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

Massive disruption

There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano ( his pictures where he states they are "made from his trip to Republic of Serbian Krajina in 2005" and are used in edits of other accounts are more than obvious). The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania, Benkovac and LAz17. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, LAz17 and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. I have already posted a similar post to this at User talk:DarkFalls thinking he is an admin. There is also an explanation for the nonsenical category this user is constantly creating despite it being deleted two times already. Can someone please help? --No.13 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are facing sock-puppets, you should take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.

On the issue itself: You seem to be pushing yet another occupation theory; how your virgin country was occupied/raped by Slavs/Huns/Commies/whatever. All may not agree with your views. Some may in fact see your POV-pushing as hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can this happen. We have article such as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence which extensively speak about this. We also have articles such as Milan Babić and Milan Martić which speak about the leaders of this illegal political entity and confirm the fact they were indicted and convicted of joint criminal enterprise. This state is was neither recognized nor accepted by anyone, not even Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who were their main sponsors. I suggest you read up on this matter before you draw your conclusions and start throwing accusation. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't pay too much attention to Petri Krohn, a known weaver of alternative histories, when he's merely saying weird things. He's much more dangerous when he's meddling: [1] Digwuren 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On Petri Krohn. This is a copy of what I posted at User talk:Isotope23: Petri Krohn is lately viciously attacking me and accusing me. You can see his accusation on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_disruption) and on [[2]]. Additionally to his support to now confirmed vote stacker and sockpuppeteer LAz17 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17) he also seems to be following me around and reverting some of my edits withouth actually knowing anything of the subject. It seems he does it just to revert me. He did it on Dubrovnik where he keeps reverting despite Ragusa not being the official name of the city and despite the various versions of the name presented in the separate section of the article. On Giacomo Micaglia he completely reverted to User:Giovanni Giove version (the user which was blocked for edit warring and refusal for making a compromise on the same article, Marko Marulić and Zadar) disregarding me or Kubura's arguments. Today I noticed he reverted one of my earlier changes on Theories on the origin of Croats where I have removing unscientific rant by one of the anon vandals (you can check the anon's diffs here and I especially point to these changes [3], [4] of the same user). Petri Krohn obviously has something against me though I am still uncertain what that is since I never met him on Wikipedia until the case about the disputed Category I mentioned above. --No.13 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to Petri Krohn and he suggested that I should post a complant here. I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to relevant websites (eg: Strmica). Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without giving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism. I suggest you search No.13 history. Another example Benkovac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talk • contribs) 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If I deleted some images that was not done on purpose, I was merely reverting edits by a edit warrior. The link for Strmica is no a relevant website, it's a personal website and cannot be used in the way it is at the moment, it's not even in english. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You were edit warring and summarily reverting edits of someone you call an "edit warrior". This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, even if you did not break WP:3RR. Your edit warring should clearly earn you a block.

On the other hand I am not convinced your summary deletions were mere accidents. Your edit history indicates you are systematically deleting content that is sympathetic to Croatian Serbs. -- Petri Krohn 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of massive disruption is not edit warring. I also warn you Petri if you continue with this offensive attitude I will report you. It is now evident that you are supporting a sockpuppeteer who uses his accounts for vote stacking and massive disruption. I point you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17. --No.13 08:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your history again today and you went to the Dubrovnik page and deleted a image. Be careful !!!

Could this be... Afrika Paprika, infamous for disrupting articles relating to Serbs and Croatia? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Where am I disrupting articles? Especially as you say relating to Serbs and Croatia? I was merely reverting edits by an obvious sockupeppeteer who uses vote stacking, vote fraud and causes massive disruption on Wikipedia. The articles he vandalised are not even my prime interest but rather I came upon it by accident. NOTE: The above comment was made by a user who was just recently blocked for trolling on RfC. --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I relisted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika. -- Petri Krohn 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see what is the base for this. Also I am interested in your support for this obvious vandal LAz17, Benkovac or whatever his other accounts are. Let us not forget how you also reverted my edits of an obvious vandalism on Theories on the origin of Croats‎ where you reverted edits of a anonymous user who previously and after that vandalised several articles and also writing on Croats: "Croats are shit". --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brusk u Trishka

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a Kurdish revisionist troll on Wikipedia now. [5] His edits on the the Assyrian people [6] article are laughable at best. He has also engaged in personal attacks on Assyrians. [7] "Syriani refugee", now clearly, that's an insult, is it not? Obviously, we're dealing with an extremist. Obviously, he is an editor with an extremely anti-Assyrian agenda. He will not be NPOV on Assyrian-related articles. I suggest that admins ban this troll, and ban him fast. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and do not make personal attacks on other editors. I see nothing in the diffs you provide that requires admin intervention. We do not resolve content disputes, please see WP:DR for that. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User Christopher Mann McKay - refusal to discuss

Hello. This concerns the American Family Association article and talkpage [8], and primarily the editor Christopher Mann McKay [9]. The main issue is refusal to correspond and removal of comments on personal talkpages regarding constructive editing.

Context: AFA is a controversial pro-Christian activism group that promotes free speech on Christian-right issues and organizes voluntary consumer boycotts. Editors on the article have not generally sought to remove criticism of the AFA. There has been a general move to balance views as criticism is often directly and explicitly denied by AFA and other sources. Controversy is pretty much written into every section in the article which is natural as it is a controversial area. There has been a very long dispute over categories. It is generally realized that categories can be problematic, though a lot of editors there, including myself, are open to the use of lists. Categories are constantly removed on the basis that there has been no statements presented that e.g. “such and such is uncontroversial” or words to that effect. The controversies on certain categories are obvious yet editors Christopher Mann McKay [10] and Orpheus [11] keep adding the categories, even during discussion [12][13][14][15][16]. Categories are removed so that there is no ongoing disruption to other editing while discussion is ongoing.

The dispute on the talkpage has been disruptive so the suggestion has been made to move such discussion to personal talkpages. I have contacted Christopher Mann McKay [17] on his talkpage [18] several times in order to solve the problem and was met with deletion. I did wonder whether I was unduly harassing Christopher Mann McKay, but on the policy page [19] I see that I have not committed any of the offenses mentioned. The editor Christopher Mann McKay actually stated that he did not want to talk to me at all about the issue of forcing categories onto the article during discussion [20]. So according to the harassment guidelines I am bringing this to the attention of administrators. My main concern is to allow reasonable discussion on editor talkpages, and to avoid undue or distracting discussion from article talkpages. I look forward to your comments. Hal Cross 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, you violated WP:HAR by user space harassment on my talk page. You keep demanding the removal of categories from the AFA page when many editors want them up. You cite the guideline WP:CAT's reference to excluding categories if they are controversial as your reason for removing the categories. Multiple users have told you there is no controversy and that if you believe there is one then you should find a reliable source stating this is controversial. However, you can not find any source to back up your argument, so instead you demand I (and others) show proof the AFA's stance is not controversial by finding a reliable source that says "_____ is not controversial"; this idea is nonsense and multiple users have told you no one needs to produce false proof. You keep filling up my talk page with your demands and criticism of my edits, incorrectly calling my edits "unconstructive" "disruptive" and "uncooperative" and when I remove your comments from my talk page, you add them back in, even after I asked you to not comment on my talk page. This type of behavior is not acceptable. The reason I don't want to discuss with you on my talk page is because despite multiple editors telling you that your demands are unjust, you keep demanding the same things, you see determined not to comprise, and you repeat same weak argument over and over. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some further comments associated with this ANI report. User:Hal Cross has been contributing to Wikipedia since the beginning of July. In that time, he has made very few actual contributions and a significant number of edits calling other editors disruptive and other personal attacks. ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) His style of contribution on Talk:American Family Association has been mostly along the lines of asserting that he has the final right to decide the content of the article. ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40])

When other editors (four by my count so far) have asked him to moderate his approach or contribute more constructively, his typical response is to either cast aspersions on their motives or adopt an air of injured innocence. ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46])

I personally feel that it's more constructive to discuss the content issues and forget about these things entirely, but it's a bit on the nose to bring this against an editor who has been working towards a constructive outcome. Especially when it's brought by an editor who hasn't yet edited anything except for a single article that he's obviously very invested in. Orpheus 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, from what I understand of WP recommendations and policy, your behaviour is quite disruptive [47]. Your (and Orpheus') editing seems to me to be tendentious (“continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.”) cannot satisfy verifiability(“fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.)[48], you seem to be dismissive of other editors on the article, and seem to me to be owning the article by dismissively forcing categories onto the article even when reasonable discussion is in progress [49][50]. I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action. You did not directly involve yourself in the direct personal attacks against me[51] [52], and that is a plus to you. I would prefer to encourage a situation where calm discussion is the norm instead of particular POV’s holding the article hostage. I realize the article is becoming more balanced now despite long term disputes, though I feel it would do us all a lot of good if we could openly discuss on each other’s talkpages, instead of having to handle personal issues on the AFA talkpage. I deliberately brought this issue to admin notice in order to avoid any harassment issues according to guidelines [53]. Again, my main objective here is to encourage discussion rather than the constant forcing of any unsupported or disputed information into the article. Editing would seem to go far better when discussion is followed thoroughly on article and user talkpages Hal Cross 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, if anyone is interested in my own editing on the article, my main drive has been towards broadening the view out of the pro-anti flavour that the article has taken e.g.[54] . According to the literature AFA has far more issues involved that need including in order to make the article encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the constant insistence on certain disputed categories has made editing quite disrupted. I have no particular interests in the group (AFA) and am not affiliated to it in any way. I do see a problem that needs fixing with the article though. I have rather taken to the WP recommendations and am fairly motivated to edit on horticultural articles once we have this problem sorted out. Hal Cross 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross: "I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action." -- I will not get banned, as I have not done anything wrong. This whole ANI notification is completely unnecessary and pointless. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am following the recommendations [55]. This is an admin notification. Administrators don't have to reply at all. The main point is that the facts get presented out here and you start to re-consider your behaviour. Editors are not supposed to refuse discussion, and they are not supposed to constantly force disputed edits or categories onto articles for months on end while being dismissive of discussion. The personal attacks are a minor point I think as I have pretty much forgiven the attackers. Encouraging good editing behaviour is the main purpose here. So there is a very useful point to all of this. Hal Cross 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are misusing ANI. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks," this page is not for disputes or complaints about users. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recommendation was to take the issue to admin. If anyone here has a better idea of a venue for the issues then feel free to chime in. I'm all eyes. Hal Cross 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, I have not violated WP:HAR (or any other behavioral guideline), so this recommendation does not apply to me. You are misusing ANI to complain about a user/dispute instead of requesting a block or requesting another action needed by an administrator; even if you were requesting a block against me, I would never get blocked because I am not doing anything wrong. In the future, you should use ANI for its real purpose; else admin will ignore your request like they have here. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The only people discouraging me from adding this information are you and Orpheus. I added it specifically to avoid harrassing anyone according to the rules. I'm sorry but this information has to be presented somewhere. There has been a long term dispute on the AFA article and this is exactly the kind of venue which may encourage all editors to behave properly. The rules said to inform admin about your refusal do discuss and your removal of discussion from your talkpage and I am doing that. Hal Cross 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no recommendation that says to complain about me on ANI when I have not violated any policy or behavior guideline. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure what definition of "homophobia" you are using but this group fits every definition I know of! Jmm6f488 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jmm, and welcome. So do you think editors should refuse to discuss with other editors, or force disputed categories into the article? Regards Hal Cross 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of User:Hornplease should be reduced

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

The article where the supposed sock edits occured, Michael E. J. Witzel, is a BLP, and the passage that was removed, [56], while sourced, amounts to innuendo and has no place in an article about a living person. (Note the discussion at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Crimson_articl.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More eyes needed on Michael E. J. Witzel

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

For example, this recent edit by User:Dishivlatavish:

"Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supproting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias."[57]

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

From WP:BLP:

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

Proabivouac 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Chichichihua

This User continues to edit war on Chihuahua (dog) over a photo for which there is consensus on the Talk page not to use. They have been told in two separate AN/I:3RR cases (that they raised) that their edits are disruptive. They canvassed the original uploader of the offending photograph, who joined in the edit war. They have been repeatedly asked on their Talk page to stop and to raise any issue on the Talk page, which they refuse to do. I'd like to request a week-long block for this repeated behavior that has been going on for over a week, with at least three admins telling them they are being disruptive, two regular editors of the Chihuahua page, and five editors of the Chihuahua page who want the current lead to stay, per the Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats sarcasm about the three admins, two editors of that page and an extra five, but if its not, that is a ridiculous proposal to have so many people tell a person something. Its simply extraneous and impolite. See WP:STICK. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Three admins on the 3RR page, two editors (VanTucky and myself) on his Talk page, and under the photo Talk page and in reverts of the User where they don't want a poor quality photo as the lead. Are you saying that such strong consensus is in favor of the vandal? Huh? --David Shankbone 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscommunication alert: AD thought you meant that you want this many people to tell Chichichihua to stop. You meant that this many people have already done so. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Apologies for my inartful wording. --David Shankbone 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! such a difference a small amount of wording makes. I understand now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like an IP check done of the User. I believe they are a banned User. See here. This is exactly the behavior this user engaged in over a five month period, mostly with my photographs see here. --David Shankbone 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh-in and support all of David's statements. This user has literally done no contributing except to this disruptive nonsense. I personally consider it to be vandalism, and the idea that this is a sockpuppet created to harass David makes perfect sense to me. The user has done nothing but: 1. try and remove his images 2. try and get him blocked for 3RR. This is especially odd as he is far from the only one to revert this user's edits 3. be completely uncivil 4. canvass others to harass David and remove his image as well. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

is this not a chihuahua?

What disruptive nonsense? Putting up a better picture? The picture isn't perfect, I agree, but it is a chihuahua, unlike the current dog up there which looks just like my neighbor's chihuahua-terrier mix. It sounds like this is Davidshankbone's dog and he wants it to be on the page as a vanity effort. You and Davidshankbone have been edit-warring on the chihuahua page, Davidshankbone has even violated 3RR with his persistent reverts. It's really hard to have a dialogue with these two when they constantly revert, threaten people with blocks and label their edits vandalism. Chichichihua 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, three admins have told this user their edits are disruptive, two editors have engaged them on their web page, and five regular (and long-term) editors of the page have agreed to the photographs currently on the page. I would like this user blocked for a week for their persistent vandalism. --David Shankbone 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much which picture goes on the page? If there's consensus for one, then that's the one that goes up. simple as that. However, blocks aren't punitive, so unless he does it again no reason to. Wizardman 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman. Is it even worth discussing? Who cares what picture is on the page? No difference. You have already posted the picture on your userspace; let people see it there, instead of edit-warring over it on another article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is for persistent vandalism, disruption and edit-warring. They were already warned here on the 3RR board and again here on their second 3RR. It's odd that good faith and regular editors have difficulty asking for a block for obvious behavior that is disruptive. That's what makes Wikipedia frustrating for many of us. --David Shankbone 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous message was addressed to the subject of this discussion, not you. I dont care either way, really, if the user is blocked. I can see why he would be blocked.

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye on this user. Vandalism's a misnomer, though i don't think anyone's trying to deny that he's being an edit warrior. Wizardman 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The request was for a block, not for discussion over the photograph, over which the page has consensus. The user's entire edit history is over disruptive behavior with this photograph, which they've been told repeatedly is not wanted. Two editors are now asking for a block. Is it being denied?--David Shankbone 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 31 hours. There's clear disruption here.-Wafulz 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to leave and take care of something. Looking over his contribs I most likely would've ended up blocking him myself. Wizardman 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Retired

The amount of time and energy it takes for regular, established and good faith editors to get admins to help them when their pages are being trolled and disruptively edited makes working on Wikipedia too frustrating and too time-consuming an experience. I have supplied diffs, I have supplied warnings, and I've supplied evidence that this short-term User, whose entire edit history is full of disruptive editing, is worthy of being blocked. Another editor backed-up the request. It's rare I ask someone to be blocked. The last time I had to spend two days compiling a lengthy case against an IP user, who I suspect is this person again. That little credence or respect is given to people such as myself, who have given a lot to this website and continue to give a lot, is beyond frustrating. Instead, my request just sits here. It's not worth my time and energy. I have three people I am photographing at their homes this week for Wikipedia; I will put those photos up and then call it quits. You all are welcome to the User:Chichichihuas - they are the only ones who are going to be left when you give little care or concern when those of us like myself ask for you all to help - which is what I thought the purpose of this incident board is for. Not even as much as a warning on the user's talk page. Good bye, and good luck to you all. It's time for me to move on instead of waste my time. --David Shankbone 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been less than 2 hours since you made your first report. Isn't this a little premature? Thatcher131 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Thatcher131. User:Chichichihua was blocked less than three hours after you made the report here. It might have been more appropriate for you to have placed your request for the block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism given the circumstances. Getting a response for blocking in less than three hours on this particular noticeboard is certainly a reasonable response time. I'm sad to see you feel it was entirely too slow, and certainly hope you reconsider leaving. --Durin 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the advice to use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is misplaced here since the situation does look at first glance like a content dispute. The problem for an uninvolved admin is to determine whether User:Chichichihua is being disruptive (and may be the same editor who was harassing you before) or whether you have ownership issues with photos you have taken yourself. It takes time to review a situation like this, and while there are admins who are willing to do it, they won't always be active at the instant you need them. It's a very distributed, decentralized system and can, but does not always, turn on a dime. Thatcher131 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, AIV might not be exactly the right place, but there was a final warning and obvious disruption. As to the distributed nature of administrators...what are you talkin' about? Admins are paid out the wazoo to respond to customer service issues within minutes ;) (not to belittle in any respect David's concern, just making a joke). --Durin 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Someone's been cashing my checks, then. Thatcher131 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, about the points made concerning decentralization and whatnot. But don't try and make backtracking excuses for letting this trolling go on too long, and driving an immeasurably valuable contributor to want to quit Wikipedia. David is not some wonk like me that flys off the handle at the touch of a button. Frankly, the idea that we have someplace else to report such a complex problem - one that blurs the line between trolling, 3RR, and simple content dispute - is a falsehood (to put it lightly). Not one person actually gave an example of a place we could have gone other than ANI. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe that's the case. Regardless, even if this was the best resource, the response time from when this noticeboard was informed to the block being applied wasn't too bad at all. In fact, it was rather good. It takes time to review complex situations. That's why we HAVE this board. If it's a simple case of base vandalism, no sweat; blocks come in minutes if not seconds. More complex cases take time to review. I'm not suggesting David flew off the handle. Rather, each person's patience level is different and from my chair his was exceeded earlier than one should probably expect from this board. I'm disappointed this has happened, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Only he can make this choice. He has to make his own choices. --Durin 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser has confirmed that Chichichihua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits from the same IP range as the afro vandal that was previously banned for harassing David, so I have extended the ban to indefinite. Thatcher131 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem I'm not sure can be rectified

I went off half-cocked, for sure, and as I explained to User:Wizardman my quitting smoking recently had something to do with it. Still, It can be difficult to get admins to assist with help. I recognize the "Assume Good Faith" mantra is sacrosanct, and I appreciate its wisdom; however, it is also a double-edged sword. The last time I dealt with this user I had to spend two days (which, for a volunteer, is a lot) compiling an (unfinished) case of this person's bizarre behavior that stretched over a period of five months so that I could get their current disrupting taken seriously. The obvious angst I express above is not just from this one issue, but also from the past episode. My reason for getting annoyed was because when the issue was engaged by others, it didn't address the disruption, or it appeared they took a casual attitude about it. I experienced the same laissez-faire attitude in the previous episode with this troll, and it was beyond frustrating. Pretty much every edit I make is done with a serious desire to improve this Project. I've contributed a large body of work that is difficult for anyone to do (myself included - I have been far more successful at it than I ever expected). My point is that I find it a problem that the "Assume Good Faith" policy is stretched beyond reason, as it was here. We had 1. A single-purpose account; 2. two editors making the complaint; 3. diffs supplied; 4. Talk page consensus; 5. previous warnings to this user by other admins on the 3RR boards. I don't even see where it merited discussion. And it's anyone's right to do so--but if the Project, by which I mean all of us, wants to keep around those of who make every edit in a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia, then perhaps when we ask for help it shouldn't be treated casually. A lot of planning, time, editing and work goes into my photography; I don't just log on and change wording. What I do on Wikipedia is actually a lot of work, and perhaps people don't realize it's not easy to 1. get people to agree to have their portraits taken, 2. to arrange at time to do it, and 3. to get it done well (such as former Governor Jim McGreevey). It's not easy, it's not just about keystrokes. It's artistic and it's time-consuming and the results are owned by the Project, by which I mean all of us. Almost every time I have had this troll persistently mess with me I have had difficulty getting admin assistance. Like all of you, I'm a volunteer. I get a lot out of my contributions here and find them personally gratifying, but this year has tested my patience since I have some oddball in Snohomish, Washington who is obsessed with bothering me, and I have trouble getting help from the people who are meant to be the guardians of the project. If, in the end, I just don't have the emotional dexterity to "weather" these people, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for me. That's fine. But it doesn't seem to me it should have to come to that. Again, I recognize I was impatient with this episode, but there is also history and experience behind that impatience. --David Shankbone 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not "playing a game" Jayjg. I'm trying to add reliably sourced information with properly formatted references to an encyclopedia that claims to be open to anyone to edit. When I have tried to address my concerns about what is going on, by for example, contacting Armon (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you have posted things like this: [58]. As an admin, you should be encouraging people to respect the hard work of other good faith editors. And not protecting articles from the inclusion of POVs that differ from your own. You speak as though what I adding is completely out there. It's not. Anyone who actually reads the material deleted can see that. If anyone is playing games here, it's you. Tiamat 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaranda arbitrarily deleting the trivia section of the entry on the film Field of Dreams.

He "chainsawed" it once before--his term--and after reading a question in the talk page that had appeared in the trivia before his "chainsawing" it, I undid his deletion of most of the trivia section. He later undid my undoing, leaving a note on the talk page that only linked to guidelines, where, interestingly enough, I found the following: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate." As this is exactly what he (?) is doing, I left him a note regarding it on the talk page. Again. Who's right? Thanks in advance. Kiloheavy 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The trivia in question that he removed was extraneous, trivial, unsourced information such as "George W. Bush claimed that this was his favorite movie" and "the outfield grass on the baseball field died and turned brown" that does not appear to be integrable into the prose sections of the article. This is consistent with the spirit of our trivia guidelines. Krimpet 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are, by definition, sort of expendable anyway, aren't they? HalfShadow 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. We have way too many of such sections that attract random arbitrary unsourceable comments. They tend to be highly unencyclopedic, especially as bulleted lists. >Radiant< 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have often found there is only maybe 10% of such lists that is worth integrating. The rest can happily be deleted. --John 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is "happy" deleting or not, whatever (10% or otherwise) is worth integrating should have been integrated rather than deleted.--Epeefleche 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of the "trivia" is verifiably true, and should be worked into the article rather than being meataxed. Baseball Bugs 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then do so. The trivia is still in the history, it's not like it's disappeared. Take your time, refer to the history, and add the info properly to the article whenever you're ready. But trivia sections are, by definition, unencyclopedic, because they're trivia. wikipediatrix 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And when working them in, be sure to include sources, or other editors will be perfectly justified in removing them again. Remember, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. Oh, and the article's talk page is the right place for this kind of content discussion. Dicklyon 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source, for the most part, is the DVD extras. As far as the typical wikipedia "truth" vs. "verifiability", that's wikipedia double-talk. The word "verify" means to make true. They are the same thing. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't looked at the article recently until just now. I can't believe you chopped out the factual stuff, and left an essay about the film's plot that reads like a high-school kid's book report. The article is hopeless. Jaranda is right. The whole thing needs to be "chainsawed" and started over. First, lose the "spoiler" tag, which is against the rules, especially for a two-decades old film. Then rewrite the plot in an encyclopedic way. Then we can worry about the "trivia", i.e. the production facts, most of which are referenced on the DVD specials. I can get the exact quotes for you, and who's saying them, if you want. But first, the article itself needs to be rewritten. I'm sorely tempted to roll it back by about a year and see how it looks. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,

VK’s WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, argument re Birmingham Pub Bombings is a simply a red herring. I believe it refers to the subject of articles and here the listed victims are not the subject. My understanding is WP:NOT prevents victims of non notable incidents (car crashes etc) getting their own wiki page which is not happening here. Removing the dead is inconsistent with List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; Columbine High School massacre; Beltway sniper attacks; Hungerford massacre; Bloody Sunday (1972); The Troubles in Warrenpoint; [[59]] here Aatomic1 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well by a misapplication of the police per se. The "not" is a codification of practice. We initially got clobbered by individual 9/11 memorial pages. That said, there is an argument for removing lists of victims. There is an argument for keeping them. Personally, I'd rather not have victim lists unless there is some significance to a list (e.g. if political officials were being targeted, members of a particular ethnic group, and the list shows how the attackers did or did not operate) or usefulness of a list (e.g. in Bloody Sunday the victim list itself became a memorial in Belfast, and there were films and films and films illustrating the events, and so the names become characters), but, if no one links the names they do no harm in any case and do not make the article a memorial. Geogre 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

or in the case of Birmingham where there was a second class of victim, namely the Birmingham Six; whose notability rightly gives them column inches in Wikipedia. However to discuss them while censoring the names of the dead is too lopp sided for truly encyclopedic coverage Aatomic1 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a list of victims and a mention that there is a memorial breaches the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I edit a lot of crime articles involving multiple victims and have also come across some edits that are a little to zealous in their application of this particular policy. Jmm6f488 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a compromise suggestion on the Birmingham Pub Bombings discussion page: "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article"...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple vandals active in Chris Langham

Following the verdict in this article's subject's trial various vandals have come out to play. See [60] [61] and [62] Someone may wish to prevent edits from IP addresses and take action against the culprits.--Peter cohen 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for two days.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the actions you have so far. However, I now note the following change [63] by a user who is unaffected by semi-protectgion (which I think was a good idea) --Peter cohen 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a vandalism warning. If he continues he will be blocked for vandalism.--Jersey Devil 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him/her. We don't need this. ELIMINATORJR 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both. Things have quietened down for now. --Peter cohen 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal in 200.45 / 200.43 etc. range

Several pages relating to the Nuclear reactors in Argentina have been a target again for a POV pushing vandal (in various ranges under a.o. 200.45, 200.43, 200.82 ... (around 150 /24 ranges) I have semiprotected the pages for 6 months (I am sure the vandal will return after the protection is gone)

• José Antonio Balseiro
• National Atomic Energy Commission
• 2006 Argentine nuclear reactivation plan

and earlier:

• Huemul Project

The vandal has a tendency to target more pages (e.g. Ronald Richter), but these 4 seem to be the favourite for this period. It would be nice if a more permanent solution to this could be found. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. Blocking a whole /16 is clearly undesirable (much less several of them). Guess there's little to do but whack-a-mole, or near-permanent semiprotect. Raymond Arritt 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Added INVAP to the list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential BLP violation on Dean Barker

--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)User:Lgask's entire contributions to wikipedia Special:Contributions/Lgask have been to add unsourced negative contributions about Dean Barker (e.g., [64], [65]). Although the material has become less negative over time, myself and User:Boatman still see it as unwarranted, and potentially in violation of WP:BLP. Attempts have been made to discuss the edits on both the article and user talkpages (e.g., [66]), but with little success. Having warned Lgask about 3RR [67], it has merely turned it into a slow-mo edit war.--Limegreen 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And so the standard response to an edit war is to protect the page which I have done. I've also followed standard Wikipedia policy and protected the WRONG VERSION of the page. Sorry.

I will look at Lgask's edits more closely to see if he warrants being blocked as a [[WP:S{A|single purpose account]].

However, looking at the most recent edits, I think there is room for compromise which the page protection is intended to encourage.

I will leave my comments about the content dispute on the Talk Page of the article.

--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, where living people are concerned, there most certainly is a wrong version, and that is what you've just protected. The most negative characterization is completely unsourced, while the other is pulled out of a long article that is otherwise quite favorable to Barker - on top of all that, it's put in the lead.

Please rectify this at once.Proabivouac 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing one line.[68] However, there is more: "Barkers privileged background is 'held by some to be an important factor in some of his success as a yachtsman." According to the source, there is a grand total of one person who says that, who isn't notable in his own right. It is very inappropriate to pick this quote out of this article to support a weasel-worded sneer about Barker in the lead. Incidentally, the other line wasn't "arguably" but definitely and obviously in violation of WP:BLP.Proabivouac 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding this issue on User talk:Richardshusr. John254 02:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here Will ^(talk) 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a user called User:TTN who lately has just been merging character articles into their master pages. He just merges them without consensus, he doesn't talk it over on the talk page, and he has merged some longer articles compulsively, such as Doug Heffernan and Bulbasaur. When I reverted his merges to Doug Heffernan, carrie Heffernan, and Arthur Spooner, he sent me the message saying, "Do you believe that they deserve to exist? If not, then no discussion is required." [69] I believe that this guy needs immediate some administrative attention, before he gets too out of hand. Karrmann 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My god. How do people really not understand that many articles will not receive discussion? You discuss things like Bulbasaur before merging (which had a project wide discussion), not articles primarily edited by IPs. If someone that actually wants to keep the article comes along, a discussion happens (hence my message). TTN 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Karrman is not the only person who thinks your actions are over the top. IF *anyone* disagrees with your merges, you must discuss. You are not the merging God, and do not have final authority. IF a duscussion is requested, you have to provide it, then get consensus for your actions. This attitude that other people's opinions are not important is not helpfull, and you've been quite the bully when people disagree with you. pschemp | talk 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this editor's got a noted history of redirecting/merging articles against consensus, so this appears to have become a habit. PeaceNT 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

However, he thought there was consensus to merge the article in question (Bulbasaur) because there was a lull between when merging was first suggested (shortly before the latest two games in the Pokémon series were released) and when the merging actually started (a few weeks ago), during which there was a lot of discussion, Grimer-flinging, and disputes on how to merge. Why these users held their silence until Judgment Day is something I can't fathom, but they had every chance to bring up the issue of a former FA prior to this point. If anything, given what I've seen of the dispute, this looks like an attempt to canvass support to censure TTN and keep Bulbasaur unmerged and in its current state, which users in the project are not defending, citing WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:V. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking

Egyegy (talk · contribs)

The user has actually been following me in an effort to intimidate me from editing for a while and bases his stalking on the fact that he assumes that I have some sort of particular POV that is counter to his. It is undeniably wikistalking for the simple fact that the user has popped up at almost every article I frequent and reverts me with out discussion, articles that the user has never even been to before. He has reverted me on a long standing image of Coptic saint Maurice, and replaces it with an image of some European looking rendition of some man and tries to revert anyone who stands by the original images displayed. As can be seen here.. [70].. Here he reverts a dubious tag that I put on the Fayum Mummy portraits page, to show that scholars don't agree with the Original research claims of the article, and I've provided sources by way of britannica and egyptologyonline, yet he undermines them and he tries to replace it with some obscure reference with no page number, link, quote, or title just because I made an edit. (He could have done this before I edited. [71], and refuses to discuss. And then reverts me with out reason when I restore. Trying to provoke edit warring.

Then he follows me to the population history of ancient egypt page, moving people's entries around just to be spiteful and requests that an entire article be moved. Again, trying to provoke an edit war and making any statement possible that will disagree with my points in the discussion with out a reason. [72], then comes to an article called appearance of the ancient egyptians and single-handedly tries to revert me and everyone contributing, until the page was locked, pending discussion of issues. He also accuses the editors on the talk page and those who edited the article of being "afrocentric", with racial overtones, [73], starting more edit warring. MIND YOU, this person has never ever contributed to these articles at all and was lead there through me, simply to antagonize. It is extremely discouraging.. This is only recently, the stalking has increased in intensity but has always been there.

I have tried on several occasions to reasonable discuss matters with this individual, even on his user talk page, which he ignored. but he constantly assumes bad faith and refuses to discuss, simply refuses. I can't do anything with this person at all. Two people assuming bad faith won't work, which is why I try to discuss, but nothing works for me, adding to the frustration. It isn't a simple dispute, it is literally harassment in my opinion and seeing that the articles in question were not in his vision until he saw that I edited them, it definitely seems personal and it is frustrating and hard to remain civil, but I try so hard, and offer the person to discuss and elaborate, which he does not.

I seriously suggest that the user be blocked and somehow be prevented from seemingly harassing me, he has vandalized everywhere I go and checking the history you'd see that from a couple of the articles I've been there from the beginning and others, I merely started editing them first, then he conveniently pops up to disrupt me out of nowhere, seemingly out of spite. Please somebody take action against this disruption, it is beyond ridiculous now.Taharqa 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, this is a big mess. Let's begin by lookig at the block logs of the disputants, since April 2007:

Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (three blocks)

Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (six blocks)

Taharqa was once blocked for using anonymous IPs to circumvent 3RR. Egyegy claims that he did it again at Saint Maurice with 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs). For all his complaints, Taharqa cannot be considered an innocent victim.

Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs) to counteract every move that Taharqa tries to make. (See the recent items on User talk:Egyegy.

It seems unfair to block one user and not the other, and it seems unwise to continue to put out fires with short-term blocks for 3RR. I would recommend that this dispute be submitted to formal dispute resolution. Shalom ^Hello 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But he's obviously conspiring, why is this not wikistalking? Dispute resolution will do nothing and my blocks have nothing to do with this harassment. I don't believe dispute resolution is an option, he won't accept. Can someone please send him a warning at least, I do think this is a great case tho, conspiring to counter every edit I make? C'mon now!! Wikipedia, be fair.. If I do something like this, block me.. But I haven't, no use in bringing up issues of 3rr that have nothing to do with this. You see why I've been engaged in such disputes, because I'm being harassed!Taharqa 19:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar thing has happened to me, and I would say that for Wikipedia to be what it represents itself to be, this incident must be looked into.

When this happened to me, the harrasser/stalker/disrupter got a law-school friend who is an administrator to block me. The administrator blocked me after claiming that he couldn't figure out the dispute, but cited the 3-revert rule, when clearly the harasser, his law-school friend, had violated the 3-revert rule by repeatedly deleting my complaints about him. My 3-revert violation was my assertion of a NEW complaint about this person's bad behavior. He complained about me on my talk page and those complaints, and my replies, are still there. I think both this user and his admin friend--whom he must have called on the phone to get me blocked because it was 1:30 am where I and the harasser ar and 12:30 am on a Saturday in Chicago where the admin friend lives, and it is unlikely that these two old pals just happened to be on Wikipedia at the same time and that the admin just happened to notice that somebody complained about his friend and made a new complaint every time the old complaint was deleted. BTW, these were not the same complaints, each new complaint was about the latest bad behavior of the harasser--I NEVER reverted ANYTHING and the admin who blocked me of course could see that. And there were not so many complaints that he couldn't figure it out as he claimed. Anyway, it appears that there is a lot of bad behavior going on by people who have first established themselves as Wikipedians. Once they do, they feel quite free to break the rules and when they receive complaints, they accuser the accuers. They then attack anything else the accuser has done with vague accusations about notability or verifiability. Why, if the harrasser has an honorable intent, does he not attempt to contribute, rather than attack? If he is concerned about verifyability, why doesn't he type it into his browser and see if HE can add a cite? Because it is not his intent to help, it is his intent to hinder.

The user who harrassed me also has harassed others, one so much that the person first made an obsequious apology to the harrasser (he is extremely dogged in his harassment, check his contribs and you'll see; and most importantly, he has an ADMIN ACCOMPLICE), the apology was so obsequious that it was obviously that of a person who had meed dogged at every move and could not continue on Wikipedia until the harrassment stopped. This harasser is so dogged and constantant in his determination to hound his accusers into submission that he makes hundreds-yes HUNDREDS of edits in just a few days (I believe his is paid to monitor Wikipedia and enforce a particular viewpoint), and there is no way the person being so hounded can answer all the vague questions. This is especially so when the harrasser has made up his mind in advance that no response is sufficient. He'll just throw out another brief, extremely brief--this is the hallmark of harassment: long replies and explanations from a sincere user and rejected with a mere few words by the hrasser and a new question or accusation of disruption or vandalism, again requiring the victim to make a long reply and have it rejected off-handedly. That harrassed person eventually resigned from wikipedia, citing his experience with the harasser--who has a Barn Star for helping convert to NPOV which is hilarious when his job is to enforce a non-neutral POV.

This accuser's admin friend see talk on tort reform) in assisting the harrassment against me, claimed that he "could not find one concrete suggestion" to change the article. In fact I had several, and began my post with (1) a quote of the existing first sentence (2) a quote of my proposed first sentence, and (3) reasons both for and against my proposal. Anyway, this is pointless. It seems that nobody here is willing to help an honest, sincere beginner. It is far, far easier to jump on the bandwagon and join the accuser. You only need to tye a few words, and you don't need to read anything (old posts, edits, and so on), and you certainly do not need to think or make a decision. RUReady2Testify 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shalom: Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs)

Shalom, what you said above is especially alarming when you point out that Egygy "accused" Taharqa of Afrocentrism and "other indiscretions", but say nothing of Taharqa's continuous and repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR (and many others). Egyegy does not "claim" that 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs) is Taharqa -- Taharqa admits this himself here [74] and in this attack "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up... And yes, this is Taharqa, I don't really care anymore".

Let's take a look at a small sampling of Taharqa's "other indiscretions":

• "Give me a break, you can't be Egyptian because certainly most upper Egyptians do not look like no darn Italians"
• "...you're coming off like a low-life racist Nazi who makes no sense"
• "I'll ignore the unfounded original research comments and wikistalking from the Arab for now..."
• "Stop stalking people you derranged, arab"
• "Cut the Eurocentric crap."
• "Why is it that you Arab egyptians and Eurocentrics refer to anyone who doesn't agree with your crack pot racialist theories an "afrocentric"

The accusation of wikistalking is particularly absurd in light of Taharqa's much earlier wikistalking of different editors on a number of articles he had never edited [75] [76] [77]. This is all in addition to Taharqa's history of edit-warring and disruption (for which he apologized once on two different articles [78] [79], but is now back doing it all over again), two sockpupptry cases brought against him, vandalism under this [80] and other IP addresses, and the hostile atmosphere that he generally creates in almost all the articles he edits. I could go on and on. Let's try to keep some perspective here. — Zerida 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment This whole disagreement seems to be about the Coptic vs. Orthodox view of St. Maurice. I was raised Roman Catholic and agree he is a saint. What color? I could care less. A saints a saint. Jmm6f488 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Review requested for Soxrock sock ring indefblock

I have indefinitely blocked long-time editor Soxrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pending consensus regarding an appropriate block length. I have determined that Soxrock, who claims over 40,000 edits, is the sockmaster for a peculiar and occasionally abusive sock ring that has been around for quite some time. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soxrock for evidence and explanation. I have deemed the evidence too convincing to request a checkuser but I would welcome one if someone wants further assurance. In a brief conversation on Soxrock's talk page, he admitted to being autoblocked but denied that it was caused by one of his socks (even though the expiration time he gave matches the sock's last edit to the minute).

Do folks agree with my sockery determination to begin with? If so, what seems like an appropriate response? I indefblocked all the socks and hard-blocked the IPs for a few days. Soxrock (who has been blocked once for socking in the past and claims four alternate accounts on his user page - and has "Sox" in his name!) is unrepentant so he is indefblocked for now as well. All input is welcome. Thanks.

—Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to have the word "sox" in my name. does that make me a sockpuppet too? Sasha Callahan Pats Sox Princess 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the report itself is fine (but not as compelling as the one on OldBear or whatever he called himself) Pats Sox Princess 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired at the moment, but your evidence looks good at first glance. You suggest that you don't think these puppets are related to Tecmobowl. However, one thing connecting A. Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman to Tecmobowl is that A.Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman was advocating for Tecmobowl and suggesting they would continue Tecmobowl's work on their user page. I started an ANI thread on it here. Could be nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Sarah Goldberg's "advocacy" for Tecmobowl was genuine; it just looked like rabble-rousing; like NBAonNBC's peculiar and pointless rebuilding of Tecmo's talk page after Tecmo had frequently deleted content he didn't like. Even Tecmo kind of backed off from Sarah once it became clear what was going on. It is also clear that Tecmo and Sarah were not the same person. They live in separate cities hundreds of miles apart. Also, Tecmo wasn't clever or subtle enough in using his socks. He was nailed within a few days very time. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna give my opinion about the "alleged socks" but I don't think it's right to block him... at least for now, anyway. You [Wknight94] say that he was indefinely blocked by yourself... I don't think he should be blocked yet. Until it is proven that he is a sockpuppet, if that is the case, he shouldn't be blocked. Ksy92003(talk) 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, started a Soxrock checkuser request for assurance. Hydrogen Iodide 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the long time productive editing of the account, I would have been very hesitant to block immediately, without a checkuser result to back this up. Neil ╦ 08:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser would be useful for further support, but there are quite a few clues that Wknight94 uncovered that suggest the connection. There is no inherent "right" to edit wikipedia, so the "innocent until proven guilty" argument doesn't work here. I've gotten along well with Soxrock, but I've also had some concerns. I would like to think this is not true, but the evidence suggests that it is. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did assume good faith with this user, until evidence was presented to the contrary. Meanwhile, as was pointed out to User:Tecmobowl / User:Long levi a few weeks ago, when he made the same argument... this is not a courtroom, and there is no inherent or legal or constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that -- based on your past comments, you seem to see Tecmobowl under every bush -- but that's neither here nor there, as I was merely commenting on your confusing Wikipedia with some sort of legal process, what with your attempt to invoke some sort of reverse legal principle in order to hand-wavingly carve out a convenient and self-serving exception to basic Wikipedia policy. Hint: Wikipedia? Not a court of law. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I never at any time thought Soxrock was Tecmobowl. And you're absolutely right, this is not a court of law. Thus, terms like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" do not strictly apply. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, try reading this SLOOOWLY this time: "'Innocent until proven guilty' is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your [further] attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding". --Calton | Talk 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, wise guy... My normal inclination is to "assume good faith" until presented with evidence to the contrary. I was very reluctant, based on my limited experience with Soxrock, to think that Soxrock was the same guy as Sarah Goldberg, whose behavior sounded like mental illness. I am still not quite believing in my heart, but the facts say otherwise. Take special note of the recent entry by User:Zzyzx11 and the connection starts to become clearer. Baseball Bugs 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late responses - it was about 12:30am here when I posted above:

• Pat Sox Princess, I don't think you were being serious but just in case, no I'm not saying anyone with "sox" in their name should be blocked. I'm just pointing out the possibility of intentional double entendre in selecting that name. I'll also agree that Old Windy Bear came together even better and was a much more abusive situation (poisoning an RFA, double-voting on numerous issues, etc.) I'll confess to being confused about why Soxrock chose to create socks everywhere. And unless I turn out to be wrong, he has been white, black, male, female, Christian, and Jewish, and has talked to himself here and vandalized his own page, etc. But Soxrock is unwilling to admit to any of this so all I can do is speculate as to the true intention. (BTW, Irishguy found this un-autoblock request firmly tying together A. Shakespeare and Soxrock - I'll add that to the report). BTW, if you want me to simplify the report or try to clean it up, I'm fine with that. It's more of a brain dump than anything.
• Flyguy649, I agree that the apparent tie between two sock rings seems awfully coincidental but there are two big problems. First and foremost, Tecmo has been pretty firmly proven to be from the Atlanta, Georgia area. I don't have diffs off-hand but I think he said as much and one of the IPs he admitted to using was from Atlanta, etc. Soxrock, on the other hand, is definitely in the St. Petersburg, Florida area. He used to have two IPs listed on his user page and just yesterday admitted to a third IP - all are unquestionably in St. Pete. Additionally, Tecmo's and Soxrock's editing styles are quite different. Tecmo wrote deeply-researched articles and was fairly well-spoken in every message. Soxrock goes more for quantity creating numerous stubs and copying statistics into sports articles and is also less polished in his talk messages.
• Ksy92003, you've left messages in various places so I'll respond on your talk page.
• Hydrogen Iodide, thank you for entering the checkuser request.
• Neil, I was and am convinced of a firm connection between all of the listed accounts. WP:RFCUs are often refused in such obvious cases. Further, the simple tie between NBAonNBC and Soxrock - which Soxrock essentially confessed to by stating when the autoblock expired and by not asking for unblock all day - proves a double-voting on a content discussion in May. Between the illicit nature of that sock and Soxrock lying about it, a block of some length seems warranted IMHO. The tie between NBAonNBC and FoxSportsRadio which the two accounts literally confessed to is enough to prove a double-voting AFD just a few weeks ago as well as turning the double-voting into a triple-voting on the earlier content issue (I claim that the content issue was actually a sextuple-voting when everything is compiled). Why was the NBAonNBC account needed just two days ago? Seems like avoding scrutiny to me, esp. with Soxrock's subsequent denial. I see multiple line items of WP:SOCK#Forbidden uses of sock puppets applying in the case so I blocked.

—Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All of Tecmobowl's IP addresses, both old and new, as well as his own comments (here I am "assuming good faith" about such comments) and his fan interest put him in Atlanta. Soxrock's fan interest and comments and IP addresses put him in the Tampa area. A few things that made me go "hmmm..." include (1) Soxrock's pre-canvassing me for support on the individual team-year articles,[81] as well as later overtly canvassing of several of us [82]; (2) Sarah Goldberg's apparent "advocacy" of User talk:Tecmobowl, which actually amounted to rabble-rousing and taunting of Tecmo; (3) NBAonNBC coming to me out of the blue and assuming an unwarranted familiarity,[83] along with rebuilding Tecmo's talk page which of course included many comments by Sarah Goldberg ("navel gazing"?); (4) the unusual familiarity that both Sarah Goldberg and NBAonNBC had with the baseball discussions, despite having had little or no direct participation previously; (5) Soxrock's near-silent response to being blocked, which sounds like "consciousness of guilt". The guilty may protest innocence (as Tecmo/Levi did) but the innocent seldom accept punishment in silence. That, along with the various technical info tying them together, makes for a pretty convincing case. Baseball Bugs 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

His initial silence was almost certainly because he knew that requesting an un-autoblock is an admission that you're using the same IP as the original blockee. Given the apparent static nature of his IP, the implication would be clear, hence why he lied about who caused his autoblock. He's already fallen into that trap once before (diff courtesy of Irishguy). —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Wknight, since your earlier post, Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Soxrock, has been updated, and now has far more compelling evidence. I'm convinced some pretty lame and obvious sockpuppeteering has taken place after reading that. I would recommend a week or two block for Soxrock to consider the implications of abusive sockpuppeting. If he were to continue, he would end up getting indefinitely blocked, but given the volume and quality of most of his contributions, I wouldn't like to see that happen. Neil ╦ 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, the issues that Soxrock has directly brought upon himself, namely canvassing, which is effectively a continuation of the kind of activity that he apparently engaged in using multiple sockpuppets earlier. Since he couldn't do that again, he tried to recruit several of us to support him, which is essentially the same thing. However, you're right that, as with Tecmobowl, he has made some good contributions. Baseball Bugs 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen edits by Soxrock and the others mentioned below for a long time now. I think, first, it would be appropritate for you to request a checkuser for further assurance, as you offer, before making a sockery determination here. If any puppets are in fact related to Tecmobowl, an indef banned user, I would of course favor their indef ban as well. I also note the discussion re Sarah Goldman, and from the edits I have seen Sarah Goldman --as was the case with Tecmo -- has been a notoriously disruptive user. She advocated sockpuppetry and proxying by and on behalf of Tecmobowl. NBAonNBC's rebuilding of Tecmo's talk page is disturbing, I agree -- because it is the rebuilding of a page of an indef banned user, consistent with her exhortation to proxy.

Soxrock's edits have differed greatly from those of Tecmobowl and Sarah Goldman, however, both in tone and content. Tecmo's and Soxrock's editing styles are quite different. I agree with the above comment that Tecmo wrote deeply-researched articles (though I personally didn't find him well-spoken), while Soxrock copies statistics into sports articles (though both have the ability to go for quantity). I agree with Neil that Soxrock has been a longtime productive editor. Distinct from Tecmo, the vast majority of his edits were productive; Tecmo's edits on the other hand were enormously disruptive -- the contrast is stark.--Epeefleche 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My earlier comment linking Tecmobowl and Soxrocks was strictly based on the contents of A.Shakespere's userpage, which is discussed in the ANI thread I linked to earlier. It seems pretty clear based on geography and style that they are not the same. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Soxrock has posted a few statements on his talk page [84] [85] but they're a bit puzzling. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the classic ersatz-Yogiism, "I didn't do it, and I won't do it again." Baseball Bugs 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Soxrock wants to maintain innocence, but also think that they believe that if they "plead guilty" that they will not be punished as severely. I'm getting a vibe of "I didn't do it, but hurry up and block me and then I can get back to work when it expires, because otherwise you may not ever let me edit again". I'm really not proposing a harshly long block, but a block does need to be made here. Full disclosure would help, because, while disclosing additional past sins, it will show more ability to trust the user going forward. Lack of disclosure would leave me inclined to a longer block. Should the editor be unblocked at some point, I also believe that he should be mentored by someone based on what I have seen in his editing patterns, though I am not prepared to volunteer for this task myself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with legal counsel I think what he is seeking to plead would be characterized as "no contest," rather than guilty. I think he is a productive non-disruptive well-intentioned editor. Whether he is blocked for a limited time or not at all, I think that mentoring is a good suggestion for this young fellow.--Epeefleche 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Full disclosure and mentoring. If he continues to deny the obvious, and make up stories about brothers and neighbors and the like, he is not helping himself. I would like to see him back here editing baseball articles. But not until he comes clean. Baseball Bugs 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it but if you WP:AGF and believe his story about a disruptive brother, he's basically admitting to having a malicious editor at that IP address. It makes me want to hard-block the IP long-term and let him edit all he wants from a different IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Since he admits to, at the very least, having a disruptive editor at that IP address, then the IP address should be permanently blocked. Baseball Bugs 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If he's telling the truth about being a high-schooler, he could edit at his high school library, for example. Or a local public library. If he's telling the truth. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he would find this unsatisfactory. From his editing patterns, I think that he often edits in the afternoons and evenings while he is watching television, editing the article about the show that he is watching, almost in news reporter type fashion. He would not be able to do this at school or at the public library, nor would he be able to devote the hours the he is accustomed to. (this should be verified - do not go merely off my observation) Is it technically possible to block the IP so that it can be used by a registered user, but not as an anon? Also, could further account creation from that IP be disabled? If these measures were enabled and he were to agree to not use any other account (except SoxrockProjects, since it is obvious), I would feel much more comfortable with the situation. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First, we're assuming that he's 100% telling the truth. I think that's a bit of a stretch. Second, this would only prevent further sock creation. We have no way of knowing if the evil Soxrock (facetiousness intended) has 10,000 sleeper socks. But I agree that it is a viable solution. Not entirely believing Soxrock's story (especially since it took so long for the story to come out and it had to be dragged out of him kicking and screaming), I would still advocate a hard block for some amount of time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the sock handbook basically says "if you can't guarantee good-faith editing from the IP in your house then you need to find a new IP". Rotten roommates or friends or brothers are not a legitimate excuse for bad-faith editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some curious things here. One is that it took quite awhile for Soxrock to admit to various things, including the story that it was his older brother that was making all those evil edits and making him look bad. By an amazing coincidence, Sarah Goldberg made a similar claim. These edits might be of some interest. Oh, and there's the fact that User talk:Soxrock's "add a message" and "archive" blocks are identical to User talk:Sarah Goldberg's.

• Goldberg blames mother for bad edits: [86]
• Goldberg then blames brother for bad edits: [87]
• Goldberg asks for name change: [88].
• Soxrock blames brother for bad edits: [89]

Baseball Bugs 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Soxrock once admitted to me back in January that he was using the Crazy Canadian account because "there are a few people (no actual accounts, but spies) trying to capture me."[90] With his recent blocking, this statement becomes a whole new meaning... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Final call

Given the discussion above, my proposal (which is a hybrid of a few that I've heard recently) is to unblock the User:Soxrock account but hard-block the underlying IPs until August 26 (the day after he claims his brother is going to college). That way, he will be allowed to edit but it will have to be from a brand new IP somewhere. On August 26, the hard-blocks on the IPs will be downgraded to long-term soft-blocks (I propose one month) with account creation turned off. (In case of collateral damage on those IPs during the soft-block time, I will leave a message on the talk pages instructing them to leave an {{unblock}} notice with a desired username a la WP:ACC. That way, they will be able to edit but we'll know what account was created and can watch for treachery and evildoing). As a result, if Soxrock is telling the truth about his brother, he will still be able to edit. If he's lying, he has already been blocked for several days and will be inconvenienced for three weeks, both of which are probably appropriate punishments for the policy breaches. Regardless, he will no doubt be monitored by various people, esp. looking for sockpuppet vote stacking. I note that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soxrock has not been resolved but I'm more convinced than ever that the accounts are all tied together with three documented cases of autoblocking between the various branches of the Soxrock tree. Unless I hear convincing arguments otherwise, whether minor tweaking or extreme changes, I will implement this plan sometime today. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorsed --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• OK. -- Baseball Bugs 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AVoiceOfReason (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit concerned about this user. I just noticed an edit shi made to this article in the vein of some of the trolls that caused me to complain here in June about the situation at Talk:Mudkip. Although the edit was reverted by ClueBot, looking at hir contribs, I notice an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" [sic] article on them - one where shi creates the article with "do it for the lulz"; a second where shi blanks the page. User:WarthogDemon placed a speedy tag on the article; it has since been deleted.

My question is, based on hir edits, could shi be inspired by the recent Fox report on "anonymous" or something worse? (If this is in the wrong place, I apologize) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was warned, I would imagine if there's any more vandalism then the account will be blocked. Neil ╦ 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sapienz

Can some keep an eye on this editor User:Sapienz, I think he is the same banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house who vandelised my home page more than twenty times in june-july under these IP addresses:

58.165.200.19

124.183.0.50

58.166.64.70

60.229.13.176

124.187.145.155

124.183.205.16

124.176.109.6

124.179.74.12

124.187.140.114

124.184.94.155

124.183.227.185

Currently he is using: 124.184.131.250 and vandalised several other articles. The first thing Sapienz did was vandalise the Potter's House article than he complained to 3 other editors about me. I left a note on his page (because I wasn't sure it was the same guy) but he deleted it. He has a history of being disruptive causing other editors trouble.Darrenss 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

InternetHero

I have blocked InternetHero (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 208.96.111.229 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for repeated insertion of non-GFDL compliant material in the face of (my) warnings. I am submitting this block for review because I am involved in content disputes with InternetHero. To make a long story short I think essentially all of his edits are detrimental (though clearly well-intentioned) but not all of them are plagiaristic. My block, however, is only for his failure to comply with our copyright policy.

In the period from July 30 to August 3, InternetHero heavily rewrote Norse colonization of the Americas, in the process incorporating verbatim text from the Canadian Military Heritage website.[91] [92] [93] He did the same at Freydís Eiríksdóttir. When I reverted him and told him he could not copy passages from another website he reverted back saying "I'm afraid that's the point of Wikipedia"[94] He also noted that the website allowed non-commercial redistribution. I told him that this was not sufficient for GFDL-compliance. He has not really acknowledged that this is true but has nevertheless undertaken to "rewrite" the sections in question, mostly by shuffling around a few words. A couple of examples from his latest atttempt:

• Original: "[A]nother Viking colony, composed of sixty men and five women with some livestock, was established in Vinland under a leader named Karlsefni."

• Modified: "Under a leader named Karlsefni, another Viking colony composed of sixty men and five women with some livestock was established in Vinland"

• Original: "A battle ensued, and according to the Saga of Eric the Red, the Skraelings came armed this time with slings as well as bows and arrows."

• Modified: "According to the Saga of Eric the Red, a battle ensued when the natives came armed with slings as well as bows and arrows."

A sentence here and there produced with this method and full attribution of the source would be all right. When there are substantial contiguous paragraphs consisting of "rewritten" material like this and no attribution, it is plagiarism. Haukur 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention changing it from well articulated English to damned poor grammar --Hayden5650 11:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is plagiarism. Even lifting a sentence or two is plagiarism if it's not attributed as a quotation. --W.marsh 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A thrid opinion that it's Plagarism. I support your block. (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for not blocking me for much longer. I have read some more categories about software licenses and now see that I would need achieve commercial redistribution for it to be GDFL-compatible. I think with this newfound knowledge contributing to Wikipedia can be a lot more fun, and I want to thank you for your patience. InternetHero 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Partisan deletion of two RFCs by User:El C

User:El C has a history of partisan involvement in the content disputes over Lyndon LaRouche and related articles.[95][96] I believe that he improperly deleted and delisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking in order to shield these two editors from scrutiny (they are the Wikipedia usernames of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two somewhat fanatical critics of LaRouche who edit these articles in order to self-cite and generally impose their POV.) I won't re-hash the RFCs here, but they were properly filed and accepted. El C acted improperly in removing them. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCs are first step towards dispute resolution, and if they were duly certified by two established users then they should not have been deleted. Am I missing something here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The rationale given for the deletion is that appropriate efforts were not made to resolve the dispute prior to RfC. Personally I don't know that I agree, given what has apparently been reams of talk page discussion, some off-wiki interaction, ArbCom enforcement requests, etc. The second RfC (Dking's) was deleted as it looked essentially the same as Cberlet's, which is a valid point; they probably should have been centralized. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't slap that sort of copy and pasted talk page message ([97][98]) and think it counts toward a genuine effort to resolve the dispute; on the contrary, as noted, it looks increasingly as an effort to game the system. El_C 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, the RFC response is an endorsement of the behavior of the party being complained about. This mess is likely to head to ArbComm again, as are many of the other factional disputes in the real world (Kurd/Turk, Armenia/Turk, Greek/Turk, Israel/Palestine, etc...) that spill over into Wikipedia and generate factional behavior here. Deleting RfCs isn't helpful. GRBerry 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how deleting the RFC's solves anything at all (though yes, they could and should have been combined). All it does is push this situation closer to Arbcom.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally wrote it as a combined RFC, but in the process of trying to follow the instructions, I came across this, which threw me off: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." I took this to mean that RFCs may only be filed for single users. My bad. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We have clear certification rules, cirumventing them is not an option, even if {{LaRouche Talk}} hasn't had new additions for a while. El_C 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the RfC pages should be undeleted and the users conciliated to resolve the dispute amicably through a proper process of community-monitored mediation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works; RfC is not an indictment. El_C 17:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there was no attempt at dispute resolution as claimed in the cookie-cutter RfCs; invalid RfCs are deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet filed a request for mediation about this very issue — namely whether it is legitimate to use his own work and that of Dking as a source in LaRouche articles — on July 12. [99] Of the seven editors who were named as parties, only three agreed to mediation, which meant it couldn't go ahead. One of the editors who declined to respond was Marvin Diode, who was the RfCs' second certifier. Clearly, Marvin Diode can't claim he tried and failed to resolve the dispute after effectively sabotaging a formal request for mediation. El C was therefore right to delete the RfCs as uncertified. Perhaps the editors who filed the RfCs will now agree to the mediation instead, assuming they really do want to resolve the issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "sabotage" when you have not studied the matter thoroughly. I left a comment at the RFC talk page, indicating that I had been on vacation for just over 7 days, and it was during that time frame that the request for mediation was filed and expired. I did not have the opportunity to agree to it. --Marvin Diode 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were on vacation and didn't know about the RfM, then I apologize for saying you sabotaged it. Perhaps you and the other parties could get together and file it again? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems unfair to prevent them from opening an RfC as a means of forcing them to employ one's preferred method of dispute resolution. Declining mediation is not the same as making no effort to resolve a dispute. The injunction is clearly designed to prevent editors from filing RfC's at the drop of a hat every time another editor pisses them off, and to reinforce the idea that RfC is not the first step in dispute resolution. WP:RfC says: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Yes, I think mediation would be a better approach, but the RfC is hardly coming out of nowhere. There has been some effort to address the dispute by other means, though I agree it's not what I'd like to see. Are we saying that if any passing admin judges the effort to be "lacking", that an RfC disappears? That seems like a bad precedent. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I had added my views to the RfC before they were decertified. While policy or guideline violations were asserted, the evidence provided didn't support the charges. RfC's are suited best for situations were there is an individual editor who is violating WP norms. This case appears more of a content dispute, which is better suited to resolution by mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, the certifiers engaged in the dispute on various talk pages, but I saw no attempt on their part to resolve it. Formal mediation would have been an ideal next step, but several of the parties simply ignored the request. You can't just ignore a formal mediation request, then pop up a few weeks later with an RfC claiming you've tried and failed to resolve things. What this looks like is an attempt to create attack pages on Cberlet and Dking, and have them admonished and criticized publicly. If the RfC certifiers, and User:Fourdee who endorsed the RfCs (and who was also a named party who ignored the RfM) are acting in good faith, perhaps they can throw their weight behind the mediation effort. Then if that fails, they can file an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see that as well. I think mediation almost always accomplishes more than a user-conduct RfC, and questions about the good faith of the RfC filers are certainly justifiable. I just don't think that deleting an RfC is a valid means of compelling someone to pursue mediation. Talk page discussion was employed to address the dispute and failed; under those circumstances, I'm uncomfortable seeing an RfC deleted summarily because an individual admin found the efforts "lacking". MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add that my criticism doesn't extend to MaplePorter, who certified the RfC but who was also willing to try mediation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept mediation -- see my note above about how I was absent the first time around. However, I must protest the fact that after I followed the rules to a "T" on this RFC, two admins came in with the apparent intention of stifling the RFC for partisan, POV reasons. Will Beback has allied himself with Cberlet and Dking in the content disputes discussed in the RFC, and he immediately set out to throw up every conceivable obstacle to the discussion of the points raised in the RFC. I totally disagree with his assertion that the evidence was weak -- he ignored most of the points raised, as well as the corresponding evidence, and began all sorts of diversionary tactics. He also requested that El C delete the Dking RFC. Apparently Will Beback didn't want to do the deletions himself because it might appear improper, but I don't think it is any more proper for El C to do it, since he has apparently taken sides in the LaRouche article controversies before. I see no convincing evidence of any procedural error in the way that I filed the RFCs, and if RFCs may simply be deleted by an admin who wishes to take sides in the controversy, it sort of makes a mockery of the procedure. --Marvin Diode 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you are mis-characterizing my involvement and attributing bad faith to me and to El C. I didn't attempt to stifle the discussion but rather asked for explanations and clarfications. I didn't ask El C to delete the Dking RfC; I asked him instead to review that duplicate RfC to see if there was a similar problem. The confrontational tone of your comments doesn't help. If you seek dispute resolution then a more conciliatory approach would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call by El C to me, he's been around long enough to know what he is doing and we should trust his judgement, SqueakBox 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße (was User:Prohibit Onions)

Is now wheel-warring over the location of Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße; there is no question of the German spelling of the street, but a dispute over how Wikipedia:Use English applies. There was a discussion, now archived, in which a majority held for Vossstrasse, on the archive page. If ProhibitOnions and his fellow nationalists want to go to WP:RM, they should do so; but the move should be reversed first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Avraham (talk · contribs) move protected the article, so I think that should solve the problem for now. I'd consider action by any admin to move this article over the protection to be grounds for a block though. --Isotope23 ^talk 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He moved it, based on his opinion of what the title should be, and then move-protected it. That's not what admins should do. Haukur 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a very nice thing to do for an admin to use admin tools while in content dispute, but the edits are perfectly legitimate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There exist arguments for both names. The "default" Avraham cites for his improper use of admin tools in a dispute does not exist (just like an "English name" for the street in question does not exist). Kusma (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it based on my interpretation of the proper application of wikipedia's manual of style when in doubt, and move protected it to force discussion on the talk page based on the history. I have no other "motives" not being a party to this discussion prior or subsequent, and thus cannot be considered to have gained an "advantage", at least in my line of reasoning. Do you disagree? -- Avi 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Side point; not that it matters to me, but this is a policy application dispute, not a content dispute, re: the use of non-standard letters in Englisg wiki. Check the appropriate MoS's. -- Avi 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. Using the admin buttons to force the conclusion you prefer - while hypocritically "forcing discussion" on the talk page was wrong of you. There are plenty of articles with non-English characters in their names and there's no consensus to eliminate them. I don't even know which part of the MoS (which doesn't deal with page names last time I checked) you're referring to. Almost every debate could be framed as a "policy application dispute", that does not give you free reign to use your admin tools to force your way. Haukur 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if you think there was an improper application of policy, which I obviously disagree with, you are more than welcome to ask another admin to review and should they feel it was improper, they can revert with no fear that I would revert back. Regardless, may I interest you in reading Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), both of which relate to the matter at hand. In my reasoned opinion after reading the manuals of Style, when in doubt, we should resort to the "purer" English version and then hammer out exceptions, which is what I placed into effect. I am sorry if you disagree with it, but this is more along the lines of an admin ruling than a content dispute, as, as I have pointed out before, I have no edits prior or subsequent to this. Of course, I am as guilty of m:the wrong version as anyone, but that is par for the course. -- Avi 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues, in fact I think I wrote the very sentence which you are presumably referring to: "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð." How you could read this to mean "admins should force renaming of articles containing ß in the title" I do not know. I have also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) which a) says nothing about this and b) is about Ireland. The point is that this is an issue that has been disputed for a long time. For you to step into a dispute, move a page to your preferred version and then move-protect it is just not a proper use of the admin tools you've been trusted with. I'm asking you to undo it, or for any other admin to undo it. Haukur 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There was obviously a dispute regarding the eszet here. To rename an article not under dispute is not the question here. The Ireland MoS gives a useful decision algorithm that can be applied to other cases as well, as is actually mentioned in Wikipedia:Use English. Since use of the eszet is disputed, both in the theoritical as well as in this particular article, since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence. That said, once again, every version is someone's wrong version so if you find an agreeable admin, I will not move it back per se. Regardless, it should be locked until this is solved, and I still maintain that the proper application of policy here is to lock it with s's instead of eszets. -- Avi 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the message of wrong version. The point is that an admin cannot be held responsible for the version she protects because she didn't pick it, she just came along and protected the version that was there. When you start by reverting to the version you prefer you must indeed take responsibility for that version and cannot cite wrong version in your defence. You say: "since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence". This is just your opinion, there is no consensus for it. In a typical dispute half of the people will say something like that, the other half will reject it. The point is that you took sides in the debate and then immediately proceeded to grant yourself the victory by using your admin powers. That's wrong and you should undo it. Haukur 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - you should revert either the move or your protection, you don't have to revert both. You can be a party to the dispute or an uninvolved admin but you can't be both. Haukur 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking the other pair of admins that weighed in here for their opinion. -- Avi 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm simply being asked my personal opinion, it does't look to me that Avi acted maliciously or was a party to this dispute. It looks to me that he was attempting to enact Wikipedia:Use English. While I personally, wouldn't have enacted the protection in this manner, I don't see any reason at all this should be unprotected and at this point a sysop move of the article back to Voßstraße isn't going to be particularly helpful in this dispute (though it is my opinion that is the name is should probably end up at... ß has it's own article). At this point let the move war end and get on with the naming convention discussion. Wikipedia won't fall because this article name has too many "s's" instead of an eszett.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that he acted maliciously, I'm sure that he acted in good faith. As for being a party to the dispute that's what he became the moment he decided to move the article based on his interpretation of policy. The dispute is: "Where, based on Wikipedia policy and practice, should the article be?" Once you give your own answer to that question and then act on it by moving the page you become a party to the dispute. In case there is doubt, I don't think Avi was a party prior to moving the page. Haukur 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He was not party to the dispute; he has never edited the page, as far as I can see. The article is now where it was after the last WP:RM. Anyone is free to make another one at any time. That is sufficient justification for his action.

Whether he belongs to the section that believes the present placement is supported by WP:UE is incidental. Whether that section is a majority (as I believe) is one of the things WP:RM exists to test.

The relevant guideline is WP:NCGN, which says "Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage." This was recently discussed (on the same spelling issue) at Talk:Meissen, as Haukur should remember. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If Avi had given some such procedural justification (like where the page was after the last RM) I would not have complained, that would have been a reasonable admin intervention. But he didn't. He moved the page to the location he preferred and that's what I've been criticizing. I know you are fair-minded and concerned with proper procedure and I should think you would agree with this. Haukur 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We agree, then, that Avi's action was what a fair-minded admin would have done; you are complaining about his edit summary. Perhaps he should have kept that !vote for the RM; but it seems to me that the action is what matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's greatly overstating it. I'm saying that moving the page and then protecting it could perhaps have been defended (though I wouldn't agree with it) on some procedural grounds. I was not at all saying that it was the only conclusion a fair-minded admin would have reached. Saying that a decision which was made on completely inappropriate grounds could perhaps have been defended on some other grounds which were never mentioned is not supporting the decision. Haukur 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be other decisions a fair-minded admin would have reached (although this is what I expected when I came here). So? Avi did a right thing for whatever reason; I am not T.S.Eliot, to complain of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• And if the unsolicited third opinion discourages nationalism (of whatever nation) so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't follow. Haukur 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the article talk page; Matthead is our type specimen of the German nationalist editor, ranking with <redacted>, the professional Pole, <redacted>, the Lithuanian, and <redacted> and <redacted> the Greek and Turk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs)

I am concerned about this user. He has made repeated edits to the Amy Mihaljevic that seem to be driven by some personal vendetta against myself for disagreeing with his decisions. JamesRenner

His last edit to the article was one week ago to tag as a possible COI. On the talk page one hour ago he tagged it for a WikiProject. What repeated edits or vendetta are you referring to? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits and deletions were in reference to File:Amyphoto.jpeg actually. Sorry for the confusion. That page, however, no longer exists, because it has been deleted. I am appealing that decision. JamesRenner

You said his last edit was a week ago. Generally, this board is for dealing with incidents in progress.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, After Midnight said that. But his point is valid, do you have diffs showing ongoing edits demonstrating this vendetta?--Isotope23 ^talk 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see part of the ongoing exchange at User_talk:JamesRenner. I believe he was blocked a couple days ago for taking similar actions against other pages. He's obessive about any argument he loses and continues to alter pages or have friends alter pages even if he's proven wrong. See also WP:DRV#Image:Amyphoto.jpg

Unless you can back this up with diff evidence, your claims really aren't actionable. So, diffs, please. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to mention, you might very well be able to find an Associated Press copyrighted version of this image; I've found, in general that when dealing with articles about crime victims that if the AP runs a story on them, they tend to acquire copyright over the image. --Haemo 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to face baseless accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, and meatpuppetry with zero evidence, and not even be informed about the discussion. The only problem I had with that image was that it didn't specify copyright holder per WP:NFCC#10a, if that's met, I have no problem with the image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. JamesRenner

Both of you stop being snippy at each other.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been snippy with him (or anyone), but the trolling is getting old. WP:DNFT only carries you so far. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC

I believe this is the right forum to raise this: an edit war is currently going on at List of palaces between User:Lonewolf BC and myself over the inclusion of a picture and some minor text. I made four attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to instigate a discussion about this matter at Lonewolf's talk page. Three attempts were simply deleted without comment, the final being justified by the reasoning "persistently replaced, mis-placed and misleading message. Twice gave my reason for removing pic, in edit-summaries & list's talkpage is right place to discuss edits to it." Lonewolf then did not move the discussion elsewhere and resumed reverting List of palaces. I suspect we may both have breached 3RR at this point, so I don't want it to go further. Can someone please address this user? --G2bambino 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The best thing I can suggest for you is to seek dispute resulution. It seems that you and Lonewolf BC have had some serious conflicts in the recent past. Have you thought about a content RfC or entering into mediation? Although the dispute is centred around more than one article. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But my main beef here is the simple termination of any attempts to communicate about the matter; if Lonewolf wants to remove posts from his talk, well, so be it - a talk page is a user's castle, so to speak. But when the discussion is not moved to wherever he thinks is appropriate, that, plus the reverts with repeated yet still incomprehensible "reasons," demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss. So, what I was asking for here was for someone to address Lonewolf's uncooperative nature, not necessarily resolve any specific content disputes, yet. --G2bambino 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, well, I recuse myself from discussing with him, as I don't think I'm neutral due to blocking him in the past. To me, it looks like a bog standard edit war, just that Lonewolf does not want to discuss anything with you. Maybe it would be good for someone else to have a chat with him, but I really believe that to get to the root of your differences you will have to enter some form of mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm.. Perhaps. I'd rather see it resolved "out of court" though. --G2bambino 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I seem to be having similar issues with Lonewolf on Berber people, namely repeated reversion of my good-faith edits. His editing approach seems too confrontational with those with whom he disagrees. — Zerida 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs)

User:CalcioSalvo (formerly User:SalvoCalcio, which has the similar edits) is persistently insulting people in his edit summaries and on talk pages. One example is this (as User:SalvoCalcio), where he referred to someone as "the american". His behaviour is unnaceptable. And on the same article, Scarborough Athletic F.C., he is persistently going against the concensus of what the article should include, reverting peoples edits, labelling them as "vandalism". Mattythewhite 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the need for admin intervention here? What I can see is a content dispute, which is not for us to arbitrate. In cases of clear disruption such as personal attacks, please go to WP:AIV and provide recent diffs; to resolve the content dispute please follow the instructions on WP:DR. Sandstein 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit-tampering and name-calling by User:Fahrenheit451

Quick and simple. Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is tampering with my (Justanother (talk · contribs)) and Misou (talk · contribs)'s edits on Tilman (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Misou made an ill-considered post there (diff) and was taken to task for it here. Misou removed the offending bit. Since then Misou and I have exchanged a bit of harmless banter on the page. Fahrenheit451 removed the banter here with a disparaging edit summary and I replaced it here and warned him to not tamper. He then refactored the page to put our comments under a disparaging header here (note also the disparaging remark in the previous ES, 1.1 is an insult to a Scientologist, worse than if he had called my remarks "asinine"). I removed the header and again warned. He put it back. I warned on his talk here and he attacked me here, here. Another editor, Wikipediatrix, also pointed out his inappropriate activity and he attacked her. Fahrenheit451 is generally disruptive in dealing with those that do not share his rabid anti-Scientology views (Wikipediatrix is "anti-Scientology", just not rabid about it). Notice his user page WP:AGF violation against Scientologists in general, a page he often loves to point to and even tried to insert a link to on my user page, here. Yet a fourth editor, Jehochman, had to become involved. Please see this thread on my talk page and the subsequent threads on Tilman's page. Fahrenheit451 is a tremendous time-waster with this sort of activity. And this ended up longer than I intended which just speaks to the disruptive and time-wasting aspect of Fahrenheit451's behaviour. --Justanother 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's complaint is false and frivolous. In fact User:Tilman had no objections to my edits. Evidence here:[100]. My edits were in response to User:Misou's violation of WP:NPA on Tilman's talk page. Justanother and Wikipediatrix are friends of Misou. They evidently tried to cover for his misdeed. Thus, Justanother's false complaint about me on this page.--Fahrenheit451 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that these people are involved in an ongoing arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. I suggest everyone refrain from editing each others' talk page posts and maintain civility at all costs. We don't need for any more Scientology-related drama. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the COFS arbitration case. I'm not a friend of Justanother or Misou (I've reverted far more of their edits than I've supported). I think Fahrenheit451's behavior and attitude speaks for itself. Also see discussion here. Creating insulting talk-page thread headers that seem to put words in the mouths of other editors is just plain vandalism at worst, and unconstructive at best. This is part of an ongoing belligerent pattern of Fahrenheit451's, as a simple glance at his Contributions page will show. wikipediatrix 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem

There has been long-term conflict in this category. Despite the fact that Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN, there have been persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation and to present Jerusalem as the undisputed unified capital of Israel rather than a place whose disputed status is widely seen as the most problematic stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East. See [101], [102], [103] --Peter cohen 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tewfik is saying that Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate! See this recent diff [104] where he removed Category:Jerusalem from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. His typical abusive, uncivil edit summary was "stop trying to sneak in a POV that is rejected in the main, reviewed entry; this is in any event factually incorrect."

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

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

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

Jayjg and Tewfik also removed Category:History of Jerusalem from

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

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

Tewfik also removed List of East Jerusalem locations from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime Amoruso continues to remove the relevant categories even as this discussion is going on here. Please see this diff[105] from just a little while ago. Amoruso removed the article Jerusalem from these 2 categories:

Category:Cities in the West Bank

Category:Disputed territories

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

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

Persistent IP trolling, urgent admin attention needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks hower for letting me know! Cheers Professor Rob Right

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

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

Can I also draw your attention to [106] it clearly shows that Rob right is not a helpful user here on wikipedia and is intent on making destructive edits at every given chance. Please will an admin do something about this user quicker? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

As per this edit summary [107] he will not be stopping anytime soon, the admin on here are useless. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71.232.176.63/Divadome (same user)

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for repeated incivility. The editor in question was making a questionable edits to Sam Harris (singer), and when warned or reverted, became abusive. On top of this, the user was attempting to bait other editors to e-mail her(?) from an off-site link, with unknown intentions. I was about to semi-protect the IP user's talk page, when they made this edit. Having been previously warned for incivility (and blocked for vandalism/3RR violations), I took it upon myself to issue the block. Any objections/concerns? Caknuck 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are only two edits back to march(first 50 list), and the only questionable link is that thing about 'approved editors', which is odd. Other than that, he added some cast listing stuff which may be fancrufty but is clearly AGF stuff, and that's about it. I am concerned by the way both treat divadome's user talk as their own, and seem to be representing themselves/himself as Sam Harris, or his employee(the repeated comments there about contacting editor:Divadome through the sam harris site's contact link. I'd suggest a Checkuser, just to have the evidence, and I wouldn't mind a diff or two just to show the actual inciv, but a 24 for persistent acts of COI is something I can get behidn right now. Hoep that helps, and (standard disclaimer: IANaAdmin). ThuranX 01:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some diffs for personal attacks: attack on Brianga and an attack on me. I have no idea what the attack about me was for. I never remarked about this person's edits and to the best of my knowledge, the only time I have dealt with this user was I deleted an edit to my talk page wherein he/she called me an ass. IrishGuy ^talk 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's the same editor (with a different IP) you kept reverting back last September when they were adding copyrighted info to Sam Harris (singer). The other possibility is that some of your edits that they took exception to were oversighted there a few days ago. After reviewing User talk:Jimbo Wales#Unsigned comment from 71.232.176.63 (this was after my initial post here and the block), I learned that the user made legal threats regarding vandalism on Sam Harris (singer), and oversight had been applied. Caknuck 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the September issue. But even then, I reverted it as a blatant copyright violation (which it was) and I don't recall calling anything an advertisement. Ah well. Whatever. IrishGuy ^talk 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at diffs like this and this, it's clear that the anon IP is representing themselves as Divadome. On its own, adding fancrufty links and blanking warnings is not usually worth a block, but attacking editors can't be tolerated. Caknuck 01:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thansk to both for the diffs. I've got to be honest: You did not block long enough. I see INCIV meeting 24 hours, continuing COI, worth 24 hours, and the way he plays back and forth IP to account isn't really sockpuppetrry, since he's not hiding it, nor does he appear to be double voting, but it's a sign he's being a tool. IANaAdmin, but if you were to extend his block to 72 to 96 hours, I'd back that, and support a lengthy talk page note about why he's been blocked for his behaviors. ThuranX 07:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Giantsshoulders

Greetings, all. This request is not to ban the user as s/he has been a careful contributor and a valuable one at that. Giantsshoulders (talk · contribs) has admitted that s/he edits from several accounts (at least CannaCollector (talk · contribs) but possibly more) but was unaware of WP:SOCK and that s/he simply forgot usernames and passwords when editing from several locations. See their talk page for more information. The user has not been using these multiple accounts for any sockpuppetry and contributes in a narrow field (genus Canna). Is there a way to merge the accounts or is it a simple matter of blocking all but the main (not sure which is the main account)? The user is eager to abide by Wiki rules; any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to all users involved good job!!! I am glad that no one flew off the handle. So many times people assume bad faith when it is just a user that does not understand the rules. I am glad that there are people who still assume good faith until a reason not to has been achieved.

P.S. Most admins are cool like this, just some are a little over zealous. Jmm6f488 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Requesting review of block of User:Tidalenergy

A few days ago I gave a one-week block to User:Tidalenergy for evading a block through use of an IP. He's quite upset, which is understandable. I've tried to explain to him how to contest the block. He's been emailing me, posting to his talk page -- everything except following the accepted procedure to appeal. Could someone (a) check behind me and (b) hop on over to User_talk:Tidalenergy for a look and possibly chat with the guy, since I don't seem able to communicate in a way that he can understand. You might notice that he refers to "the Chairman Mr. Daniel Bryant" -- not sure what to make of that. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does seem tired and emotional. I've responded. -- Hoary 04:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not certain that we shouldn't just unblock (I'm inclined to think that, though the original block was valid, though the extension for block evasion was probably in order as well, and though the user hasn't formally/conventionally requested {{unblock}}, unblocking–just two days "early"–is unlikely to lead to any further disruptive or untoward behavior; although it is quite easy [and sometimes quite right] to suggest that a user "wait out" his block where it is seems possible that if unblocked straightaway he might, even unintentionally, return quickly to unconstructive behavior, I wonder whether we might be better served here to assume that Tidal, a newbie, now better appreciates how to edit harmoniously), I think Hoary's note very helpfully to explain the issue to Tidal (Raymond, IMHO, has also handled things quite well). I have, FWIW, apprised Daniel (formerly Daniel.Bryant), to whom Tidal apparently refers, of this thread, although I don't know that he has any special relevant information. Joe 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He emailed me about a content dispute/edit war, and I told him to use the talk page :) I'll have a look, however I really have no further information to add beyond what's already on-Wikipedia. Cheers, and thanks to Joe for the courtesy note, Daniel→♦ 11:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments. I've lifted the block early as a gesture of good faith on our part. Raymond Arritt 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal information incident

I was referred here by the Mediation Cabal who suggested I post it here instead of handle this through them.

User "Sennen Goroshi" has attempted slander, but more seriously exposed public information about me in his/her edits at Heart Corporation. The user will not settle this with me privately and I feel that this user is attempting to damage my livelihood via Wikipedia. I have already filed a request to have these edits removed from history or have my name removed from them, but anything else that can be done to prevent this from happening would be greatly appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoove K (talk • contribs)

And you are...? El_C 08:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All taken care of. Easily fixed, since the article had no indication of notability or secondary sourcing, and was apparently written with a conflict of interest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume you have notified WP:RFO about this? If not, deletion of the edits can still be viewed by a administrator, it is not full removal. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight may be needed - only they an remove edits from histories. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't myself, there's no tremendously sensitive personal information (phone number, home address, anything like that) that oversight normally addresses, at least not in anything I looked at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Smoove K if he wants oversight on those edits. He might think that it is too much personal information... --Dark Falls ^talk 09:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

smoove messaged me, I replied. since my modification of the Heart page, smoove did not try to remove the alleged private information (which was only his name) he just removed everything i had placed there. the main issue he had, was that I quoted him with some of his less than polite comments, which he had made in the public domain.mentioning slander is amusing, since the only details that i added to that page, were direct quotes with sources made by smoove K ...im curious, is it possible to slander someone by quoting them word for word?Sennen goroshi 13:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a Reliable source controversial information on living people will be removed from Wikipedia. Please read the sourcing policy and the biographies' of living people policy. Tim Vickers 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Puppeteer: User:Muhammed Sonny Mercan
Puppet: User:Muhammed sonny mercan
Puppet: User:Miighankurt

Evidence is quite evident in the three userpages. Brianga 08:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has barely made any edits for us to worry about this, nor did he try to hide the duplicate accounts. I deleted and blocked the later two because they needlessly duplicated the biography, but left the ip and third account unblocked; also, he has created and recreated an article titled Wikipedia retards. I'm not sure I was able to follow what going on, but I left the user a note on his talk page with an explanation. Thanks. El_C 08:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

take this to WP:SSP. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no need. El_C 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait. Sorry, misread. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. El_C 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Bird feeding

There's an IP who has been inserting unsupported assertions (that bird feeding is controversial) repeatedly, without valid arguments, against the consensus of editors, and without meaningful discussion. This has been going on for a while, at least since February 2007; most of the edits in the last 50 [108] are insertion or reversion of the material. Recently, the user has been editing from 136.159.225.193 (see contributions, nearly all of which are inserting or reverting back to the POV in question). What's the right remedy here? Semiprotect the page, block the IP, or should we just keep reverting? Thanks! --Nethgirb 09:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, I previously put a friendly warning on the IP's talk page [109] but the behaviour persisted [110][111]. --Nethgirb 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a warning on his talk page. If he continues to disrupt the article, escalate the warnings and send to AIV once he passes final warning. --Dark Falls ^talk 09:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone speedy this for me please?

Resolved

 – Now on RfD.

Get Back (Britney Spears song), as G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Get_Back_(Britney_Spears_song). It's currently fully protected, so I can't tag it myself. The song title is just a rumour and doesn't need to redirect. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the best place to be discussing this? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

N Declined. The creation of a redirect is not a recreation of an article speediable per G4. The proper venue is WP:RfD. Sandstein 10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough - thanks anyway. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Could someone please place the {{rfd}} tag onto the page for me please? Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I filed a case for sockpuppetry yesterday, unfortunately non of the admins have reviewed the case. I would be glad if someone could have a look. The case isWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fourdee.Muntuwandi 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a few more admins to get rid of the other cases as well, as SSP tends to back up quickly. MER-C 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca (talk · contribs)

I came a cross a few articles and found that user:Visca el barca was deleting images. He deleted a pic from Doboj [112] and 3 pics from Janja [113]. user:Visca el barca also went to another users profile and edit it (vandalise) [114]. This is against the rules of wikipedia and I suggest user:Visca el barca to be banned.

user:Visca el barca also left a nasty message on User:Ivan Ilir's talk page[115].

Okey, I did some wrong things, and I apologize, It wont happen again. I wont revert others talkpage and I wont revert pictures.

However, I must infom you that this user who reported me has also reverted pictures I put up, and I hope you moderators can make him stop with that. Visca el barca 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The pictures you put up has the website printed on it. Where should i start with what's wrong with it. You did not create it and you don't have permission to use it.

Yes I did, and the same goes for zvornik mosque and janja mosque and if you keep reverting it I will report you. Visca el barca 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia aren't stupid so stop your vandalism. Follow wikipedia rules.

You are reverting pictures just because they show mosques in cities you think are serbian. That is nationalism. Visca el barca 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Visca el barca your images were deleted because there against the wikipedia rules. A picture actually has the website printed on it. Your other images are from a website and you have no permission to use them. Visca el barca claimed the pictures was his which was proven to be false (from a website). Case closed.

No, the pictures are mine and I have the right to use it. Visca el barca 15:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are not. You claimed they was yours but it was proven to be from a website. You don't have permission to use them and now you just said you made them. Obviously your a bad liar.

You know... you cant hide something that is so obvious and you cant make some cities serbian by posting pictures of churches and ignoring the mosques in the city. You are dissapointed that cities like Bijeljina does indeed have mosques right in the beating center of the town. Visca el barca 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is about using illegal images on wikipedia. You posted an image claiming it was yours but proven to be someone elses. If you don't follow wikipedia rules then wkipedia isn't for you.

PS: After looking at your edits you seemed very obsessed with mosques. You added the same pic 2 times on one article and that image was illegal. Anyway have a nice day.

Manchester vandal

Per the above [116] and this diff, would anyone oppose a temporary rangeblock on 79.73.n.n? ELIMINATORJR 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's a dial-up server - looks like we've booted him off his broadband, at least. The full range is 213.130.140.0 - 213.130.143.255. [117] -- ChrisO 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:DENY, but this may be a long haul. See RR's comments at [118], "The BBC messageboard was great fun though, devoted a good 12 months of my life to that discussion board" ... "I'm off to troll Wikipedia, my new found home!" (dated 25 July 07). Mr Stephen 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More IPs:

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

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

69.182.8.94

69.182.8.94 (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be here for reasons other than editing the encyclopedia. Would someone please review 69.182.8.94's contributions and take appropriate action. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

—Moondyne 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned vandal using his talk page to continue to brag about his exploits...

Whilst organizing the sock drawer this afternoon I noticed that banned User:Vix_mouse (a sock of banned User:Eir Witt - i.e. the Northwich Victoria F.C./Witton Albion F.C. vandal) is using his talk page to chat with another user and brag about his exploits and harassment of User:Ram4eva. This should probably be deleted and protected. What do you think, guys? --Kurt Shaped Box 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

— Tim Vickers 15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent reverts by 71.64.136.169

The IP address 71.64.136.169 has repetitively added images to a character guide for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends", despite the WikiProject Thomas's efforts to limit each character to one image. Numerous warnings to leave the page with one image per character are fruitless, and he frequently re-adds the redundant pictures. The following page has been often corrupted, as seen in the history page: Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) --Rusty5 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Block not affecting editing practices

Resolved

I'm posting here at the main board this time. Last time I had posted on the 3RR board here.

User:JJonz first sets of edits after that black expired fall right back to the same pattern, with 4 of the 6 articles he immediately went back to being reverts, either section or entire article, to his last pre-block edit.

Relevant histories:

His edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JJonz -- Note that, aside from the "Undo" defaults, no edit summaries are provided.

The pages in question: Despero

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=146938766&oldid=146769392 (July 25)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=149132880&oldid=148577208 (Aug 4)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despero&diff=149132880&oldid=146938766 comparison

Sentry (Robert Reynolds)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=146938001&oldid=146528100 (July 25)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=149133833&oldid=149084310 (Aug 4)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&diff=149133833&oldid=146938001 comparison

Hulk (comics)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=146938425&oldid=146770614 (July 25)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=149133603&oldid=149115761 (Aug 4)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&diff=149133603&oldid=146938425 comparison

Wonder Woman (least of the 4)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=146937753&oldid=146865758 (July 25)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=149133199&oldid=148678915 (Aug 4)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&diff=149133199&oldid=146937753 comparison

- J Greb 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. This will suffice until the current report about sockpuppetry currently at WP:SSP is resolved. ELIMINATORJR 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)