal to deny a CoI even in general terms. (I called you an "IDF member" by mistake, I should have said "someone who is, by circumstance, very likely to be an IDF member".) Your suggestion of a temporary topic-ban while a new mentor and conditions are worked out seems reasonable. <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting response to you admitting you also asked the question (while attacking me for pursuing action against your friend). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The question I asked was in full, "Do you have a potential conflict of interest related to the Battle of Jenin? Were you a participant in the event?" [42] [43] which is prima facie legitimate, and you have never answered it. <eleland/talkedits> 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

a simple observation at the "you seem to mirror your country" insults is more revealing than your quote suggests. please stop pretending that PR did not attack me at least twice in your presence when he was uninvolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As the person to whom PR's 'controversial' edits, as cited by Karl Meier, were directed, as someone who found them perfectly innocuous, as someone who is responsible for PR writing a private comment to me on a public page ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=158903787), and as someone who is astonished this sort of kangaroo-courting can take place over trivial disputes, as someone who remains outraged that noseyparkers can butt in like this to cause one of my interlocutors, and wikipedia editors here, to waste so much time, I second User:Eleland's motion.Nishidani 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

can anyone PR has not drive by reverted for [44] make a statement? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

JaakobouPlease rephrase that. It is unintelligible in normal English.Nishidani 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I gather what the import of your snide gambit was. I'll make an exception and show you how my mind works offline.

The drift of your little snub is that I shouldn't be trusted to comment on Karl Meier's request that PR be subject to further sanctions because, as you show, PR once reverted to my version and in doing so complimented me.

Well, it has nothing to do with debts to flattery. I only noticed this motion to increase bans on PR by chance. The first thing that struck me was its oddity. In my many interactions with PR on pages we have edited in common, I had never heard of Karl Meier, nor seen a squidgeon of his interest in those pages. I only saw you, omnipresent wherever pages touch on what you appear to consider your country's impeccable claims to a flawless record in purity of arms and biblical rights to other people's land. There you are intransigent and ready to work 24/7 to challenge revert, contest, forage for quibbles, to rebut or deflect anything that might spoil the perfect image.

So I asked myself, why is this otherwise unknown Karl Meier jumping into pages where Jaakobou has an ongoing edit conflict with me, and PR, saying that he, the innocent, innocuous bystander, just happened, out of the blue, to chance upon a few pages where PR edits, and to be deeply troubled by the unwiki tenor of PR's edits, so troubled indeed that he thought the Administrators' board should be warned of a serious 'incident'.

I then asked myself, of the hundreds of thousands of pages, of the thousands of editors who get into trouble from time to time, why has this Karl Meier picked on PR, and why has he, in raising a question against PR's behaviour, singled out exclusively evidence from my edit conflicts with PR on pages where you are in conflict with both of us? The answer, in the Italian (and Spanish proverb) is a bon intenditor, poche parole. I.e., this doesn't look, as Meier presents it, a casual matter, but rather may, one cannot say with certainty, but just may be a case of an arranged indictment by third parties to get someone you are frequently in conflict with, off the pages where you and I also edit. Indeed, you immediately jumped at the opportunity to join in the fray, and jerryrig what to all intents and purposes looks like a settling of old scores, but by someone who is only, disinterestedly, in the interests of Wikipedia, endeavouring to guarantee quality in Wikipedia.

There can be no proof either way. And I should add that my inferences are purely subjective and may well reflect more on me than either you, Jaakobou, or Karl Meier, who may indeed be what you represent yourselves to be, editors concerned with the health and neutrality of Wiki articles. Yet, I chose to intervene, on the outside possibility that these proceedings might indeed be rigged, if only because the substance of the 'incidents' as listed by Karl Meier deal with PR's conflicts with me, and not with either Karl Meier or Jaakobou. As such, I was the only party who had a due right, if I felt there were reasons to protest, to call in the Administrators. Even the slightest odour of suspicion of an entrapment scam involving others gets me on my high horse as an extreme civil libertarian ready to pitch in for the defence, and thus I have spent some hours defending PR, because, gentlemen, this whole interlude strikes me as profoundly sordid, as well as ludicrously trivial. It reminds me of snitching to bureaucracies in totalitarian countries, and grown-ups in a democratic forum should have more sobriety, equanimity and toughness than to rush out at the slightest emotional discomfort they may feel in the presence of a cast of mind they dislike, to engage in forum shopping and denounce the person for what they take as unsocial or unpleasant behaviour, when it is simply a matter of someone else with a profound and equally strongly motivated POV on the world that happens to be diametrically opposed to their own. Nishidani 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

geez, you wonder why i use the word succinctly so many times around you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou. As Conan Doyle might have once quipped: 'Der Teufel steckt im Detail.'Nishidani 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by PR on Mentorship and ArbCom

• Comments by PR, subject of this AN/I - in all this mess, one thing must be clear to everyone. The operation of the project is coming to be over-run by personal harrassment. It's not just aimed at 'partisans' who might think my particular "problems" are a witch-hunt - it's reached such an atrocious level that anyone, for instance, put forward as a potential mentor by well-respected "outsiders", now finds themselves subject to it.
• Parties to this dispute are making demands on the latest "coopted" volunteer: "care to make a mission statement such as "what sanctions would you implement for which breaches" and "how do you perceive each of the violations mentioned on the open ANIs?" (please check this for yourself - no violations were found in the complaints that this AN/I were supposed to settle).
• These questions are directly followed by attacks on the efforts of those who've gone before "this is no joke, two mentors already allowed repeated violations and I see no statement by you to suggest you take this issue seriously." An apparent failure to answer these questions results (30 hours later) in this same volunteer/nominee getting an intrusive question on his TalkPage "do you have a second user or is this your only user?", hinting at sock-puppetry (a complaint of this so baseless as to amount to malice has previously been made).
• Harrassment of this kind seems to have brought my mentorship to an abrupt end after just 3 weeks, during which time I believe it was working well (I was fully expecting it to run for 6 months, perhaps more).
• Even at this current AN/I, my previous "mentor"'s efforts, contributions and conclusions are rejected with prejudice ("find it disturbing that the person who has stepped up to police his behavior is not aware of PR's record" and "Your statements that there is "no problem" above seem to belay your belief that PR is not a problem. That is what you seem to be unaware of.... PR's a huge problem and trivializing his disruption with one liners is not helpful.").
• I have restricted my evidence of this harrassment situation to just those two three people who have most recently stepped up to the plate themselves (or been put forward) as "mentors", more-or-less "neutral" people trying to help the project. I can assure everyone that this situation has been much, much worse in the past when "partisan" contributors have been involved and have tried to present their case. (Many of these people have this time round obscured the good relations they've had with me previously, which may account for the fact it's not as evident on this occasion). Harrassment of "mentors" and "neutral persons" has accelerated however, perhaps because they are still trying to take their positions seriously.
• Comment #2 - another issue arises, and this also casts terminal doubt on the worth of "mentoring", at least in my case. I had a mentor, I have been totally cooperative/compliant with that person (nobody disputes this). And, yet the witch-hunt has been re-started after just 3 weeks. Mentoring has indeed failed - but it was nothing to do with User:Geni's efforts (and I'd be astonished if anyone thinks I've upset it).
• Summary - for both these reasons (neither of them concerning my conduct), I believe that "mentorship" has been rendered a dead-duck (at least in my case). Reviving it will not be to the good of the project, it will simply result in more and more individuals in good-standing being victimised by harrassment (and often wrongly accused of being unfit by partisanship). The debate over my "mentorship" threatens lasting damage to the project.
• The near future - the ArbCom I see coming is going to be exceptionally messy. I request it bear my name (like the one that was dropped over my protests), because I'm the most prominent victim of the harrassment that's become so overwhelming. (Even though it's spread to other editors in good-standing and even to admins, which is clearly much more serious than any discomfiture to me). Titling it "Harrassment of PalestineRemembered" (or anything including my name) will help sharpen people's focus, and enable all the arguments, diffs etc that people have already assembled to be properly aired and considered by the panel. I believe that my case is the one with the fewest confusing factors, breaches of civility, edit-warring etc etc, and it is my belief that the panel will fnd this helpful to their deliberations. The last thing we need is a case that magnifies complaints against the management, admins, mediators, mentors etc. PR^talk 11:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommend ArbCom reopen the case

As I said in my comment above (October 7, 14:22), the best solution to this case might be to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. These allegations have been hanging over PR's head like a Sword of Damocles. I suggest we get it over with. If he's innocent of what he's being accused of, he deserves to be cleared, and if he's guilty, further action might need to be taken. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I pleaded for that particular case in May 2007 to be arbitrated to completion and was horrified when it was dropped. On reflection, I decided that I don't mind. I can live with unretracted allegations, however nasty, when everyone knows them to have been (by a piece of astonishing good fortune) proved completely baseless.

I've made a case for one particular way of handling what I believe to be a different problem, increasingly endemic, but obviously the ArbCom will have to make up their own minds on how to deal with things.

Having said which, there could be a very good reason for re-opening my case - because the accusation against me was "quoting from hate-sources". I've never been very aware of the problem (by keeping away from them, there's no danger of me picking up lies and retailing them). But I have increasingly noticed that there are hate-sources around that somehow get treated as "Reliable Sources" (and they might qualify by current standards). Perhaps it's time for the ArbCom to deliberate on this problem and perhaps cross off any source that speaks of "Palestinian duplicity", just as we all agree we'd not touch something that spoke of "Jewish duplicity". PR^talk 16:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptions to this noticeboard

I seems thus user has made some disruptive edits to this noticeboard, like this one for example. It is disruption to remove others comments from talk pages, and that shouldn't be tolerated. Yahel Guhan 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite being the target of this behavior, his new mentor (this time with admin powers) is aware of this and reverted him. I'm willing to give his mentor a chance to instruct him on proper wikiquette before leaping all over him. Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If he is going to take a 24 hour break from the site, I will let him. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

putting PRs commentary on this ANI into one phrase, "so much soap and not one mention that shows understand of why he's been brought here". I still stand by the suggestion that he'd be topic banned at least until new mentorship is cleared out with some notes about the infractions listed in this ANI and possible punishment in the event that he'd repeat them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of putting an end to this by now very long debate I suggest that Zscout370, a trusted and respected admin, be given a chance to mentor PR and hopefully avoid an ArbCom case. The consequences of PR repeating his past mistakes under mentorship are already clear from the debate on CSN. This could actually put an end to endless flow of PR related threads here on AN/I. EconomicsGuy 09:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should give Zscout a chance to work with PR. I think having an admin watching his every move will resolve the problematic pattern of behavior that PR displays. Having an admin actively watching the pages that PR frequents will also be helpful in keeping the edit warring to a minimum on the hot-button pages PR tends to frequent as well. Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by user:Profg

Profg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has been blocked once already for stalking and harassing me[45][46], and was doing the same to user:Odd nature[47][48], is now targeting user:ScienceApologist[49][50][51], and I suspect user:JoshuaZ[52][53]. Can someone uninvolved please look into this matter and perhaps try to persuade ProfG that attempting to drive off other editors, isn't a terribly productive way to spend his time here.  – ornis⚙ 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with this particular user on talkpage to no avail. Uninvolved administrator attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. ScienceApologist 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to negotiate with this editor and explain Wikipedia policies also to no avail. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor has stalked me over to Homeopathy, a field in which he showed no interest, and attempted to canvass editors into creating trouble here. Profg should be blocked or subject to a community ban. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My experience with Profg has been that he has a history of advocacy via ignoring/twisting WP:NPOV on creationism and pseudoscience related articles, and when his changes are rejected, he turns it into a personal matter, following those who've most often rejected his edits to unrelated articles they edit and undoing their work there. This a pattern I've seen repeated time and again, and has landed him in hot water more than once. Beyond Wikistalking, Profg has also misused Wikipedia processes a number of times to intimidate and silence those he views as his opponents. For example, he's made what have turned out to be several baseless allegations at WP:WQA while striking the pose of a victim of incivility when all that has happened is his behavior pattern was identified per WP:SPADE. He seems addicted to conflict, now fanning the flames at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comment by uninvolved User:Profg, and his participation at Wikipedia has contributed little other than strife. Wikipedia has never been a place for advocacy supported by vexatious litigation to drive off more responsible contributors and bullying by posing as a victim in order to dupe others and he's met all the criteria of a disruptive editor according to WP:DE. Profg should be dealt with quickly and firmly in order to lessen any further disruption to the project. Odd nature 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Response from Profg. I was blocked once for incivility; I admitted my mistake and corrected it. I was then blocked incorrectly by the same admin for what he thought was an "attempt to harass" another editor. I protested that block very strongly, because it was simply wrong. However, that admin refused to rescind it, despite the evidence put forth on my behalf.

Now, several POV-warriors such as ConfuciusOrnis, ScienceApologist, Orangemarlin, MastCell, Jim62sch, and Odd nature have apparently banded together against me, attempting to turn the facts around in accusing me of being what they, in fact, are.

This is no claim that there is a "cabal". This is a statement of fact, that several WP editors have taken it upon themselves to "rid Wikipedia" of all that does not fall within their (self-admittedly narrow) definition of "science," etc. They "tag-team" reverts of my (and others') legitimate edits, then pull "3RR" threats and AGF claims if they are challenged. They are very good at what they do, and they will probably succeed at this attack, also.

I have never "stalked" or "harassed" any editor. On the other hand, I have been stalked and harassed, but since I have no clique of Wiki-friends to back me up as these editors do, I have no recourse for it. It is editors like these and their friends who drive away other good editors, and will result in the demise of Wikipedia if they are not countered and corrected. It is why college instructors such as myself refuse to allow WP to be used as references or sources in any papers. This is unfortunate, because the WP project is actually a good idea.

This will be my only response to this superfluous "incident" charge. Thank you. --profg ^Talk 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what is needed here is for uninvolved admins/editors to review the above. I don't really qualify, since I've run across User:Profg in the past and share most of the above views regarding his generally confrontational and unhelpful approach. This "uninvolved" view is pretty clear Wikistalking; I'd block him myself, given his history of similar malfeasance, were I not somewhat involved. An interesting quote is here: Profg chastises another editor by stating (quite correctly, in fact) that: I have found that one of the signs of a POV-warrior is his tendency to resort to WP:AGF. He quickly closes the irony loop by noting: There are obvious exceptions; I have reminded others of AGF, as well. Indeed. Any uninvolved editors/admins willing to look this over? MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that certainly wouldn't be me: I find Profg to be among the lowest of the low of Wikipedia editors, bringing all of the oily, sneaky, dishonesty of backroom politics to Wikipedia. His "contributions" have in no wise been constructive, his disruption of the project immense, and his ill-will and noetic necropathy are manifest. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I second the above opinion. ScienceApologist commented on an AfD, for which Profg was the contributing editor. Profg then replied, asserting that ScienceApologist was claiming it was non-notable because he "didn't like the topic". Shortly afterwards, he then tracked ScienceApologist to his newly opened arbitration case against another user; beating even the other subject of the case to comment. His comments are pretty much the standard assertions of ScienceApologist being a "POV-warrior" and claiming incivility and bad faith; they show no actual knowledge of the dispute, nor are they really related to the arbitration case, beyond simple name-calling.

ScienceApologist then requested to know why he was being tracked. Profg replied, calling the request a "threat", accusing him of canvassing and baiting him for a "desired effect". The hostile response prompted a reply, which Profg then chastised him for not "assuming the assumption of good faith" — ironic, given the accusations leveled. I'm not going to block here, since although I've never been directly involved with blocking this editor, the fact that I've been following this little dispute is enough to render my judgement a little compromised. In my opinion, this was clearly stalking, and definitely deserves a block. Profg does not seem to understand that "seeing what another user was up to", and the following them around, is harassment. --Haemo 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that Profg was stalking me, but this does look strongly like he was stalking SA. JoshuaZ 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question from someone completely uninvolved here... has there been any sort of dispute resolution attempted between any of the involved editors (user RFC, etc.)?--Isotope23 ^talk 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)--Isotope23 ^talk 19:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  There are many different ways to resolve disputes according to WP:DR. Many of the informal steps listed there we have tried as documented above. If we went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts we are greeted with a notice that says if we need administrator intervention (which is what we are asking for) we are to go here. In other words, this is part of the dispute resolution process. ScienceApologist 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from SA's attempt, user:Jéské Couriano has also tried to reason with him,[54][55] as has user:William M. Connolley[56],[57], and user:KillerChihuahua[58][59].  – ornis⚙ 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been an observer of Profg and I have seen very disturbing behavior with regards to the events above, and also in regards to User:Killerchihuahua and others. Stalking, canvassing, harassing, disruptive editing, POV warring and uncivil behavior seem to be his stock in trade.--Filll 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• several POV-warriors such as ConfuciusOrnis, ScienceApologist, Orangemarlin, MastCell, Jim62sch, and Odd nature have apparently banded together against me, as khaosworks said "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Shot info 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and all suspiciously sounding like we are dealing with a case of m:MPOV. Such attitudes have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, ergo "If they're really out to get you, you aren't paranoid," or "Just because you're paranoid does not mean people aren't out to get you." -- Fyslee / talk 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as JoshuaZ goes, I say "suspect", mostly due to this comment, then later turning up out of nowhere to comment on an RfAr that JoshuaZ was involved in[60], though looking again, I see that Odd nature was involved in that as well, and in any case, it was there that he turned his attention to scienceapologist[61], despite being warned against doing so[62]. As for Orangemarlin, it's pretty obvious that profg stalked him from California Biblical University and Seminary[63], to Homeopathy[64]. Again I ask, can someone not already involved, please take a look at this, his primary editing method appears to be to attack, stalk, harass and attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with.  – ornis⚙ 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Indef block is long overdue. After some reading of the edit history (which reveals interesting deletions of comments) of this user's talk page and blocklog, I am amazed that User:profg is still with us and see this as a case of the system failing to protect Wikipedia (and especially its editors) from disruptive and unsavory editors. Leniency has its limits. He should have been indef blocked along time ago. I have rarely seen such a negative learning curve. Even when multiple administrators have advised him and given him warnings, he then treats a highly respected admin like KillerChihuahua with extreme disrespect by deleting KC's helpful advice with this edit summary: "rm hypocritical troll". This is not the prison system where a criminal serves his time and gets out, even while clearly revealing no repentance or any intentions of reforming. Here we have a user who is rebellious and treats blocks and the advising and blocking admins with contempt. An uncivil editor with such a negative learning curve should be treated the way criminals who are not reformed should be treated - keep them in jail until they prove they are reformed, regardless of their original sentence. In this case an immediate indef block would be perfectly appropriate and is long overdue. That's the only way to make the streets safe around here. Keep this one out of circulation. -- Fyslee / talk 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Has this user gone through a RFC? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no. But as the community voice is clearly in support of an indef ban, any RfC would simply delay the inevitable. As you are aware, the RfC process is used when there is some chance of remediation: there is no such chance here. In going over Profg's edits of the past month, his tendentiousness and intransigence has grown rather than abated (or even hovered at the status quo). He has become increasingly nonproductive and troll-like; has made unfounded accusations of persecution by an evil cabal, in the process assuring that those editors so accused have every right to suspend the extension of AGF in his case; has refused to listen to guidance offered him by respected editors; and has made a mockery of Wikipedia's tolerance for all ideas. Fyslee's assertion of Profg's MPOV is highly accurate, and thus indicative of an editor beyond hope or help.

I shall add, that in going over Profg's edits, I have yet to find one redeemable edit, assuring then that an RfC will be littered with his misdeeds, with nothing exculpatory capable of being offered. Bottom line here is that the community has suffered enough of Profg's disruption. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there are generally procedures to go through. An attempt to solve the dispute personally (done several times), An RFC, and then an arbitration. An RFC could be used as evidence in an arbitration. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While those procedures have their place, there is nothing preventing any admin from single-handedly indef blocking any user caught in gross violation of certain policies here, and it happens all the time, saving alot of wasted time. It has its corrollary in real life when a police officer catches a criminal in the act. While the court system is there and can be used, if necessary the officer may be justified in immediately acting to stop a crime by using lethal violence on the spot. This saves alot of wasted time in the court system. I am hoping an admin will be courageous enough to just indef block this user at any moment. No one will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of a user:RfC ever being worth the time people put into it? I've started a number, commented on a number and they've all more or less ended up in arbitration or back here or at CSN or resolved through some other means eventually. Never has the User:RfC amounted to any action taking place. What's the point of User RfCs? ScienceApologist 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Though this page here is essentially a RFC as so many editors are commenting. I don't think ProfG can simply be banned without some sort of arbitration though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I started a proposal about this: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time. ScienceApologist 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, SA. Actually, WDM, he can be summarily banned, it's called a community ban. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

SA, I am SOOO happy you're back with us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• An indef block has been proposed. It seems clear that Profg has shown contempt for Wikipedia and has escalated from personal attacks and incivility to stalking and harassment. No one has offered any positive comments about Profg. It may be that he has exhausted the communities patience. Are there any administrators who object to such a block? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

KC, let it be noted, almost this entire "discussion" has been amongst yourselves; there is no "consensus" among uninvolved parties, any more than there was "consensus" to delete the article I just created, where most of the parties here also went to "impartially discuss". I have obviously not been "caught in gross violation" of WP policies to warrant an indef block. I am more than willing to enter into arbitration, as there is ample evidence that can be brought forth on my behalf. If you are intent on an indef block, please follow policies and procedures accordingly. Thank you. --profg ^Talk 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I would not object to such a measure considering this users history. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering what aspect of this users history, please? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the whole stalking and harassing thing. Not to mention he's already been blocked in the past twice for incivility and harassment. I think the other editors commenting here have brought up a lot. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. You cite multiple instances of this editor not being beneficial, not learning, not in short being anything but a detriment to Wikipedia, and you give that as reason for your objection? Please clarify, I seem to be missing something here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I stated that I do NOT object to this user being blocked for a long period of time. The reasons are echoed by the other editors who have commented here. This user has been blocked twice in the past for harassment and incivility, attempts have been made on my part and the part of other editors to try to get him to act civil and to explain the policies to him. I sent him e-mails explaining policies and methods for properly editing and he seems to have ignored them (as he continues to edit the same way since he started). For the record, I never said that this user has made no beneficial contributions. I would have to look over his edit history to determine that and it's quite subjective anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, my error - I read it wrong. I missed the "not" and read it as you would object - apologies for any confusion I've caused. Thanks for your patience in clarifying and clearing up my misunderstanding. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As a pretty much uninvolved editor - I've seen him around, but not really interacted with him that I can recall, I'm going to pass judgement. Indef blocked. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I've observed ProfG's behavior at Homeopathy and the associated good article review and found him to be completely unknowledgeable about the topic, yet bent on opposing whatever OrangeMarlin's view happened to be. I'm not going to post diffs about this, in the interest of privacy, but a glance at his editing history (particularly from last spring and summer) reveals a clear conflict of interest. Skinwalker 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is requesting to be unblocked:User talk:Profg. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Something is really bothering me here. The diffs above don't seem particularly bad and I've seen far worse from a number of admins. The article talk pages in that topic area are largely a cesspool simply because emotions tend to run high. Pick out a few diffs from anyone who edits controversial topics and you'll find some things here and there. It looks like there was a previous well-earned block but since then, the only diffs provided are that he has opined on an arbitration case. Good grief, should we go block everyone who does that for "stalking"? Unless there is something more, I oppose this ban. I'm not saying there isn't something more - just that I haven't seen it. --B 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to echo B's comments here. As an entirely uninvolved Admin, who has spent a couple of hours digging through all of this, I'm not seeing anything that clinches the argument to ban. Yes, Profg originally tried to remove negative information from the CBU article, but he stopped that & his attempts to make some copy edits kept getting reverted -- as if the folks involved had already made up their minds about him. And in the charge that Profg stalked OrangeMarlin from CBU to Homeopathy, it appears to me that the opposite actually happened. And the exchange between Wikidudeman & OrangeMarlin was far more passionate than anything Profg wrote. About the only things I could find were the odd snide comments, & the edit comment on deleting KillerChuhuana's post. I'm not going to unblock him, though, because if I had been in his place & been treated this badly for no good reason I would have left Wikipedia; wanting more of the same is just not expected behavior. -- llywrch 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo B and Llywrch in opposing this ban as at least one-sided. I don't endorse Profg's opinions, and I agree that his behavior has sometimes been out of line, but I have been concerned recently about the behavior of others who seem determined to bait him and then get rid of him. I have recently been involved in a prolonged discussion on Dominionism (talk), a contentious religio-political issue on which finding the right NPOV balance takes a lot of work. Several of us have been involved in a mostly constructive dialogue, but I have not appreciated the behavior of User:Odd nature and User:FeloniousMonk, who have both (ON more than FM) repeatedly reverted the page to their preferred POV while refusing after many requests to take any part in the constructive discussion on the talk page. What makes this particularly relevant to the current dispute is this edit summary for another of Odd nature's unjustified reversions, in which he accused Profg of stalking him despite the fact that Profg had been involved in the talk-page discussions that ON has continually shunned. The charge obviously didn't stick (it's not mentioned above), but the pretexts have now been found elsewhere. My impression of FM and ON is that they prefer to advance their position by forcefully restating it, and I fear that their attempt to get rid of Profg is another example of this. --BlueMoonlet 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag from here because I really don't think this is resolved. I'm not seeing anyone who is not involved in this topic area support the ban. There hasn't been a community ban discussion - this is an "old school" ban where a user is considered banned if no admin is willing to unblock. Well, consider this notice that I am willing to unblock and it is my intention to unblock barring substantial agreement by uninvolved users that the block should remain in place. I would like to offer the proposal to Profg (talk · contribs) that he agree to civility parole and a 1RR restriction and, if he accepts, it is my intention to unblock him. Any thoughts? --B 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Profg deserves a formal warning and a chance to reform. There are some violations of WP:NPA that are not to be winked at, but provocation by other users should also be taken into account. In my opinion, the WP:STALK accusation has been exaggerated (and the second block was borderline), though there may be some real violations there as well. I think stalking policy and how it applies to Profg's situation should be made crystal clear to him. Finally, several users involved here could use a reminder that seeking WP:CONSENSUS (and abiding by it if it goes against you) is superior to edit-warring. --BlueMoonlet 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? The consensus is that this editor remain blocked/banned/exiled. I strongly disagree with your two-person agreement.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean three people; in any case, a block like that requires unanimous support. If B is willing to supervise ProfG -- or ProfG stays away from this article for the time being -- he should be given another chance. If you can produce more convincing evidence than what I've seen above, I'm willing to change my mind. He's obviously not a saint & his behavior merits at the least a warning, but in this case I feel ProfG was nothing more than the lightning rod that grounded the hostile energy surrounding this article. -- llywrch 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think you're being a fool. Believe it or not, WP is not a utopian remediation project, we have real work to do, and rehabilitating tendentious edits is not one of our chores. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad move made by a couple of admins. This is why people like JzG and SlimVirgin leave this project, because more time is spent supporting the POV warrior attitude of editors like ProfG instead of supporting those editors who carefully build articles across a wide spectrum of the project. I think this decision goes against what is right, and allows someone who whines the loudest to get their way. Moreover, Profg will be gloating that he can get away with this. Well, there are other ways to have ProfG removed from the project, that don't rely upon the minority opinions of two admins. Will we ever learn? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then provide diffs that prove your point. I don't mind blocking people, & I'm not doing this out of friendship for PrfG, but all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides. We start blocking people for that, there won't be anyone left to manage the project except for the newbies & those who make les than 25 edits & move on. -- llywrch 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch, are we even talking about the same editor? The only way I can make sense of your comments is if you have read the edit history of another editor than Profg. Amazing. I think your comment that "all I've seen in this dispute is run-of-the-mill sarcasm & heated words -- from both sides" is very telling. I don't doubt that that is "all" you've "seen", because that too exists. You have apparently not "seen" what the rest of us have seen and which is abundantly evident if you study his talk page and interactions with others. Too bad that this menace will now be released on us again. Just as long as he stays away from his usual haunts, maybe some progress can be made in actual editing. Fortunately I don't do much editing on creationist topics, preferring to edit alternative medicine/quackery type stuff, since that's what I know most about. But just the storms left after his presence spill all over the place and create disruption far and wide in indirect ways. -- Fyslee / talk 05:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this block as soon as I finish typing this. 24 hours after my previous message, no uninvolved user has weighed in to oppose the unblock. No uninvolved user even weighed in to support the block to begin with. After a careful review of Profg's contributions, I find no evidence to support the contention that he has had no positive contributions and only evidence of one bad behavior - canvassing - since his last block, for which a 48-hour block is sufficient. As a matter of procedure, this discussion was originally not raised as a community ban discussion and from the first mention of an indefinite block until the time it was imposed was only 24 hours. During that time, not a single uninvolved editor weighed in. An unblock here has no downside. Profg has agreed to editing restrictions. If he creates a disruption, that's it. He's gone. I do not take this action lightly, but I firmly believe that the block was incorrect and that the ban discussion was insufficient. --B 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I think this is a bad bad idea. If you unleash this holy terror on us to try to destroy the project, we will pay a terrible price for your recklessness. The only way I would let him back on is under the condition that he be blocked from all evolution and creationism-related articles where he engages in pitched combat and viscious attacks. It would probably be a good idea that he stay away from editing pseudoscience and religion articles as well.--Filll 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Holy terror"? That's uncalled for. In any event, if he is incivil or disruptive, it's over - I will personally reimpose the block if someone doesn't beat me to it. Please give him the benefit of the doubt. --B 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt, I'd give him the benefit. Although the unblock was exceptionally ill-advised he probably is smart enough to clean up his act for a while. I trust you will stand behind your promise to reinstate the block once he reverts to type. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to unblock, I highly suggest a topic ban as well as a civility parole. He has not had a problem with 3RR, so that's a bit of a red herring IMO. No one has addressed my concerns of a COI that I expressed above either. Skinwalker 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be more specific about the COI. --B 23:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll email you. Skinwalker 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --profg ^Talk 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Protest unblock.
Admin B, your mention of "uninvolved users" is a red herring. You thus ignore and even throw away the voice of all the many concerned users, both involved and uninvolved, who have voiced their concerns above. Profg has now removed all remnants [65] of the agreement. I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users. This is especially important considering that he has previously removed warnings, not because he has simply read them, but in defiance and as a demonstration that he had no intention of heeding the warnings. He has done this before, so this time he should leave the warnings, templates, etc. on the page until his probation is over. In fact he should be warned not to remove any warnings in the future. For your sake I hope that your trust will be rewarded, but I fear that he will drag you down with him, since he seems to be unreformable. Reinstating such a banned user after such an emphatic consensus against him is unheard of and usually not a good move. Your move expresses a remarkable lack of good faith towards the community's decision. Such a massive failure to AGF is problematic, especially coming from an admin like yourself. You should have (earlier in the process) been a part of the discussion here and let your concerns be heard and discussed. I never knew anything about your plans to reinstate Profg until it was done. Once he had been blocked, my attentions (and likely most other's as well) were turned elsewhere so you and Profg could do this "behind our backs." I strongly protest this unwise move and wish you had shown some good faith in us instead of treating us with such disrespect. Such a move surprises and disappoints me, considering your profession of faith on your user page. If that's what such a belief produces, then I question its value. (My apologies to B for getting carried away.) -- Fyslee / talk 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That last comment was way over the line, Fyslee. Regarding "I believe it should be a condition that he leave the template and agreement at the top of his talk page for the benefit of other users," I agree. Profg has a history of archiving his talk page using the Permanent link archives method, but I think he should be strongly encouraged to use the subpage method instead, and to leave the agreement on his main talk page. --BlueMoonlet 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonlet. I did get carried away and have struck out my last comment. My apologies to B. -- Fyslee / talk 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I agree to do so. --profg ^Talk 07:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Profg. I hope to see a good followup on your intentions expressed here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, one admin, who seems to be supporting these type of useless editors (I note the Ferrylodge arbitration), has decided to undo what the community believes. B should put himself up for recall, because he shouldn't have this power. This is a terrible decision that ignores the mass of evidence of Profg's behavior. I can't believe it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OM, if you want to take this to a venue where a significant number of impartial and uninvolved people will make a fair decision, feel free. I think our point is that that's what should have been done in the first place. --BlueMoonlet 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're overstepping. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, to be perfectly honest, this is just taking a turn for the weird. The flagrant personal attacks here are worse than anything I have seen from Profg. No uninvolved user has even weighed in here in support of the ban - this isn't how community bans work. Community bans are COMMUNITY bans, not involved editor bans. A ban is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the first one. But if you really feel that a ban is warranted, have a legitimate discussion with input and agreement from uninvolved editors - uninvolved means people who don't edit the same topic area - and an uninvolved admin to make the block and I won't stand in the way. If the decision to ban him is really the correct decision, you ought to be able to convince a few uninvolved editors of it. --B 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with this user being unblocked. I think that too many people are far too lenient with such editors who have been given far too many chances and continue to disrupt. Essentially every editor involved with ProfG agrees that he is disruptive and problematic. My question is, why do so many people assume that an editor not involved has a more accurate idea of this editor than editors who have spent weeks or months with him? Sure, involved editors might be blinded by their own emotions, however I think that is drastically underestimating most editors. I think that the editors who have experience with this editor have a lot more to say than someone who has no experience with them. I also believe that if one takes enough time to closely examine ProfG's edits, they too would agree with the large number of involved editors, that ProfG is quite disruptive. I find it quite odd that for obvious vandals, we give them a few warnings and then block them (at increasing durations after each offense), and with less obvious problematic editors than obvious vandals we generally give them attempts to change in the forms of requests for comment, mediations and then finally arbitrations. However what do we do for the editors who fall in between obvious vandals and the not so obvious problematic editors? Obviously an arbitration lasting for months isn't the way to go, nor are RFC's which are frequently ignored or disregarded by such editors. I think that community blocks are the answer and that this block was well justified. Perhaps the best way to go is to put limitations on this user, such as 1rr and a civility watch, however as has been mentioned above, many of this editors problems arise neither from 3rr or obvious incivility but stalking and harassment. Obviously stalking is the worst problem with this user, who has caused a lot of problems at the Homeopathy article, an article which apparently he was uninterested in until following another user there. Perhaps another limitation can be placed on this editor which would prevent him from stalking and harassing other editors, however I can think of no such limitation that can be put in places that would have any such effect as it's quite subjective to judge whether a user innocently came to an article with a user he is in dispute with or came there to further the dispute and/or harass the other user in question. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR isn't just about 3RR. It ensures that someone pushing a POV can't continually revert to their POV. --B 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Admin going overboard with blocks?

I noticed that some two-edit or three-edit vandals were being blocked without warning by User:Raul654. I am not entirely sure whether this is overboard or not, please check. thanks. 204.52.215.107 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, at least one of them, User:Carlcarlcarl. Not sure about others. 204.52.215.107 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly normal practice to block wikipedia accounts who's first and only contribs are vandalism. Admitedly this is not clear cut vandalism so a block wasn't really necessary IMHO. I can't see any other examples that fit this complaint. Most of the others seem to have done more blatant vandalism and have been warned at least once. The fact that we are often too lenient (IMHO anyway) with vandals doesn't mean we have to be. Nil Einne 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this just tacit custom? Or is it mentioned explicitly somewhere in the block policy? David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is up with that "alternative history" comment? El_C 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See Raul's user page. Raymond Arritt 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Carlcarlcarl's edit isn't blatant vandalism (meaning recognizable to someone with no knowledge of the subject). Whether it is an edit in good faith or not, I have no idea ... but it needs explanation. I have no problem with blocking without warning someone who believes that all articles should have references to human anatomy - such a person is not going to be a serious contributor. But something like this at least needs explanation that it really is vandalism, not just a POV. (I have no idea whether this edit is accurate or not.) --B 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Opera Mini

Mmm, User:Zyxoas is asking his block to be reviewed. Apparently he is using Opera Mini (p09-04.opera-mini.net == 88.131.66.88). I couldn't find the relevant thread but I remember OM to have been discussed lately, and that it was agreed they should be added to the list of proxies sending XFF headers. Can someone confirm this has been done and lift the relevant blocks? -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally edit from Opera Mini and can confirm that most of their proxies are only softblocked. east.718 at 07:21, 10/12/2007

Softblocked for now then. Can someone poke a dev to check if the m:XFF project updated the list? -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an updated list here, and it doesn't include Opera Mini. east.718 at 08:40, 10/12/2007

Yeah, I wondered if that list was up-to-date in fact :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

m:XFF Project says "Contact xff AT wikimedia DOT org for listing and delisting inquiries." Neil ム 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International

Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continuously added material that includes contentious, unduly self-serving claims about Ali Sina to the article Faith Freedom International, using primary sources, which Clearly violate WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. The material added is meant to depict Ali Sina as a hate monger by use of selective primary source quotespamming. [66][67][68][69][70] Yahel Guhan 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have used the exact same source that is already used in the article, namely this one: Ali Sina (13 July 2006). "Viva Oriana!". Point. Iranian.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help).

Regarding making Sina look like a hate-monger. Currently the article says 'Sina describes Muhammad as a "rapist", a "pedophile",a "monster", and mass murderer"'. Does that not make Sina a "hate monger"? And aren't we simply supposed to state facts as they are, or are we supposed to cherry pick which facts make Sina look best?Bless sins 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last two links posted by Yahel Guhan, I'm no longer adding that content. But I would like it if there was debate over whether using FFI for the views of Sina is appropriate.Bless sins 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, which this issue apparenlty does not. You want dispute resolution. Natalie 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps I should have clarified. I was reporting a BLP violation. Yahel Guhan 03:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion/block review of Cberlet

I need a second opinion on Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He posted a Wikibreak announcement which, among other things, accuses unnamed editors of being "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots." Since the editors are unnamed, I left it alone. But he also made disparaging remarks against Lyndon LaRouche which would certainly be unacceptable in article space as BLP violation, so I redacted them. He has since twice restored the comments, after which I blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. (I also blocked Hardindr (talk · contribs), an apparent SPA troll.) I would like a review of Cberlet's edits and my block. Thatcher131 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. --70.109.223.188 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I'd also suggest a checkuser, considering that this guy's very first edit was to Cberlet's page. Blueboy96 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable in this specific case. Chip Berlet is a known critic of Lyndon LaRouche off-wiki, & is expressing his own opinion -- which is cited in the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche. We do allow for a degree of free speech on user pages. LaRouche is arguably a public figure, so I believe that the concerns of WP:BLP may not apply here -- & if LaRouche believes himself to be libeled he would proceed after Berlet. Then again, Berlet says he is on a WikiBreak, so he shouldn't be looking at his user page & a 24-hour block would be more symbolic than effective in that case. -- llywrch 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether someone is a public figure who has made notable criticism or not. BLP violations are not magically ok in userspace simply because the person saying it is notable. This was the correct decision. JoshuaZ 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me as after all its only a short block, SqueakBox 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it already expired at this point (?), I don't think a blocking was the best idea. Not because I tend to agree with llywrch, which I do, but due to the fact (and I keep saying this though I'm not sure anyone is listening) that, when it comes to possible disruption on userpages, protection is almost always preferable to blocking. A block, even a brief one, is traumatic. Protection, on the other hand, is a much more narrow, targeted solution. And userpages are not like articles; it's not as if it's a priority to leave the page unprotected so others can edit it. I once had userpage protected for two weeks until the user agreed to adhere to policy terms in one of its sections. Throughout that time, he was able to make many other unrelated edits, which he would have been unable to had he been blocked (he might have agreed to the terms more quickly in that event, but a lot of hurt feeling were spared, I believe, by not issuing a block, again, by virtue of this problem being limited to a user page). El_C 09:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That action -- protecting the page, rather than blocking the user -- I'm more comfortable with, although it's not the perfect answer. (And no, I don't know that that would be.) Blocking a user -- especially one like Cberlet who has had to confront the combined venom of LaRouche's followers dealing with their POV-pushing -- can be received as an unfairly punitive thing. Especially when the LaRouchies were the first group to attempt to push their own agenda & opinions upon Wikipedia; before the Scientologists, the US Congress, the Catholics, the Neo-Nazis & even the anti-circumcision activists. They would see driving Cberlet as a victory, which would motivate them to keep pushing for a mention of LaRouche's lunatic fringe ideas into every article they could find. Out of concern for Wikipedia, I hope we treat him better when he returns from his WikiBreak. -- llywrch 23:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed this issue on user talk:Cberlet. Basically, all the derogatory terms Cberlet used about LaRouche can be amply sourced, unlike typical BLP violations. I think the matter here is the subtler issue of neutrality, which manifests itself in saying that Larouche "is" those things, rather than that he "has been called" those things. Since the BLP violation was subtle rather than egregious it might have been more helpful to have had a discussion rather than reverts and a block. (Since neither side sought a discussion that goes both ways). I'm more concerned with the comments about other (unnamed) editors. I think Cberlet may have been acting out of frustration at the endless stream of accounts, many of them apparently socks of HK, that keep appearing to push the LaRouche POV on Wikipedia. That doesn't justify incivility, but it is understandable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg, new WP:SPA with serious WP:COI and disruptive WP:ABUSE & WP:NPA & WP:NPOV problems

We need to block Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at least briefly to get his attention to the fact that policies and guidelines need to be respected at least a bit. The problem has been documented and discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Geoeg as well as at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg, but so far we have not asked for a block. All his latest contribs today continue the abuse and POV pushing. If someone thinks a block is not yet obviously needed, please advise on suggested process here. Dicklyon 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now also asked for a 3RR block, since he continued to revert on two articles after my warning. But his offenses are much worse than that and deserve a more serious block than that's likely to get (and may get me one, too). Dicklyon 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this history shows that Geoeg is engaging in a revert war with Dicklyon. As always, it takes two to tango. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and I apologize for my part in it, but calls for help on 3O, COI, wikiquette, etc., did only a little to slow him down; that's why I'm here now. Please review the problem and advise. He's now blocked for 48 hours on second 3RR violation, but he'll be back Monday most likely. By the way, I visited the steel museum last time I was in Sheffield; nice place. Dicklyon 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked User:Johntex for 3RR (really, edit-warring in general) on today's featured article, Intelligent design. Ordinarily this would be a routine case but my understanding is that we tend to err on the side of encouraging editing of FAs. Review welcome. Raymond Arritt 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the block should be lifted if John agrees to cease editing ID until after it comes off the main page. Raul654 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I wish I had the time to look into this. I sincerely question the need for a block, given my interaction with John in the past. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I really wish I wasn't in the middle of class. Where, exactly, do you get 4 reverts from? Ugh. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

John is a good guy and is a great editor. I don't think he knew the extensive background and warring that went on over that particular use of the word. He added the MOS reversions then went after a NPOV tag Spryde 16:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's just tidying up terminology and following procedure by giving it an NPOV tag since it keeps getting reverted. HalfShadow 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One man's tidying is another groups ignoring of WP:CON and WP:UNDUE. It should get resolved pretty quickly. Unfortunately ID is one of those subjects that gets harped on for a long time and unless you know the history, you become part of the "But what about..." people. Spryde 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this, since there have been many 3RRs on the page (I think I may have gone over 3RR although I wasn't keep ing track. Most of the edits I reverted were vandalism and a few were technically reversions but were atempts to restore content lost in edit conflicts). While there is some leeway aloud with featured articles in general, that's to keep the content ok despite possible POV pushing. The matter in question was (and is) being discussed on the talk page and it is unbecoming for an editor to keep edit warring rather than take further part in the discussion (although John did play a minor part). The most serious issue is that the number of reverts was very high. If I read this correctly I count at least 6 edits which are reversions which is way over 3RR. Overall, I probably would not have blocked, but I'm not inclined to unblock. It seems like a call within reason. JoshuaZ 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction, no actual 3RR appeared to occur since only 3 of the edits were actual reverts. JoshuaZ 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My quick review of his contributions confirms his assertions. There were serial edits, but they were not reverts. There's no edit warring here, let alone 3RR. I think this block was improper. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, it certainly looks like edit warring to me, when multiple editors are telling someone to stop doing something and you keep doing it but in other sections of the same article that's still edit warring. JoshuaZ 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it. I see a bunch of serial edits, a few reverts, and then posting of an NPOV tag. The way I see it, assuming good faith on all sides is that he was in the process of making these changes, multiple editors told him to stop and then he stopped. To me, that's not edit warring. -Chunky Rice 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he is unblocked per agreement not to edit the article for the rest of the day. Spryde 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I unblocked him per his agreement to Raul and Brad's request. Sorry I couldn't comment here more quickly, I was moving to a different class. I'll comment later about the block when I'm free. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much everyone. I am sorry this trouble arose. I definitely had no intention of edit warring or violating WP:3RR. I don't believe I did violate 3RR. Per the WP:MOS, "claim" is a loaded term that is often used to denigrate the assertions to which is is referring. The exceptions are references to legal proceedings and when inside direct quotes.

I was going through the article section by section checking instances to see if they complied with WP:MOS and changing those that did not comply to more neutral terms like "said" (v) or "assertion" (n).

I was not aware I was being reverted until someone left a message at my Talk page.

When I realized I was being reverted, I responded by posting my concerns to the article Talk page.

Since I could not restore my changes without running afoul of 3RR, I tagged the article with a NPOV tag. The reason is that the article is POV with all these instances of "claim" being used to denigrate one side of the debate.

Unfortunately, the tag was twice removed, despite the fact that the tag clearly states not to remove it until the dispute is settled.

I request that an uninvolved admin restore the tag until the issue is resolved through discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that an NPOV tag should not be applied to the mainpage featured article. (Whether an article that might arguably be subject to such a tag should be mainpaged is a separate question, and I haven't investigated the merits of this one.) The issue can be raised again tomorrow when the article is off the main page. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the article is prominently displayed on the Main Page is more reason to fix the problem, not less.

As a procedural matter, removing the tag was very bad form. The tag clearly states it is not to be removed while the matter is being discussed.

As a practical matter, we need to restore the tag as a service to our readers. We have to warn the unsuspecting reader that the article they are about to read is riddled with loaded language. Otherwise, they will get the wrong impression about how we strive to employ neutral language in our writing. Johntex\^talk 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased articles don't get to be the main page featured article. If someone is adding an NPOV tag to the featured article, that person is wrong (almost automatically and by definition), and we don't let it stay there. Johntex's in in a minority of one here, and his arguments have been totally debunked on the talk page - which is par for the course when someone adds a tag to the daily featured article. Raul654 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Actually Raul, it is a tenant of Wikipedia that Featured Articles are still not perfect. If we thought they were perfect, we would protect them from editing. We don't do that, so obviously there is room for improvement.
2. As a case in point, the recently featured Fightin' Texas Aggie Band was also slapped with a NPOV tag as a direct result of the exposure it got on the Main Page. However, instead of reverting, as you did, we left the tag in place and discussed matters on the Talk page.
3. As for biased articles reaching the Main Page, articles get to the Main Page pretty much on your say so, since you are the Featured Article director. I don't think you, or I, or anyone, are infallible. Do you disagree? Is it possible that you missed something?
4. Your views that Intelligent Design is ludicrous are quite clear. Could your dislike for ID could be clouding your usually clear judgment? Could problems in this article have slipped through simply because you are over-worked? Perhaps the job of FA director needs to be split between more people. I don't know. I don't know how the flaws in this article remained in it all the way to the Main Page. I just know the article has some subtle bias that needs to be corrected. I know that my attempts to correct the problem have been met with knee-jerk status-quoism and stonewalling. As such, the article is disputed and the tag should remain.
5. As to your assertion that I am "a minority of one", please check again. TSP, Alec92, Kenosis, dave souza, and Merzul have all either questioned the use of "claim" in the article and/or provided some measure of support for the points I am making. Johntex\^talk 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Update: you can add Neil to the list of those who are questioning the usage of "claim". He has even started a new section on the topic and seems to be directly disagreeing with you, Raul. Johntex\^talk 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all and thanks to User:Bbatsell for the unblock. I saw edit warring and blocked to prevent further disruption. It's now clear that there's no need. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The lesson of this is we need more knowlegable people willing to be FAC reviewers; if the article has a POV issue it should never have become featured. Neil ☎ 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With controversial topics such as Intelligent design, Global warming and the like, there will always be someone who claims the article has POV problems even if the article is as NPOV as humanly possible. Raymond Arritt 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but this exposes a fault in having Raul as the FA director- he is deeply involved in such issues, and thus there is a clear conflict of interest here. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he deeply involved or just deeply interested? If he has extensively edited the articles and discussed improvements on the talk page, then obviously he is involved and should have recused himself from the decision about whether they became featured articles or not. If he merely lightly edits a wide range of environmental science and science articles (which would not be surprising given his background), then that shouldn't be a problem. Carcharoth 08:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, he is the sole FA director- which means that every article, no matter what his opinion on the subject, goes to him. While I'm going to assume good faith that Raul wouldn't let that interfere, my involvement with him suggests that he has let personal disputes with other users get in the way. Of course, I am not one to comment on the POV of an issue I know only by cursory overview, and so can't comment on COI issues there. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard any allegations that Raul might be less than objective in managing the FA process. I have a lot of gripes with that process, but form what I've seen his part in it is limited to handling the administrivia -- closing nominations where the conversation has ended, reading through the discussions & counting noses to decide which articles passed, & so forth. He has been in charge of this part of Wikipedia because he has been reliable & thorough. If you think he has too much power shuffling the papers related to this process, go ahead & either offer to help or volunteer a friend. I'm sure he would welcome the assistence to handle this largely unacknowledged & unthanked task. -- llywrch 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist

New Jimmy Hammerfist (talk · contribs) is removing Chinese characters from such articles as [{Giant Panda]] and Bamboo. Is this an improper activity? I've reverted him once on each article and another User has reverted him once. If others think this is no big deal, I won't press it. I just want a second opinion. Corvus cornix 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He has now added to my request for him to stop on his Talk page, "I will continue to remove any Chinese or other language references as I see fit.". I won't push it if I'm in the wrong here. Corvus cornix 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an English-Chinese dictionary. As well, it has a Chinese language section. Chinese characters have no place in an English language encyclopedia entry on Pandas, bamboo, or anything else and I will continue to remove any such characters I come across in Chinese or any other language where the inclusion of such serves no good educational purpose. Jimmy Hammerfist 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may be wrong (and I'm also not an admin), but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) seems to support this. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; there is nothing wrong with putting Chinese characters/translations for subjects that are Chinese-related. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be up to local consensus on whether the information is relevant enough to be in the article. Certainly there is no site-wide consensus that Chinese characters are forbidden; that would be nonsense. In the case of Giant Panda and Bamboo, my opinion is that the information is relevant and useful. One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it can jump into foreign alphabets or writing systems to use the exact original name of something. EdJohnston 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adding native spellings of names for things that are primarily known by those names is perfectly normal, useful practice, and removing them without good and sufficient reason verges on vandalism. Doing so systematically, I think, crosses that line. The fact that Chinese names are written in Chinese characters (which MediaWiki is expressly designed to support) should make no difference to that principle. -- The Anome 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says as follows:

This edition of Wikipedia is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article. Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Wikipedia contains the characters.

The words "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" are common words, not proper nouns. They are not the names of particular persons or places, such as Mao Zedong or Beijing. They are also not obscure words lacking established translations. As such, the insertion of the Chinese-language words for "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" is recommended against by the Manual of Style. --FOo 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats due to deletion of a company article

An IP, 82.46.194.57‎ (talk · contribs) has had his company's article deleted, Five Hour Films. He made a talk page, saying this:

Hi, this is the creator of the page.

I would just like to say, categorically, that I am totally outraged by the way this article has been treated. Notice after notice reading about "falsities" and "nonsense" - How dare you say such things about a Film Company that has striven for excellence since its birth. No where in the article does it promote the company and The work that the members of this company have put in trying to become a recognized cause is phenomenal so for a website like yours to criticize is frankly soul destroying.

Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility by Wikipedia. Not a single false-hood is written into this and your administrators would have found this very easy to see if they had done research rather than jump in head first with their almighty opinion.

I can assure that in Britain, responses from companies in this manner and tone are taken as SLANDER. If this continues Wikipedia can add another move of legal action to the ever growing list they seem to be ammasing against them.

Any further remarks from your company I would rather recieve through private e-mail as this is highly un-professional and embarrassing for both parties involved.

Thank - you.

Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Ever-growing list"? Corvus cornix 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't that deemed to be libelous? :) ---- WebHamster 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nonsense at Adam McGill, this looks like a troll, to me. Corvus cornix 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that fact that it's "libel" not "slander". And I can assure you that in Britain truth is always an adequate defence against either :) ---- WebHamster 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are all edits of this nature trolls. An ip address makes an edit like the one described above - the ip is a troll - is that right? Please don't call me a troll or a sockpuppet. I'm just making a suggestion which may be helpful86.141.66.176 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Said suggestion is proscribed the way it is written. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"in Britain" it happens, although this user thinks he knows better, that it depends on whether you live in Scotland, England Ireland or Wales. It is definitly permitable in Scotland and England - I have a father who is profesionaly involved in the former and the latter is very similar but with a less effective system - and i find it hard to believe Wales and Ireland are really that backward. May I suggest we block him for trolling? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

yes because we are all trolls - right?86.141.66.176 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blood Red Sandman , legal threats are legal threats. If said user wants to contact the foundation they should do so rather than making threats. PS I assume Blood Red Sandman is referring to Northern Ireland when they include Ireland as a part of Britain - because the Republic of Ireland aint part of Britain--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to stray of subject RoI isn't a part of the United Kingdom, whether it is a [part of the British Isles is disputed but certainly not untrue. If this company are claiming we shouldn't have deleted their article they have no right to say so as nobody can foce wikipedia to accept an article, its not a public broadc aster or anything remotely similar, SqueakBox 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are all ips trolls. Please explain. your WP:DENYing me.86.141.66.176 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and it's community has the right to delete any article it sees fit. If you continue to make legal threats on wikipedia your editing privilege will be revoked. Is that clear? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you now accusing me of being the company who wrote that rubbish just because im an ip? ips seem to be very unwelcome here.86.141.66.176 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant NI. And 86.141.66.176, law accross the UK (indeed, accross the civilised world) allows some incredible damaging things to be said about an organisation. May I also point out, though, that nothing degrading was said about the company. It was deleted for lacking any sign of importance, because, as the article stood, it did indeed lack any sign of importance. It may be the best company in the world - nobody said it wasn't - but it shows no evidence that it has done anything more significant than countless other similar organisations. Please understand that not notable does not mean it's not good. Also, no-one said you are the company, but you admitted yourself to at least have a connection with the company - you 'know' that "Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility". Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read and understand before you reply - I beg you - I don't particularly care that that article which I didn't write was deleted and I don't particularly care if you dont believe that i'm not the same person. You have the right to delete whatever is inappropriate. What I do care about is that all ips seem to be unwelcome here. All ips are accused of trolling, sockpuppeting or something. Why?86.141.66.176 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all of them are - the problem is that there is a largish number of such people, and most of them happen to use IPs. But, look at your edits, you gotta admit they can be taken to look quite troll-like? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because most anonIP editors are trolls, vandals, or sockpuppets, or make baseless legal threats. Argyriou (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you just force everyone to become registered by making it easier to register and banning ips.86.141.66.176 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it could be any easier to register than it is now. You simply choose a username and password...that's it. You don't even need an email address or any personal information. - auburnpilot talk 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for experienced users like yourself but not for new people. Firstly it takes a while to figure out where the register button is. To a new person wikipedia looks a mess with buttons everywhere that have no meaning to new people. Then when you do find the register button problems - such as not being able to see the letters. A new person being directed to request an account would have no idea what to do. The reason I haven't registered is because I only make occassional spelling corrections and watch discussions where I see ips being blocked every second.86.141.66.176 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments concerning trolling were addressed at the IP who was making the legal threats, and then going in and creating/working on an article supposedly about the head of this organization, whose father was Louis XIV. You don't think that's trolling? Corvus cornix 23:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its trolling but I think its stupidand not something you would find in an encyclopedia. As for legal threats, do they mean anything - I mean I doubt anyones ever actually filed a lawsuit against wikimedia.86.141.66.176 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Making legal threats, even frivolous ones, is not allowed --Haemo 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean frowned upon by the community. 86.141.66.176 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he means "not allowed". If you do make a legal threat, you will be blocked to ensure you don't exacerbate situations through Wikipedia. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ye but don't you still say frowned upon? Community, not bureaucracy?86.141.66.176 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• — 86.141.66.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's one of the rules. "Official Policy" level. WP:NLT. If you make one, and any admin notices, you're going to be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tossing aroung legal threats also makes you look like a dick. HalfShadow 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

More importantly it has a major anti-community impact. See our article on "Chilling effect". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Anal-oral contact

Resolved

 – Not an incident, direct comments to the Village Pump please.

The legality of a photo in this article has come under some debate at VPR. The photo has been removed and replaced several time so far. Disregarding my reasons for thinking the image should be permanently removed, it is my opinion that if there is a question of the legality of content, it should be removed until the issue is properly settled, for it's better to err on the side of caution. I think the photo should be removed and the page protected until this can be properly sorted out.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:54, 10/13/2007

Wow. So, it's OK to have trivia, but not an image that goes against your morality. Well done. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo. Only on Wikipedia, folks... HalfShadow 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Waiter, i'll have soup instead, tonight. Simple reminder, WP:CENSOR. We aren't censored, we provide it in educational, non-salacious manner. ANy elgit reason for complaint? ThuranX 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page about the image at all, mostly name changes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See VPR (anchored link) for the discussion.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:02, 10/13/2007

Legality where? Which country? Which laws? ---- WebHamster 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion, as I'm ill-equipped to accurately present the issue myself. I've requested that the editor who brought up the legal question (User:Wikidemo) to comment here though.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:08, 10/13/2007

Do we really need to have this discussion on three different pages? -Chunky Rice 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC) This doesn't need administrator attention, please keep the discussion on one page. Viridae^Talk 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No sufficient argument has been made so far in the discussion to justify the hasty removal of the photo. From my own personal bias, it isn't clear to me that the photo qualifies as pr0n per the document being quoted. But notwithstanding, the upshot of the discussion was to bring it to the Foundation, which seems to me like the only reasonable next step. Illustrative photos of sexual and deviant behaviour have been on WP since the beginning. Let's wait for the clear word from the Foundation that they have to go before removing any based upon our interpretation of the quoted document. Anchoress 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you think the page should be locked down for edit warring over the image, this is hardly an "incident" for admin attention. Mr.Z-man 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User Erwin Morland suspicous activity...

User:Erwin Morland recreated the page Dead black males imediately after an AFD closed to delete it, an AFD he opposed. As soon as that article was speedied per G4 as a recreation of deleted material, he went to GNAA and entered Gay Nigger Association of America as a dab article, an article with an historic AFD history of its own... See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America Given the number of edits this person has on their edit page, and their WP:POINT making move to GNAA, an historicly contentious moment in Wikipedia history, this may need someone to keep an eye on. See user's contribs, though deleted articles don't appear. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Picaroon (t) 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They should have been perma-blocked at that first edit to Dan Glickman. Corvus cornix 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG is not a neutral admin

I would like to bring to all of your notice that DGG is not a neutral admin, or at least his admin actions do not suggest so. DGG, it appears, has deleted the older comments I had posted to his talk page concerning these issues. I suggest if he cannot be neutral he should please give up his admin rights. I am speaking with valid reference. He have been very well aware of the articles on Hindi Programming Language and Hindawi Programming System; in fact he created a disambiguation page for Hindawi where he linked in both of these. Now, today he have deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the Hindawi Programming System page while he has not done so with the Hindi Programming Language page. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. DGG explain his actions and the lack of neutrality. Further, the chain of events go like this. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on Hindawi Publishing Corporation, without ever discussing it. Then he move the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open any other encyclopedia and see what Hindawi refers to. Even though I assume good intent, I found a DGG comment on another admins' page requesting support in dealing with me [71]. This was outrageous. I am really let down by the manner in which DGG is handling his admin responsibilities. Please let the _open_ spirit of WP survive DGG - an honest humble request. Please be neutral. When you marked Hindawi Programming System for deletion even though it was not at all intended so, I presumed good intent and believed the article needed restructuring. Why then do you behave so differently about Hindi Programming Language where the advertisement intent of an completely unreferenced article has been admitted clearly by the author?

For those of you who may be interested Hindawi Programming System is a well referenced and reviewed piece of open source software which has been well recognised internationally, with even Linux Magazine reviewing it. Unfortunately its name clashes with a commercial entity. The rest is all evident. Is WP another yellow pages?

I expect an honest and well balanced / well judged response from the community. Hi pedler 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler Hi pedler 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

I'd just like to point out that any editor, admins included, are allowed to remove whatever they want from their talk pages.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:51, 10/13/2007

Especially when they're delightful material such as this. I don't understand why any of this has to do with him being an admin, or "neutral", or why it's anything but a content dispute with someone who has a COI in this respect. --Haemo 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To reinforce Equazcion's point, I have also been told by administrators that removing messages from talk pages is actually okay, because they are still available in the talk page history. As pertains to DGG, I have found him to be quite neutral and objective in any of my dealings with him and I overall think he is one of the finest administrators that I have interacted with on this site. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is he being non neutral then? This is explained above with respect to the way he has dealt with the article on Hindawi and all the related articles. WP has lost its spirit, as per the comments above. It should probably be called a yellow pages and not an encyclopedia if articles about commercial entities are given prefernce over encyclopedic articles. Hi pedler 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Agreed fully. I sometimes disagree with DGG on specific issues (it would be a dull world if everyone agreed on everything) but I have never found him anything other than civil, fair and knowledgeable. Remarks like this and this, in contrast, show Hi pedler to be needlessly overbearing. Raymond Arritt 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG's boringly neutral. Not even I can find fault with him as an administrator. He'll also listen to you if you put your case out and may agree to change something because you've offered sufficient evidence. It is hard to follow what you're saying here or accusing him of, though. Maybe sticking with the facts at issue rather than your perception of DGG and extraneous issues about talk page deletions could clear the matter up. KP Botany 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support DGG as well. I've also dealt with Hi pedler as well. There is also some serious COI concerns. I've even been accused of working with DGG [72][73] simply for having commented on possibly articles from Hi pedler. Again, Hi pedler, you need to be more specific about what you find not neutral from DGG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I also support DGG's neutrality. While I don't always agree with him, he always does his best (IMO) to maintain a polite and neutral atmosphere. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who have often disagreed with DGG on AfD I have to second that. I have never found him to be anything more than a guy who presents his point of view politely and often quite convinsingly. Move along, there is nothing to see here. EconomicsGuy 06:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We should preserve this little set of commentaries, because I think DGG's neutrality is the only thing this set of editors has ever and ever will agree upon. Can we get it framed in gold or something? KP Botany 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever run into any of the other editors here other than DGG (who technically isn't here, but...) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. It's true. The fact that people on both sides of many disputes agree on this means that he really must be neutral. I especially agree with the "...boringly so" comment, it's funny someone said that, as I was thinking the same thing. As for this particular dispute, which I'm sure the OP is getting frustrated that no one is commenting on, it's kind of hard to follow. I can't speak for everyone else but I myself am just confused by the situation as the OP has described it, and was waiting for DGG to come and clear this up for us.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:03, 10/13/2007

Why was one article treated differently than the other? Without the specifics (your complaint was excessively broad, to the point of not actually saying anything, and just a quite unconvincing appeal to emotion), I can't say, but in general, what happens to one article in the deletion process does not affect the status of other articles. I can't say I've seen DGG do anything wrong here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you every one. The few words I wrote above are _too long_ ? What should its length have been? Here are the specifics

• 1. Now, today he has deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the Hindawi Programming System while he has not done so with the Hindi Programming Language. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. Refer programming languages
• 2. There was an older page on Hindawi which referred to the Hindawi Programming System. He first changed its contents to an advertisement like article on Hindawi Publishing Corporation, without ever discussing it. Then he moved the company related article to a different name and redirected Hindawi to the new page. Please open any other encyclopedia and see what Hindawi refers to.

Is that specific enough? Hi pedler 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Some more points:

• The name of the commercial entity is Hindawi Publishing Corporation and not Hindawi Publishing Company
• DGG did not deal with the article on Bangabhasha. Why? Because it did not clash with the commercial entity's name?
• DGG deals with Hindawi Programming System in one way. He keeps deleting 3rd party verifiable contents on the article. He marked it speedy as well. But he does not do the same for Hindi Programming Language. Please read the relevant discussion pages. Hindi Programming Language's author even admitted he intends it to be a means for the world to know about it.

This is my last comment on this topic here. One more thing, Ricky81682 has made a last comment on Hindi Programming Language discussion page in a manner which leaves more deserving of an admin.

The major point here is why doesn't DGG discuss something before deleting when it is a contested topic. Hi pedler 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

I do not always agree with DGG- far from it. However, I have to support him completely in this instance.--Filll 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In view of all the support above, comment might seem superfluous, but I offered last night to re-examine the balance between the two programming system articles--I gather there is an intellectual property rights dispute between them--and to invite a specialist if we still disagreed (as I have no personal experience of how to program in Hindi), upon which Hi pedlar preferred to bring it here. But I first noticed this after an attempt by both Hi pedlar and some anon. to remove the article on the competitive programming language and on a publisher whose name resembled that of the company whose article he supports. First I've heard of BangaBhasha, but as Hi pedlar seems to have been editing it, someone else might want to take a look at it. But Hi pedlar is right about the name of the publisher, about which he might be more familiar than I, so I'm moving it from H.P. Company to ... H. P. Corporation as he just now suggested.18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (This was posted by User:DGG but does not seem to have his name for some reason. KP Botany 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

In full disclosure, the comment from me that Hi pedler is discussing is here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm personally positive DGG isn't nuetral... I'll be damned if I can prove it though...JJJ999 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for the response. As about an expert taking a look at these articles, well I have personally wanted the same all through. I understand that WP is not the forum for deciding the IP rights conflict between the two programming systems, and I have earlier said the same in as many words. Request DGG to maintain the composure he has shown above and be a bit patient in applying speedy. Lets have a healthy attitude towards developing positive content. As about getting my contributions reviewed in general - I'll be the happiest. 122.169.9.78 05:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Another point - DGG has barred me from editing the above refernced pages. This is a violation of my right to free speech and I take it seriously. I understand the rules to WP hold their ground but DGG has no business barring my fundamental rights. Hi pedler 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

Only one person is positive that DGG is not neutral - amazing! Hi pedler 06:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

You have no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Freedom of speech provides that the government cannot abridge your right to free speech in public. This right has no effect on whether or not the private entity Wikipedia allows you to edit its content. --Cheeser1

ha ha ha... ho ho ho... I feel like I should burst out laughing... why was I wasting my time in the above then?? Hi pedler 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler

But the problem here is you're simply not going to get a rise out of DGG by accusing him of being other than neutral or a discussion on anything but the topic at hand, which is the article and editorial concerns about it, because that's pretty much what DGG does here: edits and discusses articles. He boringly replied to your accusations in just this manner above. And this discussion has pretty much shown exactly what I said above: DGG is boringly neutral. KP Botany 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a problem

From b3ta's monthly newletter: http://www.b3ta.com/newsletter/issue298/

 >> Quopedia vandalism <<
 "Hello b3ta Towers," blurps danbull45, "We
 would like to divulge to you the following very
 sinister secret. Using a variety of aliases and
 cunning page edits, we have now subtly shopped
 Status Quo into nearly 200 different photos on
 Wikipedia. Our aim is for every image in
 Wikipedia to have Teh Quo hidden somewhere
 within it. We'd like to show you the fruits of
 our labour, but for obvious reasons can't
 reveal the location of each image - so here is
 a taster of our handiwork. Perhaps your
 newsletter's readers could aid us in our
 glorious mission?"

Looks like the vandalism was caught, but what other images have they been fiddling with? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, clever little buggers. I've filed a CheckUser request, just in case it might help. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a policy that any revisions to images that don't change that image in any visible way should always be reverted.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:35, 10/13/2007

That would not have helped in this case. Further details omitted per WP:BEANS, though it's not that hard to figure out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Page image incident

File:DSC03013.JPG

Nothing to see here...

Oops. The main page image seems to have been vandalised. Some handwritten c-upload notice! Carcharoth 07:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image can be seen here. Looking at the history of Commons:Image:Templarsign.jpg, we see an edit summary of "I am sooo sorry", followed by a revert a minute later. Do we have to make points about c-upload in front of all our readers? Carcharoth 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been done. Comment left at User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I kind of violated WP:POINT there. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PROTECTING_MAIN_PAGE_IMAGES which I posted before I saw this thrad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I grovel - I changed the image to try and settle a disagreement over what should be the best image. I had intended to then full protect it on Commons but was distracted. Someone decided to make a point and upload a vandalised image on Commons to the same title. The point (though it could have been made more kindly) is well taken - be careful in updating templates transcluded onto the mainpage. Either upload a local copy or protect the Commons one... WjBscribe 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WJB, I don't suppose this incident might prompt you to become the first admin bot operator on Commons, as well? We already have the necessary code.--chaser - t 07:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did make the initial report (without checking WP:AN), and I don't normally defend this sort of thing, but for a one-minute thing it was pretty harmless. As we have seen, it did make WjBScribe (our new admin bot overlord) sit up and take notice! Now, who wants to write an admin bot program to make sure this never happens again? :-) Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I wonder whether a creative WP:POINT violation could be thought up to drive the point home to Jeffrey O. Gustafson that some readers will have seen this? Or would that thought end up drowning in its own irony. Carcharoth 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't resist... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, your pen is running out of ink... :-) Carcharoth 08:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a pencil, actually... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell all of you about deleting the main page? I'm tentatively against it. El_C 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, WTF?

I discovered that the TFA image for today (Battleship) was not uploaded locally. Again. Honestly, its not that hard, people. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That one is protected on commons. Was it not when you wrote this? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I discovered it, mentioned it on IRC, and a commons admin protected it after the fact. The fact still remains: An Image Was On The Main Page Unprotected, And People Don't Get It. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was fucking transcluded on to commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page which is fucking cascade protected and it was transcluded there for quite some fucking time so it was been fucking protected on commons long before your fucking message here. Shall I also start inserting fuck into every fucking edit summary too? Is that some new fucking trend you're starting? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... yes... now I remember why I stopped checking whether images on the Main Page are unprotected. Zzyzx11 told me about that page awhile ago. Thanks for reminding me that I wasn't imagining that. -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Jeffrey O. Gustafson has so gently pointed out, Zzyzx11's methodology isn't fool-proof. In the Templar's case, the main page image was switched out for another so Zzyzx11 was left with the wrong image commons protected. It doesn't appear DYK images are ever added to Zzyzx11's cascade protection so those always need to be checked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's semi-protected on Commons; is it supposed to be fully protected? However, to be fair, the image for TOFA basically just appears on the Main Page automagically. I suppose you could ask Raul to protect images he puts in the TOFA templates, but beyond that, the fact that images go on the Main Page (under TOFA) unprotected is as much your fault as it any admin's. Images that are actually put on the Main Page by people – in ITN and DYK – are a different story. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is fully protected by way of being transcluded on to a cascade fully protected page as I mentioned above. The additional semi-protection was unnecessary (which neither Jeffrey O. Gustafson nor the semi-protecting commons admin seem to have noticed). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest (unless this is some form of joke on his part that I just don't 'get') Jeffery may wish to take a Wikibreak? While I understand Wikipedia is uncensored, I find swearing for the sake of it moderately distasteful. HalfShadow 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How hard would it be to have a bot that would check every 2 minutes the images displayed on the main page, make sure they are protected (even going so far as to attempt to edit the commons image description page), and if they aren't, post a warning in some suitable location? --B 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a bot to do this? Wasn't cascading protection created so that the bot would not be needed? --Carnildo 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot was more aimed at templates, I think. The problem was that templates were staying unprotected and getting pictures of male anatomy added to them. But cascading protection doesn't help with images still on Commons. Only admins can overwrite a Commons image with a local one, so we would either need an adminbot to upload all of the images locally (in which case cascading protection would take over), protect the images on Commons if they are not protected (needs to be a commons adminbot), or make a list and yell+scream loudly when something isn't protected. --B 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in seeing how we did this before, Shadowbot2 was the bot that checked protection on the Main Page. It originally just listed problems on-wiki, until we realized that at least vandal was watching it and was racing to beat the admins to the unprotected item. So interested admins simply opted into email notices, before cascading protection rendered the bot obsolete. - BanyanTree 10:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Date-specific sub-categories of [Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload] to be deleted

Resolved

See Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload ... quite a few of those categories are old and now empty. If someone would be willing to delete the empty ones, I would appreciate it.  :-) Thanks, Iamunknown 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the ones older than 20 days. --JWSchmidt 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The ones up to and including October 4th are also empty. Anyone willing to delete?  :-) --Iamunknown 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They're all deleted now (I deleted some, and another admin started at the other end). --ais523 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.  :-) --Iamunknown 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Student erotica resuming edit war in Erotica

Student erotica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Resuming an edit war documented here. Editor has been blocked at least twice now from different IP addresses, the latest for 3RR evasion using sockpuppets.[74] There has been substantial Talk page discussion over this, on various User talk pages as well as in Talk:Erotica.

Is this an "Incident" or is there a better place to report this one? / edg ☺ ★ 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of PatPeter

I'm hesitant, though I think it's likely. So I'll directly ask for others to view:

Is User:Sox207, User:PatPeter?

I find him creating sub-pages of PatPeter's userpages. He's setting up the same "rules" (and using the same wording) in userboxes. He seems to have the same tone, and uses similar phrasing ("Seriously"). And he's editing inactive userpages based on his "rules".

I ran into him changing userboxes against concensus at Wikipedia:Userboxes, and WP:UCFD. Though the more I talked with him, and the more I looked into his edit history, the more I think he is. He even started editing when PatPeter stopped.

However, I don't think I can request a CU, as this might fall under "just curious". (It looks like it would fall under "F".)

I'd appreciate it if others would check this out and offer insight. - jc37 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter for more information. - jc37 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible - let's see how the checkuser goes. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment by admin

This admin, Moreschi (talk · contribs) together with Folantin (talk · contribs) is I believe harrasing me. After a WP:CSB discussion (in which these two were instrumental) I believe they are watching my edits and trying to obstruct me where possible. I don't mind to discuss anything with them, but when Folantin (talk · contribs) calls me a 'chauvinist', and I subsequently add a comment and remove this line[75] , Moreschi (talk · contribs) not only readds the personal attack, but also removes my comment, twice, despite my clearly noted objections.Rex 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep an eye on your little mission to exaggerate the "Dutchness" of Ludwig van Beethoven, Rex. Somebody has to. I'm sick to the back teeth of editors whose only interest in the subject of an article is their ethnicity, nationality, linguistic affiliation etc. etc.. If we don't watch them we end up with lameness like this [76]. --Folantin 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my suspicions. As you refered to refered to WP:LAME, I assume you're also familiar with WP:POINT? You know what pisses me off? Editors who do not edit wikipedia to improve it, but to activly seek trouble and conflict with other users without any objective reason and merely prejudice.Rex 11:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You must be pretty mad at yourself then. There's a pretty good reason why you're banned from going anywhere near articles on German subjects (which happens to include quite a few members of the Van Beethoven family). --Folantin 11:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the outcome Folantin, I know what I can and can't do and this isn't can't do. Anyway, do keep talking like this, It makes it easier for the admins to see who's doing what and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Germanus (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll also note that you were blocked on September 30 for 24 days [77]. On October 1, you were granted a "restrictive unblock" to take part in the Community Sanctions debate about you. Not sure that your recent editing history is really covered by that. --Folantin 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is, though it's exempalry of your behaviour that despite being unsure and not knowing the facts, you still have a clear opinion on others. I tend to work differently. I for example, am sure that this doesnt matter at all. Being blocked doesn't give you a letter of marque to obstruct, harrass and offend without reprisal. Even though you yourself seem to think so.Rex 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ADD: Note the fine choice of words by Folantin .... Rex 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lest we forget, Rex's current block is for WP:POINT, persistent conflictual edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades. No doubt he'll be going after the blocking admin User:Rama for harrassment too. --Folantin 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rex has a long history of problematic editing. He persistently pushes a highly pro-Dutch POV on the one hand, and an strongly anti-German one on the other. This is well-known, and calling a spade a spade is hardly a personal attack. Even if it was, NPA does not really permit the removal of such attacks. Rex's complaining here is a complete waste of everyone's time, and his POV-pushing is getting worse and worse, and more and more flagrant. If he doesn't start editing neutrally he'll have to be banned altogether. Moreschi ^Talk 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know wether to laugh or cry, you removed a comment and readded an attack. Twice. No matter how many blocks you digg up. It is not an excuse. I provide sources and explained my actions. If anyone here is editing based on POV its you.Rex 12:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is complete rubbish. Everyone knows what type of editor you are. This is really self-evident. No point denying the obvious. Remember the "German peasant blood", anyone? If you don't, here's the diff. Moreschi ^Talk 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The what-now? Let's tone it down. I'm having difficulties following what going on here, but I'm not seeing any harassment, either. El_C 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's not fair, you used a time machine! El_C 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm seeing here is a load of bitch slapping, but no harassment. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're still on probation, Rex. We're supposed to be watching your edits. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's about maintaining Wikipedia's accuracy in the face of known POV-pushers. It was pretty obvious Rex would head straight back to his Beethoven campaign. Rex wasn't happy when I agreed with User:Fram and provided sources showing that Beethoven's ancestors were Flemish, thus fulfilling WP:V. Rex then went into some long, convoluted argument trying to prove that there were no Flemings at the time and so Ludwig's granddad was obviously Dutch, even though he came from what's now Belgium rather than the Netherlands. Most biographies of Beethoven spend very little time on the composer's more distant family background, usually contenting themselves with noting he was of "Flemish ancestry" before getting on to the details of his life and music. This being Wikipedia, of course, editor priorities seem to be exactly the reverse. --Folantin 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see no harassment and I also see that Rex Germanus was released early from a block only to defend himself, but instead has simply returned to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. The previous block should be resumed and possibly lengthened. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with wknight94. I'm not seeing any harassment here, just a return to the old ways. You're on probation, of course you're being watched, that's sort of the point. 'Ad-hoc additional topic or article bans' - here's your kicker. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we still have {{rpa}}? That's just a recepy for trouble, seeing how WP:RPA is long dead and buried. El_C 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked WATCHING does not involve obstructing or making offensive comments. I for one, am able to watch things WITHOUT calling people chauvinist or readding such attacks and removing comments. Especially an admin ought to know better. Rex 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

With that said, when is the 24-day block going to resume? Shall I reinstate it myself? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was abandond after WP:CSB. Days ago.[78]. How easy admins forget that this discussion isn't about me, but others.Rex 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. There's a rider on User:Jossi's comment: any related disruption will be taken very seriously and will be swiftly followed by an immediate 1 month block. --Folantin 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still dealing with this guy. Raymond Arritt 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done deal. One month block. [79] If this thread isn't disruption, I don't know what is. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Phew! Thank heavens for that. --Folantin 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency. That admins (who are not his old enemies) were thinking about disruptive edits are (IMHO) in this situation enough for a block. Arnoutf 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the ninth time Rex Germanus has been blocked since being put on probation. I'm thinking the ArbCom might be interested in hearing that. Seems to me that serious bans have been levied for less disruptive cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally I was just reviewing this case and thought "when you have to use the vertical scrollbar to see someone's complete block log, there are problems other than monitor size." Raymond Arritt 20:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not seeking, per se, to be hard-assed about it, but with only half that number of legitimate blocks we've community banned people beforehand. Is anyone going to ArbCom with this, or do we want to do this here and now? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since he has already crossed the ArbCom's path, an entry at WP:RFAR#Motions in prior cases may be best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

...and this will write itself; or are we waiting for a volunteer or something? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, I would say, let him sit out his block of one month; and let this be a last warning; the actual German topic banning may not have been clearly communicated. I would suggest posting a message on his talkpage stating something like:

You are banned from engaging in any type of edits concerning German naming for an indefinite time span. Any breach may result in a block without further discussion. You are also put on indefinite 1RR parole. Incivility of you will be no longer tolerated. Breach of these conditions may lead to an indefinite community ban (ie you being kicked out of the Wiki project).

Or a sinilar warning. If he decides to be disrupitve again after something like that, I will no longer defend him (as I did in the past because he also made many worthwhile edits)Arnoutf 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that further leniency will do any good at all. I have requested a siteban from Arbcom. [80] If Rex Germanus realizes that his actions have real, lasting consequences, he may change his approach. A siteban need not be permanent. If he chooses to take a more constructive approach, we should welcome him to return. Until then, we should not allow him to continue gaming our processes. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best not to get into a block / unblock /reblock etc. situation. Let's let the current one-month block run itself out, then at the next offense it will be indef. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom are familiar with the situation, and should have a chance to decide if this is the final straw, or not. If they choose not to ban him this time, I agree that next time should be an indef. Let's see what they say. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked, but not sockpuppeteer?

A few days ago, I reported a possible sockpuppeteer at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Am Mclovin. I also filed a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I Am Mclovin. This morning, I learned that an admin had blocked the sockpuppet but not the puppeteer. Another user informed me on my talkpage that puppeteers are blocked for two weeks for their first offense. I tried to contact the blocking admin, but no response yet. Basically, I am asking that a sockpuppeteer be blocked. Thank you. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an extreme newbie who is skating on the edge of an indefblock. Additionally, s/he has stopped editing anyway. I'd recommend watching to see if they return. If they do and are still up to no good, we can indef. Otherwise, consider the matter closed. They're probably on to another account anyway - hopefully a good-faith one. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't they be blocked anyway? The puppet was clearly used to evade a block. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if sockpuppeteers should be blocked for as long as their sockpuppets unless they continually use them to disrupt the encyclopedia. I'd say give them a chance to contribute, and if they refuse to do so constructively, this could warrant something far more serious. After all, I think that they deserve a second chance (as they were not fully aware of our policies at the time). Cheers, ( arky ) 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of username-change redirects

Hi, in September I changed my username from Rambutan. At the time, I requested that no redirects be created, and was told that this was fine, but the change would still be in the log. I agreed to this, but then later decided not to have them deleted.

However, today I changed my mind and tried to get them deleted. After trying to get attention on IRC where I was abused by ST47, Wimt, NotASpy and Daniel-Bryant, the User: and User_talk: pages were deleted. ST47 then undeleted the User_talk: page. I re-requested speedy deletion, it was turned down by the rude Wimt, and I re-requested specifying more accurately my rationale. The page was protected by ST47.

My point is, suppose I hadn't changed my mind at the time of the rename, and they had been deleted then? Or supposed I'd had my User: and User_talk: pages deleted when I was Rambutan - no redirects would ever have been created. So why am I being denied this now? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to be at all rude, but the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what you were told on WP:CHU, but renames are not made without redirects to the new username except in extremely mitigating circumstances (which, unless I'm missing something, I cannot see here). It causes unnecessary confusion to many people. Will (aka Wimt) 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a CSD because you deleted the CSD. I replaced it and the page was protected. As I explained, I had a rename on the basis that the redirects were deletable. Also, what's your comments on the second sentence of my last paragraph above? And why did NotASpy just boot me on IRC for notifying him/her that s/he's on ANI? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to that point, we don't delete user talk pages unless a user is invoking m:right to vanish (i.e. leaving the project altogether) so that request would also have been turned down. Will (aka Wimt) 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's {{db-userreq}} for, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. User subpages. This does not include your talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not deleted because of the history that must be preserved within them. In this case, the talk page was moved to the new name's location, and that is not a valid reason for declining this deletion. Just delete the thing; it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for these pages to be deleted, the user in question will have left a link to his userpage or talk page through his signature any time he has signed a page, should anybody then wish to contact the user in question, it is made much easier through the retention of these redirects. Not every user is aware of the user rename log or how to use it. Nick 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You were booted from irc for trolling. Also, I cannot see how the other users specified have broken any policy, unless I am missing something. :-) Stwalkerster talk 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I said the following, and that's ALL: "Just to let those of you who know who you are... you're on ANI". Where's this trolling, then? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm I (as NotASpy on IRC) did not boot you the first time, you rejoined with a different nick 4 seconds later, and I kicked you for rejoining in violation of a boot, as I have explained to you. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to have the redirect deleted so desperately? Melsaran (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It matters? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Can you please explain why you no longer want people who click on your old signature to be forwarded to your present userpage and talkpage, thanks. Nick 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the greater privacy that it would offer. It cloaks me from the cr*p people who plagued me when I was Rambutan. The non-cr*p people who know their way round WP will use the rename log. I see some support for the deletion here - please go ahead and do it. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, lets not get wrapped around the axle here, delete it. Mercury 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, can you articulate a good reason? Mercury 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of have done. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see this, but I have already contacted ST47 about this. This is what I said:

The user that used to be Rambutan has contacted me about your overturning the deletion of User talk:Rambutan. As I understand it, if this user does not want any connection between their two accounts, then he is entitled to remove the links. As the page was moved, anyone who had edited the user talk page would now see that in their history as an edit of the moved page. If anyone gets curious then they can search the user rename log; there is also an entry in the block log which notes the connection, so the user is not able to hide their block history. I often see user talk pages put up for speedy deletion, and I remove the speedy tag from them; however this one is an exception. Do you object to my deleting the page?

In my view the user's preference to delete the page is reasonable. Sam Blacketer 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is only one account, not two, and contributions found attributed under the name "Porcupine" have been signed Rambutan, the signature contains links to these pages we're discussing now. Users deserve to be able to visit a user or talk page when clicking on an old signature. Nick 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I just spent 15 minutes reading the entire WP:CHU and related pages, and could not find any rule/guideline allowing/prohibiting/creating/deleting a redirect to the new user pages. {{db-user}} (CSD U1) is fair game here and should not have been declined. That's my interpretation. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If Rambutan was behaving in the exact same manner, but using two accounts, per WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors he would likely be blocked, circumventing this policy using an account that has been usurped should not be possible, and I suggest deference to the aforementioned policy when considering removing links between an old and a new username for the same account. Nick 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I run AWB over all incoming links to User:Rambutan and User talk:Rambutan and make them point to the new account, would that solve the problem? Sam Blacketer 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If the user is annoyed that people who quarrelled with him on the old account will pursue him to the new one, he is surely free to start a new account from scratch and then tell no-one that there is a connection between the accounts. My discomfort with his proposal above is that he wants to both keep and lose his old history on Wikipedia. Since I don't think he was blocked under the old account, him starting from scratch without comment on a new account would probably not be criticized. EdJohnston 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

His account, prior to being renamed, had a fairly extensive block log, some of these blocks were overturned, however. The block log which was orphaned upon being renamed can be found here Special:Blockip/User:Rambutan. Nick 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the actions taken and, absent significant and cogent objection, intend to re-delete these pages based on the precedent established in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat and the ensuing unholding of my close there on DRV. The user's desire to avoid the redirects may seem quixotic, but edit-warring to insist on keeping userspace redirects of this nature is counter-productive and should not be encouraged. I caution Porcupine, however, that the title he gave some of the talkpage notifications regarding this dispute was unnecessarily confrontational and that he should avoid that in the future. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Blacketer 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that we take these redirects to a suitable MfD/RfD, given the fact several administrators don't agree with their deletion. Nick 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That should not be necessary. Unless someone feels very strongly that these userspace redirects are essential, they should be deleted summarily per the request of the user in question. A five-day community discussion of this issue would be, in my humble opinion, overkill. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the redirects has been deleted and undeleted already, and I feel, given this has happened, a discussion would more appropriate than further administrative action at this time. Nick 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is a discussion not what has happened here? Sam Blacketer 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess ST47 will have to state his case here, as the undeletion has no basis in policy or guideline. — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the deletion has no basis in policy or guidelines either, so in this case, I strongly suggest deference to the sockpuppetry policy, which states that multiple accounts shall not be used to avoid scrutiny of other editors, in the case of users having been renamed, I would suggest multiple usernames should be treated as "multiple accounts". Nick 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD U1 is a policy. Sock policy really doensn't apply here; the username change would have been denied if the intention was to evade scrutiny. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if CSD U1 can apply here, because after a rename, the user and talk page redirects left behind are no longer the user and talk pages attached to an account, and aren't the work of the user requesting deletion, so I believe they would need to be considered under any suitable redirect speedy deletion criteria. There's also the question, what happens if another user registers the old username, so something we need to decide, is at what point does the user loose rights on their old username and it's associated user and talk pages, and the like. Nick 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything you've just mentioned are all the more reason to just delete any old redirect; like you said, it's no longer attached to the new account. And a new user creating the old username may find the old redirect going "WTF, who stole my userpage!". — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was present on IRC at the time that Rambutan started requesting that his user page be deleted, and proceed to threaten me with the disclosure of logs. I full agree with the undeletion. There has to be some accountability on this project. It is not a free-for-all - it is not a video game which you can go back to a previous save with. The fact is that Rambutan has secured himself what appears to be a clean slate to anything but the most studious of observers, who actually know how to operate the user rename log (I don't - it will never work for me, whatever deatils I put in to whichever text box - and anyone who thinks I'm going to look through the rename logs of all the crats or of the whole wiki needs a brain bypass).

He has no right to vanish, by virtue of the fact that he is not vanishing. This is (if you'll bear with me) effectively sockpuppetry, of the ilk we see around Qst (I am not inferring that Rambutan is a sock of anyone..). Qst, when he got a stain on his account, would leave it and set up a new one. A few weeks/months later, around the time of the next RfA, a link would appear proclaiming that he "used to be User:X", and this would be used as a supporting statement in an RfA. With a rename like this, there is that little bit less transparency, because the user doesn't proclaim what they were previously known as. If I were to see Porcupine up at RfA now, I might have leaned much further towards suport than I would with him being Rambutan. This is because I, and countless others, have an opinion related to Rambutan, but haven't had any experience with Porcupine.

It works the same for normal interactions - not just RfA. There needs to be this accountability of name-recognition. A user rename can't be used as an excuse to actually bypass the opinions that others may hold. As far as I know, renames are there for aesthetic reasons, not to give users a "right-to-partially-vanish-but-return-with-a-massive-edit-count-and-no-negative-connotations-associated-with-my-name". Policy needs clarifying to this extent, or user renames, useless wastes of server cycles as they are, should be stopped. Martinp23 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the block log was transferred to the new account, it might help. It might reduce the number of renaming requests from troublesome users. Sam Blacketer 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine is making no secret that he was Rambutan. 2nd, when his user/talk page were moved, the full history, including all block messages are retained. He is still fully accountable for his past actions. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere on his user page did it (earlier today) say "I am the user formerly known as Rambutan". Therefore he has no accountability, because when I see suspicious behaviour, I'm not going to go rooting through a user's archives to see if it has happened before (though I may use the block log). I'm going to work on name recognition, which is, in this case, being denied to me. Similarly, if a newish user sees a personal attackmade by a user who has since been renamed and deleted, they have no easy way of associating that action with the new username, as it should be. Martinp23 22:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. comment by NYB above, best one on this thread. Absolutely correct. 86.29.39.5 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a load of bull. The Cool Cat MfD was incorrectly closed, and the issue was only left alone because other users were "tired" of hearing about it, and decided to force the closure. "Precedent established" couldn't be more wrong. The fact that this issue has come up again in a completely unrelated matter shows that, 1) the CSD in question was not made for these types of situations, but for mild, uncontroversial situations, 2) unless there is an issue of privacy or some other reasonable excuse, such redirects are not owned by the user, but rather are being used by the community to keep track of such name changes, and 3) there is clearly some disagreement on these issues, so either side saying "I'm right, drop it" is out of line, and we need to actually address this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is perhaps relevant. —Cryptic 00:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am still going to stand by my original position here in declining the speedy deletion and endorse Martinp23's comments above. I don't see this as the same as the Cool Cat situation, the MfD of which NYB pointed to, on two counts. Firstly, you will note that the MfD deleted Cool Cat's userpage which I have no problem with Rambutan having deleted. However, as you will note, User talk:Cool Cat is indeed a redirect and has always been one. Secondly, White Cat wanted to remove the record of his former name (regardless of what you think of his reasoning behind this) not to try to distance himself from all talk page comments that he had previously placed, which is in effect what Rambutan is attempting to do here. In fact, White Cat went as far as trying to alter all his signatures to point to his new name (though this may not have been a sensible action). Therefore, I don't believe the two situations are at all comparable. I strongly believe that renaming should not be used as some kind of method to partially hide someone's previous actions, whilst keeping a background of contributions. I have seen no appreciable reason why Rambutan's old talk page can not redirect to his new one for ease of everyone. It seems rather ridiculous in my opinion that people should have to root around rename logs to find the user that a particular comment is attributed to, when a redirect would suffice perfectly well. Many new users will have no clue how to root around said log, and so be at a complete loss as to who made these comments. I don't believe that is what the rename process is for at all. By all means it can be used to change your name to something new that you prefer, and by all means it can be used to help you vanish if you are leaving, but what is achieved from this other than causing a great deal of confusion? So that's my position, and I stand by it. Will (aka Wimt) 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the point where he accused a number of established users, myself included, of "abuse". If he can't get his first sentence factually correct, I have little confidence in believing the rest of what Rambutan proclaims. Daniel 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make another point as to why I believe this doesn't have any precedent from the White Cat MfD. In that debate, nigh on all of the people that said that they were happy for the page to be deleted noted that White Cat was not hiding his previous identity at all (his user page clearly stated his previous username). When I look at User:Porcupine at the moment, I see no mention at all of the fact he used to be Rambutan. In fact, quite the opposite. The statement "Hi, welcome to the userpage of Porcupine. They're just my favourite animals!! So cute... I've been using Wikipedia for a very long time now, but this is the first time I've been tempted to get a user account." seems completely misleading to me. Will (aka Wimt) 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of Rambutan's old block log are sobering. Though some blocks were reversed, at least two blocks were served out in full, the longer of which was for one week. The comment was Repeated disruption, personal attacks, incivility, misuse of Twinkle, etc. The contents of User talk:Porcupine/Archives/2007/Sep suggest that the behavioral issues commented on in the block log have not gone away. It was noted above that this editor was booted off of IRC for his behavior while requesting this very deletion. Given the complexity of his current situation, I suggest that his request to delete the links not be granted at this time. EdJohnston 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as blocks go, Secretlondon did a 1 second block to draw attention to the old block log, so they aren't hiding from admins. Viridae^Talk 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's the upshot of all this, then? What's going to happen? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user is back with more personal attacks

User 209.188.56.146 (who is obviously 209.188.62.12, same edit summaries, same info, same attacks) is once again engaging in personal attacks and disruptive behaviour. (see original IP's talk page for warnings given in previous incident) on the USS Liberty Incident page. Narson 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This and this appear to be quite similar. Cheers, ( arky ) 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor addendum: I do realise that assuming they are one and the same could be seen as failing to AGF, however I think its obvious to the point that not assuming it would be 'putting out your eyes to maintain the NPOV of your nose', so to speak.Narson 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure that would violate AGF would it? Rudget _{Editor Review} 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a violation of AGF. AGF doesn't require us to stick our heads in the ground. Anyways, I blocked the IP for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

I just indef blocked User:IceManReturns as a vandal only account. It is also patently obvious that this account is a sockpuppet of User:IceManNJD, who was blocked for one week on September 22 for precisely the same vandalism. Given that this individual has not edited from the latter account since that block expired, but instead chose to use a sock, what, if anything, should be done about the main account? Resolute 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's obvious we're dealing with a purposeful, recidivist vandal I'd indefblock both of them. Be sure to hang the appropriate sockpuppet templates on their pages as a convenience for admins dealing with future occurrences, which unfortunately seem likely in this situation. Raymond Arritt 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits

User:Kukar is making nationalistic edits on wikipedia. For evidence of this statement I will give example of his edits in article Vrlika. This is link for his changes [[81]] . For me it is clear that his only changes are deleting of Croats name and changing that with south slavic or not speaking about few facts (old Catholic church, influence of the Frankish Empire, today demography of this "city"). --Rjecina 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute not requiring administrator intervention. Please discuss the matter using the article's talk page (or communicate directly with the other editor). Raymond Arritt 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JunKazamaFan

JunKazamaFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently (as I type this) harassing User:TTN at User talk:TTN, by repeatedly replacing questions/accusations multiple times after TTN removed them. Also has made a personal attack on his user page: User:JunKazamaFan which has already been removed several times, only to be replaced by either him or User:Angie Y.. -WarthogDemon 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is no excuse whatsoever, but TTN hasn't been making any friends with his 'delete first and to hell with questions' attitude. I'm not involved in any way with this and, as I said, there's no call for harrassment, but I've seen his name come up quite often and not many people have nice things to say about him. HalfShadow 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial or not, this is indeed ridiculous. I haven't agreed with some of the things he's done either but I do understand what he's doing. At any rate, this is less about TTN's activities and more about being harrassed and attacked on the user's page. -WarthogDemon 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to think of this. JuJube 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it was intended humorously, but I've asked, just to be sure. - Philippe | Talk 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesusforever

Resolved

User:Jesusforever is engaging in vandalism at Evolution as theory and fact.--Filll 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reporting is thataway-> HalfShadow 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for vandalism. - Philippe | Talk 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one here thinking that he should be nameblocked based on both his name (Criterion 5) and the article he's been vandalizing? -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think the name is inherently offensive, although the edits themselves are. Do you think people who aren't so into Jesus would necessarily have a hard time with this name?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this can be seen as invok[ing] the name of a religious figure in a... provocative way and promot[ing] one religion over another (Christianity). -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You (unintentionally, I'm sure) left out an equally relevant part of this policy: "Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that he's been vandalizing an article on evolution, I'd say that this is beyond that and into invoking the name of a religious figure in a provocative way. I'll yield on the promotion part, but I still feel he's invoking Jesus to vandalize articles his particular religious views may disagree with. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Scrimmer87

the user Scrimmer87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has apparently created this account for the sole purpose of vandalizing articles. Could some one please summarily give them twenty lashes with a wet noodle, then excommunicate them?

(So I'm bored with the simple requests of please block this guy)

- Jeremy (Jerem43 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

No. You have not even tried to talk to him, and even if you had and had got nowhere, you should go to Administrator intervention against vandalism and not here. Sam Blacketer 23:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

After you revert vandalism edits, it is recommended you warn the vandal, the warnings at WP:UTM are commonly used. Mr.Z-man 00:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How can you tell that an account is "vandalism-only" when he's made a total of two edits? -- llywrch 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read them? They were both vandalism, very obvious vandalism. Over the past few months I have observed the trend where newly created accounts that start off vandalizing with their first edit, continue to do so. Usually asking these types of editor (vandals) to stop or posting warnings on their talk pages is ineffective as they don't really care about niceties. Personal observation and opinion, not a commentary on you posts, and the reason for me posting when and what I did. - Jeremy (Jerem43 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

I have observed that many vandal only editors have a contrib history that lasts one day (or, more exactly, one evening) - the next day their hangover is so bad they cannot remember the password they used the night before. It is a waste of time placing an indef block template on their page the day after the event. If they are not caught in the act then forget about them until such time the account is reactivated. LessHeard vanU 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, you're not going to get a lot of admin support if you don't at least tell people not to vandalize. They were more like childish "wow, I can really do this"-type stuff. There's much nastier vandalism that gets immediate blocks. If he continues after warnings (if it's blatant, use {{Blatantvandal}}), then he'll be blocked. Also, I don't know if you've noticed but he stopped right after the warning. No need for a block. Who knows, it's actually possible for him to become a helpful editor afterwards. We'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Warnings DO work, especially if you keep an eye on the vandals. I check back almost every day and escalate as appropriate, and go to WP:AIV if needed. When these vandals find out that someone is watching them, many stop their vandalism and make useful contributions. Sometimes it takes a block but you won't get a block if you don't warn first. I've watched a whole lot of editors who vandalized daily but eventually learned better and went two or three weeks without any vandalism and sometimes with useful contributions. If I had not warned them and sometimes requested a block, those vandals likely would have continued vandalizing every day. Sbowers3 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LART request

Any chance of an admin having a word with Jozzage for this little fit of pique. These sort of things make New Page Patrol so worthwhile and enjoyable. He's so wound up he even thinks I'm American. :) ---- WebHamster 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, an account which has done little more than repeatedly submitted the same article for an unnotable band, then repeatedly (again) drops the f-bomb because he doesn't like the response deserves more than a simple "don't do this again or else" message. Based on this clear evidence, I blocked him for a month; review welcome. (And some people say above that I mollicoddle the troublemakers...) -- llywrch 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, strong support. He's been nowhere near civil and he's not even attempting to learn why he article got deleted. Hopefully, he acts a little more contrite when he returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. These little outbursts don't actually bother me, in truth the mental images they instigate have me chuckling, but I wouldn't want my thick skin allowing them to think they can get away with it. ---- WebHamster 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SugerMagnoliaBOT

Someone may want to look at User:SugerMagnoliaBOT, it looks like it nom'ed Philadelphia for AfD on it's own [82] Yngvarr 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He/she/it has been indef blocked. --Haemo 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how it possibly could have seen Philadelphia as an Article For Deletion . . . -WarthogDemon 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing some experienced vandal created a vandal-only account that impersonates a bot to try to disrupt Wikipedia. Its probably not an actual bot... --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be the case. -WarthogDemon 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Joker828 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and CptHowdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are obvious socks of Laughing Joker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked indef two days ago. All have made the same edit to creationism:[83],[84],[85].  – ornis⚙ 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added suspected sockpuppet tags to the user pages for future reference. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Should I open a suspected sock report, a RFCU? It seems like a pretty clear cut case of abusive use of socks to evade a block, not to mention 3RR.  – ornis⚙ 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I will put in a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets unless an admin takes any action here as it is quite obvious that these accounts are sockpuppets. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Laughing Joker. You may add any additional evidence or comments you have to the page. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No I reckon, you pretty much summed it up. Thanks for that. It may still be worth a checkuser to turn up any sleepers if at all possible, but perhaps for now it's best to leave it at that till someone with the buttons has had a look.  – ornis⚙ 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared.

Can we get some lovin' at WP:AIV? The backlog is growing pretty large. Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovin' received and backlog cleared (ew - I didn't realize those two phrases might mean something when put together like that...). Thanks! --ElKevbo 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bender21345

This user appears to have no understanding of or perhaps respect for image copyrights. He's been warned dozens of times. I propose an indef block, but would like a 2nd opinion. Rklawton 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite might be a bit harsh. I'd support a week (maybe even a month) at first and if he starts again, then indefinite. He did seem to have some good edits a while back but he definitely needs to learn. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think an indefinite block straight away is appropriate. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Personally, I would go with a one to two week block, but that's just me. I think it should be noted that a block is a way to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and not a punishment. Happy editing, ( arky ) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

His recent edits overall are odd, changing the photo tag on Norman Mailer[86], bizarrely resizing an image [87], and removing a tag without explanation [88]? I'd say two weeks to a month for all the wierdness. ThuranX 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Resolved

I severely wonder about this admin's sanity. He has just deleted images from my user page without prior notice. This is not the first time he's done this, and there is a history here. I'll accept policy if it's explained, but not if it's done maliciously. Caution is OK, malice and bad faith are not. If this is not the appropriate forum, please advise, and I'll take it to where it belongs. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot place non-free use images in userspace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I severely wonder about MY OWN sanity! MessedRocker (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't think Rodhullandemu posted here looking for an explanation as to why the images were deleted (it's already been explained to him). I think he's complaining aboutwhat he sees as a lack of communication/courtesy on the admin's part.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the user seems to think the removal of the images was in retaliation for an odd message he left me. See this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, discussion can never hurt, as evidenced here. ^_^;; --Iamunknown 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nods, fair use for full copyrighted images doesn't cover userspace. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Probable vandalism related to airline destinations

Recently, there has been a large amount of editing to articles listing airline destinations - Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations is one, as is Air New Zealand destinations, but there are a lot more (and I'm probably not aware of most of them). Basically, somebody keeps adding claims that the airlines are due to start flying somewhere, but the information is never sourced and I can't find information to support them. The editing is mostly by anonymous IPs, which change frequently. The additions are persistent and often implausible enough that I strongly doubt they're good faith, but I thought I'd see what other people thought. Even if it isn't vandalism, I think something needs to be done to stop these numerous unverified additions (which keep getting readded despite requests for evidence). Sorry if this is the wrong place - I'm not too familiar with the process. -- Vardion 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been aware of the same issue on international airport articles, eg Auckland International Airport. It's probably the same editor each time. Sometimes I've done mass rollbacks (and never had a complaint), but I worry that I'm going to bite some well-meaning editor who has made a genuine but unsourced update of an airline schedule.-gadfium 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some sort of SPAM/COI stuff going, if one judges by the edit summaries, which use 'we' in the corrections, see [89] for examples. If it weren't for the '...jesus' endings, I'd be more inclined to assume it's a company man doing it, as is, I'm suspecting it's a sarcastic company guy doing it. ThuranX 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Having looked a bit further, I suspect there is at least one genuine contributor in the mess somewhere. However, weeding out these genuine contributions from the repeated insertions of unverified and implausible material is likely to be a challenge. I would also note that the the person adding the non-legitimate stuff seems to know enough about Wikipedia to use the Undo function, and so presumably will have noticed that his/her edits are being reverted with requests for citations. If so, it makes the situation look like deliberate vandalism rather than well-meaning ignorance. -- Vardion 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and now they've blanked my user page. -- Vardion 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent IP address, 221.121.33.99 (talk · contribs), for a week, since their blanking of Vardion's user page was clearly not good faith. I've also added Air New Zealand destinations to my watchlist.-gadfium 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Useful new feature

The undeletion process now seems to have an option to invert the selection (ie. change all selected edits into unselected and vice-versa). That is useful. Please pass my thanks to the programmer. Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:J.R. Hercules

I have warned the editor about this edit. However, I think it needs to be expunged from Wikipedia, as it is outright libel about a solid contributer here. I asked Until(1 == 2) to do this, but he seemed to feel it was not within his scope of duties as administrator, and [encouraged me to take the problem elsewhere]. I have warned the offending editor myself, but as I said to Until(1==2), I think it might carry more weight if an admin added his or her voice to the issue. Jeffpw 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edit meets the requirements for oversight. Regarding Until, xe hasn't really done anything wrong; xe's not required to intervene. J.R. Hercules isn't actively editing and hasn't for about a month, so there's not much that could be done by an administrator about that user's behavior right now. WODUP 07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WODUP, thank you for taking the time to look at this. My personal feeling is that calling someone a Nambla member is tantamount to calling them a pedophile. However, perhaps the editor who has been libeled should be the one to request oversight, in line with oversight protocol. In any event, I appreciate your taking the time to check into this. Jeffpw 07:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet- 67.94.201.2

67.94.201.2 is a user violating the forbidden uses of sock puppets to avoid scrutiny from other editors. He admitted it.[90] 71.255.81.53 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly untrue. The edit you reference was, back then, me telling Angie that I was logging as an anon IP because I had reason to believe I was being Wikistalked under my actual Wikipedia name. It was not "because I was violating the forbidden uses of sockpuppets". And, FYI, the Wikistalking you're doing of me at Meg Griffin and other places IS a violation of Wikipedia policies. 67.94.201.2 09:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A user's insulting and confrontational behavior

The background
Bamadude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a problematic and tendentious editor whose behavior needs the attention of the wider community. He is currently the subject of a complaint at Wikiquette alerts (I'm not involved) and has exhibited "bullying" behavior at both Talk:Larry_Seidlin and Talk:Taxi_(TV_series) (his first response to the complaint at wikiquette was this comment).
My involvement and BD at Larry Seidlin talkpage
(Disclaimer, fyi, my involvement, etc.) I first ran across BD at village pump and noticed his confrontational and slightly hostile comments there (everybody's 'stupid' plus Z-man doesn't read and BD cites international law, sort of). Due to his comments, I added one of the pages he edits to my watchlist (Larry_Seidlin). I discovered that he really wants that article deleted, I don't know why, but it is a crusade of his (If you think I exaggerate, see the talk page).

Feeling bad about the way User:Prgrmr@wrk was being treated (and, so far, typical for how Bamadude interacts with just about everyone), I finally made a comment and it went thusly:

• Bamadude calls R. Baley's comment "smart-ass" and encourages him/her to follow "the bouncing ball," he also encourages Baley to "make sense next time" (Both comments in diff).
• Next 2 comments, R. Baley's reply is somewhat short, but indicates wish to drop until real AfD discussion. Bamadude's response. . .well just click. This response was something about 1st Ammendment rights and how R. Baley is almost "cool" beyond belief.
• Next, Bamadude, re-factors his response in the discussion between R. Baley and himself. Bamadude "apologizes" for being "pissed" at R. Baley's "ignorance" (Or ignorance in general -presumably RB's- diff). and. . .
• No longer "cool," R. Baley is now a "dolt" (Response to RB's note on the talk page that discussion had been re-factored (RB's refactor comment and BD's dolt comment both both here). Also noted: R. Baley might be a Republican!?

Summary Since the complaint at Wikiquette alerts (nothing to do with above diffs, those problems have to do with the Taxi talkpage), Cheeser1, has been handling almost everything (so far) him/herself. This situation is a time sink and shouldn't be shouldered by just one editor. I would have intervened more myself, but thought that my interaction would just inflame the situation (full disclosure: I did remove 1 section as inappropriate to the Taxi talk page here because I thought CF had had enough). I believe this situation should receive wider attention, so I'm bringing it here to ANI. I know it's long, but thanks for any consideration, R. Baley 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:CIVIL

User:Neutralhomer was banned for 24 hours on September 3 by User:JzG for this uncivil edit summary. He continues to violate this policy, including calling myself a "confused" quitter as well as another editor a "nutjob." Additionally, based on the time frame, it appears as if he's counting the users that he has run off from various projects at the talk of his userpages.

I have tried many times in the past to bring numerous policies to User:Neutralhomer's attention, but have consistently had trouble getting through to him. I don't deny that I have lost my temper more than once with him, but I have always strived to stay within WP guidelines. Any assistance would be appreciated, as when he's editing in article space, he's usually fine. It's his actions in user space that tend to go off the deep end. Thanks for your time. JPG-GR 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As previous discussion on this board showed, that block by User:JzG should have never stood as that user had previously stated that he would block me as soon as he got the chance. He did, big deal, that was in September. As for the above, I have done my best to be very patient (something of which I am not normally) with JPG-GR. Especially when I had to to explain, over and over and over about the call signs on the templates. This was a tad annoying. If I lost my patience, it's probably because when you have explained something more times than I wish to count, and the user still doesn't get it, you get a tad annoyed. But if you notice from JPG-GR's archived talk page, I never lost my temper.

As for my calling of JPG-GR a "confused quitter", the "confused" part was part of what he wrote on my talk page, the "quitter" part was because he was "quitting" WP:WPRS at that moment. Personally seemed like a temper tantrum to me. But if JPG-GR is considering "confused quitter" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then I apologize.

Finally, this isn't how many people I have run off, it is how many annoying and rude editors I have come in contact with have quit or been blocked from Wikipedia (both not by my own doing, contrary to what JPG-GR thinks.) Those two editors were JzG (quit) and Calton (blocked). But, I give no names in that line, so that is not "incivil"...I like to call it a reminder. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)