Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Skip to Table of Contents

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

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters? Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor. I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome. --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask. --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin. Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it. But maybe it was. Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing. Who is being uncivil to you? Who is malcontent or out of line? What policy do you refer to? If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornplease (was: Community's criminal negligence at revelation of personal information)

While the Wikipedia community is discussing attack sites that make outing on members, a criminal troll inside Wikipedia is revealing personal information about an established user and an Arbcom member is giving a pat to the troll by blocking the victimised user. User:Bakasuprman has effected an outing on an established user, who hasn't been active over two weeks. A permanent block of this troll is long overdue. An Arbcom member Blnguyen, who btw, is the patron of Bakasuprman has blocked User:Hornplease and has thus given the go ahead to this criminal act. Blnguyen might oversight the page to save his protégé. Community should be vigilant against such moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hornplease 59.91.253.206 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Where has he done this? WilyD 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the link I gave. The troll gives enough details to locate and identify the user, if the details were true. That those details are not given by the user himself and not seen on his user page itself shows that the troll was attempting harassment by revelation. 59.91.253.206 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hornplease was blocked for using IP sockpuppets to try to bypass the three revert rule. He also states on his user page where he lives. The IP locations are easily seen by the WHOIS link after their addresses on the RFCU page you're linking to. I don't see the outing. If I'm missing something, could you provide diffs? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)The checkuser request linked above provides no more personal information than is posted on Hornplease's user page. Perhaps you misinterpreted "incidentally where the subject teaches"; to me, it pretty clearly refers to where the subject of the article in question (Michael E. J. Witzel) teaches, not User:Hornplease. If there is truly more personal information than this being posted somewhere, you're better off dealing with this thru email, rather than posting a gigantic "Look! Here Is Some Personal Information I Don't Think You Should See!" notice on ANI. --barneca (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Nor do I. Hornplease admits to being in Cambridge, and aside from the large ISPs in the area, just about the only place that has its own IP net is Harvard, which has not only dorm-based access, but Wi-Fi in all the buildings, via dynamic IPs. There's plenty of real-life people he could be. MSJapan 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, Bakasuprman, was deliberately gaming. He deliberately used the word "subject" to leave room for ambiguity. Please note that, the name of the subject of the article has not been mentioned in the page. Also,the IP that the user admitted to have used has only 8 edits, all of them on a single day in 2005. Hornplease was blocked by Blnguyen because Bakasuprman argues that the IP that reverted on Witzel article is similar to the IP that Hornplease adimitted to using on a single day in 2005. See. Firstly, the attempt to pin a Harvard IP to the user. Coupled with this is the deliberately ambiguoous "the subject" who could be the subject of the checkuser case as well. Moreover, the IP edits accused of as revert-warring were really attempts to remove ill-sourced belittling information which should go per BLP policy anyway. If I guess correctly, 3r violation is irrelevant about removing BLP violation. The reverter quoted the policy in his summaries. Also see how Blnguyen treated Bakasuprman's sockpuppetry involving multiple socks and personal attacks where indefinite ban should only be reasonable. See the first entry in this log and this case.59.91.253.250 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuntan (talk · contribs) go away.Bakaman 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go away troll. Your mimicking the dick is obscene. Mastcell, you don't need to suspect. I am the very party. I suggest you do a block range. 59.91.253.161 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kuntan, I'm not part of Korea's bulging Hindu nationalist BJP robot hindutvavadi communal cow worshipping community.Bakaman 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The CU case doesn't reveal enough personal information to be a problem. Take a look at User talk:Hornplease, and you'll see that people are trying to guess at this user's real identity; whether this is a problem, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt hornplease is Michael E. J. Witzel, but I know at least three editors of India related articles that edit from the Harvard, and one is the real Witzel.Bakaman 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that those accounts are socks, but I doubt that Bakasuprman is the sockmaster. File a checkuser request and see what happens. By the way, User:Terminador looks like a sock/SPA as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than Bakasuprman (whom I have no reason to believe is a sockmaster) it looks like socks vs. socks. I wonder on how many other articles this is the case. Even this thread was started by a sock. Plainly, our system isn't working.Proabivouac 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A very astute observation. Back then (a year ago) it was BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) vs. Hkelkar (talk · contribs), now its a degenerate arena of sockpuppets/teers/meats/COI editors.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, My area of interest is the contemporary social relations in India and if I run into authors who tend to work on similar articles its not my problem and should not be taken as a SPA.If you are Sir, in doubt please do a checkuser yourself, I am editing from Delhi, India and on a Mahanagar TNL network.Terminador 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why we have armies of meatpuppets attacking each other. The fiasco leading to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2 scared off all the legitimate editors. That is the reason why there are almost no active indian admins or legitimate editors of indian politics articles. As for terminador, his whole contribution history has been limited to stalking me.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Hornplease should be reduced

Using IPs to edit war is not acceptable, and since Blnguyen is a Checkuser, I suppose there's enough evidence to tie User:Hornplease to these IP edits. However, the 1-week block is clearly excessive. Hornplease has never been blocked before, and a shorter block would have been more appropriate.

The article where the supposed sock edits occured, Michael E. J. Witzel, is a BLP, and the passage that was removed, [6], while sourced, amounts to innuendo and has no place in an article about a living person. (Note the discussion at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Crimson_articl.)

Since 3RR can be violated to remove negative information, I don't think the reverts are a violation in and of themselves, though I agree that the use of IPs is problematic. Therefore I think the block should be reduced in length, perhaps to a 24 hour block. (Which is a pretty normal length for an established user's first block anyway, right?) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus as to shortening the block. I have also blocked the above dynamic IP temporarily as it appears to be in use, as Bakasuprman mentioned, by User:Kuntan. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever the community decides. However I have suspicions that Hornplease (talk · contribs) editing in collusion or at the behest of Witzel (talk · contribs). The geographic closeness as well as Hornplease's obvious POV and continued promotion of Witzel's work as the piece de resistance of Indology in my view cannot be just a coincidence.Bakaman 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very unlikely to be a coincidence.Proabivouac 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and MastCell, and recommend reduction of the block, considering that Hornplease has never been blocked before. --Ragib 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bakasuprman has in no way violated WP:HARASS here: as he states, there's no more personal information here than was freely given already/is publically available and was necessary for the report.
• It does indeed appear that Hornplease has violated 3RR using IPs, per the CU.
• Reverts per WP:BLP "may be" exempt, and as there is valid concern, Hornplease should be unblocked now, and advised not to do it this way in the future. It's a shame, though, that anyone would have felt it necessary: it shows there is not enough consciousness re BLP, or that we don't have confidence that BLP-grounded reverts really will be held exempt - as here, they weren't.
• It's time to leave Michael E. J. Witzel alone. This seems a particularly unnecessary example, as the material added (so far as I can discern) has nothing to do with the reason for the animosity, but it just an arbitrary (and, from the looks of it, not very significant) "controversy."
• If and where Hornplease is promoting Witzel's work, as Bakasuprman alleges, it is certainly legitimate to keep a check on that; the conversation above moves me to wonder if there might not be a WP:COI factor at play (not charging, just asking.)Proabivouac 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is a good call in my opinion, Hornplease as an established user should know better. There is a possibility of a conflict of interest and collusion Michael Witzel who is a professor at the Harvard University, and has been involved in the California Textbook controversy. This is a grave matter and should be investigated. --Nearly Headless Nick 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be investigated. However, COI doesn't necessarily trump BLP - or does it? If someone pops up claiming outright to be the subject of an article and starts removing information that honestly does look like it shouldn't be present, I'd be pretty reluctant to block him/her. It just sounds like a bad idea on a number of levels. Something tells me that this situation must have arisen many times before; if I have this wrong, please educate me.Proabivouac 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced Hornplease's block to 1 day, less time served. So, the block will expire in 30 minutes. I see nothing in his behaviour which justifies a one-week block on a first offence. FCYTravis 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The one week block was totally justified. After all, Hornplease was holding forth on the arbcom that meatpuppetry was worth indeffing! 'Hasnt been blocked before' doesnt really make any sense. He's been here long enough and should have known better. Be that as it may, the thing that is of most concern is the possibility of COI that Bakaman has raised. It needs to be investigated with all seriousness. Sarvagnya 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. If something happens again, another block can be applied. A one-week block is grossly excessive, as there is no evidence that the offending behaviour will occur again, per our blocking policy. FCYTravis 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is one thing, but trying to hide that you are edit warring by changing identities is simply a bad faith action. 1 week seems very reasonable. Until(1 == 2) 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there an attempt to hide it? Just the other day, I reported User:Chubeat8 who was (and still is) pretending to be four different people for 3RR; he got 31 hours. Here there's a BLP concern, I see no unambiguous evidence of deception (unless he denied this somewhere?), and an editor in good standing gets a week?

And who is User:211.51.164.33/User:211.51.164.93?Proabivouac 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to inform Hornplease that he was blocked?Proabivouac 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to inform Hornplease that he was blocked? In Hornplease Wikipedia may have lost one of the most vigilant patrollers on BLPs.84.44.157.53 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the most vigilant patrollers on BLPs??? He selectively decides what is valid for a BLP and not and applies that to the biographies he regularly checks. On the case of Witzel, he is typically against anything that is anti-witzel, removing things like a Harvard contraversey that relates to his being a department head while pushing to call PN Oak a Hindutva follower when he is not accepted into that group by many followers of Hindutva. Besides, he is also quite uncivil and has often times particpated in name calling and revert wars on several articles--not caring to read citations while at times, pushing citations in bad faith, knowing well that they don't even relate to the topic at hand. see [[7]] discussion entitled "Reliable Sources" where he posts a list of 11 sources, many of which do not match what he has written.

Why is he anti-Hindu? Because he only does this type of thing on articles relating to Hindus and applies all of his power and reasoning on protecting entries of an anti-Hindu nature. He refuses to accept the same set of rules for treating sources and articles that are pro & anti-hindu as any non-partisan editor should. Kkm5848 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Michael E. J. Witzel

The article where this incident occurred, Michael E. J. Witzel, seems to get a lot of ideologically motivated editing; in fact, to me it seems that there have been ongoing attempts to convert the article into a smear job. Since this article is a BLP this is a matter of some concern. Obviously some DR needs to be attempted here, but I hope that until we can get that going a few more people could place the article on their watchlists. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, this recent edit by User:Dishivlatavish:

"Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supproting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias."[8]

The source for this insightful comment is a political ideologue's op-ed column on a on-line Delhi news site. Such edits plainly violate BLP, and we should not be blocking anyone for removing them; indeed, we should be removing them ourselves.

From WP:BLP:

If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal…Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Proabivouac 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jain is hardly an ideologue, she is a mainstream journalist writing for a mainstream paper. The Pioneer is conservative, but not like FOX news. Indian academics are frequently identified as marxist.Bakaman 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Romila Thapar, there are certainly historians whose work is overtly Marxist in character, in India and elsewhere; most of them will not shy away from saying so. However, the sources put forth to support this were partisan, not academic. Superficially, it looks like an attempt to reduce her involvement in the textbook controversy to political hackery. The eminent V. S. Naipaul is quoted as identifying Marxist influences in the way Thapar views history, which, judging only from what I see, looks like a completely valid point. We need more than that, though, to label her a "Marxist historian."

By "ideologue", I did not mean "stupid" or "not worth reading." You may substitute "public intellectual" if you prefer. However, I don't think anyone can read this site or this column and credibly conclude that Jain is speaking as a disinterested reporter of facts. In any event, no matter who writes them or where they appear, op-eds aren't reliable sources for facts generally, and certainly not for the alleged mental states and motivations of those they criticize. The allegation is juvenile and inane on its face. "He's only saying this because he hates Hindus!" That we should state that she "notes" his bias, rather than (baselessly) alleges it, only makes the bias in our treatment of this material that much plainer.Proabivouac 22:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case hornplease should be tendered an apology. And the offending admin should be rapped on the knuckles. 203.109.123.110 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From the edits made by Dishivlatavish, I'm almost certain that it is a sock of someone. --Ragib 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so too, but I'm not sure who the sockmaster is; is it Hkelkar or someone else? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib can also use those eyes. Doldrums 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All three pages are afflicted by unreliably sourced edits made by editors ideologically opposed to the subjects. Consider Romila Thapar for example. The first sentence declares her an "Indian Marxist historian," and is accompanied by four footnotes, each of dubious bona fides. Contrast this now with the press release by the US Library of Congress announcing the award of the first Kluge Chair to Thapar here. It's hard to believe that a renowned historian who has received honorary doctorates from the Universities of Chicago and Oxford (degrees that are not easy to receive for academics) and is also the signed author of the 100-page long section on ancient Indian history in Encyclopaedia Britannica, can be reduced to such mis-characterization in the Wikipedia lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about BLP violations, the list of Indian lps is very large. In fact most of the notable people who object to BJP's politics. Gail Omvedt, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Kancha Ilaiah, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi,etc. etc.203.109.123.110 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its obvious why Patkar, Gandhi, Ilaiah and their leftist friends are criticized. Its because they're activists or politicians, and in some cases, bigots.Bakaman 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman, surely we can distinguish politicians and activists such as those you've just mentioned from scholars who get drawn into political disputes when activists trespass scholarly turf.Proabivouac 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Romila Thapar, yes, that's pretty ridiculous.Proabivouac 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

These pages have seen a lot of BLP violations for quite a long time. I'd request more admins to keep an eye into them. [[Special:Contributions/Bharatveer|One of the editors] keep reverting every other day with no explanations ... often with the "rv to previous version" summary. While that's not technically a violation of 3RR, the continuous unexplained reverts to BLP violation version must be handled soon. --Ragib 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Belonging to Bakasuprman". Is this what BhaiSaab, Terry J Ho, and the folks at PakHub have been telling you?Bakaman 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have been threatened by someone with edits similar to the user Bakasuprman above saying "My friend, I will claim you shortly"Terminador 04:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know you can't tell the difference between myself and a sock of Kuntan (talk · contribs).Bakaman 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case declined

Blnguyen who instituted the controversial and excessive block has not let Hornplease know about the blcok, has refused to engage in a discussion has connived at the BLP violations on the article on Witzel, has acted in tandem with regular BLP violators like Bakasuprman and Bhratveer etc. That is only one side of the matter. What about Hornplease's side? He has been a very valuable contributor who was always willing to go to any length in discussion in dispute resolution. He kept watch on articles prone to BLP violations. From his contributions we can see that he often nominated articles on BLP noticeboard. He was blocked on an unconfirmed checkuser case, which was later declined. This is a serious matter. Blnguyne is an Arbcom member. While FCYTravis's unblock is a brilliant example of the integrity of an admin who won't baulk at running afoul of powerful ones who stoop to abusive blocks to settle political scores, we can't turn a blind eye to devastating effect of this abusive block on a committed user. Hornplease has been here for more than two years. No sensibel member can deny that he has been valuable and responsible contributor. He has been hounded by trolls belonging to a particular faction (how many times Bakasuprman has called him names?) but never took recourse to name calling himself. With such abuse from the powerful people, the only silver line is the umimpaired judgement of people like Proabivouac, Mastcell, Akhilieus, etc. Another disturbing development is the use of invective and insinuations against living people as we discuss this matter. This shouldnt be allowed. Noonoor 09:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kuntan for that stunning conspiracy theory. Hornplease is a saint and Bakaman is a devil worshipping communal sockpuppeting hate-spewing Hindu fanatic.Bakaman 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the checkuser case was declined, and apparently I was mistaken in thinking that Blnguyen was a checkuser. Therefore, it looks like the block of Hornplease wasn't supported by CU evidence, but based solely on editing patterns. That's not enough justification for the block, which I now think was a complete mistake--the IPs in question belong to Verizon and Harvard, and could have been used by hundreds if not thousands of people.

Let me note further that we've got three accounts (User:Dishivlatavish, User:Stripwaves, and User:Giveover) that have made similar edits to Bakasuprman--should I then conclude that he's using socks, and block him? We have the same level of evidence against Baka that we had against Hornplease. Now, I don't think that Baka is foolish enough to use socks, but I never would have accused Hornplease of using socks either--and now that I see there's no CU evidence, I don't think he did. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone believes the little conspiracy promoted by these islamist trolls, they are welcome to checkuser me. Akhilleus is correct in noting that I do not use sockpuppets to edit war. However, hornplease edits from the same area (uncannily similar IP addresses), university, and interests as witzel and has attacked Hindu users in the same way Witzel has. There is a clear COI and obvious meatpuppetry at the least.Bakaman 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How has Witzel attacked Hindu users?Proabivouac 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Witzel himself was instructed no to edit his own page. However, hornplease was the one attacking Hindu users, and a couple of looks at arbcom cases titles "Hkelkar" would easily cement that assertion. Witzel himself accused me of being a sockpuppet of hkelkar, incidentally.Bakaman 04:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Baka, you wrote that, "hornplease…has attacked Hindu users in the same way Witzel has." So, I'm following up by asking how Witzel has attacked Hindu users.Proabivouac 04:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me if Hornplease is associated with Witzel, or is Witzel himself. If he's the only editor who has noticed and fought against the attempts to turn Witzel's article into a smear piece (e.g. this), he deserves praise, not blocking. As for Baka's assertion that Witzel and Hornplease have attacked Hindus, I find nothing to back this up in the Hkelkar arbitrations. Without evidence to back it up, these assertions are personal attacks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to back this up? It appears you have not made even an attempt to remotely peruse the arbcoms and are making blanket statements. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Bakasuprman and any remedy, finding of fact, etc. on the page should provide ample evidence that hornplease was acting against the community's wishes and in a tendentious, annoying, and hateful manner. Or we can go to the recent arbcom (caused in no small part due to your support and facilitation of admin abuse, misguided vigilanteism, and vindictive behavior). He voted on a remedy the sole intent of spiting me and goaded me by adking me when I was leaving when I attempted to make a good faith effort toward discussion. Dboy was in fact called an "ass" by hornplease, and hornplease and hkelkar/ambroodey/freedom skies have had many fights. Akhilleus, your reading of WP:NPA to somehow implicate me under a dubious construct of personal attacks is both wild and smacks of irreconcilable bias.Bakaman 06:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this supports your statement that Hornplease was "attack[ing] Hindu users in the same way Witzel has." Your statement clearly implies that Hornplease is biased against Hindus, and that he's made the same kind of religiously motivated attacks as Witzel has. So, where are the attacks that Witzel has made against Hindus? Where has Hornplease made attacks on Hindus?

Again, the arbitration cases, which (unfortunately) I have read carefully, do not support the allegation that Hornplease has "attacked Hindu users." It may support the accusation that Hornplease has been uncivil to some users who identify as Hindus, but you accused him (and Witzel) of being biased against Hindus in general--and yes, that's a violation of WP:NPA. I'm curious, are you going to accuse me of attacking Hindu users as well? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that you are choosing to ignore honrplease's conduct during the arbcoms. During the arbcoms it would be of note that he has been more than uncivil. Any unbiased and honest reader would notice that hornplease ran nothing short of a witchhunt to try and get me banned. Similar conduct is evident in his dealings with other Hindu users and his noting that Hinduism is problematic. The evidence is plentiful, but I obviously cannot make you come to an educated, honest, or rational conclusion. Witzel as anti-Hindu is documented in many sources but I'll stick with Mr. S. Gurumurthy (financial express correspondent) in the NewIndPress as a good example. Witzel's emails seem to show a heightened state of vitriol toward those disagreeing with his views. I called a spade a spade, does that make me a foulmouthed personal attacker ?Bakaman 06:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Baka, if that's a good example, the term echo chamber comes to mind. "Dr Michael Witzel, a Harvard University professor who is undeniably anti-Hindu…" Well, yes, of course, undeniably. No diffs on or off-wiki, just the repetition of the charge as with Jain. That second link is very interesting, thank you for forwarding it. Apparently, a number of accomplished, respected and respectable scholars engaged in Indo-Eurasian research are attempting to maintain some semblance of a scientific discussion in an increasingly politicized atmosphere. Whoever sees "Hindu vs. anti-Hindu" is seriously not getting it.Proabivouac 07:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On wiki, it is patently obvious Hornplease was anti-Hindu. Witzel as anti-Hindu is neither here nor there, but the discussion is a sample of how he holds many scholars in contempt while using the McCarthyistic Hindutva as a tool for slander.Bakaman 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that no one on Wikipedia has ever shown "a heightened state of vitriol toward those disagreeing with his views." Especially none of the participants in this discussion. And it would be nice, Baka, if you stopped calling me uneducated, dishonest, and irrational; these are also personal attacks, and a nice example of incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The content of your "painstaking research" is uneducated, dishonest, and irrational. That and you are a partisan. You passed judgment on me without looking at evidence, that should easily entail why I would call your statements uneducated. You blindly supported Rama's Arrow, that's why your statements are irrational, and you engage in consistent misconduct and the facilitation of slander, making you a dishonest. Any seasoned editor of contentious areas understands that If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and that what you term "incivility" are perfectly normal statements that are a bit spicy.Bakaman 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is extremely uncivil. He made incivil remarks toward me and behaved rudely [9]. Please make sure he is blocked.--D-Boy 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those comments are blockworthy, and the substance of them is quite correct. I will agree, though, that Hornplease should have phrased his last comment differently. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts

Please review Talk:Palestinian people#Sampling of some of the now 6,000 bytes deleted. This has been going on now for a while. The same editors tend to be involved in deleting material that is reliably sourced to exclude a particular POV. Other editors have been restoring the material. Two RfCs failed to put an end to the dispute and I feel it requires some administrative review. I don't know what else to do. Tiamat 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring content disputes to the AN/I board. And if you don't want your nonsense removed, then stop inserting it and seek consensus. The reason why your insertions are unacceptable has been explained at length to you. Instead of working with others, you just keep reverting in the same material and adding even more poorly sourced, POV and off-topic material, so that you can claim ever higher numbers of bytes deleted. You've been playing this game for months, and it's become very disruptive. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization and tone. It's needlessly aggressive (e.g. "your nonsense", "playing this game"). I encourage admins and editors to check out exactly what is being deleted, as outlined at the link I've provided above. I should also point out that Jayjg has been doing exactly the same thing at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deleting over 4,000 bytes of material, all sourced to international human rights organizations and other reputable sources. (Check the history and discussion there). In fact, this is not about a content dispute, but rather about Jayjg's attempts to exclude a particular POV by selectively invoking policy. He is treating good faith editors as though we were vandals by mass reverting material that is reliably sourced, cited, composed in perfect English, NPOV in its presentation of the material, etc, etc. Tiamat 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat is raising some important points and concerns. i urge you to look into her concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you're the guy who keeps insisting that material can only be added to an article, never removed. That's not only not part of policy, but it makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jayjg, I only say that in articles on controversial or heavily-contested topics, if Side A inserts material which Side B considers entirely dubious and based on wrong premises, then Side B can insert material indicating that Side A's material is heavily disputed. There is no need to eliminate blocks of text just because they come from sources which may be part of an entirely different ideology or different frame of reference. --Steve, Sm8900 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A false analogy is a bad argument. The issue wasn't with the sources ideology, or frame of reference, nor was it with "wrong premises". The material was from unreliable sources, or abused sources, or simply wasn't relevant. The only thing to do in those case is remove the material. Please desist from making spurious arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an objective description of the dispute between you and tiamat. --Vitalmove 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that Jayjg is not the only one doing this. There are three other editors that are engaged in the same process at both pages: Tewfik (talk · contribs), Beit Or (talk · contribs) and Armon (talk · contribs). I only mentioned Jayjg above since he responded. Additionally, as an admin, I feel that his behavior sets a standard for other editors and that his example is emulated by the others. Admins by their actions tend to set the boundaries of acceptable behavior here. And this wholesale reversion pattern is getting very corrosive. Tiamat 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, you're playing a game here. People object to material, and instead of leaving it out, you revert it back in and add even more. You do that again and again and again until the total amount is "6000 bytes", then complain about "reactionary reverts". If you were editing in good faith, you'd insert any non-controversial material separately. But instead you mix everything together, to make it as difficult as possible for people to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I said, it's a game, and not a very pleasant one. When you stop playing games, and start editing collaboratively, you'll find much less resistance, and a much more pleasant experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "playing a game" Jayjg. I'm trying to add reliably sourced information with properly formatted references to an encyclopedia that claims to be open to anyone to edit. When I have tried to address my concerns about what is going on, by for example, contacting Armon (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you have posted things like this: [10]. As an admin, you should be encouraging people to respect the hard work of other good faith editors. And not protecting articles from the inclusion of POVs that differ from your own. You speak as though what I adding is completely out there. It's not. Anyone who actually reads the material deleted can see that. If anyone is playing games here, it's you. Tiamat 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, as long as you keep mixing in material that you know people object to with other material that people may or may not object to, you're playing a game. If you weren't, you'd simply insert non-controversial material, and discuss the rest. Stop playing this game. I'm not going to respond further here, as content disputes don't belong on this board anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts are not for removing some things you do not like. The page on reverts specifically states unless all of the material is contentious, that you should work within it, which you are already admitting, much of it is acceptable. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't "admitted" much of it is acceptable. Most of it is unacceptable, and Tiamut makes it deliberately hard to figure out what she has changed, so it's hard to see if any of it is acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see if any of it is acceptable too Jayjg. There are a lot of edits to that page. But I try not to simply revert "my version" back into existence. I go through the edits and piece things back together. What you've deleted is pretty clearly numbered on the talk page section for this issue: The sources are all reliable, the material is faithfully represented though it could use minor improvements. But it's practically impossible to improve when I spend all my time piecing things back together after wholesale reverts. I'm a productive editor when I don't have to waste my time fending off unfounded accusations of "playing games" and poor scholarship while fending off a string of disruptive edits by mutliple editors that just take out perfectly good material.Tiamat 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You first revert in the material that has already been objected, then insert even more stuff. It's an on-going game. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Banning Jayjg for a few months would help greatly, and have a net positive effect. He has used personal, bogus, limiting delineations concerning the scope of House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to delete much info during his mass reversions. --Timeshifter 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I can think of some people Wikipedia would actually benefit from banning for a few months, and you're pretty near the top of the list - just look at the disruptive fiasco you created with categories. You're not quite at the top yet, though, though you're working on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a Wikipedia:Character Assassination section. However I do not believe Timeshifter is correct that any of this warrants a ban. I believe a general agreement on how to deal with sources, and what is appropriate use would be better. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little worried about the section noted, but not have the time to fully read through all that text. Some of the sources cited are from the United Nations, Haaretz and books published by Oxford and Colombia University Press, which is a little troubling that they are being removed, unless they are not citing the information they are alleged to cite. The other thing I noticed is a piece of information being deleted on the basis that Jayjg finds it dubious, however it is cited to a source, and Jayjg admits to not having read the source to check if it is correctly cited. I also noted a kind of hostile environment on the talk page, but that seems to permeate any article when acronyms are being thrown around. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Seven, I've asked for the exact quote, and non-one has been able to provide it. There's nothing wrong with challenging sources used in dubious ways, and sources that cannot be supported are removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, however it is your job to do that responsibly, which would include finding the cited text and verifying, not challenging it on your gut and asking random people on the talk page, which are not the ones who added it, to verify it. Could you imagine if I went to a page that an editor created a year ago, one that no longer edits, and removed all citations on the basis that none of the current editors could provide matching quotes? That would not only be disruptive, but a bit chaotic. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So, that's clear enough, Tiamut restores it, she becomes responsible for proving it is verified. Regarding the rest, I haven't deleted everything added by previous editors; in fact, I take issue with only one single claim inserted by a previous editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof was met, I see you ca link it, but fail to read it "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" The item was sourced and cited, hence meeting the requirements. The section you are quoting as justification deals with "unsourced" material, not cited information. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof was not met. The policy is about reliable sourcing, and this material wasn't reliably sourced, since no quote was provided, and it is dubious Lewis said that. The policy applies to any dubious material, not just "unsourced" material. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read it, and realize policy is not something you weild to get your way. Dubious doe snot mean "things I want to remove." Further the policy deals with dubious unsourced material, yes please read the policy. It states as I quoted, so I am not sure what the issue is, that material must be cited if it is questionable, which it was. I think this type of policy manipulation and selective reading is what is causing the issue on that talk page. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The edits I am adding are being treated as though they violate policy when in fact, they do not. I'm sure they could use improvement, reorganization or editing (after all, this is Wikipedia and that's what we do) but I resent having them thrown out completely through a selective invocation of policy. Hardly anyone else on that page has their edits subjected to such stringent scrutiny by Jayjg. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an evasion of the main issue : you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Tiamat 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is your game-playing. Stop throwing a pile of manure into the article, and insisting we have to wade through it because "there might be a bit of silver hidden in there somewhere, you never know." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to be civil, noone is insulting your edits, try not to insult others. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would note further that this incivility, which permeates the talk page as well, tends to exacerbate the problem. Calling my edits "a pile of manure", "nonsense" and accusing me of "playing games" when all I am trying to do is improve an article on a subject in my area of expertise is not helpful and it's not confined to this page. While Jayjg regularly invokes WP:CIVIL, he rarely abides by it. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've seen from you appears to be encyclopaedic and sound. You write well and do your utmost to act in a consensual fashion (at one point I thought you were being wiki-stalked, I discovered you'd invited people I'd think of as thoroughly unhelfpul to contribute to the new articles you were building). Your conduct, and editing, is in stark contrast to what we see in some other articles about Israel-Palestine, some of which are disgraceful and urgently need administrator attention. I fail to understand why you're treated the way you are, since, left to your own devices you'd be far more productive and do even more good to the project. PalestineRemembered 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PalestineRemembered. I appreciate your kind comments. Tiamat 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see also this diff. As I mentioned above, the mass reversion (i.e. deletion) of reliably sourced material is not confined to the article Palestinian people, or to Jayjg. Three other editors at both pages (who I have named above) have emulated Jayjg's behavior in this regard. Now, in the case of the Palestinian people article, Jayjg has often argued that my additions are "exceptional claims" and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Indeed, it seems that there is an effort to change that policy to make it even more stringent. See this diff. The problem with the proposed change which would allow for material to be excluded despite having multiple reliable sources if it is controversial is: who decides what is controversial? If there are multiple reliable sources making a claim, and none that refute it, can its non-inclusion into an article be justified? How do we make such determinations in the absence of reliable sources stating this is the case? These are just some concerns related to this overall issue. Tiamat 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested regarding this general topic at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. That's probably the way to get this resolved. --John Nagle 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The material which Tiamut is complaining about being reverted has been disputed, for various reason, numerous times. A really good example is that of using a obscure book by non-historians in order to push her POV. This article is not on an obscure topic. Printed out, the text written about anything to do with the Palestinians and/or the Israelis would likely reach the moon. There is no excuse therefore, for such poor sources. However, discussion has been futile with her because she then reverts to her version anyway, then complains when when it's removed again. Myself and others have repeatedly asked here to discuss and get consensus for her changes on talk. Her response is to express offense at the suggestion. However discussion itself won't solve the problem. At some stage, she's going to have to accept that not all of her edits and sources are acceptable. The solution is to improve them, which is the same thing everyone else has to do. <<-armon->> 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Armon, but your description is simply inaccurate. "My version" has been changed a number of times to accommodate the concerns of others. This is easily proving by examining the edit history of the article and comparing my first edits there from three months ago to the ones now. I have consistently replaced sources that others have found to be dubious or objectionable. I have reformulated the wording and reorganized sections a number of times. (This is particularly true for the ancestry and DNA sections). Instead of being treated like a good faith editor, I have had to put up with vague accusations that I am using "obscure books" or poor sourcing or other such unfounded allegations. The list of sources that were deleted are clearly outlined in the talk section linked to this page. None of them are "obscure" or unreliable. Instead of dealing with the actual text and sources I have added, people refer to old sources, old issues, and generalities in what I increasinly feel are diversionary tactics. In order to get anywhere, we have to deal with the actual content of the edits. Mass reversions, which you, Jayjg and Tewfik engaged in do nothing to help with the process. This article cannot improve when the contributions of some editors are reverted in knee-jerk fashion based on a priori perceptions of the quality of their edits that do not match the actual content. Tiamat 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK well here we go again. No acknowledgment of other editor's concerns, which have been quite specific, just more "I'm right, you're wrong". It looks to me that User:HG has come in and is helping to break up some logjams, so I don't really understand what the point of this incident report is, unless you looking for some kind of admin intervention to get your way. <<-armon->> 12:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just more of my unimportant opinion -- I tried to learn about your concern over the historian, but you didn't provide any links. I don't see how tiamat can address your concerns if you don't list them specifically, like she has. --Vitalmove 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters much, but I don't understand why jayjg and his friends believe they have unilateral authority to decide which sources are reliable or which information is relevant. After reading this section, my opinion is that jayjg's tone is needlessly aggressive and lacking in consideration for the rights of tiamat, which is amusingly apropo considering the topic of the article. --Vitalmove 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "unilateral authority" you're talking about, but if, as in the example I referred to, you present non-historians as historians on the say-so of another non-historian, I'm going to call foul. Sorry. <<-armon->> 12:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I can see nothing wrong with what Tiamat is doing, and certainly no reason for others to interfere in the aggressive fashion they're doing. I see no attempt here to explain to her what she's supposedly doing wrong. Meanwhile, I can see many articles, within the speciality of the same squabbling people, which urgently need the attention of more editors eg Battle of Jenin, which systematically misquotes the references, along with poor writing. Israel Shahak another - quotes people calling a former Israeli Professor of Chemistry "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism.". The latter article has been in this condition, protected for 3 months! The article on Lehi (group) makes them sound like boy-scouts. I fail to understand why Tiamat is being hounded, when there is so much important work to be done. PalestineRemembered 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak hasn't been protected for nearly as long as that - closer to three and a half weeks - but it's certainly been protected for longer than necessary, considering there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page since 13 July. I've unprotected it. -- ChrisO 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. How do we go about removing the "antisemitic" tag from this guy, who as far as I can tell was a practicing follower of Judaism all his life (as well as being an Israeli who served in the IDF)? PalestineRemembered 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that constant and repetitive deletion of content, especially as relates to Arab or Israeli articles, has been engaged in by Armon and Jayjg almost continuously for over a year. It is abuse of fellow editors to destroy the (well sourced and consistent with policy) content they have created. Where I've tried to balance articles skewed heavily to one perspective, I've faced the kind of behaviour described above. In most cases I didn't even have an opinion on the subject at hand! [Armon will most likely challenge my right to comment here]. This is persistent and deliberate POV pushing of the worst kind. Mostlyharmless 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has been going on for a long time. For a more recent example, see the section farther down called #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. POV-pushing editors are removing categories they don't like concerning Jerusalem-related categories and articles. In spite of absolutely reliably-sourced info in the relevant wikipedia articles. Articles they themselves helped edit! --Timeshifter 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite nasty to tell Tiamut, a Palestinian, what she can or cannot believe about her own (terribly suffering) nation/ethnicity eg"'Palestinian' is a twentieth century idea"[11]. You or I would almost certainly suffer perma-block if we dared to be this dismissive of Jayjg and the historical roots of his identity.

And note - I'm pretty sure that Jayjg is wrong about the point he was trying to make in that clip "Palestinians have nothing to do with ancient Jewish kingdoms". But it's far too dangerous to try and have a discussion on this point, because he can and will (on trumped-up charges, or no evidence whatsoever) accuse people of "taking their views and references from Holocaust Deniers". And he is quite blatant about it - he's started it again right in the clip I've referenced, addressing Tiamut with: "except in revisionist propaganda of the worst kind. "

I'm looking forwards to dropping the matter of nasty personal allegations, but Jayjg has not only refused to do so again in the last few days, but appears to want to carry on using this tactic over and over again, even on such gems amongst editors as Tiamut. PalestineRemembered 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem

There has been long-term conflict in this category. Despite the fact that Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN, there have been persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation and to present Jerusalem as the undisputed unified capital of Israel rather than a place whose disputed status is widely seen as the most problematic stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East. See [12], [13], [14] --Peter cohen 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually all that accurate of a statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I protected the category for a few days, of course on the wrong version; hope that's okay with User:The Evil Spartan. El_C 04:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is saying that Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate! See this recent diff [15] where he removed Category:Jerusalem from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. His typical abusive, uncivil edit summary was "stop trying to sneak in a POV that is rejected in the main, reviewed entry; this is in any event factually incorrect."

Tewfik, Humus sapiens, and Amoruso also removed Category:Jerusalem from

• Category:Cities in the West Bank
• Category:Disputed territories

Jerusalem is the most disputed territory on the planet! For more info, please see the recent history and Category talk:Jerusalem.

Jayjg and Tewfik also removed Category:History of Jerusalem from

• Category:Palestinian history
• Category:British Mandate of Palestine
• Category:History of the Ottoman Empire

Please see the recent history and Category talk:History of Jerusalem

Tewfik also removed List of East Jerusalem locations from

• Category:Jerusalem Governorate
• Category:Cities in the West Bank
• Category:Geography of Jerusalem

Please see the recent history. --Timeshifter 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should not be taking place here. -- tariqabjotu 07:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a longterm problem, and the recent bout of category removals concerning Jerusalem is just the latest in a long series. There has been plenty of discussion already. Peter Cohen also pointed out the "persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation"

Also, as Peter Cohen pointed out, "Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN". --Timeshifter 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with tariqabjotu, this discussion has nothing do with this place. I think it was made perfectly clear that trying to qualify Jerusalem as a disputed area when clearly only small parts of it (those eastern parts which are effectively Arab neighborhoods constitute a small part of Greater Jerusalem) are disputed by some is not appropriate. Simple content clarification of facts. Timeshifter's only argument seems to be that this is apparently his observation that "Jerusalem is the most disputed place in the planet". Well, that might be true, but so is Israel and Lebanon according to Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Israel's existence is disputed by antisemites. Wikipedia is not a place for such propaganda of Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi websites. Most of Jerusalem is in the borders of the 1949 armistice lines, and those parts of East Jerusalem were annexed by Israel - the annexation may be disputed by some relevant sources, but not Jerusalem as a whole obviously. Amoruso 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, and please stop with the insinuations of Nazism and anti-semitism towards those discussing the disputed territory of Jerusalem. That alone should get a 2-day ban. We are discussing only Jerusalem. This POV-pushing edit war of Amoruso, Tewfik, Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and others has been going on for months. Just look at the talk pages. For example; Category talk:Jerusalem. The Green Line divides Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice lines. See also Positions on Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory according to the UN and most countries of the world. Wikipedia, according to WP:NPOV, can not take sides. So wikipedia can not allow this POV-pushing campaign to continue to successfully remove Jerusalem articles and categories from relevant categories they dislike. --Timeshifter 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't threaten other users of ban - that alone is a gross violation of wikipedia rules. If you read through you'd see why the position on east jerusalem can not be inserted into Jerusalem as a whole. Amoruso 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you implying that I was a Nazi or antisemite or a supporter of terrorist organizations? That is what I read in this diff. Do we really need to go to dispute resolution? Wikipedia editors have already noted the disputed status of East Jerusalem in multiple wikipedia articles that I and Peter Cohen have linked to. This is such a waste of time on your part, since you know that wikipedia editors will again note the disputed status of East Jerusalem, and so all the relevant categories will be used. --Timeshifter 11:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso's comments obscure the facts and try to confound a position widely held throughout the world with one taken by extremist groups. It is an example of the POV pushing to which I was seeking to draw administrators' attention. Israel is recognised by the UN and most of its members and, as Amaruso says, Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda that implies the contrary. On the other hand, Jerusalem's claimed status as Israel's capital is widely rejected and Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda that denies this fact. Very few UN members have embassies in Greater Jerusalem because most members, including most Western states, do not wish to be seen as supporting the claim that it is Israel's capital. Despite Amoruso's statement, Positions on Jerusalem makes it clear that the United Kingdom, for example, does not recognise any country's claim to any of Jerusalem and rejected both Israel's and Jordan's 1949 occupations of parts of the city. Jerusalem should be categorised as a disputed territory and as part of the West Bank, or the category of East Jerusalem should be re-instated which would require an official decision given it has previously been through CFD and deleted.--Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is not the appropriate place, where is? The talk page for the category makes it quite clear that positions are too entrenched for the editors there to reach a conclusion by themselves? --Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter cohen's comments only prove that this is not the place for this discussion. I'll WP:AGF and remember the rule that this is not malice, but simply lack of knowledge on his part on the issue. It's not difficult to see that Peter Cohen is talking about something completely different which is whether Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital or not. That issue may be disputed - how countries view Israel's capital. But the territory itself is not disputed (except neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem). That's the main difference. The question of whether countries may dispute in international law other nations' declared capitals is a disputed issue in itself, but is irrelevant to the category. It is not disputed that Jerusalem is part of Israel and will stay part of Israel. It is disputed whether certain areas of Jerusalem will become part of the Palestinian state - yes, but it doesn't make Jerusalem's status in itself disputed. I think it's quite obvious and not difficult to understand. Amoruso 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is divided between Israel and the West Bank. So Category:Jerusalem should be in Category:Cities in Israel and Category:Cities in the West Bank. Category:Turkey is in both Category:European countries and Category:Southwest Asian countries. Category:Middle East is in both Category:Asia and Category:Africa. Category:Russia is in both Category:Asian countries and Category:European countries. --Timeshifter 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is your friend. As this page says at the top, "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." If you can't compromise among yourselves, I suggest you take it to mediation. -- ChrisO 11:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime Amoruso continues to remove the relevant categories even as this discussion is going on here. Please see this diff[16] from just a little while ago. Amoruso removed the article Jerusalem from these 2 categories:

Category:Cities in the West Bank

Category:Disputed territories

His edit summary was "remove offensive controversial redundant categories that were also added to other page it seems." What the heck does he mean by offensive? So now he has removed both the Jerusalem article and the Jerusalem category from the relevant categories. While we go through mediation can the Jerusalem article be put under "article probation"? What are some pages that discuss article probation? --Timeshifter 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Article probation. --Timeshifter 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The blanking campaign is ongoing. Tewfik has now removed Jerusalem corpus separatum from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [17]. Category blanking can be considered a form of vandalism once it has been pointed out, and then still continues. Please see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.--Timeshifter 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik also recently removed List of East Jerusalem locations from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. Please see this diff [18].

As I said, it is a longterm, ongoing, POV-pushing campaign by many POV-pushing editors that will not be easily resolved by yet another lower-level attempt at dispute resolution. Just look at the section higher up titled #Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts. There have been many, many WP:ANI reports, mediations, etc.. in this topic area. I think we need some kind of ArbCom intervention or article probation or something to get some real progress in this topic area. --Timeshifter 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The campaign continues. Today Tewfik removed Category:Jerusalem Governorate from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [19]. The Jerusalem Governorate is a large area of the West Bank that contains Israeli settlements, East Jerusalem, and many West Bank towns. It is one of the most disputed territories on the planet! --Timeshifter 13:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all a terrible case of POV pushing. Jerusalem has a rich and diverse history. Some here, however, want to pretend that Jerusalem was always part of the modern day State of Israel. The reality is, obviously, more complicated. Wikipedia should reflect reality, rather than some editors' POVs. --Meshulam 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another wikipedia talk page with current discussion about this issue: Talk:Jerusalem.--Timeshifter 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category:History of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) history and talk page. Tewfik's edits there have, in my eyes, already passed the border of what I call 'vandalism' by inserting obvious and plain lies. --Eidah 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes three Jews so far who are by implication bundled up in User:Amoruso's claims above that his and Tewfik's critics are following neo-Nazi and Muslim Brotherhood websites. Can it please be accepted that the clique trying to remove references to the disputed status of Jerusalem in the categorisation are violating WP:NPOV, that the three of us are not Self-hating Jews and that Amuroso's references to Nazism are just the same old tired allegations used by extremist Zionists that anyone who disagrees with them are anti-Semitic? Wikipedia is no place for such propaganda.--Peter cohen 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am shocked that Isarig even dares to paste a warning template on my talk page for what is going on on Category:History of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ! Peter Cohen, Meshulam, Timeshifter, Tiamat, and other normal-thinking people - please join in. Together we can stop this nonsense. --Eidah 15:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent IP trolling, urgent admin attention needed

Hi. There seems to be a "live" problem with an anon editor hopping IP addresses in 79.*.*.*. This seems to have started as an edit war (involving the editor) on the article Manchester over a claim in the article that some view it as the second city of the UK. However, in the last couple of days (and tonight especially) the editor has expanded their campaign and is going around articles systematically adding "the UK's third city" before Manchester and "the UK's second city before Birmingham", as well as removing details from various articles related to the city of Manchester. I have given repeated warnings, suggesting that the editor might like to find other, less controversial and less POV, ways to demonstrate Birmingham's greatness as a city but to no avail. Obviously it isnt possible to give a long term block on the whole IP address series, so does anyone have any suggestions? 22:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs).

I endorse PY's summary. There has been a pattern of disruptive editing to what might, broadly, be termed 'Mancunian' articles in recent weeks. Mr Stephen 22:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As an update, tonight alone, at the very least, the anon editor has been operating from:

• User:79.65.168.128
• User:79.65.187.8
• User:79.65.190.116
• User:79.73.132.18
• User:79.73.132.24
• User:79.73.138.50
• User:79.73.152.35
• User:79.73.159.208
• User:79.73.162.172
• User:79.73.167.46
• User:79.73.170.212
• User:79.73.180.251
• User:79.73.182.170
• User:79.73.204.237
• User:79.73.205.143
• User:79.73.214.26
• User:79.73.226.93
• User:79.73.232.197
• User:79.73.235.4
• User:79.73.241.14
• User:79.73.252.69
• User:79.73.255.86

The problem is continuing and here is an extra list of more IPs from the same user:

• User:79.73.239.0
• User:79.73.215.15
• User:79.73.198.97
• User:79.73.184.234
• User:79.73.129.197
• User:79.73.202.176
• User:79.73.212.172
• User:79.73.255.86
• User:79.73.178.32
• User:79.73.170.200
• User:79.73.230.219
• User:79.65.245.115
• User:79.73.203.248
• User:79.73.150.245
• User:79.73.138.200
• User:79.73.199.182
• User:79.73.221.160
• User:79.73.216.104
• User:79.73.195.101
• User:79.73.237.30
• User:79.73.197.8
• User:79.73.224.124
• User:79.73.191.198
• User:79.73.201.105
• User:79.73.132.24
• User:79.73.186.82

Pit-yacker 03:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is continuing today. I'm issuing short blocks as and when new ones pop up, but the changes in IP are so frequent that it has no effect. I'm reluctant to block a range that huge due to the risk of collateral damage. Advice requested. Oldelpaso 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But Manchester is the UK's third city as per verifiable source.

• CNN, "...England's third city...", 05 August 2002, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• News 24 South Africa, “...arrests in Manchester, Britain's third city...”, 18 July 2007, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Brunei Direct News, "...Manchester, Britain's third city...", 20 April 2004, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Peoples Daily Online, China, "...Britain's third largest city...", 25 September 2006, retrieved 19 July 2007.
• Channelnewsasia, "...the Bishop of Manchester, Britain's third city...", 10 June 2007, retrieved 07 July 2007.
• "New York Times", Correction: December 3, 1995, Sunday. An article on Nov. 5 about Manchester, England, misstated the size ranking of Greater Manchester.", 05 November 1995, retrieved 07 July 2007.
• Deccan Herald, "...the Bishop of Manchester, Britain's third city...", 10 June 2007, retrieved 15 July 2007.

Thanks hower for letting me know! Cheers Professor Rob Right

and if you look at the above comment it is signed by "Professor" Rob Right.... i.e. User:Rob right whom is on a perm ban as he has been posting messages on external blog sites instructing people to direct vandalism at Manchester related pages. The user needs to be stopped now before they go through every single page which links to Manchester and vandalises it! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

also he has been banned from the BBC messageboards already for trolling them for articles on Manchester and writing his usual mill town third city rubbish. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I also draw your attention to [20] it clearly shows that Rob right is not a helpful user here on wikipedia and is intent on making destructive edits at every given chance. Please will an admin do something about this user quicker? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's Rob Right again (admitted here). See previous. Mr Stephen 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As per this edit summary [21] he will not be stopping anytime soon, the admin on here are useless. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a warning keep a watch on anything you edit. Said editor appears to be going through contributions of registered editors. He even made changes to comments I have made on talk pages here and here Pit-yacker 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this perpetual trouble causer and vandal Rob Right who appears to change his pseudonym evry half hour therefore aviding the 3RR rule etc. His blatant abuse flies in the face of the fair play and good faith ethics that Wikipedia stands for. In such circumstances surely the 3RR rule ought not to apply. Moreover, can anything be done to block hom changing his pseudonym every half hour?GRB1972 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected a range of articles to deal with this problem. I've also removed the user's trolling above. As an indefinitely blocked user, he is barred from editing any page. -- ChrisO 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also User:79.65.170.74 vandalising M62 motorway and It's Grim Up North. Support a soft range block on 79.65.0.0/16 and 79.73.0.0/16. Will ^(talk) 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. What a loser this guy is... -- ChrisO 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. UK ISPs, you've got to hate them... Will ^(talk) 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiscali is Italian. ;-) -- ChrisO 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And Wanadoo (my ISP) is French. Doesn't stop it from sucking, though. Will ^(talk) 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above [22] and this diff, would anyone oppose a temporary rangeblock on 79.73.n.n? ELIMINATORJR 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That would cause quite a lot of collateral damage. I'd prefer to avoid this unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I'd suggest semi-protecting the pages that he hits and blocking each individual IP address for a short period. Never mind, I see he's now widening his attacks to a broader range of pages. I've blocked the two ranges suggested by Will above. -- ChrisO 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch to see if he expands out of that range. ELIMINATORJR 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Now editing from 213.130.142.61 - blocked. ELIMINATORJR 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a dial-up server - looks like we've booted him off his broadband, at least. The full range is 213.130.140.0 - 213.130.143.255. [23] -- ChrisO 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently on a fit of edits using User:62.249.253.204. Pit-yacker 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another dial-up ISP, range 62.249.253.0 - 62.249.253.255. -- ChrisO 16:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also named ips have made similar edits: 79.73.139.8, 79.73.239.0 and 79.73.204.237. Two edited my talk page editing others comments on Manchester to put ".. UK's third city". -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the Manchester vandal. Hopefully the rangeblock should prevent recurrences from those IPs. -- ChrisO 16:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY, but this may be a long haul. See RR's comments at [24], "The BBC messageboard was great fun though, devoted a good 12 months of my life to that discussion board" ... "I'm off to troll Wikipedia, my new found home!" (dated 25 July 07). Mr Stephen 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More IPs:

• Special:Contributions/79.73.145.200
• Special:Contributions/79.65.152.10
• Special:Contributions/79.73.162.37
• Special:Contributions/79.65.219.91
• Special:Contributions/79.73.158.39
• Special:Contributions/79.73.139.131
• Special:Contributions/79.73.205.10
• Special:Contributions/79.73.230.161
• Special:Contributions/79.73.138.228
• Special:Contributions/79.73.133.169
• Special:Contributions/79.73.145.39
• Special:Contributions/79.65.231.117
• Special:Contributions/79.73.225.250

— mholland (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• All covered by the existing rangeblocks. ELIMINATORJR 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

2007-08-05: He's back

Seems range block has expired and our friend is at play again on Special:Contributions/79.73.175.41 Pit-yacker 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rangeblocked for another 24h. ELIMINATORJR 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats: User:Opinoso & User:João Felipe C.S

• Note: An administrator with Portuguese or Spanish language experience is preferred, as content issues which originated the incident are in English but most of the personal attacks and subsequent legal threats are in Portuguese.

This issue is a content issue which has moved into the personal attack and legal threat realm. Opinoso and João Felipe C.S. have been sparring for the past year or so in the Brazil article over multiple issues. So far, they've followed the "revert war, cooldown period/3RR warning, discussion" pattern, but I have been very concerned about Opinoso's attitude towards the other user. Where Felipe has, for the most part, kept a civil tone and worked towards clearly improving the article, Opinoso has reacted personally to Felipe's edits. While most of Opinoso's content disputes have merits, his aggressive and insulting manner (using words such as pathetic and calling him "mentally incapacitated") have boiled over. He has threatened legal action against João Felipe, not once but twice, by characterizing his edits and comments as "racism" and stating that according to Brazilian law it's a crime (which it is), and that he has enough evidence to put him in jail. Previous edit wars here:April and May, 2007 and June and July, 2007. Current one here. Legal threat no.1 here and no.2 here. More personal attacks here.

I don't know what (if any) administrator intervention is warranted, but since this is no longer a content matter, I felt the incident should be recorded.--Dali-Llama 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is escalating. Could someone please help? If you know an admin who speaks Portuguese, please just post on his talk page to take a look at this issue.--Dali-Llama 00:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• For those non-Portuguese folk (myself included), freetranslations does a semi-borderline-almost-acceptable job with Portuguese-to-English. I don't know anything about Brazilian law, but I'm very skeptical of Opinoso's claim that João's rearrangement of pictures was motivated by racism. The commentators on the first few pages you referenced seem to do a fair job of cleaning that up, at least neutralizing the issue for the most part. Then again the consensus of a handful of Wikipedia editors may differ from the opinion of a Brazilian law enforcement agent. I don't think there's sufficient information in João's profile for him to be located anyway, given that Wikipedia servers are Florida-based and so Brazilian authorities cannot view his IP (unless I'm missing something). --xDanielx^Talk 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is not necessarily whether João's edits were racist or what the law is--far from it. My issue is that Opinoso has escalated an issue from a content dispute, to personal insults, to two separate "vendetta" legal threat. That's not the sort of behavior we should tolerate at Wikipedia. I'm asking for appropriate admin intervention. Whether that's blocking, a written warning (he's already gotten god knows how many from me) or what else, it's not for me to decide. But this clearly is a violation of WP:LEGAL.--Dali-Llama 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso's messages looked like legal threats to me, so I sent a message to him. Let's see what he will answer. --Carioca 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He said to me (check my talk page) that he will not take legal action against João Felipe C.S., so, I believe the question is now solved, and there is no need to block him. --Carioca 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloc voting, phony accusations of racism by nationalist clique

Earlier this week, a laundry list of hotels went up on AFD for discussion and were handled reasonably -- except for the ones in Singapore. A small group of Singapore-based editors, who demand that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable (and who hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources) have bloc voted on the nominations, and at least one of them, User:Hildanknight, who signs his contributions as J.L.W.S. The Special One, accused the nominator of bias/racism, assuming bad faith without a shred of evidence, and demanded Wikidiscipline against him. See, for example, [25]. Editors who behave like pack animals should themselves be subject to Wikidiscipline, especially when they organize and behave so that their favorite subjects would otherwise become exceptions to Wikipedia's general policies. Plaguedbyhordes 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, any simple votes without reasons are discounted. I would also advise you to use less inflammatory language if you wish to discuss this reasonably. Tim Vickers 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er

"...every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable..."

doesn't seem to overflow with the spirit of WP:AGF. I feel that you are still harbouring some resentment at their previous actions against you. Anyway, can you provide some diffs where they are making these accusations of racism/bias? LessHeard vanU 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but I alerted Hildanknight of this. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, Plaguedbyhordes? Your account was created today and in your first two edits, you posted this complaint to AN/I. The only reasonable explanation is that you are a sockpuppet of Russavia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make sockpuppet accusations without evidence to back them up. Neil ╦ 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to label Plaguedbyhordes as a sockpuppet of Russavia, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why a brand-new account would file an AN/I report against me about this dispute. When I requested help on IRC, TheFearow agreed that Plaguedbyhordes was an obvious sock of Russavia, and suggested I file an AIV report. I did so, but WikiLeon removed the report, suggesting I file a Suspected sock puppets report instead. However, I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser.

Shortly after being involved in a bitter dispute with Huaiwei at Singapore Airlines, Russavia mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Bad timing, or does he have a vendetta against the Little Red Dot? On all the AFDs, I voted "Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias." When Wikipedians AFD articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Singapore-related articles are particularly vulnerable:

Many articles on Singaporean shopping malls, includong Suntec City Mall (which houses the world's largest fountain) were nominated for deletion by Nehwyn.

Xiaxue (a Singaporean blogger who won a Bloggie, was a columnist for several newspapers and magazines, hosts her own TV show and wrote several posts that sparked national controversies) was nominated for deletion by N.

Chen Liping (one of Singapore's top three actresses, who was involved in the Slim 10 controversy) was speedy deleted by Mindmatrix.

Accusing SGpedians of being a "nationalist clique", "[behaving] like pack animals" and "[demanding] that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable" borders on a personal attack. I support the "inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources", and I did not "[accuse] the nominator of racism" (bias, yes, due to his disputes with SGpedians).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Russavia (talk · contribs) is not blocked, and this is not an RfA or an AfD, so the accusations of sockpuppetry are somewhat irrelevant. It's simply an editor who doesn't realize that being uncivil hurts his cause, and makes a poor presentation of his problems. Reinis^talk 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a racist asshole. Kamryn · Talk 08:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have phrased it in quite those terms, but... yeah. Raymond Arritt 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Is it common for people to throw around accusations that my account is acting as a sockpuppet without admonishment? I would like an IP check done immediately so that I can be cleared of what Hildanknight has accused me of doing. Secondly, I suggest that the people who are in the firing link with this 'incident report' take note, because I am obviously not the only one who sees some problems there. --Russavia 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see that Hildanknight has already filed an AIV [26]. What was the outcome of that report? Do I get an apology for this accusation Hildanknight? --Russavia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted Hildanknight, I am thoroughly disgusted in this. I didn't see above how you said your report was removed, and it was suggested you make another report in the correct area. So instead of doing so, because you can't be arsed in doing so, you come back here and continue with the accusations against myself. Should be ashamed of yourself. And if you are going to mention bitter disputes with Huaiwei on SIA articles, then I suggest that people have a look at Singapore Airlines Cargo and the continual reversions of factual correct, verifiable edits there by said user, and also have a look at this Mediation to see that this is an ongoing problem on anything to do with Singapore Airlines (note: I am not involved in that particular case). As to nominations of Singapore-related articles, don't assume that non-Singaporeans don't know about Singapore - I might be in Australia, but worked for SIA for some years, so would likely know more about the inner workings of said company than most of your wikiproject - and they were nominated because they are not notable in the overall scheme of things - some were shown to be, and most were shown to be irrelevant. And it wasn't only Singapore hotels that I nominated, but many from around the world. Time to take off the tin foil hat. --Russavia 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this even here? An abusive and obvious sockpuppet of another user, currently unknown, wants what exactly? Closing admins are already empowered to disregard !votes that they feel do not have a reasonable basis, and consensus in the AfD's will be the proof, as it were, in the pudding. I suggest that both of your just walk away and let the process take its course; WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. --Haemo 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BRD and misuse of WP:IGNORE to run-around consensus in Emo (slang)

User ZayZayEM has insisted on ignoring this comment on the ANI, and insists that he can remove content from an article because there is "no consensus to keep it." He says he gets to ignore all the rules. On the other hand, there is no consensus to remove it, and he continues to do so in violation of WP:BRD.

It was originally removed by EMC and I reverted such a bold change, asking for policy to be cited or consensus to be built. After a discussion, he noted my objection but believed he should still remove it because he disliked the images. I explained that the "policies" he was citing were not actually policies, and that BRD clearly explains that removal of content requires consensus to remove, not just a lack of consensus to keep. Several users became frustrated by the extent of this discussion, myself included, and things died down. Then, a few days later, he removed the gallery again. This is when I called him out on it - there was still no policy, and he had just made alot of people too frustrated to continue discussing it (no doubt with my help, since I could have easily let him violate BRD by reverting my revert, but I chose not to).

I then posted on the ANI, as linked above, and asked someone to comment on his violations of BRD and his misuse of WP:IGNORE in doing so (not to mention some incivility). Indeed, WP:WIARM makes it clear that he was out of line (as does WP:CIVIL). Now this new user, ZayZayEM, insists not only that he can remove the gallery because he doesn't like the images, but because he's going to ignore all rules. He insists that "wikipedia [sic] does not have clear rules" and that "there is no consensus to keep the gallery, there have been several independent editors who have questioned its encyclopedic value. It's time to go." I am unaware of any policies that require everyone who's built an article over the years to jump in and somehow remind us of the consensus that went into building it. Consensus is required for removal of content, but not for leaving the article as-is. I reverted his bold edit, per BRD, and I made it clear that he should not revert my revert, but I imagine he will. Rather than continue to deal with this nonsense on my own (if he reverts my revert now, he'll do it every single time I revert it again), I am requesting some guidance. Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps there are policies that support his position, but he's not giving me any (in fact, he insists that consensus policies simply allow him to remove any content that is ever objected to and removed - which is the opposite of what BRD states, since BRD insists on consensus to remove content, if there is disagreement about whether to keep it).

I'm aware that there is a bit of consensus-stalemate, but I strongly object to the outright removal of perfectly good images, and if that means consensus is not going to be formed anytime in the near future, then that's what it means. It's my understanding that policy allows for this, and that in this no-consensus state, the content in question might sit there for some indefinite amount of time. I've made it very clear several times that I will accept almost any compromise, just not the outright removal of the entire chunk of content, without anything to replace it. Can anyone offer any insight or help into this situation? Thanks. --Cheeser1 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like ZayZayEM has made exactly one edit to the article and is participating civilly in talk discussion. I don't see what consensus you're referring to; you're got a content dispute, not a problem worth bringing up here. Dicklyon 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this is the place to come for guidance when there are blatant violations of things like BRD and completely inappropriate misuse of policies like IAR. Could you please point me to where I bring up such problems? --Cheeser1 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm scratching my head: how can you violate WP:BRD when, uh, it's not a rule or guideline of any sort? —Kurykh 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a more detailed explanation of the intention, meaning, and proper application of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's just an explanation of the consensus-building process that makes clear how to proceed when bold edits are reverted. "Violations of BRD" means violations of consensus policy. It is surely "a rule or guideline of [some] sort." --Cheeser1 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are quite right in your interpretation of policy; primarily that removal of content (that isn't vandalism) requires consensus backed by policy/guidelines. WP:IAR does not apply here and, since ZayZayEm is acting in accordance with WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than a recognised policy, you are correct in retaining the images until it can be successfully argued for their removal. As Dicklyon comments, this is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. Next time, a request on WP:AN for comment/assistance (with a very brief description) over at the article talkpage may suffice. LessHeard vanU 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking through the article history to find when the gallery was first included, and under what consideration. I can see a diff when it was "re-added" in the middle of July, but I haven't found the original edit. Perhaps Cheeser1 can supply a diff? If and when it can be found there was good grounds/consensus to add it, then I suppose we return to the original question. LessHeard vanU 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just work from where you are toward a better article? It's not like there's no basis for him not liking the gallery of three poor little pictures. Scrap the gallery and add illustrations one by one to the article, and find out which images get support and which don't. Dicklyon 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him repeatedly to explain what it is he doesn't like, or what would be a suitable compromise, and he insists that he will just remove the content outright, without good reason, explanation, or compromise. There isn't one particular image that he dislikes, or any particular reason he dislikes it, as far as I know. He just thinks they are "bad" and wants to remove them. I've asked repeatedly what policy, reason, or whatever motivates this removal, and "they are bad" or "me and this other guy don't like them" (paraphrasing) is the best I can get from him. As for when the gallery was added - I believe it was well over a year ago, long before I came to the article. This is the first time I've seen it objected to. --Cheeser1 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Guy, the onus is only on the editor seeking to add NEW content. Similarly, the onus is on the editor seeking to removed established content. If it's Add side only, Wikipedia would grind to a halt as POV-pushers stub articles and sections again and again, demanding the entire dance of justification for 'adding' the deleted content. As ZaZayEM is seeking to remove content, it's on that editor to justify the change, not everyone else to re-justify the addition. I note in this case the gallery may have been added without much discussion, but if it was accepted, then it's a de facto consensus. I'm not sure how long consensus should be considered to be 'fluid', and at what point new consensus becomes 'established', but to assert that only those seeking to put things in need validate puts POV-pushers at an incredible advantage. (it's not happening at Emo, that I can see, but in general.) ThuranX 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[This] is the first instance I can find of the images in this article - 4th February 2007. There are several attempts to remove these images subsequently, but the consensus appears to be keep as they are returned. It now appears there needs to be a consensus to remove them. LessHeard vanU 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MicroFeet

User:MicroFeet (talk · contribs) is moving a lot of pages so that they contain "AIDS". Looks like an unauthorized vandalism bot. A block is in order until user can explain what they are doing, until then, I am reverting all of his edits. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put forward that, since the user edited for a while and then stopped *2 years ago* before this spree, that the account was hacked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see other dormant accounts jacked like this. --Thespian 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to comment on what enormous fun that was. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that you have an odd sense of fun, Riana. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hullo, Lar! Lost? LessHeard vanU 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, no I didn't think so! I thought this was the way to the Albert Dock ?? ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is an authorized Vandalbot? Corvus cornix 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One that has authorization to vandalise, of course! Who is buried in Grant's Tomb :) ?? ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia has a few of those. Caknuck 04:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More POV

User:Civil Scholar has been set up specifically to disrupt and vandalise the Order of Saint Lazarus‎ article. Could he/she not be blocked accordingly? David Lauder 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

48 hours. Intellectual vandalism, he's just adding POV-nonsense in place of decent stuff and removing a hell of a lot of material. Very, very disruptive. Also, I smell sock. Moreschi ^Talk 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Administrators should not force content as superior. This seemingly highly promotional article seems rather pov (where's WWI-WWII, for example?). El_C 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Yes, the article is a touch on the optimistic side - to put it politely - but this fellow was simply removing large chunks of fairly useful history and replacing it with his own rantings. I think that's fairly disruptive by anyone's standards. Moreschi ^Talk 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A touch on the optimistic side is quite the understatement, I think. I have re-added Civil Scholar's WWI-to-WWII period, which otherwise dosen't exist in the article (I'd say that a fairly key period for an entry that devotes 25 percent of its content to the 20th Century), and I removed (or hidden, rather) lengthy, list-like segment. El_C 12:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the neutrality, validity, etc of the World Wars paragraph, it appears to be a more or less verbatim copyright violation from [27]. I've moved it to the article talk page. Might be worth checking the editor's other contribs for similar issues. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should we have a copyvio on the Talk page, any more than on the article page? Corvus cornix 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because editors can work on the paragraph so that it no longer violates copyright, then return it to the article. For what it's worth, that particular paragraph appears to be from a dubious self-published source in any case, so it may not have a future after all. MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of KensingtonBlonde, continued

Regarding KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (nee EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) et al) See this archived ANI snapshot for context. New evidence has come to light that this user is still mailbombing admins. In view of that, absent a satisfactory explanation, I can no longer support any suggestion that the user be given another chance. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not too much to add, except to second that mailbombing has continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

See also "what mailbombing?" on my Meta talk ... It comes down to this, really. Do I trust multiple respected admins who I have worked with and who have acted with integrity every time I've worked with them (you and John/Guinnog about this, Dmcdevit about the initial sockery, and a host of others) when they say things about this user, such as the mailbombing is continuing, or this user, who has admitted to sockery and admitted that he mailbombed Ryulong but denys the very latest round. Seems pretty obvious to me. The only question remaining to me was why his current ID isn't yet blocked on Meta... it is now. I'm a softie, I admit, a contrite story and a promise to change ways tends to take me in, and I am always looking for ways to turn contributors round... but not indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's created a handful of sockpuppets on his new IP here at en, with his usual joke edits with one, decent edits on another, and then sleepers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said last time around, as someone else who was taken in by this user, I would definitely now be against any further last chances for him. I applaud Lar for his patience; I'm a softie too, but this is a case of "enough is enough" I think. Perhaps they will come back in a year or two with a more mature approach, but until then I don't think they are cut out to edit here. --John 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. He's spoofing one of the addresses I abanonded because of him. Netsnipe was spammed by him, as was I, and it's set to reply to my old address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd chance?

I've been in contact with KensingtonBlonde for the past few hours. He wants to edit. He wants to be constructive. But I'm not sure if he should be allowed to edit (he seems to want to do so as EnglishEfternamn). Should he be placed on an ArbCom-like probation and simply be watched over? Or should we wash our hands of him?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"He wants to edit. He wants to be constructive"... So he says. I hate to lose contributors that are potentially of value, and although I've sparred with him about some of his article edits he DID try to make valuable contributions. The wide swings back and forth between contrition and defiance give me pause. He has already wasted a lot of people's time. But MAYBE, if he were on a really tight leash? The leash would have to be drawn very widely (no editing anywhere else than here, as we don't have resources to watch everywhere) and I'd say at the first sign of mailbombing (our say so, not his, he has previously denied doing it when it was clear he had) or disruptive behaviour on ANY wiki, that's it. The other problem is.. Who has time to be the watcher? Absent that, I don't see it working. I expect some people will point at me, but my track record at mentorship is abysmal (c.f. Courtney what's his/her name, who played me and the rest of us but good). (oh, and don't forget user:Akradecki, another abject failure, John and my mentorship there was so poor he went on to become an admin and his article production has went WAY down ever since :) ) ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to puzzle out a more or less secure way to do this; we could softblock his IP, freezing account creation, which would allow him to use one account without letting him register a sockfarm. Just a thought, if we'd like to go forward with this. Provided we do something to avoid having this explode on us, I wouldn't oppose one last chance. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid abuse and harassment on us. It's clear that when he comes back with decent accounts, he wants to edit. However, he comes back with the bad accounts, too, but he's willing to abide by the rules and be under strict considerations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User creating multiple accounts

Whilst recent changes patrolling, I noticed JustineLuxtonB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created several new user accounts, as seen here, on the new users log.

Should we assume good faith that this is someone creating doppelganger accounts, or is this a vandal creating sleepers - and if so, should we block the accounts?? I've left a note on their talk page about this issue.

What should be done about it?? --SunStar Net ^talk 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No way to tell until they actually start to do something. There's no rule against creating multiple accounts per se, so no action right now. If the accounts are used abusively, then I'd have a low threshold for blocking all of them. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Might be easier to just link directly to the user's logs, since that's the only activity on the account. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Qaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Need intervention please. Qaka is latest incarnation of permanently banned sockmaster Instantnood re-igniting the same revert wars he was banned for. SchmuckyTheCat

Evidence please. --Masamage ♫ 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody resolve this, one way or the other? User:SchmuckyTheCat is removing User:Qaka's contributions wherever they are found, including in AFD debates, and claiming exemption from 3RR for removing such edits. I'm not convinced one way or the other (having seen no evidence at all), but if this is not correct, these removals should clearly stop. JulesH 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

see below. SchmuckyTheCat

Please help re: User: Perspicacite

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the Press TV article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he repeatedly deleted. I requested a 3PO, and discussed the issues with an admin. However, when the admin invited perspicacite to discuss he refused [28]. He responded by wiki-stalking me. The examples of wiki-stalking are described here. [29]The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he has gone back to deleting the funding & management section and deleting the list of shows - see his edits on August 3 [30] and August 5 [31]. Please help. --Vitalmove 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a basic content dispute at this point. Sometimes an uncommented edit just needs an uncommented revert; but since most of your own edits are uncommented, clean up your own act first. Take your dispute to the talk page, work on forming a consensus, and use RfC if needed. Dicklyon 18:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We have discussions in talk, in which he refuses to participate as I cited (and linked to) above. --Vitalmove 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He just did it again [32]. He refuses to discuss the changes in talk as I and Cool Hand Luke are doing. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He just did it yet again [33]. This is now the fourth time. We are trying to discuss the issues in talk and we are very close to a consensus. We are now debating minor issues. However, Perspicacite short-circuits everything by deleting everyone's changes. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He is now threatening me with a 3RR [34]. He also threatened to "contact other users" which seems to be a threat to gang up on me with friends. Can someone do something about this cyber-bully? --Vitalmove 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another 3RR threat. [35] --Vitalmove 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another 3RR threat. [36] He is gaming wikipedia's rules and cyber-bullying those who disagree with him. How are we supposed discuss and improve articles if one person does nothing but revert edits agreed to by other users, and then threatens to "contact other friends" and create a race to 3RR reporting? Especially when this person has a history of wiki-stalking? As I've painstakingly described above this is classic cyber-bullying. Someone please do something. Cool Hand Luke and I are discussing changes in the discussion and his behavior is disrupting the process. --Vitalmove 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He now reported me for 3RR. [37] Can someone please read the history above and do something? He is gaming the rules. --Vitalmove 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitalemove has been warned for personal attacks in the past[38], but violates it, in addition to just now, anyway[39][40] ("I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.") His past insistance that I work for the Israeli government[41] got really tiresome. Perspicacite 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The warnings were by you, and no one insisted that you work for the Israeli government. Stop misrepresenting the edits. You are cyber-bully and I will document your harassment. --Vitalmove 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also found Perspicacite to have a mildly irrational dislike for PressTV, however - try to keep the discussion dispassionately on content. ... Seabhcan 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Block for harassment: please review

[42], [43], [44] - unsourced info should be nuked straightaway - [45], [46], [47]. Blatant stalking as far as I'm concerned. This guy is following Jaranda around purely to revert and harass. I've blocked for 24 hours, please review. See also [48]. Moreschi ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[49] says it all. Endorse most strongly and mutter about being beaten to blocking. Nick 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit [50] really concerns me. Ksy92003 has a history of ownership exhibited at the baseball WikiProject. I think that he needs to learn that he can not stalk other editor's contributions just to try to keep all the articles the way that he likes them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"you're one of the users on my list of users whose edits I monitor constantly. When I look at your contributions and see that you make an edit that I don't agree with, one that I think isn't necessary, then I'm gonna revert it." lol @ how he flat out admitted it. Some people don't understand what wiki-stalking means. --Vitalmove 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He immediately posted an unblock and I've declined. That's an open and shut case and he needs to show that he's considered that if he wants to be unblocked early. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

possible votestacking / sock-puppetry in AFD

A number of votes have been added to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_Hightower by IPs from Ontario, Canada User:207.112.61.202 & User:74.123.72.87 - both are single purpose accounts, both created today with no other edits to wikipedia. User:207.112.61.202 has attempted to vote twice in this AFD.--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a valid (if minor) instance of IP addresses popping up in defense of an organization that fails notability guidelines. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Struck the duplicate !vote and added SPA tags. ELIMINATORJR 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:999 back causing disruption by nominating multiple articles for deletion

I created a sockpuppet report with the evidence, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/999. Possible sockpuppet User:Kephera975 has recently nominated half-a-dozen articles for deleteion.

• Chic Cicero [51]
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati [52]
• Ordo Stella Matutina [53]
• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn [54]
• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. [55]
• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega [56]

And also apparently an unfounded checkuser case against myself without providing any evidence whatsoever: [[57]]

IPSOS (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It might be pertinent to note that User:IPSOS has made similar allegations in the past against individuals with whom he/she ends up in content disputes. I have no comment on the specifics of this case, but I felt that it's worth noting. Coldmachine^Talk 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment no matter (and we should assume) whether or not the AfDs are in good faith, they are not all just disruption, some of these are valid AfDs that deserve discussion/deletion.Merkinsmum 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: for what it's worth, while I have my concerns about User:IPSOS, it does seem apparent that these AfDs have been made in bad faith; there is room for article improvement, or merging with existing verified/notable content, and it is likely that User:Kephera975 is disruptive to prove a point. I have looked over the AfDs following the trail from here, and made separate comments. Coldmachine^Talk 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The first AfD in the list, Chic Cicero, was nominated by Kephera975, who is now listed as a suspected sock puppet of the banned User:999. If this were confirmed, then there could be an argument for undoing these AfDs, as they would represent the edits of a banned user after his ban. However it's not proved yet. Also, the AfDs seem very plausible, since these articles, while interesting, have weak sources. There is a current AfD running on an article called IPSOS which looks even weaker than the articles listed above. My inclination would be to allow all these AfDs to proceed, and let IPSOS pursue his sockpuppet inquiry as he wishes. If any articles are deleted as a result, they would probably all have to get an 'Overturn and relist' at DRV if Kephera975 is truly a sock puppet of a banned user. EdJohnston 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that several articles are plausible AfD candidates. However, I believe the user is primary after the two strongest articles, Chic Cicero and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. simply because he couldn't get his way at Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. He seems to indicate that he is willing to sacrifice that article if it helps to get rid of the articles about Cicero and his Order. IPSOS (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC

I think all the articles/AfDs should stand or fall on their own merits, this doesn't mean I think this user is necessarily innocent. But a couple of these articles should be deleted IMHO (the minor ones). I suppose if the AfDs are overturned solely due to the users' identity/issues, the articles could be relisted for AfD if someone felt like doing it.Merkinsmum 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The claims that User:Kephera975 is User999 are also by no means proven.Merkinsmum 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Ideogram (talk · contribs)

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

---

Resolved

 – I've strongly warned the user that the next time he is incivil in this way I will block him for 7 days. Nandesuka 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in this extremely controversial AfD you absolutely should not use your admin tools on me. --Ideogram 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you tell someone "shut the fuck up" again, or anything similar, I will block you without a moment's hesitation and without the slightest feeling of guilt. The fact I have commented on an AfD has absolutely no bearing on how completely inappropriate your language is.

My recommendation to you is: when you have dug yourself deep into a hole, stop digging. Nandesuka 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You have called me a troll and reverted my comments before. I have apologized for the foul language and I will certainly do my best to avoid it in the future. Very likely if you choose to block me there will be nothing I can do about it. I know better than to appeal to your sense of guilt. But I am going to say it again: you should not be the one to block me. --Ideogram 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram (talk · contribs) is reverting at Allegations of Chinese apartheid (see History and getting very worked-up to the point of using foul language (See User_talk:Jossi#You_are_not_thinking). I have asked him to re-consider his editing behavior and invited him to collaborate (see User_talk:Ideogram#Editing) to no avail. Can someone give this user some much needed feedback about the need to cool-off and remain civil? No one deserves that kind of abuse.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for the revert five times to Jossi (Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid, User talk:Jossi) and asked him to think about it for a day before continuing. In fact he has insisted on putting heavy work into this article and, most importantly, advertising it by adding it to categories and links to it in other articles despite the fact that it is currently the subject of an extremely controversial AfD. Jossi needs to walk away. --Ideogram 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am researching this subject in good faith, and adding material to an article that I find to be an interesting subject. The fact that the article is in AfD does not give you the right to abuse me verbally, to delete a well sourced and neutrally worded lead, or to engage in editwarring. The one that needs to walk away is maybe you, Ideogram. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am likely to get blocked if I talk to Jossi any further, I have to stop talking to Jossi. --Ideogram 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stopping talking is not the answer. Just keep calm and to the point.

Jossi, as master of WP:OR accusations, you should be well aware that can't get away with a lead that states "A number of authors have ...". If you want to say someone has leveled accusations, you need specific reference to who did; if you want to say many have, you need to reference someone who has made that observation. So compromise a bit when Ideogram points out that "no reference says this," and avoid the fight. Dicklyon 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's in the lead; it summarizes the article. If I wrote an article about Criticism of Monet's Impressions, I don't have to cite the sentence that "Many authors have leveled different forms of criticism against..."; in fact, there's no clear policy on whether to cite in the lead, as the guidelines show. Some people do, some don't -- don't crucify oen another over this. --Haemo 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying I've never put a little original research into an article myself, but I do think that one would be justified in complaining if you wrote an article synthesizing a bunch of criticisms of Monet into an article saying that "many scholars are critical of Monet"; if your assembly of referenced facts back up a thesis that is not itself published, that's a problem. But by being careful about neutral POV, it can be avoided, which is all I'm suggesting. Dicklyon 22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The confusion over what the sources say individually and what the article as a whole tries to say about the subject is central to the AfD debate. In fact even the old version of the lead doesn't summarize anything other than "A number of authors have levelled allegations ...". Anyway, if you really want to talk about this, you should go to the AfD. --Ideogram 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is: woah. Seems like the both of you might want to take a moment and think. What do we gain by speaking to each other that way? What do we gain by producing such tense situations that people feel a need to speak that way? I get an impression that neither of you feels you're being listened to by the other; perhaps it would behoove the both of you to put some more effort into that area before things head for ArbCom? There's no reason we can't work collaboratively and get along. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already gone to ArbCom. The tension surrounding this issue is incredible. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for having used foul language. --Ideogram 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying, Luna-San. I am. As to Dicklyon's comment, these authors are sourced in the lead, which does not say "Many authors". It says "A number of authors", followed by the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe Jossi thinks there is a difference between "A number of authors" and "Many authors". --Ideogram 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my careless inconsistency. But I'll stay out of it now. Dicklyon 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am under ArbCom sanctions, I cannot edit-war with Jossi. It is extremely bad for him to take advantage of this situation by edit warring with me [58] --Ideogram 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why Jossi cannot STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE. It is EXTREMELY PROVOCATIVE to be editing this article IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONTENTIOUS AFD DEBATE. --Ideogram 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. I am trying to find common ground and responding to your concerns with my edits. If there is an AfD debate, that is no grounds to stop editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you as nicely as I can to stop editing. It would reduce tension between us immensely. There is no reason to edit an article that gets deleted; all edits can wait until after the AfD. --Ideogram 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The debate between Ideogram and ≈ jossi ≈ at Talk:Allegations of Chinese apartheid is interesting and important. Both sides have good arguments. However bold editing during a nasty AfD debate seems risky. I suggest that editors should hold back on controversial edits of the article itself until the AfD is over. For one thing, it changes the basis of everyone's !vote if the article is constantly shifting. EdJohnston 00:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

None of my edits can be considered controversial by any stretch of the imagination. I am simply researching both sides of the dispute and adding to the article accordingly. Regardless how the AfD gets resolved, the material I am adding is encyclopedic and will surely end up in one article or another. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi is continuing to edit. He has given no reason such hasty action is necessary. --Ideogram 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Researching and adding well-sourced material to an article does not need that I give reasons for it, and it is not hasty. We are here to write an encyclopedia, aren't we? I continue to invite you to collaborate with me and others in improving these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Both times I tried to edit I got into edit wars with you. This is a contentious article, and stopping editing is a prerequisite for good-faith negotiations. The fact that you cannot see this reflects badly on you. --Ideogram 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. It looks like you are trying to cram as much material in there as possible now while it is in the public eye and before it gets deleted. You can easily prove me wrong by STOPPING EDITING. --Ideogram 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not edit war with you Ideogram, and I find your comment disingenuous. (I could make a contrary argument, which I will not make as it os below my dignity to do so, but I am sure you'll get the hint) After all it was you and not me who escalated this out of proportion with personal attacks. In any case, as there are two editors here requesting that I slow down with editing that article, I can understand that it may help, so I will take a break from it for a day or so. As for your ideas that the article will get deleted, I doubt it will, given the current state of the discussion and the lack of consensus for deletion. Maybe you need to adjust your expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a complete waste of time for you to argue with me about whether it is going to be deleted or not. We will see soon enough. Ceasing editing until the AfD is closed would be the reasonable thing to do, especially since you are so sure it will be kept. You did in fact edit war with me over the lead, the only reason it didn't go to three reverts was because I am not allowed to revert more than once. I also take issue with your sarcastic tone, since you have made such a big point of civility. --Ideogram 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no more we can resolve in this forum. WP:ANI need not suffer these discussions any longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced image

Buffalo Skyway should be in "image space". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's an article consisting of just an info box, using an image. Dicklyon 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So it was (it's since been changed); my mistake, sorry. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:UkraineToday

UkraineToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Initially this user has been spamming Wikipedia with link to his blog at blogspot as anonymous user 217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and was reverted several times by several users (including Template:Wp-diff).

After registering he has continued this spamming at Template:Wp-diff and even added those links to his userpage and talk page. He took personally link spam reverts done by me and content disputes and issued personal attack instead of keeping discussion as can be witnessed at Template:Wp-diff (saying he and his family receive treats from people from Odessa). This user has a clear WP:NPOV violation and bias - as the only article he is contributing is related to blog he has started. Please investigate and take any actions (advises, warnings or blocks) needed. Thanks in advance for support. --TAG 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN by User:Chrisjnelson

This user has continued to violate this policy despite numerous warnings. The latest has occurred Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson#Closing case, where he addressed me as "Dude", a term I have previously asked him not to use. Attacks on my sanity have been refractored from User talk:Chrisjnelson, but are still on display at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Mediation. His personal attacks are littered throughout Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, as his claims of article ownership. For specific example of WP:OWN violations, see this and this page. Please get this to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said I owned anything, so those accusations are false. I will admit that I have made personal attacks in the past out of frustration, and I'll understand if I'm reprimanded for those. As for "attacks on his sanity", all those comments were completely serious and I sincerely question his mental health. None of those comments were meant as personal attacks. But no matter what happens in all this, I take great comfort in knowing that at least I didn't go to the Administrators' noticeboard and actually whine about someone calling me dude. Hence - I win for life.►Chris Nelson 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing Personally, I believe he is completely delusional and bordering on mentally unstable. is engaging in personal attacks. Your goading above doesn't help either. Please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I won't post here anymore or share my sincere concerns about his mental health. And you're right about the goading, but the "dude" this is absolutely laughable. I guess I didn't read WP:DUDE.►Chris Nelson 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Flashback to ca.1970 when Jim Bouton's Ball Four was published. Sportswriter Dick Young said that Bouton's kind were "social lepers". When confronted by Bouton about that comment, Young said, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" Which became the title of Bouton's next book. Baseball Bugs 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Will someone please step in and do something. Warning this user has not solved anything. He is now back into edit warring (see: this edit). This expands to violations of WP:3RR, but this should be enough effort on my part to have the situation dealt with. WP:30 and WP:RFC have already supported these edits. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• On a separate but related note, I have reported a violation of the 3RR here, so someone may want to look at that as well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that Jmfangio admits in his first line of that report that I have not violated 3RR. Look at the history. Jmfangio reverted my edit without just reason, but I have yet to violate 3RR there.►Chris Nelson 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go read WP:3RR. Your violations are in the spirit of the rule. I'm done trying to be the one to get you to enter into dispute resolution. As outside parties have supported a neutral solution to the "Pro Bowl" debate, and I have proposed one...that's what I'm going to use. If you have an alternative NEUTRAL solution, please present it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Heat > light. The discussion about the fate of the article can be continued at WP:DRV if people are interested in that. >Radiant< 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures"? Spare me the absurdity and disconnect from reality of your statement, as I indicated with extreme indignation on your talk page. —Kurykh 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) I think Michael is being a bit harsh here. The article was nominated at AfD at 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Sr13 deleted the article at 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC), which is a few hours short of the five days (interpreted as 5 x 24 hours) and forgot to close the AfD discussion. Kurykh apparently noticed this and close the discussion as "speedy close". To me, this seems like a series of honest mistakes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Jitse hit it on the nail. I apologise for deleting the article without closing the discussion. Thanks for the close, Kurykh. About the AfD itself: There seems to be clear consensus to delete and I don't see why the article is in dispute. Again, if you're blaming me for not closing the discussion, I'm sorry. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's blaming you and me for "vandalism," whatever that means. —Kurykh 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a stretch. I do agree that these accusations have been a bit over-exaggerated than what actually happened, IMHO. It's all been sorted out on my talk page. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the thing is, do we delete the article again per CSD G4 and risk another explosion of incivility from Michael Hardy, or do we leave it be and set a precedent of "ignore AfD if you can scream loud enough"? —Kurykh 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not reopen the AfD for another day? the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a new AFD should be opened sometime soon. Let it run it's course. RobJ1981 03:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. —Kurykh 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the AFD tag and re-opened the AFD: no sense in bureaucracy for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The kindest explanation is that Michael Hardy just woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Otherwise I'd be forced to observe that undoing another admin's good-faith action without discussion and calling it "dishonest" and "vandalism" would also be "very very hostile to Wikipedia's norms and conventions." MastCell ^Talk 05:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not kind to be on the receiving end of his tumultuous sojourns of his sleep (continuing with your metaphor). But I have now relisted the AfD on the most recent AfD page for further comment, essentially leaving it open for five more days, more than what Michael Hardy ungratefully and rambunctiously demanded. —Kurykh 05:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Closed as delete. The extra few hours have certainly passed by now, and the outcome of the discussion is certainly not unclear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And guess who restored it? --Calton | Talk 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, MichaelHardy has now reversed three different closes by three different admins. That's about the textbook definition of wheel warring. As I strongly believe against wheel warring, I will not delete again; however, I would strongly encourage MichaelHardy not to revert any future closes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, why don't I know about it? Michael Hardy 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there no norm on Wikipedia saying that when an article is nominated for deletion, the relevant subject matter commuunities should be told it exists and it's on AfD? I am profoundly sick of Wikipedians whose only activity is deleting articles on the grounds that they're unwilling to understand the subject matter. Wikipedia:WikiProject Probability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics exist. Normally they would have known about a nomination. In this case, the article was spun off from one that had suitable category tags, but was never itself suitably categorized, thus escaping the bots. Michael Hardy 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for notification of any sort except for the template on the page being discussed. —Kurykh 06:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we invite others to implement the standard response to wheel-warring, or shall we do it ourselves? —Kurykh 05:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that solution seems to have a bit of a problem, so maybe we can actually respond to this without needless commentary? —Kurykh 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's wheel-warring and canvassing [59] [60], against three different admins, when he has clear alternatives: it's about as obvious a block candidate as I can imagine. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has a great deal of content, and the AfD apparently got little exposure. Why not let it run another five days as Kurykh graciously proposed? Surely it can do no harm, and Michael Hardy will either get support or sleep in the meantime. It's not that bad an article, and it's not that extreme a deletion. I suggest, for both deletion pro and con participants, a nice cup of tea and a sit down. --KSmrq^T 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Five days was an option, not an offer. And it's an offer I'm about to retract based on Michael Hardy's wheel-warring, among other reasons. —Kurykh 06:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let it be known that when I deleted it citing "delete" outcome of AFD, I was extremely confused by Michael Hardy's restore, and had not seen this AN/I post. I feel that Michael Hardy's restore was completely inappropriate. The AFD clearly and unambiguously was a delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On this page [[[User:Kurykh]] says "That's fine with me" and on another page he says the opposite.

"Unambiguously a delete" after those who care about the subject matter were never notified. So it is claimed. Normally bots pick up AfD nominations on articles tagged with things like [[Category:Probability theory]] or the like and Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics is notified. This time the article was spun off from another article and suitable category tags were never put there.

Those who keep citing rule in this case are showing why there's something badly wrong with the AfD rules. [[[User:Kurykh]] wrote that he was "speedily close[ing]" the matter prematurely, although there was disagreement about whether to keep the article. Now he says it's absurd for me to say that he did that.

Most people who edit Wikipedia are good people.
Most people who express their opinions on AfD are good people.
Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people.
I've said that several times over the last couple of years. We need to ask why the system has that effect.

We also need a norm that says those knowledgeable in the topic should be notified of AfD nominations, the notice coming from the nominator. Michael Hardy 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no obligation to notify those who 'care about the subject matter'. If you want that changed, beautiful, but that has nothing to do with ANI. Furthermore, I think there's somewhere more appropriate to bring this issue. --Golbez 07:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am a hither-to uninvolved editor. I have not edited AfD recently. I have only posted to the Mathematics WikiProject several times. I happened to notice your thread here at AN/I, and I have a comment.

Your actions today, including gross accusations of bad faith and repeated wheel-warring, despite comment from several editors here, in the deletion log summaries, and on your talk page, indicate to me that you are neither trustworthy nor fit to work as an administrator on a collaborative project. But let the community decide if you are trustworthy enough to remain an administrator. I therefore ask you, in very strong terms, to please request reconfirmation at Wikipedia:Request for adminship. --Iamunknown 07:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone with absolutely no involvement in the AfD discussion, the article, or the related WikiProjects, I second the above request. —David Levy 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Third. Viridae^Talk 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike, while members of certain WikiProjects might "care" more about certain articles, it doesn't take someone who cares (and sometimes does take someone who doesn't care) to objectively consider the issues raised with an AFD'd article. Said WikiProject members are often useful for providing proper sourcing or helping to provide inisght on content issues, but articles must stand on their own merits, and require no "expert" analysis to decide whether they are merely lists of trivial facts. And also, finally, I have to assume that anyone who really really cares about the article will see the AFD on their watchlist, and there is always DRV to try and undelete the article if they are too late. Someguy1221 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of wheel-warring

I am accused of "wheel-warring". Other persons, not I, decided to re-open this AfD discussion, and THEN I restored the article since obviously it needs to be there so that those wishing to discuss it can find out what it says.

Then it is said that I am "canvassing". I put a notice at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics, NOT urging people to vote "keep" (nor to vote "delete") but simply to express their opinions. That is ALWAYS done when an article in the probability theory category is nominated for deletion. Except in this case. That was improper. Someone else reopened the discussion, thereby in effect urging me to do what is always done, then they come here and say that's "canvassing" and there's something wrong with that! Michael Hardy 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Other persons, not I, decided to re-open this AfD discussion, and THEN I restored the article - That statement has the slight problem of being absolutely false:

• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007
• Closing of AFD: 00:26, August 1, 2007

• Elapsed time: 15 hours, 50 minutes
• Edits to AFD between deletion of article and closing: 0

The only reason that "someone else" re-opened the AFD was because you unilaterally restored the article today AND made no effort to continue the discussion, despite your claim that you were doing so because the discussion had been "closed early". You attempted to override a clear consensus (6-1 against, with the sole "keep" argung that merging would make the original article too big), and your post-facto claims are looking thinner and thinner.

I did not restore the article until AFTER other persons proposed and agreed to reopening the discussion and one of them actually did reopen it. Michael Hardy 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's not an "accusation" of wheel-warring, it's blatantly obvious wheel-warring, no matter how many scare quotes you throw around it to hide that. I'd suggest that given how deep the hole you've dug for yourself, now might be a good time to stop digging.

Some more numbers to ponder:

• Opening of AFD: 14:53, July 26, 2007
• Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007

• Elapsed time: 4 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes
• Length of time this was "closed early": 6 hours, 53 minutes

• Number of "Delete" votes: 6
• Number of "Keep" votes: 1
• Actual improvements/changes to article during course of AFD:

• One addition of new factoid: [61]

--Calton | Talk 07:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Considering the use of scare quotes, I'd be interested to know what part of this isn't wheel-warring in Michael's understanding of the term. Rockpocket 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear wheel-warring. It's only by virtue of the fact that you've stopped that no one has blocked you for it. Knock it off. Admins shouldn't be behaving like this. We have DRV for a reason.--Chaser - T 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It didn't have to go this far to begin with. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I was going to close this discussion as not productive to continue when the afd got relisted. This has spiralled out of control with absoloutely ridiculous behaviour by Michael Hardy. Viridae^Talk 08:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected someone who has been here since mid 2002 and been an admin since the end of 2003(!) to know what wheel warring was. (was interested to have a look at the rfa, having not seen him around before). Viridae^Talk 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course! "Wheel-warring" is a neologism which was coined sometime in the four years since then. 216.97.170.137 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its actually a lot older than that: Wheel war. Viridae^Talk 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: RFA here. R. Baley 08:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an RfC be worthwhile? Daniel→♦ 09:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say no, but based on comments here, I see this happening again in the future unless something is done. Though I hope it wouldn't wind up here, that's never a good outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time an article has been on AfD and then deleted without the appropriate attention of the mathematics community. In fact, it is the third time in recent memory. Sure, there is DRV; but if someone who is a respected mathematics editor says "Whoa, let the experts have a say before closing the AfD", what's the rush?! This article was apparently spun off the main article, not because it was rubbish, but so it could have room to grow. The spinner did not categorize it, so the mathematics bots the community depends on for spotting AfDs gave no notice. Once the article is deleted, only admins can see it during a DRV. It's much better to put the brakes on the AfD so editors in general can see (and maybe edit) what's there.

Now I see a gang piling on Michael Hardy. Sure, he expresses himself bluntly, and brings some of that on himself; but the correct response to a rude tone is not escalation. Look past how he speaks; he is saying things that deserve to be heard.

Maybe folks who flock to AfDs are a bunch of trigger-happy gunslingers. Maybe not. Given the volume of garbage that Wikipedia attracts (along with the good), it would not be surprising if a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude evolved. Whatever the cause, I see a disturbing attitude, much like that of the Volgons bulldozing the Earth out of existence.

Michael Hardy did exactly the right thing when he notified the mathematics community of an AfD for a mathematics article. Ordinarily notification would happen automatically (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity), but because Melchoir screwed up, Michael had to discover the AfD on his own, and late. Common sense and common courtesy and concern for the common good of Wikipedia all concur; he was acting as a good Wikipedian and a good member of the mathematics community.

Which brings us to the actual contents of the AfD at closing. It means nothing that the opinions are lopsided if none of the opinions are from people who know the topic and have a stake in the article's existence. Maybe mathematicians would feel the article is rubbish; maybe they would embrace it. We cannot know because it was all over before the interested parties knew about it. That is why Michael Hardy said he was undeleting. He was also upset because he thought the AfD should run for seven days, not five.

So, I've had my say, and tried not to pour gasoline on the flames. Now I repeat: Can everyone please take a step back, take a deep breath, calm down, and try to avoid further emotional excess? Because what I've been seeing here is unseemly and unhelpful. --KSmrq^T 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion about the fate of the article can be continued at WP:DRV if people are interested in that. >Radiant< 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The User, GasSnake or Poison Oak

This is being posted here as per the request of the administrators whom deal with the WP:AIV as they feel it needs to be further examined. In accordance with general policy, this user has been given warning after warning and continues to make colorful, defamatory remarks and insults against other users including myself in addition to other general violations. This is my first time posting to the WP:ANI so you'll forgive me if my knowledge on how it operates is sketchy. I will post here as was posted upon the AIV.

• The user, GasSnake or Poison Oak, implements Personal Attacks against users including some remarks which can be found to be insulting and others which can be found to be questionable. Also makes use of their user page by taking other editor's comments and posting them upon it. In addition, this user makes usage of their signature to spoil a novel (Harry Potter, Book 7) by means of the text: "Change is coming and potter should have died". This does not affect my person as I've read the novel but it still does not excuse the action. In addition, other violations include violation of the 3RR Rule, Multiple POV Edits (as self-admitted by the offending party), spam, consistent uploading of Non-Licensed Images, and flat-out insulting other users including, but not limited to the reporting party, Ancientanubis, and Sam ov the blue sand.

I believe other users who have been affected by this will be making their own cases here. The above, however, is my sumation of things to the best of my ability without going out on an entire lengthy rant. Please look into and deal with this situation accordingly. Thank You. Evilgohan2 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? It doesn't look like he has editted any articles in a while (just talk pages). Someone should review his image uploads for speedy deletion, though; never mind, there's just one, and I just db tagged it. Dicklyon 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• if this were brought up a few days ago i would have completely and utterly agreed with all of Gohans above statements without question seeing as i was the one who technically gave birth to this entire predicament (through a discussion/argument between GasSnake and i over some of his edits to List of O-Parts in 666 Satan) and i still have no problem saying that GasSnake is guilty of the things mentioned above. But, over the course of last night and tonight i have attempted to make peace with GasSnake and have seemingly succeeded seeing as we were able to carry some discussion about various topics related to the editing of 666 Satan, i have also attempted to convince him to stop his personal attacks on other editors as it will result in him being either banned or some other action that would not end well for him (as an editor). i guess in the long run the thing holding me back from outright saying he needs to be removed from wikipedia is that i now see some potential in him as an editor and i feel it would be wrong to take serious action(such as banning or what not) against him without him first giving him an "administer realized last chance"(of sort), thanks, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• i truly don't care about what happens as I've delt with worse than this guy. But originaly I tried to help mediate becuase anubis asked me to, even after I tried to talk to him calmly he answered me by yelling and making excuses as to why he does what he does, after telling him not to yell I also told him that being african american and hating racists is no excuse as to why he was acting in such a way. Even after that he retorted and telling me what I said was a personal attack even though it wasn't. I do see pontential but right now all I see is a troll. I truly don't care what happens to him but I do hope he stops his trolling ways.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• well, my main reasons for saying i feel he has some potential is the fact that during some of our more civil discussions(here for example) he has shown the ability to do things that most others see as being a "normal editor", and to be a little honest, i also see a bit of him inside me (this being the fact that i have been known to lose my temper and say thigns i really shouldnt say, only GasSnakes appears to be at a slight bit more of an extreme @ times), idk, to be honest im still waiting to hear his response to these aligations as i think it could go either way... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...right now all I see is a troll." At the moment, that is all I'm seeing. In addition, in response to Ancientanubis, I shall point out that he has been informed of the statements made against him. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• idk, maybe your right and im just being to optimistic, but after my enormous argument with him i'm tryin to treat him as a fellow editor until it is (or is not) deemed time to let him go.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretend admin

Resolved

 – blocked by User:Jaranda—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

71.112.235.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pretending to be an admin and "blocking" people by leaving them blocked messages. Not sure if here was the right place to report it or at WP:AIV. T Rex | talk 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think an IP address "blocking" people is blatant enough for WP:AIV ;-) Someguy1221 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if the IP address is on the list of administrators? .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A sock of Jimbo... Well, I'm not involved.... --DarkFalls ^talk 13:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor 67.68.22.194 and sockpuppet User:Firstwind

After persistant vandalism and engaging in an edit war at Nantes, the above anon user forced the page to be semi-protected for three days. Since then, the user continued to make persistant changes to the article, as well as making a personal attack on an admin on the talk page, resulting in him being given a final warning. Due to this final warning, the user decided to create an account, User:Firstwind, and acting as a different party, the user has attempted to defend the conduct of the anon user on the talk page, in clear violation of WP:SOCK. Schcambo 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Supported. this user has been engaging in disruptive editing and not willing to achieve consensus in a clear case of WP:OWN. n disagreement has occurred about his/her edits, they simply revert without consultation e.g. as shown in edit summaries of [62] and [63] and then launch personal attacks such as [64] and [65]. Article was originally protected 3 days to stop this user but he/she has returned. [66] Michellecrisp 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Garry Denke

Concerns were posted about Garry Denke (talk · contribs) on this noticeboard a few weeks ago. I had noticed him contributing to archaeology related articles, particularly Stonehenge. He was trying to claim that there was a newspaper article in the Wiltshire and Hampshire Times, dated 1st April 1985, that claimed a 'Garry Denke' had bought Stonehenge. My first thought was that he had been taken in by an April Fool's day trick and I pointed this out to him. On closer inspection, the article had been written in a manner that indicated that unless it was an enormous coincidence, claimed that the user himself owned Stonhenge.

• I worked at Stonehenge for the National Trust and can confirm that no such sale took place, certainly not in the way the purported article describes. There is no such paper as the 'Wilts and Hants Times', the nearest thing is the 'Wiltshire Times and Chippenham News'. I can find no record of there ever having been a 'Wilts and Hants Times'. The whole thing is a hoax, seemingly written and invented by him.
• He has made a number of claims to this on numerous forums and message boards across the internet, as well as to assert the claim that the Ark of the Covenant and other artifacts are buried under Stonehenge, and even more fantastic theories, as at [67], [68], [69], [70], to name but a few. In most of these instances he has been discredited and accused of spamming. Wikipedia appears to be another forum he has found to express these views.
• He claims to be an authority on Stonehenge, and its geology, and lists a number of his publications. There is no record of him or his works in the online book catalogues of the United Kingdom, the United States, or even the university his website implies he attended. He claims association to a number of companies on his website, none of which appear to have any reference to him on their websites.
• His websites holds numerous images and the explanation of various theories he has worked out, that on closer inspection are simply copies of actual published works on Stonehenge that in no way substantiate his claims. Also on his website are claims of new theories of hbar, which have been copied from another website. One of his sources is another 'Garry Denke' who he claims had published in 1888, before Max Planck had defined h.

These attempts at original research, which are highly discredited, are now appearing on wikipedia. Amongst his questionable edits include removing actual material from articles, as at [71], where he removed information that is correct, but would not be immediately obvious to the casual reader. Part of his edits involve copying and pasting work from his own userspace onto numerous talkpages, as at Talk:Ark of the Covenant, Talk:Armageddon, Talk:Resurrection of the dead, Talk:Last Judgment, etc. Part of these includes links back to his user page for another theory he has, and feels strongly about; for example, [[User talk:Garry Denke|universal polarity flip]]. He seems to be trying to pass off his userpage as an actual article, and otherwise use wikipedia to try to promote his theories.

Many of his edits have already been removed by other editors, though some remain. Some of these are valid edits but some I am not qualified to judge. It would be useful for these to be checked by a more knowledgeable editor. I think the edits he has made promoting his theories should be removed, including those on talk pages. I am also tempted to nominate hs user pages for deletion due to concerns over them being used as a free webhost to support his theories, though they survived an attempt earlier this year.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks. --Benea 11:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) and Cherry blossom tree 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! All of the hoax cruft on both his user and talk page needs to go. That's an amazing amount of junk which a) could easily be mistaken for an article, and b) has no valid use in creating an encyclopedia. <<-armon->> 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, providing none of the sources are reliable. Has anyone tried to talk to him about this? LessHeard vanU 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He either does not provide sources, or provides ones that turn out to be written by himself. I can find no supporting evidence other than his own postings on internet forums and message boards. User: Dragons flight has been the latest to request removal of material. However, once large swathes of material have been removed, sometimes forcibly, they gradually creep back in until the page is back as it was and sometimes longer. He created an article at Seven Spirits of God, the only external link is for a site that in no way supports the vast majority of what he writes, which appears to be written to support his discredited theories. --Benea 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked out the material collected on both his user and user talk page. Garry does make a number of useful contributions to the encyclopedia, but I worry when his views on things like magnetic reversals spill into article space. Dragons flight 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Violations of WP:POINT by user User:Commodore Sloat, ...and the usual WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:DE

OK, here's the situation. There is a content dispute on MEMRI centering around inflammatory criticism (likening the org to Der Sturmer and Nazis) published in what myself and others do not consider to be a reliable source. It became an edit war, the page is protected, and I've suggested a content RFC to sloat. One comment came in on the RFC which seemed strange because it didn't address the sourcing issue. I checked the RFC and had to fix sloat's tendentious request.
Next I see he has created an article for the publication in question in a transparent attempt to predjudice the outcome of the rfc. It's short edit history then became another edit war when user:Isarig attempted to insert criticism of InFocus sourced to the Anti-Defamation League and some other group Americans Against Hate. Ironically, despite sloat's objections to the material, it would appear to be the only possible way of asserting InFocus's notability given the lack of any sources in the article which actually establish its notability. The Americans Against Hate article -where sloat has spread his fight, suffers from the same lack of notability.
I was going to tag both Southern California InFocus and Americans Against Hate speedy delete, but I thought I should explain the situation here first.
Personally, I think sloat should be blocked for disruption and incivility, however, as I have a long history of problems with him, I'm staying out of that discussion.
I do think that the two articles should speedy deleted though. Is there a problem with this? or should it be a normal afd? <<-armon->> 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, as Armon notes these two users have a long-standing history of mutual disagreements and aborted efforts at dispute resolution, most recently an attempt at community enforceable mediation, closed by Durova [72]. As noted, their ongoing clashes take place across a range of (political) article topics, but rather than a case of 'WP:POINT', the specific and recurring disagreement between the two seems to always boil down to differing views of the criteria for establishing 'notability' of various 'critical' voices - along partisan lines - of the political issue in question.

I would urge both csloat and Armon to renew their commitment to mediation, and follow the process through to completion in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, please also note that Ryan is sloat's "advocate", buddy, whatever. This is simply another case of Ryan being protective of sloat, by suggesting a false equivalency in our behaviour. In any case, this hasn't actually addressed the issue I've brought up here. should the articles be speedy deleted? <<-armon->> 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Friend' is fine. I'm csloat's friend on WP. And when I saw you had posted this, I figured I'd respond with the context of your ongoing battle since your post here didn't specify that you two had attempted, and utterly failed, to participate in mediation. That's the only reason. While csloat's my friend and I'd hate to see him go (since I believe he's a pretty factual and passionate editor), I'm glad to see that your latest row with csloat is being seen in context of the overall, continuing counter-productive dance in which you two seem to be engaged on article after article. In any case, the evening beach beckons me so adieu for now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Look, you two have been at it for months. It's getting boring. You have to stop fighting. If you don't find a way to live together in peace, happiness and harmony, your mutual death-lock will result in divorce courtesy of the Arbitration Committee, who will forcibly separate you by banning you both, and then who will look after the children? As to avoid this dreadful outcome, I'd try Relate. Moreschi ^Talk 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. The problem is that I've been through a failed CEM with the guy, I've taken the page which was the locus of the dispute Juan Cole off my watchlist (never to return) and also took a wikibreak. I come back, and bang, he's straight back into it. This is why I've brought the issue here, rather than get sucked in. <<-armon->> 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been trying to get along with Armon and his friend here, but they insist on turning every edit I made into a fight-to-the-death edit war. This report to AN/I is an incredible instance of WP:POT in that Armon (talk · contribs) is the one disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Filing a phony AN/I report is very problematic in these terms. The page I created about Southern California InFocus -- California's largest Muslim newspaper -- was created before I ever even considered starting an RFC for the MEMRI page; his claim that I created the article in "a transparent attempt to prejudice the RFC" is an obvious lie. He is also incorrect about Isarig's additions -- it was me who included the comments of the ADL in the article. He is also incorrect about the case for deletion -- I have shown with reference to several outside sources that this newspaper is notable. I can't understand a claim such as his that it is not notable or not reliable as a source; if he really feels that way, why did he not submit the article for AfD rather than filing bogus complaints to AN/I? I'd really like to simply be able to edit in peace on Wikipedia rather than have to deal with this nonsense every time I change a Middle East-related page. csloat 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick sanity check

Resolved

 – Deletion endorsed Sr13 is almost Singularity 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

A new user, Jdmorrison, uploaded this self-made image (Image:Zionist_lie.PNG), before inserting it into Holocaust denial. He then decided to post to a number of talk pages, including Jimbo's, before getting blocked for harrassment. Even though the image is not technically against policy, the fact that it's self-made convinced me to remove it from the article and delete it. ELIMINATORJR 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your decision. Shalom ^Hello 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Good call. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. --John 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Akradecki

I am contously rollbacked by some guys like Bzuk and now, this Akradecki. I am not sayng that they are never in right, but their action on me, here by only 10 days is already so heavy that i cannot almost do nothing that they cames and rollbacked my contributes to some pages. Interesting, it happens only in aviation pages.

Lastly, i have made some contributes to the page Reggiane Re.2001, that was improved from this [[73]] to this [[74]]with datas extracted by one publication that i have, and cited, as source. This yesterday. Today i found this still changed to the previous version by Bzuk, and so i have roll-backed my version and tryng to do it better[[75]]. No more than minutes, still the old version was ripristinated by Akramadeki, that says i have no references for these modiphics, that i write bad in english and i have deleted some 'important' informations' (and those deleted posted by me??).

Now i am quickly amused by this manner, both him and Bzuk. I know that there are some policies in wiki.en more rigid with some aspects, more rigid than other wikis. But the continous roll-backing of almost all i am writing here is simply frustrating, gratuitus and offensive.

And this latter modiphic is justiphied in a manner ever more idiotic than the others. If one desires to improve an article, then he tries to do so: my english is not perfect, but i post many datas that shouldn't be deleted for many reasons, even so stupid as 'unuseful data'. Atleast move this contribute to discussion page! But not, they prefers to do so, 'improving' Wikipedia deleting my posts with all the array of possible justifications. I rate this atleast excessive, and now, 'unaccettable'. If things functions so in wiki.en i don't know, but surely Bzuk and some others have seriously amused me. I ask support to that i call 'persecution' against myself.--Stefanomencarelli 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this user has been banned from it.wikipedia for much of the same behaviour he's been exhibiting here. He has been deleting information without reason, introducing uncited info and OR, text dumping copyrighted material and generally being uncivil when confronted by it. Diffs will be provided later, as I'm on a quick break at work. The main focus of his edits have been several aviation articles, and on ongoing dispute with Bzuk who asked me to step in as an admin. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and discuss in article talk the changes you wish to make. --John 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

for it's worth, let's examine how Bzuk has acted the last time:

He cutted some stuff in Macchi C.202, and it' really useful to look what. I have 'stated an OR' or someone else, saying simply this: becasue axis fighters were faster than the older allied machines as Hurricane and P-40 they were overall superiors as combat machines (really showed, absolutely not my opinion), but they must been always careful with their adversaries, 'cause they were very well armed, so every mistake can be fatal (in other words: when axis nimble fighters attacked slower P-40 or Hurricanes, if they made a mistake, they suddently face to 12 machine-guns or 4 cannons, a very lethal firepower for every fighter). I cannot understand what's wrong with it. I am not inventing that allied aircraft were very well armed, and that such armament was much respectable by everyone. Many axis pilots were killed because finished in the gunsight of these beasts. So where is the problem, talking about the necessity to be careful in fighting such adversaries? 6 M2 are a micidial combination, also: enough to shot down a bomber, let's figure a fighter.

It's so plain and simple: insthead, it was deleted because 'this violate OR'. I rate this simply absurd, and even if it could be OR, where is the necessity to delete a perfectly *reasonable, *well documented and *accepted fact? So i hope to have given you the reason of my protests, invain made with such guys that simply roll-backed everything i write without any discussion. It's a incredible and amusing situation, for me. I call it mobbing.

And as wiki.it, i was banned not before to have made 1700 articles, so go figure: many of them are even in evidence, and it was a time that i made almost 1% of the total. I wasn't there as vandal. And in the 'wikitrial' many have defended me pointing, among others reasons, to the total strumenctal, hipocrital and fallacious nature of the accusations made to me. Not a clean process at all.--Stefanomencarelli 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)--

Read our policy WP:NOR, discuss in talk, and be aware your English is less than perfect. That should do it. --John 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! 1700 articles! John's given you good advice, Stefanomencarelli. I can see you've got loads of good technical points to make, but the way to do it is to hit the "discussion" tab at the top of the article page and then list your proposed change there - then other users can help with the valid points you are trying to make. Ciaou!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough to demonstrate we have a problem user on our hands here. Stefano's edits are certainly interesting, but are barely legible at best, something that is amply demonstrated above ("this latter modiphic is justiphied in a manner ever more idiotic than the other"). I really don't have a problem with that, though. But when any of his edits are modified or RVed he cries fowl, and has now reported BZuk and Akradecki for "violations". BZuk, in particular, went way out of his way to show Stefano what was wrong with his edits and how to improve them, but Stefano continues to treat these as some sort of "attack". I'm generally in favor of adding material, and was certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in these cases, but nothing has improved and he continues to report well-meaning editors to ANI. What do to? Maury 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned him for this edit. Either he will cool down or he will be having an enforced break. --John 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User CameronPG

Resolved

Please compare these edits made by CameronPG - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHokieRNB&diff=149075241&oldid=148263455 - with those of vandals 24.56.43.213, 66.194.14.82, and now 67.161.238.135, and consider blocking. HokieRNB 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The first IP is already blocked, the second hasn't edited since June, but the third (67.161.238.135) is obviously the user avoiding his block, so I've reblocked both him and the IP for another 48 hours. ELIMINATORJR 14:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 deleting requests to follow civility policies from his talk page

User:Otto4711 made an attack on me on my talk page using obscene language. He has repeatedly removed a request to reply with Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks from "his" talk page. Now he is shouting at me that I must never edit his user page again. I have explained to him that "his" talk page is actually a talk page about his account, not his private property, but given his hostility towards me, I would be grateful if someone else can address his conduct. Hawkestone 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• This has also posted to WP:AN and WP:VPA. Keep it to one place, please! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • His message wasn't polite, but I don't see that it rises to the level of abuse as to warrant admin intervention. And users are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages, except in unusual circumstances. Why not just ignore him? ElinorD (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Which isn't to say that I'm unsympathetic, but really, blocks and warnings for petty rudeness generally only inflame a situation more. ElinorD (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I will add this user to my watchlist and keep an eye on things. Users are allowed to remove warnings, unfortunately, but they can be found in the history. Until(1 == 2) 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm it seems like the user Hawkestone got a little upset over the fact that Otto nominated categories he liked for deletion: [76] and Otto got slightly annoyed that this user kept pecking at his talk page. I might be wrong though. Hawkestone, can you give actual exampls of Otto being uncivil to you? Systematically? CaveatLector^Talk 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning has been left on Otto's talk page. Tim! 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I'm not defending Otto; he was quite rude in a deletion review yesterday. But I can't see that slapping an {{Npa2}} template on the talk page of someone who has been here since April 2006 is going to have a very calming effect. ElinorD (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Template the regulars. Tim! 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Images placed in userspace

I notice there are a good deal of Image:Wikipedia-logo.png in userspace. On its copyright and associated Wikimedia visual identity guidelines, should we be removing these from the userspace? Navou ^banter 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is currently deemed a "free image" on Commons. Until the Foundation actually takes a stance, I would recommend the image be treated (internally) as a free image. I would also like to note, as disclosure, that a while ago I removed {{Non-free media}}, which is used to generate a list of all non-free media, from {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}, based upon similar grounds. --Iamunknown 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

French bashing against French editors

Some of us are trying to work on Allegations of French apartheid, trying to suggest new names, to point from our own experiences what improvements could be done overthere to try to solve all these allegations problems.

On one side there are all the problems you know about the "allegations of"... I can't do a lot against this until the ArbCom request is over.

On the other side there are disruptive contribs on the talk page of that article... I tried, with Jeemde and Poppypetty differents things... From no answer to calm explanations, including the classical "yes" answer, but today, he definitely crossed the line :

• [77]

But when French government fell in WWII, you guys were defenseless as sitting ducks and this clown Hitler did with you whatever he pleased, until US soldiers buyed you out. You even can't get this article deleted, because English Wikipedia has been establish by an American and is based on the same American, not French, principles, where the community, doesn't matter how small, decides what to keep or what to delete, not some government establishment. Now you know?

I'm just... so bored. Please help. NicDumZ ~ 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, asking him to be a little more constructive in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing against French editors in my comment. This quote above was taken out of context. All my comment dealt with the topic supplied by the editor of the previous comment I was responding to, which suggested that French people are better people than American people, referring to gun control laws, living in communities, and dealing with religion and customs of the minorities, etc. Anybody who knows a bit English will know that all "you"s meant French in general, not the editor in person. Besides, there never was any anti-French movement in America except a little sarcasm, but there was a lot of anti-American movements, protests and sentiments expressed in France since the DeGaulle times, and here we got another example in form of this baseless accusation of "French bashing". greg park avenue 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the editor you responded to is a single-purpose account and was apparently being deliberately provocative. But as an experienced editor, please don't take the bait. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, having seen Greg "contribute" to a number of discussions, I believe he's a troll. A block would not be out of place here. -- ChrisO 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, Chris, as my opponent in few discussions concerning the issue of apartheid, you shouldn't play a judge here. Besides, trying hard not to take sides is sometimes like offending everyone I gather. greg park avenue 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block anyone for that little exchange, and without diffs I can't comment on any pattern. Even if there were one, RfC might be more appropriate. I'm just asking for cooler heads to prevail, and maybe for everyone to hit the preview button and think twice before hitting "Save Page". MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ah. Eventually I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Thanks for your quick answer, MastCell... NicDumZ ~ 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MadmanBot semi-protected Volcano

Is there a reason why User:MadmanBot semi-protected Volcano or is the bot malfunctioning? --Raphael1 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot didn't protect the page, it merely added the {{sprot}} tag. It was protected 21:50, April 27, 2007 by user:Steel359, presumably with no expiry date. I'll request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, but can re-protect it if needed. It has been over 2 months. Until(1 == 2) 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, why Volcano has been protected at all, since the vandalism came from IP addresses who vandalized multiple random pages. Thank you for unprotecting. --Raphael1 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image that needs speedy deleting, but doesn't fall under criteria

Resolved

 – The link is red now.

Image:WWEUnforgivenPoster.PNG. It is clear that it is made by someone else. It is not a real poster, and it is clearly fake. And a fourth point is that one of the people in the poster isn't alive. This doesn't fall under the speedy deleted criteria though. Can an admin delete it please? Thanks. Davnel03 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Protection policy

This was brought up once, but quickly archived, however the admin who violated it has not rectified the situation. In this case, he move a page to different version before protecting. This is a clear violation of policy which states that "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in." It matters not whether he edited the page before, because he moved it to someone's preferred version *before* applying protection. I request that this move be reverted, though protection should probably remain due to certain editors being uncivil. The consensus on the talk page of this article is in fact 4 to 2 that the page should not be at what it is. Additionally, the rationale for the illegal move before protection was the MOS for Ireland related articles, which this is not. [78] I am seriously disturbed that this admin violated policy so blatantly and the community has declined to both comment or fix it. pschemp | talk 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked for, and received, admin comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive280#Vossstrasse.2C_or_possibly_Vo.C3.9Fstra.C3.9Fe_.28was_User:Prohibit_Onions.29 At this point, it does not seem prudent to unprotect the page as the move war will just restart. I also must say that the tone of discourse on the aforementioned talk page has been deteriorating. -- Avi 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to unprotect, I asked you to reverse your illegal move. It clearly violated policy. Second, some of the admins who commented pointed out that you violated policy too. pschemp | talk 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Two cases of vandalism

please take appropriate actions against this two cases:

• [79] (needs no comments)
• [80], deliberate changing of facts. --Pejman47 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please report vandalims at WP:AIV. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat against User:Paul20070

Resolved

User:Paul20070 was reverting edits by an anonymous IP to the article Declan. After posting warnings to the IP's talk page (see [81][82]) he was subject to a legal threat by the IP.[83] He then posted a {{helpme}} message on his talk page, so I'm posting here on his behalf. --DeLarge 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP anon only. Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning but it seems Shell Kinney already handled the issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is now back as a registered user The Mr. Barnes and posting nonsense on my talk page. Can I block him personally, or do I have to ask an admin to do that? Cheers Paul20070 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be an administrator in order to issue blocks. No worries though, issued a block to the account right now. Seems he doesn't understand that sockpuppetry is also not tolerated on Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, he shouldn't come back again now. Paul20070 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar - overturning community ban??

You may remember Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of who I know in real life - she was banned from here a year ago, if I'm right. Anyhow, she has said she would like to apologise for every single thing she did, whether it be sockpuppeting, personal attacks or insults, and has asked politely if she can come back with a new account, and move on from this.

This is a polite request, and although you might think I am a single purpose account, I will edit further, I promise. If anyone from the "arbcom" (??) is reading this, what's your opinion??

Guys and girls, this is a polite request, make of it what you will. I'm just the messenger, dont shoot me! and yes, she's stopped her vitriol now so you can relax... --IceWarriorSP 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on G-Unit

Hi, I would like to report the following users for continually vandalizing the G-Unit article despite receiving warnings:

• 216.232.167.176-Vandalism

• Yousuck69-Vandalism here
• 207.81.118.164-Vandalism here & here

207.81.118.164 and *Yousuck69 appear to be sockpuppets as they made identical edits.

• 24.70.195.228-Vandalism here

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page, which should stop the IP vandalism. The named account has already been blocked as an inappropriate username. As to the IP's, they've been warned; if they vandalize further, consider reporting them to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:71.227.87.141 admits being sock of same-pattern User:Dunk meister

User talk:71.227.87.141 was a long-standing heavily-suspected sock (on a static IP) of vandal User talk:Dunk meister, and has now even admitted to it in a June 2007 diff. There should now be way enough diffs and proofs (including his admission of sock) to have a checkuser or something. Proof listed on:

• User talk:71.227.87.141 (many diffs, including one of sock admission)
• User talk:Dunk meister (former vandalisms notices)

Context: His modus operandi, at least since January 2006, is to repeatedly alter the most prominent Electronic Music artists against consensus, so as to ascribe them to New Age Religion. This is done either by replacing other tags (Electronic Music, Space Music, Krautrock, etc.) with "New Age", or by inserting it in first position or in the lead paragraph. Despite editor consensus against it, repeated warnings, and long discussions with him (see for instance Talk:Klaus Schulze).

62.147.38.168 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat keeps reverting my edits

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) has been following all my edits and has reverted many of them. Qaka 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because Qaka (and Iianq) are the current incarnations of permanently banned sockpuppet master and ArbCom proclaimed revert warrion, Instantnood. That's some cajones he has coming to ANI to ask for assistance. See also: I posted this sock notice here a few days ago. SchmuckyTheCat

The message you started regarding Qaka has a response. What evidence do you have for sockpuppetry? And do you know that there is a specific place to report suspected sock puppsets?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Iianq == Qaka [84]. Notice the first edit that uploaded the image? Iianq contributed an image, but he forgot he was logged in as Iianq, so he claimed copyright for the other sockpuppet, Qaka, who had contributed an image earlier.

Both == Instantnood. It's obvious to me, and to Huaiwei, because these users follow us around, as Instantnood does. He revert wars on the same subjects (about Hong Kong, about various countries and dependent territories, etc). The ESL grammar is exactly the same as Instantnood. He revert wars over the spelling of Macao/u just like Instantnood. After three years of editing here, and dealing with his behavior, I can smell it a mile away. He's got quite a few peculiarities. Anytime I've accused an account of being one of his socks, I've been right and confirmed by CheckUser. However; CU information on 'nood has scrolled so running CheckUser isn't going to help anymore.

At any point in time he is running half a dozen socks. Most of them do very innocuous edits for a month or until they are necessary. Then one or two of the socks go on the war path following Huaiwei and I. They keep it up until it is ineffective or until they are banned. It'll be idle for a week or so, and then the cycle starts all over again with a new batch. SchmuckyTheCat

Also, I first called Iianq a sock on June 30. The Qaka account has been steadily reverted for several weeks for being a sock. He's squealing like a stuck pig about it now because he knows he's been cornered. And yet he has never denied being a sock. SchmuckyTheCat

Okay I see this.[85] and connect the two sockpuppets to each other. How do you verify the accusation that these are both Instantnood? Durova^Charge! 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Behavior. Grammar. Patterns. I've been right every single time when there was CheckUser data to check, and it's not an accusation I've ever thrown out on a whim. After three years, you begin to recognize people. SchmuckyTheCat

I'm inclined to say this is Instantnood, there are a whole lot of similarities in behavior to the puppeteer and the old socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Patrickstar489 a sockpuppet?

Patrickstar489 made two edits to User:Googler459's talk page. For those who don't know, Googler459 is an indef blocked user that has been blocked since December 2006. This is made after Googler459 requested an unblock and after User:Jpgordon denied it at 00:17, 6 August 2007. Twenty-hours later (exactly), Patrickstar489 made those edits in the diff.

Note that User:SuperstarOU, another indef blocked user, also edited the talk page. This is about two or three days before Googler requested an unblock. I have a suspicion that all of these users may be sockpuppets or that Patrickstar could be a sockpuppet of SuperstarOU. Pants^(T) 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that both Googler and Patrickstar uploaded images with toilets in them. Even the usernames and edits are similar. Pants^(T) 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Scipio3000 going too far

Resolved

 – Both editors are talking to one another and the rhetoric has subsided. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For no apparent reason, I find myself in a feud with this user. I've pointed out the roots of European democracy in Ancient Greece (and now sourced it). This has produced a series of hate attacks, mixed up with accusations that I hate Rome. (Again, no idea why and I take exception to the accusations). First he seems to have thought I'm American and attacked America and Americans for no reason at all; we were discussing Ancient Rome and Europe. Two irrelevant but rather mild attacks [86], [87]. Then he checked out my talk page and saw that I'm Northern European and started to hurl abuses in that direction. Now I was suddenly pro-Germanic [88] although I fail to see how saying that democracy originated in Ancient Greece could possibly be pro-Germanic. All of this is a nuisance but not something I'd complain about, but this message [89] on my discussion board i another matter. I reject profoundly being accused of "hating every other group than Germanic peoples", along with all the other accusation. I've made more than a thousand contributions to Wikipedia and I've never attacked any other people nor displayed any nationalism. Accusing somebody of hatred and racism (and a host of other things) is a serious matter and deep personal insult. I hope some action is taken against the user. JdeJ 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After my last post, the user has both removed some of my comments from the discussion page about Europe (which I consider vandalism) and continued accusing me of many thing, including racism. [90].JdeJ 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the talk page and the talk pages of both of the above asking them to calm down and step back. Let's see what happens. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)