Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways: [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomly surveying twenty of the articles in that category:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit point

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

I found this comment in the Talk page of List of My Name Is Earl episodes quite revealing: ""Unless shown otherwise, it is better to assume that there is no chance [for episodes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Prester John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Matt userbox MfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit Wars continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Group of users blanking Star Trek character articles

Administrators, there appears to be something strange going on with articles about Star trek characters. Worf and Geordi La Forge have been hit in the last couple of days by a group of users (or perhaps the same user with several different accounts) who are reverting the entire article to a version from months ago. The reason for this isn’t clear but the edit summaries contain phrases like “resetting article” and “returning to stub”. There was also a border line personal attack where one of the users called another “a lazy tagger”. Now, I don’t know a great deal about Star Trek, but this looks like vandalism. And even if there is some kind of justifiable reason to repair these article, or remove bad info, reverting to a months old version, wiping out everyone else’s changes since then, doesn’t appear to be the right way to do it. -OberRanks 04:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deanna Troi and Data (Star Trek) also being hit by the same people. -OberRanks 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You could probably make a convincing argument for a checkuser case. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're socks. The only three I see doing this are Cromulent Kwyjibo, ShutterBugTrekker, and Anton Mravcek, all of whom have been around a while and have different editing interests. Perhaps they just agree. I see a note here, but brief notes to those three editors asking for discussion of the issue would be step one. They may not have even noticed the talk page thread.--chaser - t 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked the user(s) to stop re-instating the bold changes, and there is a thread at Talk:Data (Star Trek) about it, although I don't think s/he responded. I'm disturbed by this "it's all the lazy taggers' fault" nonsense. The article can be cleaned up just as easily as it can be "rest and fixed." If anything it's just as lazy to gut the article - they're not taking the time to clean things up either. But seriously, why not have disorganized information than no information? These three people keep referring to some magical theory that a stub is better than an untidy article, but I don't see how that's necessarily true. Unless they have consensus support, they should stop making these bold edits and discuss the changes they want on the talk page. --Cheeser1 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen this before. Basically, the issue is over the fact that the articles are primarily written with an "in-world" style. The 'vandals' are removing all the information that goes against this (like the entire fictional back story found in Geordi La Forge) and leaving a stub for a new article to be created. The "lazy taggers" comments are because I've seen those "in-world" notices for months, if not years and I guess it's one way to force the issue. No real opinion but hopefully just making it a little clear for all. It's basically another version of the WP:FICTION content disputes we see in other places. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy trapped in a box and can't get Out Of Universe, Batman!... seriously though, is there a WP:Star Trek to whose attention this can be brought? I'm gonna go look, and if so, let all know. ThuranX 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've notified the project regarding this thread, and the larger issues at hand, hopefully the three day weekend will yield a cleanup. ThuranX 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They have responded to a discussion on the Worf article here. Just a notice. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 05:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential problem conerning episode articles. -- Cat ^chi? 09:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The same Anton fellow is at it again, and has left this acerbic comment on the one article's talk page. I generally am fine with stub-ifying articles as in-universe as most of the Star Trek character ones, but I take exception to his incivility toward other editors. In his partial defense, the folks reverting his quasi-blanking (myself included I think once) have commented about respect the consensus-building process, but no one's actually started up a section on any of these articles' talk pages to discuss what should go and what should stay. I imagine if Anton's edits were more piecemeal, and if he used a less-uncivil tone in talk-page comments and edit summaries, this wouldn't be that big a deal. --EEMeltonIV 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In Anton's defense: he's daring to do something besides just complain. Did the articles on Family Guy characters improve because of tags? Heck no. They improved because scholarly-minded users like edgarde thoughtfully trimmed all that was extraneous or mere repetition of plot, (which Melton repeatedly cites as a reason for the in-universe tags, though the tags actually say that the article does not distinguish fact from fiction).

With the TNG character articles, a clear track record is emerging: tagging does not work. "Stub-ifying" actually does. In fact, the in-universe tags have got to be the most counterproductive tags Wikipedia has. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that a Checkuser should be done, and possible the offending accounts be blocked during this period. I can't exactly stick my finger on it, but there are subtle similarities between their userpages, and that they are pushing the same, rare (not likely to be a coincidence), agenda, stubifying to a version of the article with errors. Anyway, I think a checkuser would be a good idea at this point, also, because one seems to "step in" when the other is in danger of violating the 3RR, see article history. Just my opinion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment regarding PR (by User:Jaakobou)

Disclaimer:

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

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

1. evidence to support the old blocks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. regarding the issue of PalestineRemembered mentor.

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

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

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

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

summary

personally, i feel PalestineRemembered

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

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

Dispute resolution process and ANI

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

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

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

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

Comment on Jaakobou's comment on PR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaakobou writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the mentor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meier then proceeds to a forensic examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Geni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by White Cat

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

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

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

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

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

simple question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify and evaluate proposal(s) at hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mentor" Geni under attack (by PR)

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

Geni attacked

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

HG attacked

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

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

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

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

A mentor blocked

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

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

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

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

Same throughout my experience

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

Pointless attacks on me

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

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

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

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

Inanity

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

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

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

Kyaa the Catlord harrassing me on this page

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editwarring on Western Sahara articles

Koavf (talk · contribs), Wikima (talk · contribs), and A Jalil (talk · contribs) are engaging in slow-moving editwarring (slow-moving largely due to the fact Koavf is on 1RR per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf) on many Western Sahara-related articles. Koavf's revertwarring on these articles is what got him community banned in the first place (the arbitration case overturned it to give him another chance), and Jalil and Wikima spend a large proportion of their time undoing all of his changes.

As you can see in the edit histories of this article and this wikiproject, as well as the other pages in Wikima's recent contributions this is a long-term, continuing problem, and blocks aren't working (Koavf has been blocked a ton, while Wikima was blocked for 3RR this time last year). I'd like some suggestions on what should be done about this - blocks, paroles? (I'll say right off the bat that protection won't work, they'll just wait it out.) Picaroon (t) 23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Defense You'll notice that I am posting on talk and not blind reverting, except in the case of vandalism (e.g.) I keep on trying to seek consensus on talk and have engaged an admin at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara, who is apparently incapacitated; another admin agreed to assist and then never showed up on talk, despite several entreaties. Note that Jalil and Wikima are: redirecting Western Sahara articles to Morocco articles, deleting Western Sahara from relevant templates (and again), ruining the user templates at that same WikiProject they have been vandalizing, inserting irrelevant politicized asides in articles on flags and coats of arms, mass deleting relevant passages from articles (note that the latter deletes references to Moroccan human rights abuses), deleting criticism of Morocco from articles, taking out relevant stubs from articles, ignoring cogent logic from several users on some pages, and generally trolling my edits. I am trying to seek consensus on talk pages, and they are not. To presume that my editing is in the same class as theirs is simply false balance, and I have requested admin intervention on several occasions. In the one case where I got it (Legal status of Western Sahara), they simply ignored the admin's injunction and deleted scholarly source citations because it disagreed with their pro-Moroccan political agenda. That's to say nothing of the POV forks, copy-and-paste violations, reversion of comments on talk, controversial page moves, etc. that have been happening with these two users for over a year now. Will some admin please deal with their nonsense? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be part of this war; this is my understanding of those involved last time I checked:

• Wikima (talk · contribs) — fanatically biased towards all things pro-Morocco; I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he works for the Moroccan government.
• A Jalil (talk · contribs) — clearly biased towards Morocco, but can at least be communicated with (perhaps he just doesn't see the bias).
• Koavf (talk · contribs) — means well in his attempts to curb Wikima and A Jalil, but plays their game instead of trying to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (which, in his defense, has IMO utterly failed this issue so far - its appearance here is encouraging, however).

I don't think Wikima or A Jalil should ever be allowed to edit anything remotely related to Morocco or Western Sahara or the SADR ever again, but failing that I would at least hope their edits were reviewed closely for a good long while to ensure NPOV. Koavf's position, IMO, has not always necessarily been on the side of reason, but has been on the side against those who are against reason. I think you'll find he will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators, instead of being continually ignored. ¦ Reisio 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on mate, Koavf is the exact equivalent of wikima, only simply a monolingual. Means well, he's a stubborn close minded git who likes to do stealth reverts on others edits after laying low. (collounsbury 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Reisio, you used to be part of the war defending Koavf's positions, and it is good to mention. Your input above follows the same path. You were less fanatic than Koavf is, but your talk page speaks for itself about your editing attitude, the discussions we had with you, and your brawls with others, that in the end led you to being blocked. Saying that you "think you'll find he [Koavf] will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators" is completely ridiculous. He was warned, short-blocked and long-blocked, and indef-blocked, and there is no change at all in his behaviour. Having other editors check my changes if they are pro-Morocco POV is more than welcome. Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing, rather than the opposite contarely to what Reisio alledges above.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't defend people's positions, I merely adhere to logic and Wikipedia guidelines & policy. ¦ Reisio 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what "logic" you mean: the logic of reverting that you share with Koavf. Your contributions are no more than reverts. Your talk page is full of complaints about that. Playing the third-party editor who throws his two-cents on this does not fit you Reisio, because you were very much in the middle of it.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my relationship to this matter was the first information I presented here. ¦ Reisio 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reisio, in my edits i am rather neutral and defend neutral pages (e.g. separtion of WS from "sadr")
• You think, like koavf, being neutral means pushing Polisario's interests in wikipedia (and possibly elsewhere)
• An possibly you think this way because you are payed by Polisario or the Algerian Governement.

wikima 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow "Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing" this is an explicit admission that Wikima and Jalil exist on Wikipedia in order to revert my edits. That is what they do and that's it. They only want to instigate edit wars on Western Sahara-related articles. As for Wikima's paranoid allegation about spies from Algeria, is anyone taking him seriously at this point? Honestly, is anyone else even reading these ramblings? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you read well, reisio is suggesting I am working for the Moroccan gov., an unacceptable allegation. I am merely showing him the mirror. But you were unable to see that. Why? Because unable to be neutral.
• I my view it is extremly important in wikipedia to get articles on Western Sahara as balanced as possible.
• Polisario activitsts like you and Arre have created a whole pro-polisario world that needs to be balanced. You excessive edit warring and pro-polisarian editing does not allow any constructive way.
• This is what I mean that there is almost no conflict when you are away (e.g blocked).

wikima 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Spying No, he didn't. And when I didn't edit the Western Sahara articles, virtually no one did. There was certainly no one who edited them with any regularity, and you definitely didn't take the initiative to add more content. Your main project on Wikipedia is deleting information and reverting me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NO I exist on Wikipedia to, among other things, remove POV edits (by you or Arre or else) to a subject I know very well. I don't touch your other edits if they are not POV. Needless to say, I have nothing to do with the troubles you had om R.E.M template nor on massive renaming or moving chaos you did elsewhere. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh So you exist on Wikipedia in order to revert some of my edits, not all of them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1/ I didn't speak of spying
• 2/ Reisio accused me fo working for the Moroccan gov., an allegation that did not bother you at all. But now that I am holding the mirror for him you seem excitd about this. This reflects how profoundly biased is your thinking.
• 3/ We did lots of imporovements to the articles and created new ones when you were away (e.g. corcas, former members of polisario etc.)
• 4/ Since you're back from your indefinite block your only acitivity is to undo the efforts of others with the aim to get the initial pro-polisario versions
• 5/ Your behaviour keeps people busy dealing with you only instead of dealing with the topics. If we didn't have you here we would spend our time dealing with the articles themselves
• 6/ If I were only a Moroccan POV fighter I would have inserted versions in your absence which go 100% along the Moroccan position. None of us did when you were away.

wikima 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

• Okay, but you think he's a non-spy government employees of some kind? Whatever.
• When?
• You created those before I left.
• That's not true; you're lying.
• That's also not true; see the months when I was away. Anyone can look at your contribs and see how you were not interested in making the articles any better.
• How did you not do that? It certainly seems like you did. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been clear to me for a while now that all three editors should be under the same parole. It seems that every block that Koavf has had has been a result of reciprocal edit warring, often in tandem, by A Jalil and Wikima. It's been going on across dozens of articles for months now. Dmcdevit·t 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Koavf has been on the 1RR parole and what is the result?, to revert every other day, or a couple of days?. I have taken this problem to your attention before. The admin who was intervening is on a wiki-break (car accident). What is needed is that an admin to step in and go through all the articles in conflict. The best example is that lately an admin has managed to settle a very disputed article, though not without problems with koavf. That is a good example to follow.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Parole I would be fine with some kind of oversight (in point of fact, that is precisely what I have asked for on several occasions here at AN/I); would someone please step up to do that? Some kind of intervention or mediation on these pages? Again, I would like to point out that a strict equivalence between every edit they have made and I have made is false balance; I have made nowhere near as egregious edits as they have. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your behaviour under 1RR parole, I wonder if parole has any impact on edit-warring.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The main issue here is the fact that the pro-Polisario activist Koavf (in addition to Arre), has loaded Wikipedia with pro-Polisario content to a great number of articles. Western Sahara has more space on Wikipedia than the vast majority of African nations. We (I, wikima, Juiced Lemon, and Collounsbury, ..) have been removing that POV content from different articles only to find he reverted back to his edit. He actually started the revert process immediately after being unblocked. The articles being the subject of trouble all have one of the following points:

• Koavf is using Western Sahara, the disputed territory, and the SADR, the govt-in-exile of the the Polisario Front, interchangeably and using the flag of the SADR to represent WS. That is the reason of trouble in these articles: WikiProject Western Sahara, Gallery of flags with crescents, Flags of Africa, and Pan-Arab colors.
• Western Sahara has no flag nor coats of arms, but Koavf insists on it having them, and imposing or redirecting to the Polisario/SADR flag and coa on WS. We suggested that the article of flag of Western Sahara makes mention that there is no such for the disputed territory, but there are two competing flags claiming to represent the territory and have them listed. He refused. An admin intervened to edit the article to a neutral approach and is actually what we suggested.
• Magnifying sporadic riots that happen once in a half year by a few stone throwing teanagers as an "ongoing campaign". Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State, (what a title!!).
• Making the SADR, a government in exile of the Polisario Front, look as a sovereign state and Africa topic.
• Reverting some articles to nearly a two year old version, loaded with Pro-Polisario POV, in disregard of many editors contribution. Portal:Western Sahara/Intro.
• In addition to portraying WS as occupied instead of disputed, and calling the area to the east of the military berm as a free zone, a term used exclusively by the SADR organs. Needless to say that it goes well with what Koavf openly states in his user page that he is on Wikipedia to represent the interests of the SADR.

An admin, Zscout370, with better knowledge about flags has solved a couple of articles' troubles. What we need is another dedicated admin to tackle the other subjects. I am quite confident that an admin's intervention, looking from a neutral perspective, will solve most of these problems.

Unfortunately, after nearly half a year of block, the behaviour of Koavf is the same. The same pro-Polisario POV pushing, and the same disruptive behaviour. The WS related disruption by koavf is visible only because there are people to oppose it. What about the week-long block related to disruptive page moving?, shortened only due to the admin's kindness?, in addition to more complaints. For those who think Koavf only has trouble on WS related pages.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling More trolling about. The only thing that makes any sense in the post you just made is the injunction that a disinterested editor can see through this obfuscation. Your arguments are paltry at best, and your actions speak volumes - you and Wikima exist solely on Wikipedia to revert my edits to Western Sahara articles. Anyone who looks at your edits can see that literally 99% of them are reverts to push a Moroccan nationalist agenda. In the six months that I did not edit, can you point to one constructive addition that was made to these articles? One? The entire WikiProject laid fallow and my immediate concern on resumption of editing was getting started editing Western Sahara-related articles again and contributing to their breadth and scope. Silly statements about how Western Sahara is not occupied, there is no flag of Western Sahara, and how there is no Independence Intifada show how disconnected your ideology is with reality; the fact that you refuse to have any kind of coherent posts on talk reinforces this. In point of fact, your first allegation against me - which you and Wikima have repeated ad nauseum - is patently untrue. Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever. It also shows how you are more interested in trolling about your Moroccan nationalism on every page rather than discussing the merits of your actions - do you have any response to the allegations made above or do you only have these illogical arguments in favor of your POV? Again, will some admin please take accountability for this series of disputes? As much as I appreciate Fayssal's gestures, he's been ineffectual at stemming the tide of nonsense and is apparently incapacitated. I have posted at AN/I and RfCs several times and have sought mediation over and over again. Would someone please help me here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not have read my edit (as usual), because I have put links to just a few from the many articles where you use the SADR flag and SADR coat of arms, and you use, SADR symbols to represent Western Sahara. In many occurences of Western Sahara youd add SADR in brackets -- Western Sahara(SADR)-- If that is not confusing the SADR with Western Sahara, then what is it?. At the same time you came here on the AN/I to claim without shame that "Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever.", 10 minutes later you created an article titled History of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and ... directed it to the History of Western Sahara. Is that lying or Schizophrenia?. Against an admin's intervention, you insist on adding the SADR to the template of African sovereign states, and at the same time calling it occupied. are not you putting yourself in a ridiculous situation?. The Moroccan POV, is that Western sahara is an undisputed integral part of the kingdom as the southern provinces, while I describe it as a disputed territory. Am I then pushing pro-Morocco POV?. After your unblock, on the 15th of June, you reverted many articles to the half year old versions you left, and in some cases to a nearly 2 years old version in dirsregard of the contributions of half a dozen editors. Is that what you call "resumption of editing", or is it resumption of reverting and edit-warring?. While Picaroon was putting this on AN/I you were reverting, and continued after that. My concern here on Wikipedia is to remove the POV that you have added with Arre. To change the situation where Wikipedia has become a repository for activism and POV pushing of the Polisario. If that is what you do, and in your own words, that is why you are for, then, of course I will remove your pro-Polisario POV, and I welcome anyone to remove Pro-Morocco POV also.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous So I guess you're just going to ignore the allegations above. That gives a tacit agreement to them (silence is approval.) I have in fact used the phrase "Western Sahara (SADR)" just like editors have used the phrases "Taiwan (ROC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)." They don't equate the two, simply show that there is some relationship between them, not that they are identical. A perfect example: the history of the SADR is pretty intimately related with the history of Western Sahara, isn't it? I would prefer that there were two articles, rich in sources and facts. Since there are not, one should redirect to the other, shouldn't it? In no small part the confusion is do to colloquially associating one with the other. As far as the flags go, you keep on calling it the "flag of SADR" whereas the most common name of it is the "flag of Western Sahara" and you know this, and the consensus is to leave the article name there, and you know that, and several sources refer to the flag as such, and you know that. I'm not getting into these ridiculous semantic games with you. As far as the Africa in topic template goes, your preference is apparently to remove Western Sahara from Africa altogether. Isn't that a bit of an extreme POV, to remove a country from a continent entirely? Then again, you apparently see no problem with that. I agree that it is ridiculous that the SADR is a sovereign state and its claimed territory is mostly under military occupation, but I had nothing to do with that; talk to Hassan II of Morocco. You push the Moroccan POV by claiming that Western Sahara is not occupied, when in fact and the eyes of international observers it is. As you admit yourself, your concern on Wikipedia is (just?) to revert my edits. I, on the other hand, contribute to the well-being of the project at large. This is not to say that every edit I have made is justified, nor is it to say that I am always dispassionately and objectively correct, but it is to point out the false balance and fallacious parity between your edits and mine. For some reason, you pretend like you right from no POV and you present sources as if they have no POV as well. Which is nonsense. I write my biases on my user page for the purpose of full disclosure and in the interests of neutrality. Meanwhile, your stealth edits, obfuscation, and outright lies (e.g. about the UN never calling Western Sahara occupied, which you know for a fact is not the case) hide your pro-Moroccan agenda, which is increasingly obvious to anyone that has looked at your contributions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV. I am removing your POV edits not your edits. Western Sahara is a disputed territory not a country. the SADR is a government-in-exile based in Algeria, not a sovereign state. The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing. I think that was a desperate comparision. If you write "Western Sahara(SADR)" and claim you don't mean they are the same, you are in trouble. At worst, that is insulting the intelligence of the readers, among them the admins. They look by themselves and judge. I will say no more. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Right So you have no defense of your actions? What on earth does "I am removing your POV edits not your edits" even mean? The fact that you write completely ignorant statements like "The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing." shows a gargantuan lack of knowledge about what you're talking about; for instance, read the first three or four sentences of Republic of China and Taiwan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While I do admit I do not know much about the area, I am willing to work with all parties to resolve other issues. It was hard trying to get the flag issue right. Even some of the folks I work for, like Flags of the World, gives a confusing view about the flag. But, once everything was settled, the results were satisfying to me and some of the others. It would be best if I can get all editors involved in this dispute to tell me, on my talk page, to pledge to me to work with me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost uninvolved editor tries to help

Obviously, I can't understand everything going on here, but I think I can detect who is attempting to bring scholarship to this article and who is not. There appears to be a book on the subject that is particularily valuable - and the scholarship of it is not at issue. In conditions like this, using the book must be far preferable to using web-sources, particularily those of parties that have multi-$billion financial interests and have been defying the UN. Removing references to the book (on simple factual matters, such as recognition of SADR by particular nations) looks very much like vandalism - meanwhile, other edits, such as Justin (koavf)'s edit here persuade me that there are editors capable of properly assessing sources, and their contributions are likely to produce a much better article.

Separate to the question of sources, some parties (perhaps only one individual) seem to be attempting to act cooperatively with the 'facilitator'/mediator, while other parties or individuals are refusing to cooperate and are 'personalising' the discussion in unhelpful ways. It looks increasingly to me as if this AN is an abuse of process, and Justin (koavf) should not have been put on trial in this fashion. I'm very tempted to endorse Reisio's suggestion above and state that Wikima and Jalil should be topic-blocked from anything related to Western Sahara or the SADR, and likely from articles on Morocco as well. There will undoubtedly be other factors I've not accounted for, the proper name for this article, whether certain information/images should be included here or elsewhere, etc, etc. PR^talk 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PR (a.k.a PalestineRemembered), If you don't understand what is going on here, you do better switch off your detecting radar, or turn it to the case rised against you above. Your edits to a whole range of articles look obviousely biased, as is your intervention "to help" here. You picked one article out of dozens, and did not even understand what is the issue there, and used your mis-understanding of it as a basis to call for my (and Wikima's) block. the diff of Koavf's edit your refer to implies that when the Emir of Kuwait was on a visit to Morocco last year, and asked by journalists about his country's position in the Sahara conflict, and he answered that he supported the territorial integrity of Morocco, that implies he might be talking about the Canary Islands, that Morocco has never claimed. If your mind approves of this laughingly nonsense, then I do now understand why you trail such a long block record and why you are under mentoring and the subject of many complaints.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• PR if you have been following on the topic you would have realised that koavf has broken by all records of edit warring
• For this he has been blocked on indefinite
• And when he was away, for months (can't remember how long), the topic was in rest. There was peace.
• As soons as he came backl edit warring began again.
• Your judgement shows that your position is simply unfair and irrealistic.

wikima 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling about "The topic was in rest." In other words, we did nothing to contribute to the articles, and we had nothing to do since we couldn't revert Justin's edits. Since he has come back, we have been reverting his edits. Is anyone else reading this stuff? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, that means that there was no edit warring when you were away.
• This is a fact that everyone can verify
• Edits continued and despite from some tension with Arre and Reisio there has never been an edit war like with yourself
• You are excessive in using wikipedia and in your edit war.
• Your blocks are incomparable. You have broken records.
• Any admins who wants to say anything here must first look at the block logs (PR obviousely did not)

wikima 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No edit warring Of course there was no edit warring - you had your way and you did nothing on those pages. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is indeed the sad thing about you
• When you were away there was no edit warring.
• Of course there was tension with other activits of polisario like Arre or Reisio, but in general we could move further and get more progress in the topics quality than in all the time you were around.
• This is unfortunately not the case with myself or Jalil only but I can remember Daryou, Fayssal himself and other editora whom you completely discouraged from editing with your excessive reverts. All that people gave up and left because of you.
• And I am not familiar with the other topics you are involved in but I think other people had complained about your behaviour in otehr areas as well.

wikima 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Supplementary Comment - I looked at parts of this case and I saw cooperative editors and non-cooperative editors. I saw editors who had proper sources to work from, and editors who sourced to parties who have big financial interests in the outcome. I saw one editor who appeared to be taking an analytical attitude, and others who seemed to be taking a personalised attitude. After all of this, I may not have dug deeply enough, and could be completely wrong in my assessment. But I know how it looks and my views have not changed in response to further contributions. I know what kind of editor I would choose to collaborate with in articles, and I know what kind of editor I'd like to see editing articles in the encyclopedia. Lastly, it's always interesting to speculate on the motives of an editor who immediately draws attention to the supposed ethnicity of another editor. PR^talk 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this, at least partly

• For those who have been following with the conflict, a main source for it is the confusion of Western Sahara with the "sahrawi republic"
• Koavf, pro-polsiario activist, is misusing wikipedia to make sure Western Sahara is exactly the same thing as the "sahrawi "republic"
• In fact it is not. Western Sahara is the disputed territory, while the "sahrawi republic" is the entity that claims the independence for this territory.
• If you (admins) really want to help resolving this then I suggest you look into this.
• I suggest that admins who have been involved in the topic get involved in this debate, otherwise it would not make sense

Thanks - wikima 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Look into this? Please do, admins. Please do. Just look at the diffs I've provided above and tell me if they are reasonable in any sense of the word. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the admins will look, and they will see that you were actually unblocked from the indef-block to have a second chance, and you are not supposed to engage anymore in edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, and not to be blocked 4 times within a short time from your unblock.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah the dialogue des sourdes: As neither a partisan of Morocco nor Polisario, frankly the core issue is that neither wikima nor Koavf in particular are able to listen and compromise. It's rather hard to advance anything with the Western Sahara articles when both play pretend dialogue - Koavf being rather better at the special pleading and wiki-lawyering, indeed he seems to be making it his new approach -while insisting on their POV. Frankly the entire thing is tiresome. I would simply like then to note that in my experience trying to gain consensus, Koavf is as much a problem as this Moroccan tormentors, and to block them without also blocking him on editing the articles strikes me as unproductive. I await, then, Koavf's little "Wha! (collounsbury 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Sure Just look at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara; see the rationales I provide versus what they say. Then tell me if there is parity between our dialogue. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by user:Profg

Profg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has been blocked once already for stalking and harassing me[35][36], and was doing the same to user:Odd nature[37][38], is now targeting user:ScienceApologist[39][40][41], and I suspect user:JoshuaZ[42][43]. Can someone uninvolved please look into this matter and perhaps try to persuade ProfG that attempting to drive off other editors, isn't a terribly productive way to spend his time here.  – ornis⚙ 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apart from SA's attempt, user:Jéské Couriano has also tried to reason with him,[44][45] as has user:William M. Connolley[46],[47], and user:KillerChihuahua[48][49].  – ornis⚙ 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well, as far as JoshuaZ goes, I say "suspect", mostly due to this comment, then later turning up out of nowhere to comment on an RfAr that JoshuaZ was involved in[50], though looking again, I see that Odd nature was involved in that as well, and in any case, it was there that he turned his attention to scienceapologist[51], despite being warned against doing so[52]. As for Orangemarlin, it's pretty obvious that profg stalked him from California Biblical University and Seminary[53], to Homeopathy[54]. Again I ask, can someone not already involved, please take a look at this, his primary editing method appears to be to attack, stalk, harass and attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with.  – ornis⚙ 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:MurderWatcher1 - Second (and third, fourth, fifth) opinions needed

Following the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum, the original author of the article MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has posted a message to the (not yet deleted) talk page. In this post, they mention three other articles of theirs (Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon), all of which appear to fail WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (and - almost - WP:BLP1E); a look down their contribution history shows plenty more such as Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue which (aside possibly from Fountain Avenue) appear unsalvageable.

While I think these are all clear violations of policy and technically ought to be deleted, I am extremely reluctant to AfD them, as it seems very WP:BITEy for a good faith-editor to suddenly find their seven (at least) most substantial contributions to the encyclopedia all up for deletion; I would think that at the very least it would lead to a rerun of the Billy Hathorn incident, and quite possibly could lead to a legitimate & good faith editor leaving the project altogether in a huff. (If around 50% of my mainspace edits were simultaneously deleted, I could see myself doing the same.)

There doesn't seem to be any right answer here; does anyone have any thoughts as to what the least wrong answer is? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective it's easy. If the articles fail the rules in a way that can't be corrected via a rewrite or amendment then it's AfD. There's a difference between not biting a newbie and sitting them down, making them a cup of tea and a cookie. If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard. ---- WebHamster 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Without looking too much at the articles and judging mainly on what is here, WP:BITE does not override other policies, if the articles are completely unsalvageable, there is only 1 solution. WP:BITE means that you shouldn't go to the editor's talk page, throw a bunch of policy abbreviations at them, and threaten to have them blocked if they continue. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest AfD them, but leave a polite note on their talk page to explain why you're doing it (along the lines of "thanks for your contributions, sorry but I don't feel they quite fit in with WP policy"), and maybe try to steer them towards some places they can make contributions that are more likely to stick. Confusing Manifestation 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. I put considerable research and work into these pages as, I know the materials that I am referring to. I'm not without my own, considerable skills as, I work as a legal secretary for a well-known law firm and, other than Wikipedia style and policy, I'm pretty knowledgeable about some law matters.

While I didn't create the Imette St. Guillen page, if you have read my user page then you know that I was personally involved with the case. User:ImmortalGoddezz started editing and putting this page into Wikipedia format from a tag from User:Garzo.

Perhaps WP policy should change or be amended as, these incidents were of unusual occurrence and circumstances and can apply to civilized people everywhere who enjoy nightlife in general.

Also, I've 'weighed-in' on some subjects that I'm very knowledgable of, two of which are Eschatology and Photography. I have and would consider making considerable edits and formatting to these pages but only if they are received positively. Now I have no feedback on how my edits were received, nor do I have any idea of how many people are viewing a particular page. Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers, and I have worked as a Computer Technician as well.

In response to User:WebHamster comment: "If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard." well my response that that statement is, what 'kind' of lesson are you trying to teach? That 'the work ethic is false'? That would be the lesson that I would learn if all of my work were destroyed on Wikipedia, so I would see no further reason to contribute to anything here. There comes a point where 'enough is enough' and I've learned to cut people off in that regard. That's a lesson that I give to you, from life as I've lived it, and the various experiences that I have lived. Have any of you worked at the World Trade Center in 2001? I have. Have any of you been a victim of a corrupt legal system? I have. This and many other things I have 'brought to the table' so understand that, in this respect, I will at least try to fight for my input and for what I believe in, but again, if my pages are deleted, then I'm done with Wikipedia. Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? The decision rests with all of you.--MurderWatcher1 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I consider the subjects of these articles notable, but the nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP, and, alas, I think it is fair to say that the ed. has made it clear in various ways that he writes in that fashion deliberately. I think the consensus that the deleted article was is not notable may have been affected by the article content to the extent that even the competent re-writing by another ed did not help. I did not !vote at the AfD--because of my conflict over these two factors. The analogy with BH is correct--an excellent writer whose style is not that of an encyclopedia, and seems determined to keep that style. I supported deletion of many of BH's articles--I doubt anyone would have even nominated them if the length had been proportional to the importance. I'd think the same here. I suggest a moratorium on further deletions of these articles in the hope that we can reconsider what makes a murder in a large city notable--and--even more important, try to find a way to have community binding decisions on content as we do on notability. We have only one tool, and all we can do is delete, or ask for improvements under the threat to delete. Iridiescent suggested I comment here as a representative inclusionist, but my intent at WP is not primarily inclusion, but upgrading of content--if we wrote more appropriately we could have a wider range of content without looking foolish. It is not the presence of articles on minor subjects that attracts unfavorable attention, but their length and elaboration. DGG (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been nominally involved with some of the things that this editor has edited and have interacted with him I thought I'd leave input, also I was notified of the AN/I. I don't think the user is a bad editor, unfortunately despite prodding on my part the articles that he writes continues to be POV. My efforts at this have been minimal, I don't have the time or the patience, so they might not have been effective as they could have been. I do believe his editing habits can be changed. I think the solution here would be to have somebody mentor the user; discuss whatever article he wants to create prior to creation, discuss whether it would be worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, guide his edits/tone, and whatnot. I do believe this has been done before, having a mentor, however whether it works or not is the question. I have told the editor that if he continues on as he has an independent wikia might be more to his style. As for the articles themselves I do believe that some of them have notability; Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue. However of the three I've listed the only article that he has had edits of any major proportions are St. Guillen, which I've totally rewritten and her notability, I believe, is established due to a NY law that was passed in her name and influenced because of her death. His edits on Levin are minimal (and actually have mostly been removed) and the Fountain Avenue can easily be formatted and cited; same with Levin (heck give me time and I can do both of them). The others I believe are questionable in their notability, unfortunately. I believe the articles for the time being could be moved over to the user's sandbox, and the original article AfD'ed. I mean articles can be recreated if notability is established. With the articles in the sandbox and a proper mentor the articles could be gone over with a mentor to see if they do in fact meet the notability guidelines and gives the user a chance to fix the articles and not loose all of the work, and reinserted if they meet guidelines. I think his intentions are to honor the people who have died however the user does not realize that wikipedia does not necessarily view the same things as being notable that he does. I think if he is mentored about wikipedia then that can possibly become a better wikipedia editor. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

MurderWatcher, you may want to keep in mind that you do not own Wikipedia articles that you create. You should be prepared to have your contributions thoroughly edited or even deleted. If you simply cannot tolerate that, then you are correct in coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia may not be for you (although you seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place). --Cheeser1 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have neither said nor implied that I do 'own' an article! I put some of them up on Wikipedia, to use one administrator's term, 'in good faith' -- that someone more skilled than I am would contribute to the stories (RE: style, etc. and that work also would be 'in good faith'). I still continue to say that these stories are valid, and they are valid if you will but read some of ImmortalGoddezz comments above. I watched and learned some style from her, and when I had completed the page on Boitumelo McCallum almost two weeks ago, she praised me as definitely improving as an editor.

When she had started editing the Imette St. Guillen reference months ago, I decided to exercise patience and to simply watch and learn from what she did. I didn't get upset with her or anything like that. Cheeser1, you've come to the wrong conclusion about my work if you believe your own comments above.

In regard to ImmortalGoddezz comment about the minimal edits to the Jennifer Levin page, I had personally considered spending time in a Library researching her murder and adding to that page. That's more work than you can know as, her murder story "stretches" through a number of years. In regards to using the Internet to research her story - the only way that would be possible is if the New York City newspapers had all of their archives online for the past few decades! This they currently do not have! Only a library would suffice for researching materials for the Jennifer Levin reference.

Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place. Perhaps, since there are a lot of "Learning Annex" classes taught monthly in New York City, Wikipedia might consider actually setting up a class to explain the style, etc.

FYI, there was an article some time ago in one of the 1977 issues of "New York Magazine" by an excellent writer, Gail Sheehy, which was titled "The Mentor Connection". Unfortunately, to my knowledge, few programs of any kind of mentoring anywhere are in place, except perhaps in Union Shops which teach the skills needed for a particular job. The attitude in New York City is that "you should be up and running on the job" the moment you are hired. This expectation is unrealistic, nevertheless there are those individuals who can do that.

Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc. which, let's be honest here, can be rather arcane! So many rules and regulations! I have read some of it but, let's face it -- it needs to be put into a book and that book studied. It took me some time just to learn how to properly do a cite ref. This I learned from simply studying what ImmortalGoddezz performed on the Imette St. Guillen reference.

Nevertheless, I have seen and read some Wikipedia pages which, I understand, that you Administrators' have had to clean up because of vandalism, profanity, etc. I've paid attention to these abuses. Seeing as I have used good taste in my approach here, I would think that this merits something, unlike one unauthorized user putting in something childish such as "boobs", which I believe was done on a photography page that I was editing. Also, one person criticized both myself and User:ImmortalGoddezz saying to "GET A LIFE". I don't see these people getting this much criticism as I am here.

Also, to respond to the comment of DGG given above "... nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP ..." well my response to that is "what about the Holocaust?" That was 'deplorable', nevertheless the Holocaust happened; it was and is covered in detail in a number of books and television specials. There is currently a series of television documentaries on New York's WPBS Channel 13 on World War II, and at least one of these showed the conditions of the prisoners in the death camps. These are facts of life.

Perhaps I am being "too wordy" here but I stand by my initial comments above. Again, the decision rests with all of you.User:MurderWatcher1 COMMENT: Can't put my signature here for some reason.

Pre-disclosure: Me and iridescent have previously discussed this matter on-wiki and the original ANI posting is partially a result of that (and partially the result of my being a yellowbellied chicken on the matter). In that discussion, I agreed that these articles should be sent to AfD.

I still agree with myself.

To deal with MurderWatcher1's points (which I am grossly simplifying):

• If the... pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. Yeah, and I don't blame you. But you'd be making a mistake, Wikipedia would be poorer for not having you here, and the articles would have to go regardless. I think you got a WP:OWN thrown at you before, and I think that "threat" (for want of a better word) is why.

• I have no feedback on how my edits were received. Yeah, tell me about it. Wikipedia lacks the positive version of {{uw-test1}}. I'm just as guilty - in my first days here, I'd have climbed over my grandmother (not a good example, she's a cow) for some positive feedback. But with our level of vandalism etc, lack of feedback is good feedback. Ugh. Horrible, but real.

• Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers. Nah. Not available to anyone. The only clue is the amount of editing/vandalism. And not even then. Your articles could have been read by 100m people or 10 people. But the figures would tell us nothing. I could put up an article with a description of how I fellate goats on Wednesdays, digg/slashdot it, and get millions of visitors. Would it be encyclopedic? Nah.

• Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? Wikipedia editors are going to try to protect Wikipedia. What else can we do?

• Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place Per my second point, I agree. However, Wikipedia:Editor review and so forth exists. We don't have a pro-active system for this, asking our editors to find people or places willing to comment. This leaves editors to contribute for ages and then get slammed. A flaw in the pedia's design. But not one aimed at you or anyone else.

• Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Oh, but I'd love to delete article for being poorly laid out and thought through - I think poor articles are far, far worse than no article at all. But Wikipedia's rules don't allow for people to delete them (despite poor articles discouraging new editors, go figure). They allow for a poorly formatted article to be sent to WP:AfD, but even a well-formatted article can be sent to AfD. And deleted.

• I don't see these people [vandals] getting this much criticism as I am here We don't value them at all. We just vaporise them quickly. People we value get talked to, threads made, their articles discussed for second, third, forth opinions before we even start to ask about deletion. That's what we do for people we value. You're not a vandal. People are agonising here because your articles don't appear to fit our policies. It isn't you, it isn't vandalism, it's just Wikipedia stuff.

• what about the Holocaust? Yeah, close to Godwin's Law, but I see what you mean. Our articles go into detail about the Holocaust because the event was practically without precedent and the ultimate results of such a barbaric act are still to be experienced daily throughout the world. The murder of a single person in a single city in a single country really doesn't match in any way you can come up with. An arch-inclusionist like DGG will try to find notability and encyclopedianess in any article. But even DGG is having problems with the content here. This is no reflection on you, just a problem with the nature of the articles in question [for DGG - once the gory details are removed, the articles become just a set of "X was murdered by Y for Z reason claimed by the tabloids" mini-articles. Murder, in the US, is commonplace, indeed normal; we may as well have articles about individual paving slabs].

• the decision rests with all of you It does. It was brought here to see what people think before the sheer demoralising hell of AfD was inflicted on these articles and you as author. So far, we've not had reasons to keep from you or anyone else, just reasons to make an exception to, or change, Wikipedia's rules.

Above all, I was terrified of putting you in an awful position with these articles when discussing them last night. But the bullet must be bitten - as I should have said to iridescent, these articles must go to AfD; there will be hell to pay, but there's no alternative. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm crossposting this from my conversation with Redvers, as I think it's more appropriate here where other participants in the discussion will see it. As anyone who's been watching me will notice, I've flip-flopped 180^o on this, but Redvers's arguments above have persuaded me.

I deliberately invited DGG and ImmortanGoddezz to the discussion in the hope they could provide some reason to save at least some of them - and in the expectation that if even they can't, they really aren't savable. (Looks like you've come to the same conclusion.) IG makes a good case for saving Imette St. Guillen, and I think I'll leave that out of any AfD run. I started this whole sorry episode, so I suppose I ought to be the one to finish it; I think I'll wait until the thread is archived from AN/I, to let as many people as possible comment, although I think we can all see where it's headed. I'll nominate them separately, and reasonably spaced apart, to avoid them becoming a de facto delete all/keep all bulk nomination.

The quote on MW1's userpage "In a sense, Imette St. Guillen's Wikipedia reference is something like her gravesite - sacred - more representative of who and what she was than a physical gravestone - and it should be respected", I think sums up the problem perfectly. MW1 doesn't just see WP as a memorial, but as a shrine, and is starting to see us as desecrating the shrine. It's ironic, given the lengths everyone is going to not to drive him off (if these had been by, say, Lucy-marie or Billy Hathorn they'd all be A7'd by now), but with an editor who seems to have violation of Wikipedia policy as a religious obligation, in some ways I'd rather scare him off now, then face the same problem in a couple of months time with 20+ articles instead of seven. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this discussion and since I have a free moment, I am willing to offer my thoughts; considering that we are not a paper encyclopedia and that we want to make it so that "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge," I think these articles are valid and do not weaken our project any. They are well-organized and contain numerous references/external links that attest to their notability and verifiability. I therefore support Murderwatcher's creation of the articles and their continued inclusion on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being paper isn't a reason to keep everything, so stop using that as a reason to keep everything. There is guidelines in place that should be followed and not ignored. Anarchy with no deletion isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is talking about "Anarchy" RobJ1981? Does my work offend you that much? By the way, to all of you: I did searches on your website:

On this page:

4.3 Dispute resolution process and ANI

I learned that you have a "History of Pedophilia" page. What? Are you kidding me? This should be AfD and not my pages! Futhermore, in regards to people who are dead, and also to respond to User_talk:Iridescent post dated 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC), talk about 'nasty'! You took my comment out of context altogether! I said "in a sense". Well 'in a sense' you could say that: Benjamin Franklin, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Satchmo which as a redirect leads to Louis Armstrong - are also 'memorials' and sacred. I just believe that history in general is sacred. That was my reasoning, not creating an actual shrine but 'in a sense'. And again, I know I don't own the page but I do want to see it continue.

Now look at my search below:

Lindberg Kidnapping

4 The body On May 12, 1932, delivery truck driver William Allen pulled his truck to the side of a road about 4.5 miles from the Lindbergh home. He went to a grove of trees to urinate, and there he discovered the corpse of a toddler. Allen notified police, who took the body to a morgue in nearby Trenton, New Jersey. The body was badly decomposed. The skull was badly fractured, the left leg and both hands were missing; and it was impossible to determine if the body was a boy or a girl. Lindbergh and Gow quickly identified the baby as the missing infant, based on the overlapping toes of the right foot, and the shirt that Gow had made for the baby. They surmised that the child had been killed by a blow to the head. The body was soon afterwards cremated. Once it was learned that the Little Eaglet was dead, the U.S. Congress rushed through legislation making kidnapping a federal crime. The Bureau of Investigations could now aid the case more directly.

This reference talks about murder, just as I had attempted to do! This child was horribly murdered! All of you are way out of line here with your thinking!--MurderWatcher1 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. As I suspect you're perfectly well aware, the reason you've put "History of Pedophilia" in quotes whilst everything else you cite is wikilinked, is because History of Pedophilia does not exist and has never existed. If you want to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, at least choose other stuff that does exist.

The Lindbergh kidnapping was a case that received international publicity, was the primary impetus for a major rewriting of US law, and continues to influence popular culture to this day. The thousands of other murders that took place in 1932 don't get their own articles as (in Wikipedia terms) they aren't notable. You'll notice, I hope, that the article is called Lindbergh kidnapping and not Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Junior; this is because it's about the case, not a memorial to the (non-notable by WP standards) victim.

The section you cite is a single short section, in a 27kb article, and everything you seem so shocked by is directly relevant to the broad topic of the case - a brief description of the finding of the body; a description of the condition of the body (necessary, as so much of the subsequent case hinged on identification); its effect on subsequent legislation. The word "murder" appears more often in Harry Potter than in the whole of Lindbergh kidnapping.

As Redvers says (a long way) above, so far all your arguments have just been to attack Wikipedia policies which took six years of cooperation between thousands of editors to reach this stage. If you can make valid arguments to keep the articles within those policies, they will almost certainly be kept. If you can't - or won't - then, as ImmortalGoddezz has already told you, Wikipedia - a site which runs on consensus - is possibly not the place for you. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Flogging an increasingly dead horse here, but having found this, I'm no longer willing to accept the "I don't feel I own the articles" argument. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: Wikipedia does have a mentoring program in place. It's called Adopt-a-User. I wish more newcomers knew about it, because there are far more willing adopters than adoptees. As #th opinion, I'll say there seem to be substantial WP:BIO issues with some of these articles: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I can't see that Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon are notable for anything other than being horribly killed. Wikipedia is not news. The death of Imette St. Guillen could probably be touched briefly in an article about Imette's Law—or at least much abbreviated for weight, since presumably it is the proposed law that makes her murder notable, not the details of the crime. I'm not sure how strong the case is that Jennifer Moore impacted the crackdown on fake ids. If a clear connection is made about that, then maybe it, too, deserves a reference somewhere in some article on fake ids. And I'm not a die-hard for tossing out every article that relates to a single event, but even if being brutally murdered is enough to make one relevant per WP:BIO, how many articles do we need relating to a single event? Why do we have both Robert Chambers (killer) and Jennifer Levin? These various articles obviously represent considerable effort, but I, too, suspect that the majority of them might be suitable candidates for AfD. While it is possible that consensus there would keep them or that the AfDs would close without consensus, I think there's a really strong case to be made that they are inappropriate on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil - incivility, personal attacks, contentious POV edits

Andyvphil persists in uncivil behavior and personal attacks in connection with his POV/contentious editing of the John Stossel article.

The article has been the subject of BLP notices here and here, regarding building up an excessively long criticisms / controversies section repeating derogatory claims made by partisan "watchdog" groups. I came late to this article with no agenda or position, but did try to help out where I could.

In doing so I find myself attacked by Andyvphil, one of those edit warring on the page but whose position also seems to be that there was too much poorly sourced derogatory information. This editor has received five warnings on his talk page from four users (including me) over civility, 3RR, and pesonal attacks in connection with this article: [55], [56], [57], [58], and [59].

He has responded to the last civility warning by trying to impugn me and calling me and at least one other user a "troll." He shows no sign of acknowledging or trying to reduce his incivility. I don't want to have to build an arbitration case against this user or defend his tit-for-tat accusations just to come in as a neutral party to a BLP problem, just wish he would stop contentious editing and lashing out at people. Warnings don't seem to be working. Wikidemo 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's get it right: my last "attack" was "The worst I'm guilty of is feeding the trolls by not giving them the last word." Would it have helped if I'd blue-linked feeding the trolls to show that's it's a reference to the Wikipedia essay? And I think my first "attack" was informing Wikidemo that it was bad form to make an edit protection request as a way of achieving temporary victory in an edit war.[60]... Lessee... the first three "warnings" that he references on my page took place in July, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, so let's look at the last two: the first is a "warning" for "3RR" by Maniwar. Actually, I made 4 edits to Stossel on 25 July, only two of which were (unrelated) reversions, so the "warning" was simply an act of incivility against me. And the last "warning" was "[f]or this series of edits", where I get sarcastic (I call his comment "brilliant", not meaning it) about Wikidemo upbraiding me without feeling it necessary to take notice of a considerable provocation (another act of incivility by Maniwar, as it happens... And he also uncivilly accuses me of "POV edits", but since he doesn't provide diffs I'll limit myself to noting that he doesn't seem to have a clue as to what my POV is. Certainly it hasn't been central "that there was too much poorly sourced derogatory information". I've generally been against his deleting things (and the argument has generally been over "balance", not sourcing). Andyvphil 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above is typical of the problems with this user; instead of responding or trying to the notice of incivility he simply turns this into an attack on me and others. Blue-linking to calling me a troll does not help anything. Claiming (yet again) that I am playing games to protect my turf is an WP:AGF violation. In fact I have no position and no turf to protect. I am merely mediating, and asked for admin help (as I am doing again now) to deal with a disruptive and uncivil editor. I have done everything deliberately and don't see any need to defend myself against sarcastic jibes that I am clueless, don't read the record, etc. I have read the record. He is all wet in his claim that the other users were uncivil to him but that is beside the point. Even if they were that does not justify his playground-level taunts of other users as thinking they are tin gods, etc. I stand by this and all of my comments. Wikidemo 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo made previously contested/deleted/restored deletions to John Stossel and immediately requested edit protection. The "AGF violation" of which he complains is my comment, "BTW, Wikidemo, asking protection immediately after you edit is bad form."([61], again) And AGF is subject to contrary evidence. What am I to make of his advancing a warning to me for 3RR (the fourth diff in the second paragraph of his initial complaint) as evidence of my bad behavior when he knows perfectly well that the allegation was uncontestedly (Maniwar alone has repeated it, but never explained himself) false?([62] - note the author of the first comment is Wikidemo, so he can't pretend to be unaware of this section). Andyvphil 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you to make of this? - you ask, rhetorically. If you wish to be responsible, you will make of it that I am bringing to light your behavior issues because after five warnings - six, now - over a single article you have utterly refused to bring your conduct into line with Wikipedia policies on civility and editing. Your specious and persistent accusations that I am acting in bad faith, repeated yet again in the paragraph above, are further incivility. Please stop.Wikidemo 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikidemo, I too went to the page because of a BLP concerns and found myself being attacked by this user. What gets me the most is that he is unwilling to see that he is a lone offender and that many people have, in good faith, given him warnings rather than reporting him. I had no agenda accept to improve the article per the BLP call, and to see that Andyvphil is unwilling to be more civil and that he arbitrarily makes edits even after the discussion page shows that the editors all came up with compromises and other solutions clearly is disruptive. I would like to add another link that Wikidemo did not include to show yet, another warning issued [63]. The discussion page of the John Stossel article will clearly portray his offenses and the other editors trying to work with him, thus establishing that there is a pattern going back to July.--Maniwar (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More recent evidence to show pattern of disruptive editing [64], [65]. --Maniwar (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The first edit Maniwar lists is a diff of my making a change proposed by Morph, agreed to by Maniwar, and as yet disapproved of on the talk page by no one. Indeed, it was afterwards reinserted by Morph with the comment "it seems everyone has agreed to the change". The second edit is Maniwar warning me on my user page, after reverting that very same edit, that he would place a "vandal" tag on my user page if I made another such "arbitrary edit contrary to the consensus". He elsewhere described the edit as "disruptive and/or POV editing" and therefor "considered vandalism". But wait, it seems he disapproved of my edit comment, and did all that without even looking at the edit! Andyvphil 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor is obviously utterly unrepentant about his conduct, and seems to be claiming it is all other editors and not himself. Maniwar and I are neutral in this situation and came to the article after a BLP notice simply to help deal with BLP violations, but he has dragged us into things by turning the accusations around on us. It would help if someone new to this could lend some perspective, hopefully a stern warning that this kind of conduct is intolerable and must be stopped immediately. If he persists after yet another warning (which would be his seventh, by five different editors), I would urge people to consider a block. Wikidemo 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've demonstrated above that Maniwar's "vandalism" warning was as specious as his one for "3RR", and Wikidemo doesn't even attempt to rebut me, but just asserts that it's additional proof of my bad behavior. It's not. Not disassociating himself from false accusations is what is bad behavior. And after starting this waste of my time and noticeboard space, he has the gall to accuse me of dragging him into "things"? Andyvphil 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now given this user a seventh warning for incivility based on the above comment. Will someone please counsel this user to be more civil and stop making personal attacks? Thanks. Wikidemo 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another bogus "warning". "Not disassociating himself from false accusations is what is bad behavior" doesn't qualify as a NPA violation. And thinking so is clueless. And if that provoked, factual observation gets me #8 from Wikidemo, so what? Garbage piled on garbage is still garbage. Andyvphil 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "Clueless", "garbage". Warning #8. This AN/I process seems to be useless so unless someone is willing to do something can I close this discussion as unresolved? The cycle of Andyvphil repeating his incivilities and my continuing to warn him over it is not leading anywhere.Wikidemo 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else embarrassed of Wikidemo, or is it just me...? HalfShadow 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's not just you. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not helpful. If you have something useful to say will you please say it? Wikidemo 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kwork

A source on the Alice Bailey page is under hot discussion as to whether or not it is reliable or represents a fringe element (see this).

I inserted a template on the source and User:Kwork has it three times this morning. Here are the diffs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163346135
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&diff=prev&oldid=163358204
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Bailey&curid=425823&diff=163359948&oldid=163358811

Because Kwork has violated the 3RR rule, continually pushes a negative POV (here he states his goal for the page), and refuses to build consensus on the talk page and just unilaterally reverts, I ask that he be temporarily blocked from editing. His posts have been respected but he does not do the same for others. Renee 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

They were not reverts. The section of the article under dispute has a tag at the top of the section, so her source template is redundant; which an editor with her experience should have understood. However I have now explained that to her on the article's talk page. Renee has been very hostile to my editing, and is looking too hard to to find a way to get rid of me. She has three reverts within just a few hours, but I have no wish to see her blocked, and will not give the diffs. Kwork 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

correction -- I have one edit and two undos today. Just now he has added back in a quotation that several other editors have been working on and agreed there should not be a full quotation, see this and this and this discussion. Again, there is a complete lack of respect toward other editors. Renee 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also explained this on the article's talk page [66], as Renee already knows. If you guys do decide to block my editing, please make it permanent, not temporary; and from all Wikipedia, not just one article. It would be a great relief, after months of getting hassled by a group fanatical editors (including Renee) using wiki-lawering to block criticism of Alice Bailey who is their guru. Renee is correct about one thing, I have no respect for her....although I do try to remain civil. If you are looking for extra reasons to give me the boot, you might find something helpful here [67] Kwork 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from third party. This is a routine content dispute, and Kwork (talk · contribs) is not any more disruptive than Reneeholle (talk · contribs). Also, there is no 3RR violation yet today, if there is one, Renee is just as close to crossing the line as Kwork. Also, there have been no 3RR warnings posted yet.

In addition to those two editors, there are two more experienced editors working on the article, and an administrator or two have checked in now and then. I do not believe this needs administrative action at this time, unless it escalates further.

Renee, who filed this report, should know that if she tries to use this noticeboard to get administrator intervention against her opponent in a content dispute, that her questionable behavior will be reviewed as well, and she might not get what she wants.

The RFC/U Kwork linked to above is another example, similar to this AN/I report, of trying to stop him from introducing valid information into the article. The RFC/U is still open (and I believe it should be closed as "no action needed"), but other than than the people who filed it, none of the outside views endorse the report, they all indicate that there is no significant problem with Kwork in particular.

I consider that both this AN/I report, and the RFC/U are a distraction and a waste of effort, in an attempt to stop an editor with valid concerns from including NPOV info in an article.

For disclosure: I do believe that Kwork has a good point about some of his ideas and that some of that information does belong in the article. But I am not in one "camp" or the other. I am a policy-based editor, and it bothers me seeing administrator procedures like this one being used to try and stop an editor from contributing.

I recommend this incident be closed. I recommend that both Renee and Kwork read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:3RR. I think we can stop the situation from erupting into a full-on edit war using discussion on the talk page. If not and help is needed, we can post a new report. --Parsifal _Hello 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal is hardly an outside third party. She has repeated sided with the anti-Alice Bailey faction, has supported one-sided entry of templates and edits (yet ignores the other side's pleas for help), and she is incorrect about the disruption. She can be helpful on occasion but tends to support uncivil behavior by users like Kwork. (I can provide diffs if need be.)

Please, please examine the talk pages and the edits and you will see a long pattern of disruption by Kwork with a stated purpose to promote Alice Bailey in a negative view. He himself sites the RFC/User on him above so this problem is not isolated.

Finally, Kwork (again) is extremely uncivil toward me (see his post above, where he says, Renee is correct about one thing, I have no respect for her). He repeatedly says things like this on the talk page and has posted similar things on my user page. (and, he does this towards others who don't agree with him like Sethie, James, Sparklecplenty, Eaglizard).

Please grant Kwork's wish and ban him. Renee 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. I did not say I was an "outside party", I said "third party", which I am. Regarding the other editors Renee mentioned, both Jamesd1 (talk · contribs) and Sparklecplenty (talk · contribs) are SPA accounts, possibly COI in that they are devoted followers of their guru. There is evidence about those issues, but it's not necessary to go into it now, because those two editors have left the project, having become frustrated at not being able to WP:OWN the article.

I don't accept Renee's label for me of "Anti-Bailey" in any way. I want an NPOV article that includes both the light and dark aspects of this controversial author and teacher. The way I see it, Bailey wrote a lot of stuff. Some of it was inspiring and innocuous, but some of it was clearly anti-semitic and racist. That's where the intensity of the dispute is coming from. I have no desire to make a non-NPOV article that paints Bailey with a broad negative brush. But, I do feel the controversial aspects should not be buried or removed, which appears to be what Renee wants.

Aside from all of that, I still believe this is just a content dispute and there is no one user causing problems that should be blocked or banned. I don't believe this belongs on this noticeboard. If the disputes continue, then dispute resolution procedures should be used. --Parsifal _Hello 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from another third party. User:Parsifal's characterization of User:Kwork as being "not any more" disruptive than User:Reneeholle is rather extraordinary. I believe Renee has been among the most polite and moderate editors on the article (far more so than I myself have been). Perhaps I am (as Kwork continually claims) biased, but I would challenge Parsifal to provide even a single diff to change my mind on this.

On the other hand, I must agree that, absent an actual violation of 3RR, no administrative intervention is necessary, and this is largely a content dispute (at this point). I also recommend this incident be closed. (Parenthetically, I would note that this page should probably be expecting to see us again very soon, based on current trends.) Eaglizard 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eaglizard and Renee have disrupted progress editing the Alice Bailey article for months with wiki-lawering. Perhaps an RfC, to review the whole miserable situation for which they are responsible, would be helpful in clarifying that. Or, if they would prefer to go to mediation, that is certainly okay with me. Kwork 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Kwork, it would be helpful. However, I've been trying to wait until such odious procedure becomes truly necessary. In any case, this is not the page for this discussion, we have several of those already. I encourage you (and Renee) to file any sort of community request you think is useful, in the proper place and format. Eaglizard 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, Eaglizard. Why would you want to use an "odious procedure" when you still have hope of getting rid if me by a simple, trouble free, procedure here? Kwork 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially a content conflict, however there are numerous behaviour issues happening in relation to attitude, notably blanket accusations and agenda advocacy. I became involved as an outside party, but I am not neutral, as I openly believe Kwork is generally in the wrong and misrepresents policy at this article. Vassyana 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana arrived as one of the most biased participants in the ongoing argument from her first appearance. I have previously seen nothing like it from an administrator. She could have at least made some pretense at looking neutral (at least for a day or two) in what was a difficult situation to start. (The problem is not made easier by the opposing editors coordinating their moves via e-mail. I know that is allowed, but it is not a good practice.) Kwork 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My first experience on the article was opposing original research a bit back. I'm not involved in the article as an administrator, but rather just another editor. My sysop bit doesn't give me any additional status or abilities in content disputes. As such, I feel no obligation to pretend neutrality or hide my observations and opinions. By the by, I'm a he, not a she. Vassyana 04:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are cooperating with a group of editors who have a goal of preventing any meaningful criticism of Bailey entering the article, no matter how small and limited in extent, and all you can say is that I "misrepresent policy"; but not that I am wrong. What an amazing example of technocratic thinking, and wiki-lawering. Kwork 11:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy

User:Jack Merridew has repeatedly included a non-free image on the non-mainspace AfD nomination page ([68], [69]). Please assist. -- Cat ^chi? 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Use of unfree content outside the mainspace is not fair use. It is totally unnecessary in an AfD debate - people can view the images by looking at the articles themselves... WjBscribe 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also warn the user not to include non-free images on non-mainspace pages. So we know for sure he is aware why the image was removed. -- Cat ^chi? 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could some one please come and close this utterly pointy AfD? --Jack Merridew 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it pointless? Only two people have commented so far... WjBscribe 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See my first comment; this is a bit of pique by White Cat over my suggestion of a merge of the character articles; he is a fan, a defender of these articles. He surely does not truly want them deleted. --Jack Merridew 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am first a Wikipedian and then a "fan". For me to "wage war on" or to "defend" articles I would need to have a combative mentality - which I do not. AFD isn't about what I want and instead about consensus. If something is truly non-notable, then it should be deleted. If it is notable, that is a different story. The community consensus as a whole will decide weather the articles are notable or not. This is the fundamental of the tipple C. -- Cat ^chi? 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, you took my use of the word defender as having a military connotation when I intended it in the sense of a protector; a usage that I think was obvious enough. --Jack Merridew 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time I made a nomination contradicting my personal veiws on a topic by the way. -- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this an example of forum shopping — seeking a venue and outcome that will thwart the merge suggestion? --Jack Merridew 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You violated Wikipedia policy by including a non-free image outside of article space. White Cat asked for an admin's help in eliminating the violation of our fair use policy. How, exactly, is this forum shopping? Picaroon (t) 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I be "forum shopping" by removing a fair-use image you added and then restored despite a warning? What would I be shopping for? -- Cat ^chi? 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not restore the image after the warning, I responded above. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

re forum shopping: I was referring to the opening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy as a means of thwarting the merge discussions at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Too many articles for minor characters and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters#Merge character articles that were not going to White Cat's liking. This view has been expressed by others at the Afd. I would also like to point out the White Cat summarily reverted my initial merge-tagging of the character articles; see [70] and about 35 other reverts in the same 5 minute time frame. --Jack Merridew 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is bad practice to seek the opinion of a more general public" - are you seriously suggesting that? Or are you implying a legal threat as that is a law related article. -- Cat ^chi? 12:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I used the term forum shopping in a wikipedia-context — which is entirely apparent. Moreover, I sought a wider audience for the merge discussions which you attempted to undermine with your reverts of all the merge-tags. I just looked-up WP:FORUMSHOP — seen it before? --Jack Merridew 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11#Belldandy --Jack Merridew 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Herbert Dingle disrupted (again)

Article Herbert Dingle is subject (again) to a disruptive edit war by a string of clearly special purpose accounts and probably suspected sock-puppets. See archived intervention request and article talk page. Can someone please run a check-user on this, and/or protect the page to version of 2-oct or Denveron's version of 10 oct and herhaps protect the acticle? Thanks. - DVdm 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy. He somehow sounds like the sort of person who would be the subject of a Twilight Zone episode... Mr. Dingle is a shy, ordinary man in the early 1960s who works in a boring job and is yelled at by his boss, henpecked by his wife, and insulted by his acquaintances at the bar... until one day he has a "Eureka moment" and realizes that he has a better theory than Einstein's... and he can use it to get the better of everybody who's been abusing him! But he'll discover that what it really gets him is a one-way trip into... The Twilight Zone! (Sorry... a bunch of TZ DVDs have just come up to the top of my Netflix queue.) *Dan T.* 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.246.207 (talk)

To admins: is the above sentence "Herbert Dingle, huh? Never heard of the guy" combined with this suffiecient to take some measures? Thanks - DVdm 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually wrote the original line, as a smartass quip as a result of watching way too many Twilight Zone episodes. I have no idea why the anon IP reposted it. *Dan T.* 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well whoever you are, you're not a very helpful administrator. If the matter can cause an edit war, then it is important enough for an administrator to intervene. Your cheeky flippant response indicates to me that you are DVdm himself. (Brigadier Armstrong 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

It is quite clear that DVdm is the one doing the disrupting and that he has got quite a number of sockpuppets eg. Dan T and Denveron.

I am requesting that an administrator intervene and examine the actual argument in question. Dvdm is deliberately trying to mask out what Herbert Dingle is famous for. ( Brigadier Armstrong 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC) )

Ummm... pardon? I'm nobody's sockpuppet. The many people who have gotten into intense arguments with me over my 3-year Wikipedia history have called me lots of things, but not a sockpuppet of DVdm, a user I've never even heard of. *Dan T.* 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well whoever you are you are not a very helpful administrator. Your cheeky and flippant response tells me that you are DVdm himself until proved otherwise (Brigadier Armstrong 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

There's always room for humour, especially in an effort to defuse situations, however there is never room for unsubstantiated accusations. Just be grateful it was only a Twilight Zone parody rather than a dissertation on Dingleberries. ---- WebHamster 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually an admin. (Just because this is the Administrator's Noticeboard doesn't mean that only admins can post here.) And "guilty until proven innocent" isn't a good attitude here, where Assume Good Faith is policy. *Dan T.* 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Brigadier, please don't make ridiculous accusations against other editors. Natalie 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Brigadier, any topic can lead to an edit war: there have been fierce edit wars over some spectacularly lame topics. It won't help your case if you lose your temper over a silly joke. Focus on the facts, not on the people -- especially if they're bystanders who mean no harm. -- llywrch 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

user:panda possible breach of good faith

background

this is regarding the nobel laureate lists: approx six weeks ago, there arose a question as to 'what exactly' the country data is to represent in the articles.[71] though on the surface, it is obvious, it is less clear in nobel foundation citations (John James Richard Macleod citation). an rfc was begun on 14 Sep, and as before, the consensus has leaned toward reflecting the data in the nobel citation data rather than use some other wp:npov, wp:or, or wp:syn method to interpret intent or establish fact.

complaint

user:panda, author of the rfc, and a proponent of the method garnering the least support, has mid-course changed the scope definition again and again, with a new polling request after results go contrary to his position. most recently, unilaterally, and contrary to the view expressed in the polling, user:panda has taken to establish and represent his definition as the rule with instructive missals based on his own his interpretations and synthesis. user:panda's behaviour has served to completely frustrate polled editors, muddle results, and corrupt the process. were it not for this appearing to be tactic of user:panda, an assumption of good faith would be in order. however he has taken on this behaviour before with results that can arguably be regarded as disruptive.[72] [73]

redress

an examination to determine whether the behaviour and tactics employed by user:panda are within the bounds of wiki-policy. --emerson7 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. You guys felt that the country data that the Nobel Prize websites provided was confusing, and so started an RFC about what to do about it. As the discussion was going on, panda found a source which specifically explained what it meant, removing the ambiguity. You accused him of "original research" and are now claiming that he's breaching good faith by trying to muddle the process since he believe that since there's no longer any ambiguity, there's no problem. I suggest you assume some good faith on his part, and go back to trying to sort out what is obviously a content dispute on the page. We aren't the "good faith police" here, and you haven't explained what administrative action needs to be taken here. --Haemo 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• that is incorrect. the ambiguity yet exists, but is not the basis of my complaint....which is in regard to his tactics and machinations. --emerson7 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Which appear to be entirely in good faith; something which you should assume on his part. --Haemo 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quick response to emerson7

I don't have time for a complete response right now but emerson7 has been harassing me since I reverted one of his edits in one of the Nobel Prize articles quite some time ago. A quick look at my talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not shows evidence of this. This entire incident report has been made in retaliation for me finding out what the country data actually means for the Nobel lists, according to the Nobel Foundation and his obvious dislike of me bringing this fact to the Nobel list articles (see Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists, Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists, and User talk:Panda#dis-information).

emerson7 forced the first RFC (Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not) by engaging in an edit war with me, refusing to accept facts that I presented both on his his talk page, my talk page and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record, and refusing to answer until I created an RFC.

The second RFC is about a much larger issue that spans 6 Nobel Prize articles. I haven't had time to focus much attention on it because of other matters associated with the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles. emerson7 has refused to participate in this RFC, despite being asked to on his talk page. Instead, he takes offense by it and has been disruptive when he does respond.

I've already been advised by two editors (User:Dekimasu, admin, and User:JHunterJ, a new admin) to report emerson7 to WP:Wikiquette and/or this forum and have not done so for the sole reason that I actually believe emerson7 does useful things for WP by fighting spam. Now I'm kind of sorry that I haven't already done so.

If anyone has breached good faith, emerson7 has done it time and time again. I can provide multiple diffs to support these claims. Right now I need to run but if you need some diffs immediately, please check User talk:Dekimasu#emerson7 or User talk:JHunterJ (archive).

–panda 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm one of the participants in the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I have no reason to doubt Panda's good faith based on the interactions that I've had with Panda on that talk page and on my user talk page. It seems to me that this report by emerson7 is the consequence of prior disputes between him and Panda, about which I don't know much, so I can't comment on that. --Itub 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question Do I need to provide diffs for the above or has this already been tossed out? –panda 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon Editor Once Again Causing Problems

I've posted about this person here [74] and here [75], but he continues to return. This editor reverts edits without reason, engages in name calling [76], [77], [78], and does not try to come to a consensus on the issues at hand. This time he is using this 81.153.185.131. Previously he used 81.153.185.98, 86.134.241.53 as well as others (just go to the page history for List of light heavyweight boxing champions and you'll see the IP addresses he's used). I've tried to engage the person in a conversation but to no avail. I'm unsure what to do about this person.MKil 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

I'll do another WP:RPP, this time for a semi on the articles affected. Gimme a list and I'll file the report. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note this diff on this page. Woodym555 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I'll file the report right now on the list; it's not a good idea to wait for any more articles if this anon is stalking MKil's edits. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. He's also been continually reverting edits at James Toney, Roy Jones Jr., Zsolt Erdei‎, Dariusz Michalczewski, and Talk:List of light heavyweight boxing champions.MKil 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)MKil‎

Added them to the request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this attack, and this one as well. I think a block would possibly be appropriate for wiki-stalking and personal attacks, you may wish to report this at WP:AIV. Ariel♥Gold 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a block. --Haemo 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo. Ariel♥Gold 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

JForget protected the list for a month, its talk page for twelve days, Roy Jones, Jr. for a week, and the rest for three weeks. According to him, this is a long-termer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy's also been a nuisance for around a year on list of current world boxing champions. Protection would be nice, especially since the only anon to ever make a non-vandalism contribution now has an account. east.718 at 02:38, 10/11/2007

I'll make a request for it as well, if it hasn't already been protted. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)//Aaaaand, it's listed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you were an admin. I would have done it myself otherwise. east.718 at 04:42, 10/11/2007

Naah, I'm not an admin yet... -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

help!!!!!!!!!!!1

I am starting a task force to make Hillary Clinton article an FA and an admin is banning me because of this7F 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see here, just another sock of banned user Dereks1x . . . · jersyko talk 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He blocked someone then comments to just move along not disclosing that he is the banning admin. This is a ploy to avoid oversight and is misconduct by Jersyko.

Reviewing the situation, it seems that 7F is an editor that comment on a featured article nomination on Hillary Rodham Clinton. 7F gave suggestions to improve the article. A sock would be expected either to support violently or oppose violently, not give suggestions for improvement.

It seems like the banning admin has edited with the people supporting the FA. So banning 7F has the effect of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute and to sway a vote. This is misconduct.

There is no evidence for labelling those who they oppose a sock. 7F edits are in different articles than the accused.

7F should be unblocked and allowed to improve the article so that it can become a featured article. I see no vandalism or POV edits. UTAFA 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am used to seeing conflict (such as the Arvand Rud article where the Iranian viewpoint is suppressed and attacked) but even there they don't block people and strike out comments like Hillary. For the record: I am not voting in that FA nomination, either for or against.UTAFA 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, another user that was previously suspected to be a Dereks1x sock that has now removed all doubt. Blocked UTAFA as well. · jersyko talk 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I occasionally read admin noticeboards to further my understanding about WP policies. This one I do not understand at all and I hope you will help educate me. I understand what a sockpuppet is but I don't understand how you go about concluding that a user is a sock. I know that there is a checkuser mechanism for verifying that a user is a sock, but before you can do a CU you have to have solid reason for believing that is the case. I looked at the user pages for 7F and UTAFA and saw the message block about "refer to contributions for evidence". I glanced through the contributions and did not see any obvious similarities. So just what is the evidence? I ask not to dispute it, but so that I might gain the ability to spot evidence myself. Sbowers3 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally most socks edit in the same fashion or pattern as the original. When all else fails, they can always do an IP check. HalfShadow 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete article copied and pasted from my userspace

Resolved

I deleted the article in the mainspace. --Isotope23 ^talk 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an article at User:William Graham/MGMT for the band MGMT. The article isn't complete and the band does not yet assert notability because their major label release won't be out until 2008 and doesn't even have a firm release date.

User:Rabbitfighter found the in progress page, then copied and pasted the it from my userspace and into article space at MGMT. This destroys attribution of content so there is no change log.

I was planning on moving my work in progress once it was complete and there was notability established. I'm confused on why the user would do this. Some administrator help would be appreciated.

The only two paths I see are to:

1. Delete it in article space or
2. Delete it in article space and move my incomplete version there to keep attribution

--William Graham ^talk 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Approach Rabbitfighter about it and talk to him/her, and AfD the article, mentioning that you're working on it in your userspace. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page and then he blanked his user page and his talk page. --William Graham ^talk 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a minute and I'll delete the mainspace version.--Isotope23 ^talk 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered Notice

comment by Jaakobou - i apologize for "forum shopping" both here and here. my only defense is that the editor i've complained about continued breaching policy, and my actions helped provide for a volunteer (User:Zscout370) for mentorship. regardless of the advancement caused by my action, i will be more careful not to over-expand any complaint i may raise in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

I'm closing this as forum shopping. Please read/participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recent editing by PalestineRemembered Pascal.Tesson 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

has been mentioned for community sanction and/or inspection by a number of editors, including his mentor Geni, - on this ANI.

Yet, he's continued chasing me around, attacking my alleged "long record (and block) for harrassment on editors and admins on their TalkPages"^[79] on a conversation which has nothing to do with him.

I request he'd be blocked from editing until the community finds him a replacement mentor (this time, someone with admin options) - per this subcategory - and/or decides on other sanctions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If PR is to be blocked for occasional edit-warring, soapboxing, arguably POV edits, etc., then I request that Jaakobou, Tewfik, Armon, myself, and just about everybody on I/P pages except for ChrisO and HG be blocked as well. Another option would be to drop this crazy scapegoating, and get on with the messy process of consensus-building on talk pages, instead of tying up process pages with frivolity.--G-Dett 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is guilty (except ChrisO and HG) so no-one is. Cute, but you're really just whistling past the graveyard. If you've got a case against me or anyone else, present it. <<-armon->> 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw [80] and [81] and I think it's safe to say he breached about 6 out of 8 of his promises from the arbcom he was party to a year ago and it is obvious he has learned very little since. I support a short term ban till we can get this whole mentor/sanction thing resolved. Kyaa the Catlord 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, more false claims. That ArbComm case was this summer, and closed because those attempting to ban Palestine Remembered finally admitted that they were wrong to do so, because their whole proposal was based on false claims and a lynching party. Now you want to hold a new lynching party. No way. If we do it, I'll probably force it back to ArbComm just the way I did this summer. (As an aside, this sort of thing is why we made the exactly wrong decision in merging CSN back here - we should have absolutely forbidden the use of this page for ban discussions, moved them all to CSN, and put a minimum closing time requirement over there. That would have solved the lynching party problem. GRBerry 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't know why partisans keep butting in. there's absolutely nothing false about my statement on the repeated personal attacks.

please follow my earlier statement and links on the other ANI - if there's anything unclear or that might seem false, regarding this issue of repeated harassment (or the issue of the "missing" mentor), let me know - otherwise, stop making statements on unrelated issues.

my request is a short term block until the mentor issue is fixed... this is nothing new - i just saw User:Isarig blocked for the holidays just because his assigned mentor wanted "to celebrate" (and because he edited something a little close to the area he was topic banned from). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

17 reverts for no reason

I was just wondering if it's a violation of some policy for a user to revert 17 edits by multiple editors for no special reason other than he didn't like that I was one of the editors who made some of those edits? [82] (Almost all of my edits were referenced.) After doing the 17 reverts, this user then proceeded to selectively re-add some of the info, not all, and removed most of the references. I asked for a reason for the reverts and the rationale can be found on Vision Thing's talk page. Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the Nobel Prize article without User talk:Vision Thing's (and User:Anthon.Eff's) approval. (There a very long thread about this in Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics.) Besides the edits mentioned above, he's also reverted some of my other edits (one of which included a reference) that he didn't like.[83] [84]

I don't know if this falls under content dispute, WP:OWNERSHIP, or none of the above. I've also left messages on the talk pages of the following admins:

• User talk:Dekimasu#Nobel Prize and Talk:Nobel Prize
• User talk:PeaceNT#User:Vision Thing and the Nobel Prize articles (with longer explanation)

but they seem to be away right now.

–panda 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a single revert to 17 versions back, not 17 reverts. He expressed specific problems with the changes you made, far from the "Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the Nobel Prize article without User talk:Vision Thing's (and User:Anthon.Eff's) approval" story you're telling. And, I have no comment on whether he was justified in this particular case, but reverting something when other changes have been made in the meantime can be complex. There do seem to be ownership issues, he accuses you of 'unilateral' changes without making any specific complaints about the content of your edits, and that's a problem, but you've either misunderstood the terminology or mischaracterized his actions. Even if I revert back to when an article was _created_, it's still only one revert. —Random832 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't write the comment correctly as I meant a single revert that removed 17 edits by multiple editors. His accusation of "unilateral changes" stems from the extremely long thread at Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics. Vision Thing changed the intro text in the Nobel Prize article to include the econ prize as a Nobel Prize 21:38, 29 September 2007 [85], which started the entire conflict. I wasn't the only editor who objected to seeing the econ prize listed as a Nobel Prize [86] [87] [88] [89]. Only after a few other editors became involved did Vision Thing finally decide to offer a "compromise" text [90]. Compare that with the introductory text both before and after Anthon.Eff made changes to it [91] -- notice that there are two paragraphs in the introductory text. The current introductory text has only one paragraph (see Nobel Prize), changed by Vision Thing on 9 October 2007.

• 17:34, 9 October 2007 [92] version with 2 intro paragraphs
• 17:36, 9 October 2007 [93] version with 1 intro paragraph
• 17:40, 9 October 2007 [94] re-added some of the changes I made
• 18:00, 9 October 2007 [95] modified the text about the committees that I had written

Going back in time to the "compromise" text, it only included four sentences. I made no changes to those four sentences except for removing a very small statement that I contested [96] and had already mentioned in the talk page. [97] The longer version for why the statement I removed is not 100% true can be found here, which Vision Thing has even now agreed to [98].

Since Anthon.Eff felt that it was acceptable to start editing the article and added the compromise text [99] (same link as above) despite my protests to it, I then proceeded to edit other text that was not under discussion, which included:

• removing references that did not support the statements they referred to [100] [101]
• adding text + references to the second paragraph of the introduction and adding references to the first paragraph [102]
• removing an incorrect statement in the article [103]
• modifying text + adding a reference in other locations [104] [105]
• adding a {{fact}} tag in another location [106]

So the claim of "unilateral changes in the introduction" is interesting as (1) I didn't modify the text he proposed in any major way, despite never agreeing to it to begin with, and (2) except for that one edit, the majority of my edits had nothing to do with (i) the introduction, or (ii) any text that was being discussed.

So yes, "Essentially, I don't seem to have the right to edit the Nobel Prize article without User talk:Vision Thing's (and User:Anthon.Eff's) approval" as Vision Thing reverted all of my edits about text that was never under discussion and then selectively re-added the text that he had reverted, including removing the majority of the references that I had added.

–panda 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• –panda is being disingenuous. Vision Thing had proposed a compromise text, and Tkynerd and I had suggested a few modifications. –panda had then proposed an alternative compromise text. When asked to clarify one of his points, –panda made it clear that he was not interested in discussion, even when new sources were introduced and his opinion was solicited. Instead, he remained fixed on a single issue (the name of the prize in economics), an issue that I feel we have already plumbed to the depths--I have nothing left to say, and he is not saying anything new. Since the compromise text had three editors in favor, and since –panda was not responsive, I simply introduced the compromise text into the article. –panda then removed a portion of it. Rather than revert his edit, I attempted to begin a discussion about the removed text. –panda then began moving this new discussion back to an earlier point in the talk page, and again attempted to fix on his single issue. At this point, since –panda would not cease moving my talk page edits to new places, and I was in danger of losing my temper, I quit monitoring the article, giving –panda the opportunity to make a large number of edits without consulting the other interested editors. We have honestly tried to engage –panda, but he seems to believe that he alone is right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is obstinate.--Anthon.Eff 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• If it isn't already obvious, Anthon.Eff has chosen to side with Vision Thing on this issue. A summary of the time of events for the compromise text can be found at User talk:PeaceNT#User:Vision Thing and the Nobel Prize articles.

• The compromise text that Anthon.Eff claims that 3 editors agreed to was before I posted my version.
• My proposed text was never commented on except by Anthon.Eff and Vision Thing and essentially buried by Anthon.Eff's comments. It's still unknown if Tkynerd or any other editor has even seen it since no one else has commented on it.
• The reason why I started to ask questions to Anthon.Eff and Vision Thing instead of directly answering them was because

• I had already answered their question [107]
• all of the references/links that I listed (eight total) were ignored or discounted because of the usual statement that it's original research, there are other reliable sources that contradict, or my sources couldn't be used because it doesn't say that the econ prize isn't a Nobel Prize. [108] [109] I listed links to the Nobel Foundation, Bank of Sweden, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and a website that the Swedish government produces, which are all strongly related to the prize. One of which even another editor agreed meant that the prize isn't a Nobel Prize. [110] (Incidentally, we both found the text independently at around the same time.) In comparison, Vision Thing listed three links, one to Encyclopedia Britannica, one to the UK version of Encarta, since the normal Encarta website didn't support his claims, and one to an article written by the Australian government. He then claimed that his references were more reliable and fixated on the UK Encarta text that stated "reviewed by Nobel Foundation" [111] [112] [113] even though the normal Encarta website doesn't contain that text [114], and I notified him about it [115]
• Anthon.Eff had up to this point not done any research on this topic nor had he produced a single reference and I thought it was time that he did his own research instead of me doing all of the work for them.

• At this point, I wrote a comment to Dekimasu about many things, one of which was how Anthon.Eff hadn't done any research yet on the topic he was arguing about [116]. (I know he had been reading my comments to Dekimasu because of the way he worded his replies.) Finally, Anthon.Eff decided to do some research.
• I would like to know which new sources Anthon.Eff is claming were introduced that I didn't comment on.
• As for moving Anthon.Eff's comment back to the previous topic, that's already been said 3 times. [117] [118] [119] The "new topic" was about text that we already discussed in the #Economics thread and there was no reason for the new subsection other than to hide the fact that it had already been discussed.
• "he labors under the delusion that he alone is right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is obstinate." This is an interesting comment by Anthon.Eff since I've already convinced Vision Thing [120] about the text I contested, another outside editor entered the conversation to tell Vision Thing how obstinate he was being [121] (already listed above), after Tkynerd cited text opposing Anthon.Eff & Vision Thing's views [122] Anthon.Eff attacked Tkynerd claiming ill-concealed political agenda in the edit summary [123].

• Let's not lose sight of what the original issue is. In a single edit, Vision Thing reverted/removed 17 edits by multiple editors, and I was one of those editors who made some of those 17 edits. I added cited text and made other changes to the text, which is already listed above. I would still like to know if this is considered acceptable or not and if there are any WP:OWNERSHIP issues involved as it doesn't seem acceptable for me to edit text in the Nobel Prize article.

–panda 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Another point: Anthon.Eff just wrote "I quit monitoring the article, giving –panda the opportunity to make a large number of edits without consulting the other interested editors." (Emphasis mine.) Why would I have to consult the other "interested editors" about text that was not being discussed? Sounds like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. (The only text that was being discussed was the first four sentences of the first paragraph in the article.) –panda 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN closed

As a result of the MFD nomination for the Community sanction noticeboard, I've deactivated the noticeboard and tagged the page as historical. Now, one question to everyone: There are two threads still active on that page. Should we move them here and completely close the page, or allow them to expire and close the page when they are finished? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the latter, simply as a matter of being less confusing. --B 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let them peter out where they are. No new cases there. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Asadaleem12 case is already being handled at CheckUser, I think, so it doesn't matter to me. JuJube 06:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the page, I believe the Tweety21 case is ready for closing. Note, though, that I am the person who opened that case. --Yamla 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the Tweety21 discussion and modified Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Header to indicate that the board is closed for business. --B 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Racial threat against me made by Iwazaki

Resolved

 – user given last warning

I am filing this ANI against Iwazaki due to his incivil behavior against me. I have filed a similar ANI here which will explain his incivility history against me. There is an MfD going on here where he made a racial statement to me here saying "If you need the murdered tamil list let me know, probably thats the only thing i can do for all the people died on the hands of satan." I so happen to be Tamil and do not take this lightly. Furthermore, I am offended with this racial threat directed against me. If an admin could look into this it would be appreciated. Thank you. Wiki Raja 04:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a gross personal attack, and very much in line with this user's other behavior. I've given them a final warning on the subject. --Haemo 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::I realise that I've wandered into this argument rather late, but I'm having difficulty seeing the racial threats or personal attacks here. All I can see is Iwazaki saying that a group of Tamil terrorists have killed many Tamils. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)I just noticed the discussion further down the page. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated legal threats

There have been repeated legal threats on Talk:Matthew Joyce article by User:Kenanmike[124], User:86.129.116.17[125][126]. These threats have gone on long enough and I feel a block may be in order. I apologize in advance if this is not the correct place to lodge this type of complaint, but I could not find a better place. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both per WP:NLT until such time as legal threats are withdrawn. Anon ip block allows account creation, but if that's not the best way to handle the anon, please feel free to change it. Shell ^babelfish 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Block Review (Orangemarlin)

I blocked User talk:Sm565 and User talk:Orangemarlin for disruption after a warning on Talk:Homeopathy. Please review. Mercury 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this appears to be between established editors and several single-purpose ones. El_C 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercury (talk · contribs) has just blocked, Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) a respected, long standing, good faith editor. It's my opinion that this was a very poor decision by mercury, particularly when weigh against the fact that several editors, also in good standing have reverted essentially the same edits by Sm565 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), on numerous occasions in the past.[127],[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[133],[134]. When I brought this up, mercury's response was less than enlightening, and failed completely to address either the issue of why he/she choose to treat an established, productive editor in the same manner as a disruptive SPA, or how precisely he expected orangemarlin to discuss the matter, while blocked. Can someone please overturn this post haste.  – ornis⚙ 10:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The block is very unfair indeed - Orangemarlin seems to have done very little other than remove a POV tag and ask for it to be discussed on the talk page, then when it was added, re-removed it. Particularly given there was no warning, discussion was ongoing on the talk page, and Orangemarlin's status as a good faith editor with thousands of edits, I have unblocked Orangemarlin per Mercury's talk page, where he suggests an uninvolved admin should review it. Neil ム 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Good call. El_C 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Hear hear.  – ornis⚙ 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Note I have not similarly undone the block on User:Sm565; there is an outstanding checkuser on the account regarding some reverting by SPAs on the article, and his actions were, unlike Orangemarlin's, deliberately disruptive to make a point. Neil ム 11:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism-only account

ResolvedDidn't read properly.

Not fully active at the moment, but most edits are silly vandalism since August 28. User is Misbah Ismailjee (talk · contribs). x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to talkpage, this editor has been indefblocked for a day already. Anchoress 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, wrong log page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect several articles that attract vandals?

Hi. I don't have enough experience in Wikipedia to know when semiprotection is warranted, but would like to ask if that would be possible for several articles on my Watchlist that attract vandals nearly every day: Neanderthal Cro-Magnon Cave painting and Lascaux. The vandalism is almost exclusively from anonymous editors, obviously children. In the last week or so I've begun posting vandalism warnings, and a couple blocks have been issued. But it takes time away from the improvements that are very much needed in the Cave painting and Lascaux articles. Thanks. TimidGuy 11:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RPP. They can judge the situation and take care of it for you if warranted. Spryde 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're free to ask for protection at WP:RPP, but a quick look tells me that it won't be granted. None of these articles is receiving the level of vandalism that would require temporary semi-protection, let alone permanent. Semi-protection is more for something where we're getting multiple attacks in an hour, not one a day. -Chunky Rice 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, it is for when the tools that cause less collateral damage such as reversion and blocks (up to and including range blocks) are not able to reduce the flow adequately. Only then should protection be applied. After all, if one or a few users is/are hitting an article repeatedly, there's no reason to freeze out everyone else. Semi-protection is too regularly used as a first resort, when it is in fact the last. Splash - tk 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Knowingly inserting false information

I have noticed that Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have on several occations knowingly inserted false information in articles. Reverts and appeal to reason have been unfruitfull. Some affected articles are Vernon L. Smith‎, Milton Friedman, Template:Nobel Prize in Economics and Herbert Simon‎. // Liftarn 12:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn has not provided diffs or an explanation. However, this appears to be largely a content dispute and multi-article edit war about the proper naming of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics / Nobel Prize in Economics. Cardamon 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I would modify this to state that Vision Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on several occasions knowingly removed text cited with reliable sources to push his POV. One example of this is already listed here: #17 reverts for no reason. –panda 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: removing references and inserting false information[135], false info[136][137][138] // Liftarn

Second Battle Group

Resolved

 – Protected and watchlisted

I've been reverting various edits on this article for a few days now. At first, partisan(s) of the group were trying to eliminate sourced references to an anti-semitic incident. Later, critic(s) of the group have begun adding inappropriate rants. As a result of this edit[139], I'm too angry for further involvement. Someone please watch the article. --MediaMangler 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User dumping massive amounts of copyright text

ChrysJazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing with the IP 77.49.133.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating articles containing massive amounts of text by Albert Camus in both English and Greek translation. I've tried to talk with him but he's still at it. I assume he doesn't understand policy (and maybe English) very well, but could some admin put a stop to this before it goes any further? Thanks. --Folantin 13:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have left this warning which clearly states the issue. It does not seem the user was not honestly aware of the implications of what policy he is violating. Will give a second chance for now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Orangemarlin

Could someone restore this, please? I deleted it to hide some personal info, but for some reason it's fritzing my crappy work computer every time I try and undelete.

I deleted it to remove the last 3 edits (those containing OM's IP), so restore all edits bar those 3 please. Neil ム 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, but it also seems to be in his talk archive already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't do the same to that as well?  – ornis⚙ 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We can - done. Neil ム 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Haemo's warning to Iwazaki

Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) gave User:Iwazaki a "final warning" for making personal attacks against User:Wiki Raja. Iwazaki's comment that he linked to was

Havent you noticed , WP:HOAX part in my reply?? Well, I am not going waste Wiki space by giving 10,000 names, and I would let wiki policies to take care of these blatant propaganda of LTTE which has killed more tamils than anyone else in the past couple of years.And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils !!!! Well, Mr Amirthalingam,Theruchelvam, Dr rajini, glad you didn't live to see this coming.

I'm assuming the sentece taken as a personal attack was "And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils". I'm amazed as to how this could be contrived as a personal attack against Wiki Raja. The exchange between the two users had long moved away from the userbox in question (it was at an MFD discussion), with Wiki Raja accusing Sri Lanka of State Terrorism and Iwazaki likewise accusing the LTTE of terrorism and killing Tamils. Unless Wiki Raja himself is a member of the LTTE, how could he be offended by Iwazaki saying "the LTTE kills Tamils"? Even if he is a member of the LTTE, how can that be taken as a personal attack? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE, and that support for the LTTE is tantamount to "want[ing] them to kill more tamils [sic]". Iwazaki has been warned, and blocked, before about his personal attacks on other users yet has not demonstrated that he (1) sees anything wrong with his behavior and (2) is going to persist with it since he feels it is appropriate. I do not believe any editor, no matter what their political affiliation should be accused of wanting other people dead, and I feel that this whole Sri Lankan civil war conflict (Which you are a prominent part of) is currently generating a poisonous atmosphere on Wikipedia. Notice the sheer number of complaints it has generated on this, and other, administrator boards — the numerous MfD, AfD debates which break down cleanly along partisan lines with only lip-service paid to guidelines. The tit-for-tat incivility reports, canvassing, and outright skulduggery (forged email headers, anyone?) that has occurred. The gross incivility and personal attacks all around are commonplace, and the only way they are going to stop is if they administrators around here start putting their collective foot down against what is an outright war. I stand by my actions, and am going to put my foot down here. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and I will not stand idly by while it becomes one. --Haemo 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE"? Where did pull that out of? Where does he say Wiki Raja supports the LTTE? All his critisism was directed at the LTTE, not Wiki Raja, and it started off after Wiki Raja made comments a number of times linking to a ridiculous propoganda essay on his userspace, User:Wiki Raja/Sri Lanka State Terrorism (which I subsequently speedy deleted), which criticized Sri Lanka. Iwazaki retorted that the LTTE kills thousands of Tamils, which you have somehow contorted to a threat against Wiki Raja. As for his previous block, it was made by an admin with whom he had a number of content related arguments in the past, which incidentally is the same situation you are in. So (1) if saying the LTTE kills Tamils is a blockable offensive you're going to have a lot of blocks to carry out and (2) I say, right now, The LTTE kills Tamils. Block me for that if you think you could get away with it. (And yes, I edit almost exclusively Sri Lanka related articles, and it a debate about one of my userbox's where the above comments happened, so of course I'm a prominent part of it).

As for the rest of your angry rant, remember who forged the email headers, who makes all these AN/I complaints, and who has been blocked, on both his accounts [140] [141], for a total of over over 7 the past 12 months for various reasons, including "persistant harassment of other editors", "dirt-digging", "sockpuppeteering" and "uploading obscene images". --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I noticed User:SheffieldSteel has commented above, that he doesn't see any personal attacks in that comment either. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now. WikiRaja makes a page which Iwazaki disagrees with; Iwazaki calls it LTTE "propaganda" and accuses him of pro-LTTE soapboxing. He then claims that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed. The issue is not him saying that the LTTE kills Tamils, as you seem to believe, but the statement that supporters of the LTTE want to see Tamils killed. That's what makes it a personal attack; it's directed specifically at a user who he knows, and has explained, supports the LTTE. Don't misrepresent the facts by claiming I said it was "threat" against WikiRaja, and don't try to pretend that all he said was that the LTTE kills Tamils. That's not my issue with what he said, and that's not why I warned him. I would also note that tu quoque is a fallacy — bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another. My exasperation with your nationalistic edit warfare extends to both sides, not just one as you are trying to imply. And SheffieldSteel commented on WikiRaja's complaint, which was not the comment I took issue with — in addition, he struck his comments when he saw this discussion below, and the comment I warned him over. Says something, indeed, no? --Haemo 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if disagreeing in an MfD is having "a number of content related disputes" I'll eat my hat. --Haemo 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf, you should not misrepresent what happened. User:SheffieldSteel later on did notice the personal attack here [142] Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked SheffieldSteel to comment on whether he stuck out his comment because he thought Iwazaki did violate WP:NPA, or because he noticed there was already a discussion going on here.

To Haemo, so saying that supporters of the LTTE want the LTTE to kill Tamils is now a personal attack? Then you better do something, cos I'm sorry but I agree with that statement. And you need to show me where Iwazaki calls Wiki Raja an LTTE supporter, because I can't see such a thing. His point was that although Wiki Raja claims abuses by the government, he does not do so about the LTTE. That does not mean he is inferring that Wiki Raja is an LTTE supporter and that certainly does not mean Wiki Raja supports the killings of Tamils. The rest of his comments are merely a criticism of the LTTE.

Also, you can keep your hat, lol, but my comment was related to the fact that, there are 1300+ admins on Wikipedia, but over the last two weeks, you closed an AFD as merge, when, as I see it, there was no consensus, you declined Iwazaki's unblock, you got involved in a related MFD, and you pop up here and gave Iwazaki a warning. Now I believe in coincidences, but that's pushing it.

So you want to start showing neutrality? How about doing something about this. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, saying that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed is a personal attack — especially when you are talking to other editors who support the LTTE. If I assert you want to see innocent people killed, that's a personal attack. Iwazaki said that WikiRaja was pushing pro-LTTE propaganda. He then said that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils murdered. The syllogism is clear; all A want B. C is an A. Therefore, C wants B. The logic of a personal attack. In the interests of good faith and neutrality I'll protect that page again to stop the nascent edit war on that page. Please, feel free to bring any and all attacks, stalking, harrassment, etc etc to my attention. I'd love for this conflict to de-escalate on all sides. --Haemo 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki is factually correct. The LTTE does kill Tamils. See the recent murder of a Hindu priest in Sri Lanka.Bakaman 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing this; it's totally unrelated to the discussion at hand and not related to why I warned him. --Haemo 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I made my original post because I couldn't see how saying, or implying, that supporters of an organisation must in some way condone what that organisation does, constituted a personal attack. I simply did not interpret Iwazaki's post the same way that Haemo did. I did not, however, read up on the background to this debate, so my view of the incident may be too narrow. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment Sheffield, i just wanted to clear up why you struck out your previous comment.

Haemo, are YOU are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the LTTE? You also say no one is disputing that the LTTE kills Tamils. To use your words, A Supports B, B does C, so A supports C. That in essence means you are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the killing of Tamils. That itself is a blatant personal attack. How would you like if someone said you were a supporter of the Nazis? And that pretty much illustraits the unfairness of your warning.

Also, I think you have gotten what Iwazaki said wrong here. Iwazaki did not say Wiki Raja was pursuing a pro-LTTE stance. He said Wiki Raja was anti-Sri Lanka, and asked him to add murders by the LTTE to his little propaganda page to make it neutral. He did not say Wiki Raja was a supporter of the LTTE, it is you who directly have said it now.

And yes, everyone wants the bickering on Wikipedia to end, but other that Ricky81682 last year, no neutral admin has ever really tried. In fact, no one has even bothered to comment here.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolf4, Iwazaki even revealed unethically at a AFD discussion, the subject is an adamant LTTE supporter by his edits on wikipedia[143]. Now you are dragging Haemo equating by your pseudo calculus that; "it is you who directly have said it now." Hameo's one is unintentional but the Iwazaki's one is intentional. That is the difference which is not put forward in rules with tangibility and help always people to evade from punishment on wikipedia and outside. Hiloor 06:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• A possible WP:SOCK or WP:TROLL made only to push certain POV at ANI. The very first edit of this user is this post at ANI, which clearly indicates a hidden agenda behind the sudden creation of this account
• I woudn't take much notice. That's probably just Rajkumar Kanagasingam, known on Wikipedia as User:Rajsingam, User:DoDoBirds, User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam etc., still bitter that his biography got deleted. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I be a Tamil from India? I couldn't understand your logic relating me with Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Hiloor 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to step into helping you guys get together on this. However, it's going to require a fair bit of work, and civility all around. In order to kick-start this willingness to work with everyone, I acknowledge that there is good faith disagreement over my warning and I therefore retract it, with my apologies. However, I do ask everyone involved to please be civil and assume copious amounts of good faith. Again, I extend my offer to anyone who is having a problem is leave a note for me on my talk page to have me look at it. --Haemo 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the birds of the flock have lost a feather. Wiki Raja 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's wikiraja's impressive wiki-resume in just the last twelve months

• Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption
• Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption again
• Sep '06 - Blocked for uploading obscene pics
• March '07 - Blocked for 3RR
• March '07 - Blocked for socking and evading block
• May '07 - Unblocked and reblocked 50 days.
• Sep '07 - Blocked for 3RR
• Sep '07 - Blocked again for 3RR

Impressive. Isnt it? Add to this his nonsensical template which gets deleted with overwhelming consensus but not before he defaces dozens of talk pages with his templates. And the hoax of an article with gfdl violations to boot which eventually had to be rewritten from scratch. And in the latest, he scales new heights - forged email headers in an attempt to get his opponent blocked!! (of course, he didnt do that, right?).

Dear Haemo, could you explain to me how this user continues to live and breathe on wikipedia? Why isnt he indeffed already? You talk about admins putting their 'collective foot' down. Now if you could walk the talk and indef him, I'd be really grateful. You dont let users like this out in the loose and then pounce on whoever loses his temper with them!! Wikipedia isnt about Anger Management. Sarvagnya 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, thanks for submitting that wonderful resume.Didn't I mention you that, he is in many occasion acting as a 3RRR evading tool for other editors? Have a look at the LTTE article,　where his only edits were reverts!! NO other edits not even anything in the talk page, no involvement in discussions, just reverts. I guess this alone prove your above remarks of WP:TROLL.Thanks for our input again.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But you are a worse troll, looking at this. More a fanatic level doing edits.Hiloor 15:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that feelings are very strong about support for violent struggle or terrorism - even as someone who lived in England at a time when US citizens were contributing money to the IRA my own. For the record, I believe that Haemo has acted 100% in good faith throughout this episode. Let's hope that other editors act likewise, and that normal dispute resolution can provide a way forward in this subject area. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel san, Thanks for your input. I am just thankful to snowolf san for bringing this matter here So I could at least hear what the other editors say regarding this.I was once blocked for calling some sites racist(and they are 100% racist sites), and even in that case,admin misinterpreted my words and accuse me of calling others racists!!! Past is past, and I am hoping after this discussion admins would stop giving final warnings solely based on their misinterpretation of what I said.SheffieldSteel san,Allow me to prove what I said about LTTE, or to actually add something to that.LTTE and their supporters want not only tamils, but also wikipedian editors and their families dead.Some how, they know whats going on in wikipedia and threatening not only wikipedians but their innocent family members too. So ,were I wrong in making my original statement? Isn't this alone prove what I said about the LTTE?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the proof that is your orginal name and not sent by your friends to deceive the wikipedia and others.Hiloor 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Punkmorten

I have twice nominated an article for deletion as it consists of only one sentance, and twice it's been closed out by Punkmorten without consensus.
Example |1
Example |2
As you can see, at neither time was any consensus reached. (Most likely, Punkmorten will mention my comment on the second nomination where I called him a "moron". Yes I said it, and yes I know that comment was wrong. There was no excuse for that comment and if a sanction is enforced against me as a result, I'll comply with it.) PunkMorten claims that consensus was already reached via WP:AFDP and that a consensus on this article is not needed. WP:AFDP is a guidline and not a policy. The official policy WP:Notability states that notability must be shown in the article. This article did not show it. The votes themselves did not show consensus of any kind. I am asking that this be looked into, and if I'm wrong, feel free to let me know in any way you see fit, including sanction for my admitted violation of WP:CIVIL

However if I'm right, and no consensus was reached I would like to have this AFD reinstated and let whatever consensus be reached that needs to be reached. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There's always WP:DRV... but I've never seen a town that really exists deleted. It's one of the few certainties of the deletion process. Maybe he should have let the AFD run though, to show the consensus or inspire people to improve the article... --W.marsh 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:N is only a guideline too. Certain things are considered inherently notable; verifiable populated places are usually one of those things. Why don't you request a translation of the German article or do some research and expand it yourself instead of pushing for deletion. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man, I certainly haven't pushed for deletion. The article was there since March 2006. It was in a state where it was just one line. Not suitable for wikipedia. 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well now it consists of several sentences. As well as several interwiki links, an infobox, & a latitude/longitude widget -- but those have been there for a while. You're beating a dead horse; please move along. -- llywrch 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, and WP:POINT by Duke53

Duke53 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) initiated an edit war at Marion Jones which has now turned into disruption to make a point at Michael Jordan, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.

• Edit war at Marion Jones:
  • [144] Duke53 adds info about Jones's alma mater to lead paragraph of article (Duke53 is a strident fan of Duke University, so highlighting Jones's affiliation with UNC-Chapel Hill makes UNC, Duke's arch-rival, look bad by association.)
  • [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151] Edit war ensues between Duke53 and three different editors; Duke53 reaches but does not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours
• Discussion at Talk:Marion Jones#University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in lead follows
• WP:POINT violations at Michael Jordan and incivility at User talk:Zodiiak
  • Duke53 removes Jordan's college affiliation from lead: "See the Marion Jones talk page; apparently this is the accepted format." User:Zodiiak reverts: "rv; the article achieved Feature Article Status as is; an incredible amount of effort was made in doing this"
  • Discussion at User talk:Zodiiak#Edit to Michael Jordan article follows
    • [152] Duke53 says "apparently many editors feel that the mention of a person's university affiliation has no business being in the lead of an article. Just trying for some consistency here." —clear WP:POINT vio.
    • Incivility at [153] and [154]: "Monitor anything as closely as you choose, but don't pretend I altered any other data on that page, because that just isn't true." Then: "Yeah, leave your phony allegations though."
  • Further edit warring and WP:POINT vio at Michael Jordan: [155] "deleted university mention in lead, per discussion on this and other talk pages. His university affiliation is mentioned later in the article." Note no discussion occurred at Talk:Michael Jordan. Reverted at [156] by User:Chensiyuan.

• • • Incivility cuts both ways ... people who are snarky deserve what they get, IMO. If the mention of a person's university affiliation is allowed in one article it should be allowed in all, just for the sake of consistency. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Duke53's editing history is full of incidents of this type, too many to offer diffs for here. He has been blocked once before for incivility. Apparently he has not seen fit to change his behavior. I'd like an admin to take a close look at his behavior, in this incident but also his extensive history here.

"He has been blocked once before for incivility. More wrong info? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong? Not according to your block log, which is clearly linked at the top of this section. Technically you were blocked twice for incivility, within the same day, and briefly unblocked in between. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have had numerous interactions with Duke53, most of which were less than pleasant. I invite scrutiny of my own history and behavior too; it's only fair. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If asked, I can offer dozens of examples of Duke being downright cruel, generally without provocation, to everyone who crosses his path--especially if they belong to his least-favorite religion. Very little has ever been done to curb his behavior--not by admins, and definitely not by himself. I also invite scrutiny of my own behavior and that of the others he's targetted. Something needs to be done. --Masamage ♫ 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

" ... if they belong to his least-favorite religion". Why in the world would you presume to know what religion is my 'least favorite'; feel free to post those 'dozens of examples', I will be more than happy to defend any and all of your perceived notions of cruelty. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I just don't see you harping on anyone else. But, if you insist. Examples coming right up. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like done with the user? a simple block for incivility (a two day wikibreak) or would you like some longer term more permenant remedy? If you think this is a long term problem that is not going to get better, then ask for a permenant remedy, and back it up. I would have advised you to use the Community Sanction Noticeboard, but it's closed now and it's activity remanded here. --Rocksanddirt 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent.] First off, I think Duke53 deserves a fair opportunity to respond if he so chooses, before any action is settled on. As for what should be done with him, my perspective is undoubtedly colored by my past disputes with him, which is why I'd rather an uninvolved admin (or several, if they like) take a close look and come to a conclusion about appropriate action to take. This particular incident might already be over; who knows whether Duke53 will try to perpetuate it at this point? But I'm satisfied that his long-term problem behavior is not going to end unless he is quite strongly made to understand that his approach is intolerable. If you need more evidence of long-term problems to justify a proportionate action, just say the word and I can supply diffs, or I can take this to WP:RFC/U or any other venue you think would be more appropriate. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly some manner of consensus on what to do will need to be arrived at, but 1) if you ask for what you want, 2) get the other party to participate, 3) you will get more activity out of this noticeboard. So, put a notice (a suggestion is at the top of this page) on Duke's talk page, and come up with what you'd like. Some manner of revert parole? topic or aticle restrictions? short civility leash? outright ban from the project? and get some other community by-in on what is appropriate. --Rocksanddirt 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst left a note for Duke at the same time this report was posted. Similarly to him, I've long been uncomfortable with the thought of doing anything myself, because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse. Of the options you list, though, "short civility leash" sounds the most like what's needed. I have no problem with him continuing to edit in his areas of opinion and interest, just as long as he can do so without being rude. His history does not make me optimistic, but it's worth a try. --Masamage ♫ 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

" ... because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse" Melodrama is again your strong suit ... show the supposed instances of cruelty and I will defend and / or rebut them. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Masamage, with the addition that civility is not Duke53's only problem behavior. So I'd also suggest a strict revert parole to stop his POV warring. I'd also like to see, as part of the short civility leash, a close eye on WP:BITE behavior, which I didn't mention above for brevity but has also been a problem I've unsuccessfully tried to resolve with him before. I thought of a topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University and related subjects) but since Duke53 seems to get aggressive about anything he has an opinion about, it would be tough to formulate a list of topics that will adequately cover the scope of the problem. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• "I agree with Masamage ... " Surprise, surprise. :>) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I thought of a topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University" Aha! I think we are now seeing the crux of your problem with me: a non-mormon having the audacity to edit mormon related articles. Wouldn't life be grand at Wikipedia if only mormons were allowed to edit mormon related articles? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I deny categorically that this complaint is based on religious differences. Let our edit histories demonstrate which of us is being forthright here. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. What we three have in common is that we all revert pro-Mormon vandalism and anti-Mormon vandalism with equal readiness. The big difference is, Duke insults the crap out of them before, during, and after--but only if they're pro-Mormon (at which point they don't even have to be vandals). --Masamage ♫ 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the diffs revealing Duke's uncivil behavior. If more are needed, there is no shortage. An obvious standalone. Accusations of bias, deceit, censorship, etc. etc. made based on religion: "nice try" "cut the crap", plus rejection of WP:BITE. Quotes CIV, breaks it in his PS. And wow. Later today I will post diffs of the exchange that first caught my attention over a year ago. --Masamage ♫ 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP address 209.173.6.202

the IP address of 209.173.6.202 (contribs) (talk) is being used for vandalism. This has been an ongoing issue for two years, there have been blocks placed on it in the past. I would like to see it blocked again, for as long as possible.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

There are only 2 previous blocks, the longest was 31 hours; some IPs are much worse. I've blocked it for a week. Please report vandals to WP:AIV for faster response. Mr.Z-man 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Revenge of sockpuppets?

Resolved

By accident, I found this new interesting user: User:SalonSam. He/she leaves a message with the text "I know you people have been endin' the livs of me friends but now i am here to take their place" and a reference to several blocked sockpuppets at random pages in Wikipedia.[157] Perhaps someone should look at it before it takes a more sinister form. Tankred 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Someone speedily reported them on good 'ol AIV and I reverted, blocked, & tagged 'em. Seems like they are a meatpuppet for User:ClaimJumperPete.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewinn: Mallicious Behavior

Rewinn user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rewinn

The user Rewinn has been stalking the "Fairness Doctrine" article with the aim of enforcing his POV. NPOV violations include extensive use of Weasle Words and Original Research. What is less tollerable is that he invokes these standards as a sword and sheild for his own violatory edits. This I belive demonstrates that he is acting in bad faith.

For example:

Rewinn deleted a list of politicians who had expressed support for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and replaced it with the weasle-worded, "Conservative commentators have asserted that various Democratic..." The original list of specific politicians was sourced to an NYPost article. Rewinn's protest was that each politician had to be specificly quoted in order to meet muster. However, rather than work constructively and in good faith, he just deleted and replaced with weasle words. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162604562&oldid=162603617

The POV that Rewinn is trying to enforce on the article is that support by officials to reinstate this set of regulations is a "conspiracy" theory, the "claims" of which are "controversial". Indeed, Rewinn renamed the section of the article "Controversy" back in August. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=148535242&oldid=148534907

In his very next edits, he actually deleted two direct quotes from the politicians named in the nypost article he later deleted for not containing direct quotes. This he did without mention in the talk page while merely asserting that they were "undocumented" in his edit summary, when in fact both items were sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=next&oldid=148534579 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=next&oldid=148534907

Now on the talk page, some months later, when two other direct quotes were added to the article, sourced to a news article and audio documentation, Rewin risably challenges their authenticity of the quotes as well as their authority to document what the quoted speaker means. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairness_Doctrine&diff=163724410&oldid=163720997

You can see how this is churlish behavior at best. at worst, it deliberately undermines the ability to arive at any text with any factual fidelity whatsoever.

Rewinn has both introduced Original Research in a blatant fashion and challenged others' content, citing it as Original Research.

For instance, he has argued extensively with a Byron York article linked in the section in a manner violatory of OR.

He does so first by linking and quoting extensively from a Center for American Progress study not referenced in the York piece.

"Linked to CAP report" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=150444138&oldid=150100226

It should be noted that the study argues not against York's identification of a campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but rather for the need for the return of such legislation.

York's piece does quote from an annoucement issued by the group Media Matters for America in which there is an open call to commence a campaign to reinstate the Fairness doctrine.

To this, Rewinn writes himself into the article as "those" "on the other side" "who disclaim (sic) such an effort" thusly:

On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2] (earliest version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162606742&oldid=162604562

The citation is a link to a site search of the Media Matters website he performed himself for inclusion into the article. If this isn't OR, I'm not sure what is.

What is cynical about Rewinn's violation of OR is his flinging of allegations of OR violation against sourced, relevant content he intends to delete.

For instance, he argues with the inclusion of two direct, solidly sourced quotes by claiming that their position within the frame of "conspiracy" - which he authored - constitutes OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairness_Doctrine&diff=163585524&oldid=163584836

finally, I'm not a big tattler or complainer, but I felt compelled to report Rewinn's behavior up to now because he is always threatening administrative action against those who challenge him; suggesting that he is keeping record of critisisms which he characterizes as "personal attacks" and the like. yesterday he included a 3RR warning against me in his edit summary after I had reverted once.

I hope you recognize as I do that this sort of behavior isn't clever, but abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be addressed at dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for responding. i'm not so sure this is a dispute resolution issue. it's not so much that the material is contentious as that we're dealing with an editor who's behavior is inimicable with the arrival at concensus. 38.98.181.23 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncooperative editors

A sentence in the lead of the Israel article has been the subject of a debate. The sentence is based on the text:

In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region. There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent).

It comes from a report by Freedom House. The source is agreed upon. [158]

But some editors, based on their own personal opinion, wish to alter the text of the source, and thus the text does not accurately reflect the stated opinion of the source. The sentence must be verifiable, and the source has considered Israel as such. Still some editors, in particular User:Tariqabjotu have been saying only their personal opinion.

I pointed out the Wikipedia:Citing sources says:

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

Tariqabjotu completely and utterly disregarded this policy. Their argument now is that the definition of Middle East can also sometimes include Cyprus, which is considered a liberal democracy, but is not considered by Freedom House to be in the Middle East. (These types of challenges are noted in WP:CITE.) The editor has opted to write "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is considered a liberal democracy." but this sentence applies only a single definition of the Middle East (that is NOT that of the source) and does not reflect the stated position of the source. The source's opinion is not to be altered, even slightly, to appease an editor's opinion. Another editor mentioned linking to an article of this regional group.

It is undisputed that Freedom House groups countries into regional groups they define, and it is clear that Israel is the only one in this regional group to be a liberal democracy. What can be done is to link the term "eighteen countries" to the eighteen countries that are included in this Middle East group. This is seen in Freedom in the World (report)#Middle East & North Africa.

Freedom House has ranked Israel as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East.

OR

Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East.

Or whatever similar. This way readers can see the group for themselves, letting them see a list showing which countries are included that out of which Israel is the only one, as the view of the source. This eliminates any ambiguity as to the definition of the region. They have said Israel is the only one out of a group they have categorized in the Middle East, and now users can see the group and exactly which countries are categorized; reflecting the source and having the list of countries in the group be visible. There is no dispute that these are the countries included in Freedom House's regional group: Middle East & North Africa. But Tariqabjotu did not pay any attention to this. He did not state how this sentence would have any issue with WP:CITE or any other policy. He never suggested an edit based on any policy at all.

I suggested WP:Mediation as a proper way to resolve the dispute and concentrate on Wikipedia guidelines, but Tariqabjotu refused. He still did not want to talk about any WP policy. Obviously, a discussion cannot reasonably take place this way. --Shamir1 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what is it that requires admin intervention here? Are people sockpuppeting? Edit-warring? Extremely incivil? It would seem based on Talk:Israel, and in particular Tiamat's contributions there, that a normal, legitimate, good-faith content disupte is occuring. I sincerely hope that this posting isn't just forum shopping. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN gone wild. "No original research" doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that you can't do ANYTHING useful with cited facts. Freedom House assigns a scalar number, not a relative ranking, and we're free to compare the numbers it assigns among ANY set of countries we choose. Did Freedom House even SAY "Israel is the only liberal democracy", or did it simply publish a list categorized in such a way that there are no other democracies in the same category? If the latter, then stating the former is technically original research by your definition. Having to correctly represent what the cited source says about what it's cited for doesn't mean that its regional groupings have to be used in order to use its freedom rankings. —Random832 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the dispute over the wording, this doesn't sound like information that should be in the lede. Corvus cornix 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is suited for the lead, the ranking is used in several country articles. Tiamut's edits are relatively recent and are not related to this. No good-faith content is occuring as User:Tariqabjotu does not wish to address any policies. What can be done if he cannot even accept mediation? That is where WP:SYN comes in: He is taking the position of one source and combining it with another position (that Cyprus is sometimes considered in the Middle East). This position, as WP:SYN addresses, does not publish an argument in relation to this topic at all. We are not using their regional groupings, we are stating what they have said. "Unlike most countries in the Middle East" applies one definition of the Middle East, does not represent what the source says, and leaves no room for the group they have categorized. It is not disputed that they have categorized that group, and a link can be made to it. The sentence must properly represent that it is the only one out of this group. User:Random832, to answer your question: Yes, they have said Israel is the only liberal democracy: "In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region."[159] (To be clear: Freedom House's methodology explains that a "free" country is a liberal democracy; every liberal democracy is an electoral democracy, but not every electoral democracy is necessarily a liberal one.) So far, the editor is explicitly disregarding WP policy. He constantly does that while refusing to hear what a mediator should say. I welcome your feedback. --Shamir1 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter does not require admin intervention. Shamir has been trying to get this sentence (which is, in itself, the result of a compromise) or other parts of the introduction of the now-featured Israel article changed for over a month now, to no avail. He has seen that everyone has gotten tired of responding to his repetitive misinterpretations of policies. So, now he has decided to go around the 'pedia – opening a mediation request (with insufficient evidence that other steps in dispute resolution have been attempted), seeking help from an arbitrary person, and posting here – giving distorted, and ultimately false, accounts of the arguments of his opponents. If Shamir feels continuously obliged to ignore the many coherent rebuttals that have been provided to his argument, I feel it is my prerogative to stop entertaining his viewpoint. It's time this thread, and every other one related to this sentence, be shut down. -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

These are things you should be telling a mediator. I did not misinterpret a single policy, I posted them exactly. You have not even addressed them! How are they "misinterpreted"? I sought advice from an editor (how is that bad?) as you have been completely uncooperative. What it is time for is dispute resolution. --Shamir1 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on Tariqabjotu's talk page: I really wish you would try formal dispute resolution. I understand you have added many comments to talk, so have I. None of your reverts were based on any guideline, and you have not addressed the policies to which your sentence has a very clear issue with. So you feel you are right, that there is nothing else to it; if that is the case, and if I am "misinterpreting policies", then there should not be anything to fear in a mediator. Please give it a try. --Shamir1 06:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He replied: You're a waste of my time. I'm not going to burden a mediator by letting you waste his too. -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith and continue with dispute resolution processes (as it tells us to) when an editor is acting this stubborn? --Shamir1 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement about "countries in the Middle East" must come with some hint that it's a disputed definition of the Middle East that's in use. Like it or not, systemic bias, liable to mislead some/many readers is slipping in - particularily when the same statement about democracy would not be true for all Muslim countries (as some readers are bound to think they've read). PR^talk 10:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Isarig violating terms of mentorship.

Isarig is under mentorship, and forbidden from making more than one revert a day to any article. He has today twice reverted my edits to Jajah, the second time deliberately (as he confirms on the article's talk page) re-adding information which I had removed because it was clearly added by a company employee as advertising. I request that steps be taken to ensure that this user abides by the very strict terms of his probation and mentorship. RolandR 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit once, and then rewrote the section, significantly expanding it, adding material about the controversies, and using different, mainstream relaible sources. That is not a revert. Please do not wikilwayer in order to win content disputes. Isarig 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a borderline technical violation of the probation. I'd advise RolandR not to exploit Isarig's probation in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and more broadly to avoid slanting the article because of his personal experiences with the company. I'd advise Isarig to be more careful about this sort of thing, and to err on the side of conservatism given his probation and the concern many editors have expressed over his prior actions. (For those who want to see for themselves, the article is Jajah.) Raymond Arritt 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It was a revert or more specifically a partial revert according to WP:REVERT. The section specifies as follows: A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version. The former is convenient, for example, for a partial reversion of a recent addition, while the latter is convenient for a partial reversion of a deletion. The only thing I am not clear is what the terms were for this 1RR parole and what exactly would be the consequences of violating it? Link to the discussion please. (edit after edit conflict: Raymond Arritt has a point as well)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is here, from which iit is clearthat it is Isarig's constant edit-warring which is the issue, and he is not permitted to edit another editor's contributions more than once a day. I repeat, Isarig's comment on the article talk page that "I have a different view regarding the appropriateness of posting by employees, but you are correct that current WP guidelines frown on this. It is a moot point , though, because I am not a Jajah employee, have no such conflict of interst, and *I* have added this content now, so you are now removing well sourced content by an editor with no COI" makes it clear that he is adding this in order to edit-war with me, rather than on its own merits. RolandR 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to rigorously define "partial revert" is going to be highly contentious, and might as well be saying "don't dare EDIT an article twice in one day" - the very term amounts to forbidding attempts at making compromise versions. —Random832 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

True but in reality the edit reinserted information that was taken out (comparison of the first edit with the second). However, I completely agree that this discussion should not be leaning towards "don't dare EDIT an article twice in one day."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray Arritt, if you're going to pile-on with these accusations, it would be nice to have some smidgen of evidence for them. RolandR's involvement seems to have been solely to roll-back spammy changes to an extremely spammy article. I haven't seen him add one smidgen of personal analysis to the article, the talk page, or anywhere else. <eleland/talkedits> 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I take it back. Roland did add information which he should have sourced to JaJah's AUP, which notes that "JAJAH sometimes limits free calling minutes on a daily, weekly or monthly basis...JAJAH asks its customers to pay from time to time. If you choose not to pay, JAJAH may need to limit your free minutes. To take advantage of free minutes, users should deposit funds into their JAJAH account." Instead he sourced it to an internet forum post, and to a letter the company sent to customers. Not exactly a "slanting" of the article to refer to the company's own officially declared policies! <eleland/talkedits> 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(I'm sure this wasn't in their terms and conditions when I last looked, or I would have used this. Perhaps it has been added as a result of my complaints!)--RolandR 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Google has it cached from 13 September, looks like you added it first on 3 September and Isarig started arguing with you on the 24th. So even at that time, it was verifiable, although you didn't provide proper citations. True-but-improperly-cited material is added to Wikipedia at a rate approximating that of Niagra Falls, so it's really juvenile to try and make this a user conduct issue. Just cite [www.jajah.com/info/help/faq/freecalls/] next time, summarize it accurately, and you're iron-clad. <eleland/talkedits> 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As you note, when I added the comment it was apparently NOT on the Jajah site. I agree that I could, and probably should, have rechecked when this was removed; my failure to do so certainly does not invalidate my earlier edit. I have now made an appropriately sourced edit.

But this is entirely irrelevant to the current issue, which is Isarig's blatant breach of his very strict mentorship conditions, in order to reinsert what even he conceded was a spam link originally added by a Jajah employee. Isarig's whole behaviour and involvement in this article looks like deliberate edit-warring with an editor with whom he has frequently clashed on Middle East issues, on which he is currently forbidden to edit. RolandR 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's offtrack, and I was actually trying to defend you there, rather than contribute to the usual CSN ANI mudslinging festival. Anyway, you deleted information about "Jajah Buttons", Isarig re-added it, you deleted it again, and Isarig re-added it with slightly different phrasing and sourcing. That's 2 reverts. I suggest you sidestep the ANI sideshow and just report it to AN/3RR with a link to Isarig's mentorship conditions. <eleland/talkedits> 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When a user has a mentor (and if I recall correctly, Isarig has a pair), it is often better to first discuss the issue with the mentor(s) than to bring it to a more general forum. The mentors both can enforce (or if not an admin, can readily get an admin to enforce) and more importantly can educate and advise the editor being mentored - but they can only do this if they are kept informed. So where is the evidence of having talked to the mentors before coming here? GRBerry 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of 75.192.177.89

An unregistered editor at the above IP address has three times made the identical edit to Paul Truong. The first time, the edit was made without an edit summary. That editor has now reverted it twice, each time without an explanation, and without heeding a request to discuss the edit on the article's talk page.

I checked, and these three edits to the same article are the only edits this IP has ever made. I think it is appropriate to block this IP. Marc Shepherd 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Just after I wrote this, I saw that this IP had indeed posted something to the talk page, though it didn't really make clear the basis for the deletion. Marc Shepherd 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Roosterrulez and Myself (User:Chappy84)

I recently added a comment to the talk page of WP:Football regarding some of the edits made User:Roosterrulez. I added these comments here (as I have explained to the user) as they were mainly footballing edits and I didn't feel simply copying and pasting between different articles should occur. Roosterrulez had, as far as I could tell, basically copied and pasted information between many clubs articles and Sport in Leeds, and had also created a copy of the History section on Leeds City Vixens L.F.C. on a new page. Once I had made this comment, and reverted the edits to Sport in Leeds (admittedly I shouldn't have used the word pointless in the edit summary for this revert, this seems to be part of what has caused the dispute) Roosterrulez seems to have taken my comments very personally. He has made what I consider personal attacks on my talk page accusing me of vandalism (while not reverting the "vandalism" which he identified to Sport in Leeds), started to place comments on other clubs pages stating it is my view that they shouldn't have more than one page (See: Talk:Arsenal F.C.#User:Chappy84), placed derogatory edit comments stating that I don't want the pages, while blanking the page (See: here, here, here and here), made other derogatory comments about me (See: here) and started disagreeing with other edits I have made (See: here and here). I have repeatedly tried to explain to the user calmly (or atleast the intention was to be as calm as possible, the comments may have come across incorrectly) on the users talk page User talk:Roosterrulez, while still trying to ensure that Wikipedia's guidelines and standards are used (or atleast the standards to my knowledge). I have stated this to them while also stating that I do not intend to direct negative feelings towards them or have a problem with them as a user. The user still however seems to have a problem with me and has in my opinion persisted in nit-picking with myself as a user and my user page. I am not sure why they feel they need to do this. Could someone please take a look at this and let me know of any decisions made. Chappy^T_C 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried dispute resolution — because I don't see any specific admin action here. --Haemo 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, when I originally raised this on WP:Football I was referred here for if I actually had a problem with another user. I didn't actually have a problem at that point, and hoped not to raise a full issue, as I hoped by trying to be civil with the user, they would desist. I am not sure whether they have seen what I have raised here, however after your response I have received an apology from the user for atleast the nit-picking which they had done, and reverted when I removed it from my talk page. Hopefully this is the end of the matter, however if it does continue I will proceed with the instructions on WP:DR. Chappy^T_C 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for blocking by Ouzo

User:Pizzacheesecracker has been continually adding unsourced information to the Guitar Hero III page despite plenty of warnings. If an admin could consider it, I and many other editors of that article would much appreciate it. Thanks. --Ouzo 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia:Dispute resolution measures have you tried thus far? Can you supply diffs to substantiate your request? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Warren (talk · contribs)

I've reblocked Tyler for a week with e-mail blocked for sending rather abusive e-mails to me. Is a week justified? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's abusive, yes. You shouldn't have to put up with that. --Haemo 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Money

Not surprisingly, given the popular subject, this page seems to receive tons of vandalism, mainly from anons. I just reverted to a version two days ago, and the only changes that stuck (despite a number of other vandalism reversals) were other anonymous vandalism. I suggest semi-protection. (Is this the right place to suggest this?) Rigadoun (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the correct place to suggest protection ... but it looks like the vandalism today was from a single IP. It's important that when vandalism is noticed, the vandals are warned using a warning template (like {{subst:uw-bv}}) and then reported to WP:AIV if it continues. I don't think there's a need for protection right now, but I have watchlisted it and will protect it if there is any more vandalism today. --B 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Erm, well, I just semi-protected it for 48 hours before I saw your reply. The history showed ongoing juvenile vandalism from several different IPs. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found that and put this there too, before I saw this reply. I saw six different IPs today, perhaps I'm in a different time zone? If you're watching it then you can see if it's needed (and perhaps address this at my comment at RFPP. Rigadoun (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd report of this user

I am reporting this user again, i reported him yesterday i believe but no action was taken however today he has carried on vandalising and has ignored warnings, all his edits are on michael jackson ans all he seems to do is insult this LIVING PERSON. [[160]]. Realist2 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to see WP:AIV for this; generally, the route to take with a persistent vandal is to revert the contributions as they occur and ensure that the editor receives a warning for each one (see WP:WARN for the templates), and when they breach the final warning report them to AIV. It's an IP, however (and appears to be static) with nothing but vandal edits, so someone might want to just slap it with a block now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at DYK

Resolved

The red urgent warning caught my eye. The page is supposed to be changed every 8 hours. It is 2.5 hours past due. Assistance, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Next_update Archtransit 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I updated it. It isn't really a matter urgent enough for reporting at the Incidents noticeboard (WP:AN would do). DYK tends to get backlogged anyway. Thanks for keeping an eye out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I first compared this issue with several on the ANI board and thought that the urgency was at least equal to those. I also thought that AN was too slow a board. I also saw it earlier but didn't post here until 2.5 out of 8 hours had passed. Thanks for the resolution. Archtransit 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nutraceuticals"?

Resolved

 – Used {{Uw-vandalism2}} and supplemental message on user's talk page. -- HiEv 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(I hope this is the right place to ask this.) There was a large amount of clearly irrelevant text about "nutraceuticals" added to the meme article by Dulcinea07 (talk · contribs · logs) (see here). I reverted the edits, and I'd like to put a warning on the user's page, but I honestly don't know what warning to put. Clearly the material doesn't belong there, as it has been shoehorned into the article, but it doesn't seem to fit any of the standard vandalism clauses. Am I wrong? Have I missed something? Also, the text seems oddly familiar. I think I might have seen it inserted somewhere before. Recommendations? -- HiEv 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Try one of the nonsense tags; they're appropriate for random spam, particularly if you use a supplemental message about it. Rdfox 76 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. I used {{Uw-vandalism2}} since WP:VANDAL says it's "suitable for nonsense". -- HiEv 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it all fits that, even if the vast majority is out of place. The para he had on multilevel marketing might actually be considered as a meme.LeadSongDog 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User Kiolt's talk page

Resolved

 – Deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a single edit to create a talk page that I'd mark db-attack if it were an article. --Jamoche 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. For the record, you can mark any page with {{db-attack}} — it's G10 in the criteria for speedy deletion, the 'G' signifying that it's "General" and applies to all namespaces. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a db-attack on a User page earlier today. Corvus cornix 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

anon editor causing problems

There is an anon editor who keeps causing problems. Mainly, he keeps inserting POV into the GM minivan pages; Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Chevrolet Lumina APV, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Opel Sintra, and Chevrolet Venture. The original IP was 216.95.17.215, who got blocked. Since them, many more have sprung up, doing the same thing, and I have reason to believe that this is the same guy, just using a proxy. I can't document them all here, so check the histories of each of those pages every so often to see what IP he is using lately. I might be able to talk this guy into stopping (our talks have made progress), but this guy is getting harder to contain, and if I can't talk him into stopping, he will require immediate administrative attention. Karrmann 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a definite pattern here. I'll semiprotect for 1 week. Rlevse 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)...someone already protected some, so some expire 16 Oct, some 19 Oct. Rlevse 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

edit warring on Michael E. J. Witzel

For the last month or more, User:Kkm5848 has been adding material to Michael E. J. Witzel that I think is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Discussion on the talk page is going nowhere, and a post to WP:BLP/N is getting no input from people not already involved in the dispute. Despite my attempts to explain to Kkm why the material violates BLP, he doesn't seem to understand why there might be a concern. If this were a normal content dispute, I'd pursue WP:DR, but I really think this is an obvious BLP violation. Could an uninvolved user please look at the situation and take appropriate action?

(Please note that there has been at least one previous ANI thread about this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#More_eyes_needed_on_Michael_E._J._Witzel.) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I protected the article for a month due to edit-warring, or at least until this discussion could be resolved. See protection log. The page was protected on the conservative, albeit wrong, version. Daniel 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that slipped filters

Hello. An IP editor edited the bacon's rebellion article and his edits were not caught by our bots. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacon%27s_Rebellion&curid=188893&diff=163914750&oldid=163913510 I only happened to find this one by chance and probably this edit would have stayed undetected for a long time. Please ban the IP or warn him, the type of vandalism he did is what keeps Wikipedia's credibility down. I have reverted his edits. Thanks -- Penubag  02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. You can do the warnigs yourself. Vandalism that warrants blocking (they should be warned first) should be reported at WP:AIV.Rlevse 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between this page and WP:AIV?-- Penubag  02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism happens all the time, so it's not usually considered an "incident" except in unusual circumstances. WP:AIV is a page that is set up to deal exclusively with vandalism. --Bongwarrior 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)WP:AIV is only for vandalism and will get a faster response. Also at AIV you don't need to give as much evidence.Just something like "Vandalized after final warning" (if they vandalized after being given a final warning). Also, the bots only catch very very obvious vandalism that has little to no chance of being a constructive edit. People do the majority of the work. See Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol for more info. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, ok, thanks -- Penubag  02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:White Cat

White Cat white washing Wikipedia again. This time he deleted categories from related articles, and then AFD's the category because its empty. DerHaxer then deletes the categories the same day with the following reason {"was an empty category for at least four days"). Which according to the diffs provided isn't true. I request immediate restoration of the categories.

Category:Mountains of Kurdistan

Awyer

cheeka Dar

Nalishkene

Zagros Mountains

Category:Geography of Kurdistan

Ilam province

Kurd Dagh

Iraqi Kurdistan

Hawraman

Lake Van

He did the same thing back in April but was reverted by User:Khoikhoi. Just couple of days ago he had the Kurdish-Israeli_relations article deleted.. He's trying to get the Kurdish-Israeli_relations article deleted. --VartanM 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed and restored. I'm assuming good faith on DerHexer's part, at least; it's easy to forget that categories must be empty for four days, especially when using Twinkle as he was. It seems to me that White Cat was being disruptive and unnecessarily surreptitious with edit summaries like this. I'll look around for evidence of consensus. — madman bum and angel 03:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know (or forgot) that these categories must be empty for four days. Excuse me! —DerHexer (Talk) 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No discussion regarding these categories, and White Cat likely has a conflict of interest, seeing as he's the creator of Category:Iraqi Kurdistan. I think this has been taken care of now, though an eye should be kept on it. — madman bum and angel 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the articles. I'm sure DerHexer just made a mistake, after all the categories don't have histories. As for White Cat its no secret that if it was up to him every mention of Kurd would be deleted from wikipedia. Unless White Cat protests, I think this issue has been resolved. Thanks for the quick response. VartanM 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of these categories is done not based on sources or consensus but though drive by editing. Discussion attempts in the past were been promptly ignored. Removal is in line with

“ Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines #7: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. ”

-- Cat ^chi? 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies, from what I have seen these categories are obviously relevant. Secondly, tagging a cat for speedy deletion under the premise it has been empty for at least 4 days when you emptied it minutes ago is nothing short of lying. Viridae^Talk 05:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me one self evident reason why these places are inside the borders of this country called Kurdistan. Kurdistan is heavily controversial as a term in referance to a region with undefined borders - it's very existence is disputed. It isn't problem free. -- Cat ^chi? 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to really say either way, but judging by the kurdistan article, it is a relevant classification of a region. That wasn't the disruptive part though, the disruption is depopulating a cat and then nominating it for deletion minutes later on the premise that it has stood unpopulated for four days. Viridae^Talk 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I initiated discussions on it in length. The state of flux "Kurdistan"'s borders are in and its "aspirational country" status make it a very poor criteria for categorization. I still do not see a self-evident reason for this categorization. -- Cat ^chi? 06:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't exuse depopulation and then tagging for speedy a cat under the premise it had been empty for 4 days, which is the disruptive part. If you want it deleted, we have deletion dicussions for that, and they would be a perfect place to plead such a case. Viridae^Talk 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any categorization not based on a solid and meaningful criteria can be depopulated on sight. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial (which I have provided many times), should not be included on the article. On occasions rather than the ambiguous "Kurdistan" (there exists so many definitions for this, it isn't funny) I recategorized it under "Iraqi Kurdistan", a federal state in Iraq. Any other non-Iraqi categorization is only based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. I have waited for months - nearly a full year for an inclusion criteria for articles to these categories, far more than four days. Note that the articles actual content is not at stake, just the categories. Also some of the categorization was conducted by User:Diyarbakir, who has been banned and blocked indefinitely. -- Cat ^chi? 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Can be depopulated on sight? Oh link to that one if you will... And it is clearly controversial considering it was immediately overturned. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous, and AT NO POINT DOES EMPTY FOR 4 DAYS MEAN EMPTY FOR A FEW MINUTES. Viridae^Talk 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

I blocked Baby Dove (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of Love-in-ark (talk · contribs). We know for sure they use the same IP address and both accounts primarily edit Fellowship of Friends to the point, indeed, that both accounts are essentially single-purpose accounts. Could someone please review this block with an open mind? I would not consider it wheel warring if you took a look, judged that these two accounts are entirely independent, and unblocked. I don't expect this to be the case but please don't let that colour your investigation. I'm asking for this review because Love-in-Ark claimed there's no relationship between the two editors (see talk page). I'm going to bed now. --Yamla 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a twenty-four hour block, and it quacks like a duck (how's that for mixing rationales?). Baby Dove was hit by the autoblock, and I find it too coincidental that two of seventy users supposedly using the same connection belong to the same organization and are trying to push the same point of view. They need to just wait it out. — madman bum and angel 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The netblock belongs to the Fellowship of Friends. Both editors need to be warned of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and should they continue to be disruptive, they may need to be blocked indefinitely. — madman bum and angel 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

I would like to request an administrator (or two or more) to participate in a discussion being held on Talk:John_Lennon#Geffen_and_Ono in which Arcayne (talk · contribs) is insisting that a particular book citation (ISBN 1843536927) is inaccurate. I have explained to him that the most likely reason for his confusion is that he is referring to another, shorter version of the book, namely (ISBN 1843537532) which is half the size and probably does not include the information in question. This misinterpretation has resulted in him removing a reference to the most recent version of the book (2007) and replacing it with a 2003 version. Since we are supposed to use the most current sources available, I've replaced it with the 2007 source. Arcayne continues to claim that the 2007 version does not include this version, however, I have personally taken a trip to the Borders bookstore in my area and verified the ISBN, page number, and content in person. This still does not satisfy Arcayne, as he insists that his copy of the book does not contain this information. I have asked him to copy the ISBN number of the book and to compare it with the one being offered, as this would solve the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a content dispute, I'm not sure what you would want an admin to do that any other user can't? Viridae^Talk 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute at all but rather disruptive trolling. The citation is accurate, yet Arcayne is claiming that it is not accurate without giving an ISBN of the version he owns. I personally went to the bookstore to check on Arcayne's claim and found that he was mistaken, and he does not own the book in question. The content is not in dispute; it's in the ISBN cited on p. 212, word for word, as it is a direct quote. Yet, Arcayne continues to claim that it does not appear in the book. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That is still a content dispute unless Arcayne is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I suggest you open an RfC on the matter. Viridae^Talk 10:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tip of the hat...

How many eyes do we have on Elephant? I ask because there's an unprot request from an anon with the reasoning "The gentle beast should be free for the world to enjoy." I advised rejecting the request because of its unfortunate connections to The Colbert Report. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted, but it's generally pretty quiet. It'll get hit once a week or so by sleepers. That episode aired a year, 2 months, and 12 days ago, and the page still has to be sprotected. Crazy! Stephen gets a wag of my finger for that one. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds similar to Mudkip (except our sleepers come en masse). So, it's quiet right now, but sees sleepers regularly? -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User chat service

It seems like user Rhandzel is just using their talk-page as a chat site with friends. I thought according to WP:NOT#SOCIALNET this is discouraged, and didn't know what action could/should be taken. Arthurrh 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User warning issued. - Philippe | Talk 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page and left a level 4 warning as they made another tlak page edit. I also deleted and warned User talk:TrishRaj. Also warnings left for User talk:Ajjkajj (previous deletion by Can't sleep, clown will eat me) and User talk:128.151.141.111 as they all appeared in the history. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin going overboard with blocks?

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

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

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

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

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

Opera Mini

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith Freedom International

Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continuously added material that includes contentious, unduly self-serving claims about Ali Sina to the article Faith Freedom International, using primary sources, which Clearly violate WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. The material added is meant to depict Ali Sina as a hate monger by use of selective primary source quotespamming. [161][162][163][164][165] Yahel Guhan 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apparent role account

• Hyphaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above account appears to be a role account for Hyphaze magazine. Creating spam/copyvio articles (see deleted contribs) and userpage appears to be spam as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked. G11ed the userpage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetary rewards for finding a sockpuppeteer

What does everyone think of WP:VPM#The TDC Sweepstakes! Win a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate!? x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SockOfPedro. When do I get the $100 ? This is a bad thing. Pedro :  Chat  11:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The subpage has more details, perhaps the heading of this is a bit misleading: User:TDC/Prize x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the sub-page before replying and was being facetious. Obviously this guys after one person but this is still a very bad idea to stand handing out "rewards". WP:REWARD is one thing but financial bonuses for hunting down socks? That seems totally against the ideals here.Pedro :  Chat  11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedied as an attack page. Neil ☎ 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Good choice. Pedro :  Chat  13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

72.255.37.66

Sorry for reporting this here, but I couldn't find the appropriate page to report it. If you look through this editor's contribution history, you'll see the last several edits are vandalism. Can this IP be blocked? Jeffpw 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough warnings yet + only one vandal action in the last few hours. Final warning given. Will monitor. Next time WP:AIV after final warning, but thanks for the help. Pedro :  Chat  11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Pedro! I had added the AIV link to my userpage, so now I know exactly where to go to deal with that. I don't do much vandal reporting, but think maybe I should start. Jeffpw 11:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

CarloPlyr440: is a week long enough?

CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first started editing just a few weeks ago--and in that time has turned into (in this user's opinion) one of the project's most severe vandals. His talk page is crowded with warnings about images he has uploaded, and he was blocked twice in two days (24 hours on October 6, and then 72 hours on October 7) for repeatedly uploading images without including fair-use rationales. His only response to concerns expressed on his talk page has been to blank it (though it was restored in short order).

Well, after he returned from his 72-hour block, he kicked it up from mere negligence to outright vandalism by uploading images labeled as free when they were actually copyrighted. And to top it off, he claimed that he owned these images. I've caught at least eight of them and slapped I7 speedy tags on them. That earned him a weeklong block--but given that is behavior is similar to those of other severe vandals (Verdict and ParthianShot immediately come to mind), I don't think a week is nearly long enough and propose that it be extended longer ... a month at least. I hope I don't sound too jumpy, but this is a potentially serious problem that needs to be reined in pronto. Blueboy96 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

M.deSousa

Resolved

 – IP re-blocked

User:M.deSousa who was blocked indefinitely on 6 June 2007 for POV pushing and sockpuppetry is evading his ban using the IP address User:62.101.126.232 to continue to push the claims of Hilda Toledano to the Portuguese throne. Kigf 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The previous block had expired. Block re-set longer, as it appears to be a static IP. ELIMINATORJR 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion/block review of Cberlet

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

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

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

Disruptive editing and user page

Hi there. I need some advice on how to deal with User:Yusef Masushef. His short contrib history contains a lot of political sopaboxing and little of anything else. His user page is also rather offensive and requests to have him alter it have been met with personal attacks and incivility as can be seen on his talk page. Any ideas on how to proceed? Tiamut 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the inflammatory Twin Towers image. I would point out, though, that your comments to him ("you must have a brain the size of a pea") were not particularly well-advised. Incidentally, the user has not edited since 27 September. ELIMINATORJR 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal

Resolved

 – semi-protected

I would have reported to WP:AIV but it seemed more appropriate to put it here. It looks like 87.41.50.128/25 (*.128 to *.255) is enjoying vandalizing Holy Land. The WHOIS on the IPs points to a school, and across the various IPs it seems that it has received several warnings yet persisted. --slakr^\ talk / 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for 1 day, which will take us to the weekend. ELIMINATORJR 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Would someone mind checking? • Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Link spam rollback request

Jnp2109 (talk · contribs) appears to be adding "see also" links that point to the related Mother Jones (magazine) article. I randomly sampled four of the user's 32 October edits ([166], [167], [168], [169]), and all added an external link to the Mother Jones article on the same topic. (Judging by this edit, my guess is that Jnp2109 may be an employee of the magazine.) I went ahead and left a WP:LINKSPAM warning [170] for the editor. Would it be possible for an admin to rollback the rest of these spam links? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If it continues the conflict of interest noticeboard is thataway. Raymond Arritt 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 208.22.208.85

Hello,
this IP address has made approximately 15-20 edit to the Chocolate chip cookie article in the past 15-20 minutes, all vandalism. Could someone please put a quick 24 block on it? It resolves to Tazewell Public School in Reston, VA.

Jeremy (Jerem43 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

The best place to report vandalism for a quick response is the admin intervention against vandalism page. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking sockpuppets

I apologise if I'm not asking in the correct place, but what's the best way to deal with a obvious sockpuppet? Chait2001 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for persistently adding material to Brigham Young, and several sockpuppets have also been identified and blocked [171]. There is now another obvious sockpuppet, Decembernoon (talk · contribs) making identical edits. Opening a case at WP:SSP seems like overkill. I've wondered this a few times before: can I report at WP:AIV or should I be using WP:SSP? (I suspect there are going to be a few more sockpuppets of this user at Brigham Young, and would like to know the quickest way to stem the flow each time). Thanks --Kateshortforbob 15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Theft

Resolved

 – —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was repeatedly vandalised by an anon IP on 24th Sept and page was semi-prot as a result. The same guy is back with a different IP User:172.159.88.41 but is using the exact same wording as before. Warnings have no effect, in fact he vandalised my user page last time. He has also violated WP:3RR today. Could we have semi-prot back on please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of putting a pp-semi on this for one week. This guy is not getting the message. and is still reverting reversions. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP in light of the past edits. In the future, if it's just one person, place the warnings on their talk page as laid out at WP:TT, then report them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after their final warning. Additionally, I've removed the {{pp-semi}} template; only administrators can add protection to an article, and it's generally not used if there's only one vandal, we just block the vandal instead. If you need to request protection because of heavy vandalism from multiple vandals in the future, you can use WP:RFPP. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Was about to come back here & delete request having just raised at WP:RFPP Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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