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

Repeated comment removal on requested move by User:Rex Germanus

User:Rex Germanus has repeatedly [1] (removing anonymous. A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan) [2] (you are an anonymous IP. You are not allowed to vote.) removed my comments on a requested moved on the article Talk:Johann van Beethoven. The third time he moved the comment to a section titled "False vote by anonymous" [3]. He insists that Requested Moves are a vote, and that new or anonymous users are not allowed to "vote" (as far as I am aware requested moves are not a vote, I tried to tell him so, but he denies/ignores this). I am at a loss on what to do, as I honestly can longer assume good faith here and, to be honest, feel harassed and personally attacked by this behaviour. 84.145.195.64 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the heck are we relegating anons to second-class status anyway? Why not just let anons attempt to make suggestions and arguments like everyone else? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1RR violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having been involved in this discussion, i support this block too, especially after seeing this racist comment about the entire German nationality [4], aimed directly at another user, although Matthead did not help the situation by being uncivil, and by starting an AFD on one of Rex's articles in the middle of an incident.--Jac16888 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warnings are important because sometimes Wikipedia's banhammer is misfired and the whole idea is to get users to turn away from the bad behavior. That being said, editors like this one SHOULD be handed a ban, as he did NOT turn away from bad behavior or cooled down even though he was warned. But how would we have known that had we not warned before blocking? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic-ban

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

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

Community-ban proposed

As Rex Germanus has continued to show incivility and unwillingness to understand that this behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia I proposed a Community ban on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard 84.145.241.203 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:PHG

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

• He is trying to claim that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299/1300, and he has been inserting this information in multiple places around Wikipedia.[5][6][7]
• He's also been trying to claim that there was a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols.[8] We've been discussing this extensively at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, with multiple archives just within the last few weeks, but he's resisting all community input and continues to edit war.[9][10][11]
• I tried an RFC, but he's ignoring that too, or he just creates another dozen threads on the talkpage with counter-accusations and personal attacks.[12][13][14] I have repeatedly offered to take things to mediation, but PHG has declined.[15]
• I've also tried posting for help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and multiple WikiProjects, but it's such an obscure point of history, it's difficult to get many people commenting.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Plus we're trying to "prove the negative," that no, the Mongols did not conquer Jerusalem.
• PHG also keeps muddying the waters by adding more and more information (much of it from medieval primary sources)[22][23][24][25][26][27] to Franco-Mongol alliance, to the point where the article was over 150K in size, making it very difficult for anyone else to read it unless they wanted to devote hours to sorting through it. He even tried edit-warring to keep me from archiving the talkpage.[28]
• He seems in clear violation of WP:OWN. When his material is changed, he often reverts the changes, but when other sections are added, no matter how well-sourced, he deletes them as "original research".[29][30]
• He has also been resisting all attempts to allow the article to be split to a smaller size,[31][32][33] and further confuses things by issuing multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with him (calling them vain, incompetent, a liar, vandals, etc.), and he's so good at Wikilawyering, and he types so much text, it makes it even harder for other people to sort through.[34][35][36]

From what I've been told,[37] he has used these tactics at other articles too,[38] using multiple primary sources, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and, perhaps scariest of all, creating articles that look like they're well-sourced, and then pushing them through to Featured status, but in actuality he's either sourcing them to unreliable sources (like primary sources, hobbyist websites, or marketing copy on the back cover of a book), or he's twisting what sources say. For example, he created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and nommed it for FA within two weeks of creation, even though it had gross errors of fact[39] (like about this absurd "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" between the Mongols and the Knights Templar).

Things have now escalated to the point where he's creating other articles to push his biased POV. He created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, which I moved to a more palatable Mongol raids into Palestine. Then despite resistance at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine#Disputed, he today made another article, Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, which I tried to redirect, but he just reverted me.[40]

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

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

or

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

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

I will admit that most of this is way over my head given lack of knowledge of the subject. I am concerned by the creation of Mongol conquests and Jerusalem given that it appears to me looking at the the contributions to Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (especially the responses to the RfC) that the consensus seems to be that the sources do not support any conquest of Jerusalem having occured in the period in question by the Mongols. It seems I 'm not the only one worried by the development - see this page move by Danny [41]. This probably should be investigated further - especially by anyone with knowledge (or access to the relevant sources) about the period in question. WjBscribe 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, to the Defense

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

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

Now, to answer the specifics raised by Elonka:

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

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

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

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

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

Although I'm an amateur medievalist, I do know of a professional one who is also a long-term Wikipedian. I've left a request on his talk page to review the material disputed in the above threads & offer an opinion on the AfD nomination. Hopefully he will do so, but no promises -- we are all volunteers, so he may decline for whatever reason. -- llywrch 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Elonka/Work1

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

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

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

This is now the second time that PHG has accused me of slander.[42][43] Which is added to his previous tendencies to namecall, such as a previous opponent in a content dispute who he accused of vandalism,[44] or attacks me for being "vain".[45] or "bossy and authoritarian."[46] I am getting quite tired of this incivility, steady stream of personal attacks, repeated false accusations, and now that he's upped to "slander," implied legal threats?? I again ask for administrator assistance here. It seems clear to me, that PHG is just arguing to be arguing at this point. For example, look at this comment on my talkpage, where he is discounting the comments at an RfC, saying that they are "ancient."[47] When in actuality the RfC was just started two weeks ago. It no longer seems to me that PHG is arguing in good faith. His posts always sound very polite, but when you read them he's consistently ignoring all community input, and he's indicating that he has every intent of just continuing to revert and edit war, while launching increasingly uncivil counter-accusations at anyone who disagrees. --Elonka 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Actually I am the one being attacked and slandered here, so I do not think it is attacking you just to say that. I don't know how best to qualify it, and I must admit your methods are sometimes irritating, but other editors have also commented on this. Let me quote Arnouft: "Your repeated reference to you being important in getting Templar to FA; and open doubts in accepted academics that do not support your view on this issue, seems to indicate (to me at least) that you are claiming all Templar related articles as your own (ie be careful about the WP:OWN guideline yourself as well)" [48]. I also corrected in the minute my comments from "Aren't you being a little bit bossy and authoritarian here, one-sidedly deleting content?" to "Aren't you being a little bit rude and unrespectfull of others here, one-sidedly deleting content?". I think that's rather kindly said, towards someone who had just deleted 35kb of content in one stroke. Please kindly respect others's work and edits Elonka, and be open to the variety of scholarly opinions on a given subject. Best regards. PHG 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Ghirla, please reconsider. The FAC was not derailed for personal reasons, but because the article had deliberately false information in it, like a claim about Jerusalem being "captured by surprise" by the Mongols and Knights Templar.[49] This isn't a minor point of trivia where a date is off by a year, this is a major rewriting of history. And to call the AfD "questionable" is mind-boggling, considering it's a WP:SNOW "Delete". Ghirla, I'm actually surprised at you, considering how much you have been a staunch defender of getting good information into Wikipedia, and how much trouble you yourself have had with POV-pushers. Please, I encourage you to actually look at the information that PHG has been trying to put into Wikipedia. Let's be clear what he did here: PHG, an editor who supposedly has multiple FAs to his name, created an extremely biased article in August,[50] sourced it to dubious sources including pseudo-history websites, and then two weeks after creating it, he nominated it himself for featured status,[51] without going through any other kind of Peer Review or GA process. When concerns were raised at the FA nom, he would label them as {{done}} even though he hadn't fixed things.[52] And the really scary thing is that he was being praised for "great scholarship",[53] (and Ghirla, you even gave him a barnstar[54]) because the article looked well-written and well-sourced, even though it was full of crap poor quality information.

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

Elonka, please refactor the above. Although the statement has plenty of diffs it detracts from one's credibility to use some of those turns of phrase in a thread where you also complain the other party has been uncivil. Regarding the overall dispute, ANI is seldom effective at resolving high level disagreements between two established editors. I think the greatest chance of getting some positive result here is on the mutual complaints about improper use of sources. To both editors, please focus further discussion on this particular issue and set forth a few illustrative examples point by point. There ought to be enough bilingual Wikipedians to perform an independent review. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, done. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. --Elonka 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, thank you for the apology. I would be delighted if you could highlight instances where I would have misquoted French authors. As a matter of fact, you are actually the author of several proven misquotes as can be seen easily by anyone on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance (1, 2, 3 for a few examples). May I suggest we continue our discussions there on specifics? As I already said, if I claimed anything in error sometime, I will gladly retract myself (as I did long ago when you challenged the validity of Templar Internet sites as sources), and I expect the same from you. Best regards. PHG 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by PHG

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: close the thread and reprimand Elonka

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

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

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

Additional Evidence to Consider Regarding PHG's Conduct

Dear Administators,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Violating Agreements: User vastu (the most civil editor in the debate) negotiated a compromise map that all parties agreed to [[55]]. As soon as vastu become inactive, user PHG violated the agreement and created an even more flagrantly augmented map. When asked why he reneged, he simply said that it was against his "better judgment", in spite of the fact that by his own admission, PHG said that Vastu's map was more in line with scholarly representations. Moreover, he claimed that "new information" had come in his way from an art historian's writing (mario bussagli). But Bussagli just recycles Tarn's defunct theory of a grand strategy by the first Indo Greek demetrius to recreate the Mauryan empire and that he invaded india out of a show of support for buddhism--all speculations by Tarn without an iota of evidence. So clearly PHG just waited for a convenient opportunity to restore his biased perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" Influence Of Indo Greek Coinage

As late as the 13th century, the Sultan of Delhi Mohammad I (1295-1315), one of the first Muslim rulers of northern India, would use on his coins the title Sikander el-sani ("The second Alexander"), in a reference to his famous predecessor in the conquest of India [29] ." [[56]]

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

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

Read PHG's rationale for writing about Seleucus (who did not go anywhere near the Yamuna River in India). He writes : "Very simply, suppose I am reading an article on the Hellenistic world, and mention of the Yamuna turns up (something like "Alexander never reached the Yamuna"). Then I would click "Yamuna" to know more about it. Knowing how it was discovered by the Greeks, later, following the expeditions of Seleucus, is most interesting and relevant PHG 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) [[57]]

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

*Amalgamation of Separate Maps into One: User PHG created an aggrandized map of Indo Greek territory, but claims that he is just incorporating separate points of view. When asked repeatedly why we can't have three maps to show all perspectives, he remarked that it " Can't be more NPOV" [[58]].

However, it just looks like one big map showing a progressive expansion instead of three different perspectives. When pressed on the fact that this would confuse casual readers, he simply remarked "vandalism" and did not answer [[59]]. Why not have three separate maps? Because he would lose his monopoly on perspective.

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

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

"Sponsianus: I agree that the south-eastern parts of the Indo-Greek conquests seem less motivated than those in the north (Mathura). Also, the “Atlas der Welt Geschichte” map was actually striped for Indo-Greek territory, full colour only for the original Bactrian kingdom. It was however based on the outdated model that all conquests took place under the long reign of Demetrios I, supported by Menander as a sub-king." [[60]]

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

*Article Degradation: PHG degrades article readability and approachability for the casual reader by unnecessarily inserting large blocks of primary source material. The result is so atrocious that these pages become masters theses in his attempt to defend his perspective (i.e. "Preliminary Greek Presence in India" and " Evidence for Initial invasion" on Indo Greek page)[[61]].

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

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

"I was looking at the Indo-Greek article recently, and was indeed dismayed by the state of the map - I saw the jibes that some of the contributors took at my credibility while I was away, citing my original map as proof I dont know the topic - and frankly, I dont know whether I can be bothered contributing anything - after seeing some great articles slowly ruined over the past year (some of which were featured status), I have started to doubt wikipedia's system. Thats why I didnt sign on for so long (only recently to create some articles for Indian comics)." [[62]]

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

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

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

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear all. I know Devanampriya quite well. He has a long history of reverts and deletions of sources in favour of a very India-centric/nationalistic approach to history. He has been totally marginalized on Hellenistic pages, and I don't think anybody supports his actions on Wikipedia except a very few very marginal people (a few of them apparently sock-puppets: he appears at the bottom of this page for a sock-puppet case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Devanampriya). For those interested, please check the record. Best regards. PHG 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry PHG. I don't think you or your posse gets to level accusations of sock-puppetry and then act like your accusations are validated by anything but pure speculation. I've noticed you are adept at trying to discredit your detractors by any means you can muster. Just because multiple people disagree with you doesn't make any of them sock-puppets. The fact that they all have similar misgivings about your contributions is an indication that you need to change your ways, nothing more insidious than that.

Moreover, aside from a dedicated cadre on your side, I don't see a great deal of broad-based support by informed writers on your side of the debate either. Most of the posts come from people dedicated to insulting your detractors. The fact that you seem to have more time to devote to Wikipedia editing than others does not lend any extra weight to your argument I am afraid.

Windy City Dude 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Windy City Dude. With all due respect, if you wish to know, I actually have a familly and a business to take care of, and it is not exactly my cup of tea to have to spend so much time defending proper historians against small, partisan contributors, who just prop up once every few months to throw invective. Best regards. PHG 06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I further point out that Elonka is currently coaching this questionable User:Devanampriya to try to find material against me? [63] I'm not sure if it's quite ethical... isn't called something like "netting" on Wikipedia? Best regards to all. PHG 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The moment I saw that diff, I said, that user must not have e-mail enabled…and lo: [64] That user must not frequent IRC, either.Proabivouac 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHG (talk • contribs)

PHG, I think you may have misunderstood Elonka's response to Devanampriya. She told him that has post was too long (which it was), and asked for further info, perhaps because she's suspicious about his assertions, but wants to know if there is any truth in what he's saying. My own opinion is that his evidence is not very credible, especially in light of the sock puppetry you mentioned, but please, let's not inflame this dispute for no reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to throw my support behind what Elonka and Devanampriya said. I had a short lived foray into making maps for some of the India related articles and had some run ins with PHG and a small posse of editors he has behind him. Devanampriya has detailed more about it, but frustration over dealing with PHG's stonewalling, edit warring, and constant sniping at the integrity of other editors eventually turned me off to the whole deal. One needs only look at any talk-page in which he participates and marvel at how quickly they manage to devolve. I know correlation does not equate to causation, but when one notices that the constant factor in the toxic tone of these talk pages in the Ancient Indian history pages is either PHG or his dedicated cadre of apologists, what kind of conclusion are we supposed to draw?

Those allegations of sock-puppetry are just poor attempts at trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with them and are scarcely worth mentioning until an admin actually weighs in on the accusations. PHG has yet to actually prove anyone wrong about anything. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I didn't drop out because he was right, but because I was sick of dealing with his indefatigable stonewalling. He's a master of the Chewbacca_Defense.

Windy City Dude 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jehochman,

My apologies for the extra long post but I just wanted to be thorough. If you have questions about the credibility of my evidence against PHG, please feel free to ask me and I will respond. I will note that PHG is not responding to them but merely attempt to browbeat me with allegations of sockpuppetry. That is Elonka's point. If PHG has no proof, he tries to attack people's competence (as he did with her) or attempt to taint people with allegations. Irrespective here is a condensed version of PHG's offenses for your reference:

Misrepresentation of Sources

Narain did not endorse the views that PHG was advocating. He drew a much smaller map in his book "The Indo Greeks" that corresponds to the red map compiled by Windy City Dude.

Use of Obsolete Sources

Here is E. Seldeslachts, a EUROPEAN scholar on Tarn:

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks.

But Tarn and his outdated theory is cited throughout the Indo Greek Article. Mario Bussagli is occasionally used to mask this (but he also uses Tarn's outdated theory as does the German map that PHG cites), but the fact remains all the quotes correspond directly to W.W. Tarn's book "The Greeks in Bactria and India"

Original Research and Incorrect Unreferenced notes:

Here is an utterly erroneous and unreferenced claim made by PHG: "The earliest Indian writing on astronomy, the "Yavanajataka" or "Saying of the Greeks", is a translation from Greek to Sanskrit made by "Yavanesvara" ("Lord of the Greeks") in 149–150 CE under the rule of the Western Kshatrapa king Rudrakarman I." [[65]]

The vedanga jyotisha was the first (compiled in the 2nd millenium BCE)[66].

Article Degradation

As noted by user Adam Bishop below, this is an Encyclopedia. There are certain standards for what is appropriate here and on an academic paper. PHG degrades article readability and approachability for the casual reader by unnecessarily inserting large blocks of primary source material. The result is so atrocious that these pages become masters theses in his attempt to defend his perspective (i.e. "Preliminary Greek Presence in India" and " Evidence for Initial invasion" on Indo Greek page)[[67]].

Moreover, by interpreting primary sources himself (original research) he can cast doubt on established facts and consensus. He did this on the Chandragupta Maurya page where he kept inserting quotes from Strabo to cast doubt on the territory that Seleucus surrendered; however, as firmly established by the stone edicts, the Mauryas clearly ruled over Afghanistan. So why does PHG persist in stating that Seleucus only gave land along the indus? To impose his eurocentric view. [[68]]

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

I can go on listing evidence if the admin reviewers would like, but please consider this without the cloud of sockpuppetry, which after all, does not determine the accuracy of PHG's content edits and NPOV skewing. My point is this: Here we have 2 separate topics, 2 different editors, and yet virtually the exact same complaints: Use of obsolete or unusable sources, incivility, original research, and misquoting. PHG rules these pages as if they were his personal fiefdoms and I truly hope you can put an end to this. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Devanampriya 04:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on

This thread is getting way too long and complex for ANI.' Serious allegations have been made about the integrity of at least two established editors, including POV pushing, misrepresentation of sources, abuse of ANI to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and bad faith dealings with other editors. I suggest we consider taking this to WP:RFC or even WP:RFAR. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. RFC has already been tried, so suggest mediation or arbitration. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom or mediation this horrible mess. No admin is going to wade into this without weeks of preparation. --Haemo 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another RfC, this time with experienced editors and admins willing to read up on this information and help by offering their informed opinions regarding article content? I understand that there are outstanding claims of user conduct, but at its root this seems to primarily be a content dispute. --Iamunknown 05:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, if the claims about misrepresentation of sources hold water. That would be a policy matter. WP:AGF pending better evidence. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, despite the fact that PHG is referring to the RfC as an "ancient discussion" [69] it's actually quite active, as it was just started two weeks ago. Anyone who has an opinion on these matters is welcome to participate, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that nobody contributed to it for the last 2 weeks... and it does feel quite ancient with all the Talk Pages discussions in between, but of course I agree it is not "ancient" in a standard historical sense. :) Regards PHG 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's statement

Llywrch asked me to jump back in here and try to help...I am not really an expert or professional, but if I am the only one here with any formal training in medieval history then I suppose that counts for something. Now, first of all, I must report that I was first contacted by Elonka way back when this all began, so if I ever seem to be taking Elonka's side it's probably just because she got to me first. On the other hand, before I knew what PHG was doing, I did make a note that his chosen sources were a little odd; I've been following the discovery of new sources by PHG and Elonka with interest, and, to be honest, with some amusement. I'm sure I will sound like a pompous academic jerk saying this, but this whole situation reaffirms my belief that history should not be left to amateurs and dilettants. I know it's the sort of thing that everyone thinks they and their 4-year-old child can do, like abstract art which may or may not have been painted by elephants, but it's not. I don't think anyone has any idea what they're doing, and thus we have the current fiasco.

The essence of the matter is that this is not the sort of thing we should be writing about on Wikipedia. This is very important. What is relevant to Wikipedia, probably, is that the Mongols showed up, there were some attempts at an alliance, and it didn't work out. Everything else is "original research", perhaps not to the exact definition we are supposed to use on Wikipedia, but original research none the less. This would make an excellent university research paper, and it is the kind of debate that could be carried out over a series of journal articles (or, if I must again be a jerk, more likely over Internet message boards), but it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

I know PHG is usually considered an excellent contributor, and I do believe it is relevant that Ghirla and Irpen are sticking up for him, as they are also excellent and valued contributors, and Elonka likewise. I am not familiar with the vast amount of work everyone has done elsewhere, but I believe it proves that no one here is a crazy POV-pusher, rather the problem is that both sides have bitten off more than they chew. Deleting and starting over might be the best idea, although I'm sure neither side would accept that.

I will end with this: Aegri animi ista iactatio est: primum argumentum compositae mentis existimo posse consistere et secum morari. Illud autem vide, ne ista lectio auctorum multorum et omnis generis voluminum habeat aliquid vagum et instabile. Adam Bishop 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Thank you for your message, and thank you for the recognition of the quality of the contributors involved in this discussion. I am not sure I agree that the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a subject we should write about on Wikipedia. It is extensively discussed and documented by such major authors as René Grousset ("Histoire des Croisades"), Steven Runciman ("A history of the Crusades") for about 100 pages each, Jean Richard in "Histoire des Croisades", or by Alain Demurger in "Jacques de Molay" for the later period, all some of the most recognized historians of the Crusades. It is a true subject of academic discussion and publication. I am not sure either about the qualification that "everything else is just original research" beyond the few facts you mention, because all the article does is laying out the various scholarly sources on the subject, with extensive references everytime. I believe one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that we can delve into quite minute and arcane but fascinating subjects (such as this one, or Hasekura Tsunenaga, or the Boshin war, or the Indo-Greek Kingdom, or the Imperial Japanese Navy, all some of my FAs), with quite a lot of detail, and I think this is what makes this encyclopedia so special. In effect some of these articles can become some of the best compilations anywhere of the data and interpretations on a given subject. Best regards. PHG 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Devanampriya

I have not examined all of PHG's FAs, but just looking at Indo-Greek kingdom, I see that the article is definitely not stable, and edit wars appear to have been going on for months. I'm not saying who's right or wrong in terms of the content, but I don't believe that it's proper for PHG to have been reverting people with an edit summary implying that he's fixing "vandalism".[70][71] Content disputes are not vandalism. --Elonka 07:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Plenty of reputable editors have been qualifying User:Devanampriya as a vandal, I am but a single one. And actually most of the reverts of his deletions are not by me, but by other contributors [72]. I am sorry for you that you now have to look for an ally in this questionable contributor. His edits are not really about editorial content (he almost does not contribute anything, maybe 1-2 pages in his whole Wikilife), but about consistently deleting referenced material in favour of a sectarian Indo-centric view of history. Best regards. PHG 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the user's history: Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I see no blocks, nor do I see any vandalism warnings on the user's talkpage. There may be a case for 3RR, but that's not vandalism. I also see some incivility in Devanampriya's history (primarily where you're involved), but that's not vandalism either. Devanampriya's edits may or may not have been wise, but they appear to have been made in good faith, though there is obviously a strong difference of opinion. But again, this is not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#What vandalism is not. --Elonka 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this incredibly lengthy content dispute doing on ANI? 10:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.62.175 (talk)

Dear Elonka, you may have noticed that User:Devanampriya has also been claiming “Vandalism” towards respectable users such as User:Aldux, User:Sponsianus, User:Giani g or myself. So, in your great fairness, you might also include that point in your evaluation of his actions. Is he technically a “Vandal”? (according to Wikipedia policy, cf Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism). I would say probably yes. He resorts to Blanking extensively, by deleting referenced material that he dislikes [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], although I am sure you would argue he at least gives a (usually uncivil) reason to his blanking. He resorts extensively to Discussion page vandalism (To User:Giani g: “You have no knowledge about the subject matter but simply parrot PHG's positions and unleash invective upon me.” To User:Sponsianus: “The only thing nonsensical is your affected claims of objectivity, sponsy” To PHG: “Your claims to fairness are the equivalent of including nazi eugenics theories in modern biology” , “your narrow-mindedness”, “your raging philhellenism in your quest to subvert history”, “you and many of these pseudo-historians”, all this is a sampling of Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom). He resorts to User space vandalism through various insults of the same kind. He resorts to Edit summary vandalism by making offensive comments there (one of the definitions of vandalism indeed): To Giani g: “you are ignorant in these matters, so stop inserting inaccuracies.” To Kannauj: “it's called fanwank”, To Aldux:”you steamroll over dissent. You are not an objective admin. Recuse yourself”, To PHG ”removed eurocentric fanwank”, all on [79]). And of course Malicious account creation (sock-puppet cases in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devanampriya to overturn the 3R rule, one of which is detailed hereunder, worthy of account suspension Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User : Devanampriya). Dear Elonka, I am afraid you really shouldn’t need to associate yourself with such a contributor. Your case against me is so slim that you have to use vandals or semi-vandals to support your claims now. Or maybe there is a rationale to that: you seem to have a very low tolerance for scholars of differing opinions than yours, as Devanampriya is of scholars challenging his dream of a pure India, devoid of foreign influences. He continuously deletes references about the Ancient Greek influence in India, as you delete or corrupt sources about the Franco-Mongol alliance. I, for my part, am an inclusionist: I believe the various opinions of reputable scholars deserve representation, and should be presented in a balanced, NPOV format. And I also believe this is what Wikipedia stands for. Best regards. PHG 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I mention that User:Elonka is still coaching questionable User:Devanampriya to find material against me? [80] Is this considered as ethical conduct on Wikipedia? Am I supposed to correspond with Elonka’s detractors and coach them on what they should bring against her? Regards to all. PHG 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments to Devanampriya.[81] Also, I would point out that Admin Blnguyen has agreed that there may be some merit to Devanampriya's concerns, has protected the Indo-Greek Kingdom article, and taken it to Featured Article Review, both of which actions I strongly agree with. --Elonka 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I comment that this FA Review nomination of Indo-Greek kingdom is the result of a request made by our vandal/sock-pupetter/blanker User:Devanampriya to User:Blnguyen?... nothing glorious indeed, but I'm glad Elonka rejoices about it. PHG 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Could you kindly explain to us why you still stand by User:Devanampriya as a key to your case? After all his acts of vandalism, sock-pupettry etc... do you objectively think he is a commendable, proven, user of high-standing who deserves to be listened to on this board to throw dirt at me? And may I ask you again why you need this kind of support to advance your case, even telling him what he should do to bring material against me? [82] Are you so desperate that you need to clinch to that sort of contributor? PHG 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin who is just trying to get to the bottom of this dispute, I took a look at the last 100 edits to the Indo-Greek Kingdom article. By my count Devanampriya & PHG have both used the word "vandal" towards each other twice, & Giano g called Devanampriya a "vandal" once; the only other usage of this word was by an anon IP (who wrote that the previous edit was not vandalism), & reversions of a group of edits by anon IPs (which is likely actual, inserting gibberish or deleting text-style vandalism). Also, Devanampriya has used the word "revert" or "rv" 8 times, PHG 4, and Aldux 2. Lastly, several editors who have not participated in this thread on WP:AN/I have had their contributions lost in the ongoing reversion war, some of which are simply identified as spelling and grammar corrections. This simple test indicates that no one editor is being singled out for abuse, but that the members of a small group are giving as much venom as they are receiving. If the parties involved aren't going to participate in mediation, then the ArbCom may be the only way to end this dispute. -- llywrch 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aldux's one cent

Oh God, I really did my best to pretend not knowing of this thread, because if there's something of wikipedia I don't like, it's all these disputes.... Unfortunately, it didn't work, so I'll just give my one cent (two cents is too much, guys). To begin with, I will start saying I have a great esteem of both the editors in question, who I judge among our most brilliant contributors, and so I observed with pain the progressive escalation that took place on Franco-Mongol alliance. In my personal opinion, it began with Elonka moving some objections to parts of the content of the article, which while advanced in some occasions a bit dogmatically. For example the positions like "there was no alliance", "Jerusalem was never taken" (these are not literal quotes, but I think they reflect his general position), while in my opinion very convincingly advanced, and also, I believe, respecting historical consensus, are not the only possible, as secondary sources, some of which I viewed myself, leave space for considering them themes well over fringe, even if, I repeat, certainly secondary. While incivility accusations seem excessive (but this may be because I've seen really furious hate speech being hurled when I monitored problematic Balkan-related articles), through time I do think I perceived on the talk an increasing frustration by Elonka, towards what he perceived, IMO correctly, as a pretty possessive attitude by PHG in regards to the article, that could be envisaged as a break of WP:OWN (and maybe also WP:POINT, even if I must add that I find also Elonka's behaviouur pretty pointy). When it became clear that the tension among the two chief editors was becoming explosive, it was proposed seperately on two occasions by first me and later Srnec (I think, at least) that both should leave the article awhile and do something else for a couple of weeks, hoping that part of the tension would have defused on their return, but neither of us was really listened to. I have a feeling this article has became a sort of obsession for PHG and Elonka. Maybe locking the article for a month wouldn't be a bad idea, even if it may be too late for this now. Regarding content issues, of which already too much has been said on this thread; I will only say that's Elonka's frustration is making her unreasonable, because while I'm certainly no genius, I do know something of history, from which after all I earn my bread, and PHG's history articles seem to me of good quality. They tend to use too much primary sources (a very common problem, BTW, in wikipedia) and are often over-long, and tend to expound too much on certain lines of historical research, which doesn't surprise me really much, because to believe that an absolutely neutral article is a pretty naive view. And a final note: Blnguyen hasn't taken positions on the goods or bads of that other article, but simply did what any sensible admin should do when an editor moves strong and specificated criticisms toward a FA, that is invite him to open a WP:FAR, which is not a condemnation, actually they should be done far more often. Also, Blnguyen's personal objections are in my view perfectly sensible, with a possible objection to 1e), as I thinks it's mainly a one man crusade, as Vastu has left ages ago (which is a pity), and the Pavanapuram account left extremely few edits before leaving. Also Windy City Dude has made a very reduced number of edits, and, in all honesty, I'm a bit suspicious regarding the striking similarity of their editing patterns, even if it may be just a coincidence. As for speaking of Devanampriya, I'm not the most indicated to do this, as I'm a bit biased in his regards. I just hope these words will defuse a bit the sentiments, even I'm not overoptimist.--Aldux 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rodsan18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the following non-biographies.

• • United Nations Interpretation Service
  • United Nations Art Collection

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

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

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

I found the last two (Igor Korchilov and Jean Herbert) to be informative articles about notable people. There shouldn't be any security issues about Herbert, as he is dead. The non-bio articles are notable and interesting. If they are all the work of User:Rodsan18 (and they do seem to be), then an off-wiki discussion to sort out exactly what can and can't be kept should sort things out. I suspect the problem is with material added that might not be available from public sources (eg. lists of interpreters). Such material should be oversighted. See the article history of United Nations Interpretation Service. Any material that is sourced to publically available sources should be kept. One possible solution, to disassociate Rodsan18 from the material, is for a cut and paste copy of the article to be made in his userspace (minus any non-public information and any extra edits from other people), for the original article history to be deleted, for Rodsan18 to release the edited copy in his userspace into the public domain, and for another user to restart the article using that material, with an edit summary like "using author-released public domain copy of edited version of previous article that was deleted". Does that work? Carcharoth 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555‎

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [83] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [84] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [85] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [86] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [87] [88] [89] [90] Removes tags [91] and has ignored requests to discuss [92] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [93] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [94] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny

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

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

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

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

She socked in order to use profanity: [95], and was open about it. Even if she's trying her best to get blocked, maybe we should oblige. The Evil Spartan 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Maybe she could find Dexter in the Bahamas. [96] Funkynusayri 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you want us to 'take it easy', then avoid pouring fuel on fires. ThuranX 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I consider [97] this a gross violation of AGF and CIV; Igor the otter is resorting to anti-Semitic attacks to push his point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even I feel like agreeing with this block, mostly on the grounds that he came here intending to solely edit in favor of an antisemitic POV. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Concur; block overdue and endorsed. -- Avi 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User : Devanampriya

Dear All,

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

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

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

Regards,

Devanampriya 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Devanampriya's response

This is rubbish, Devanampriya is well known for being caustic but I'll adress his points:

1.Any incivility that occurred was due to Giani's numerous attacks on users such as Vastu (see Indo Greek discussion)and myself. Simply because we disagreed with user PHG and attempted to negotiate with him, we were marked for attack. Vastu, you will note, refrained from response in spite of numerous provocations.

I made no uncivil claims against Vastu, I was merely pointing out Vastu's lack of credibility regarding the Indo Greek article and my comments can still be seen on the talk page on Vastu. It wasn't only me who called Vastu's credibility into question but other users as well. Do a control + F "giani" on the link : Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom#MAPS:_THE_RESURRECTION

2.I was not using or attempting to use sockpuppets to prevail in an edit war. I, like many of you, have other obligations and cannot always edit from my main computer. I sign on when possible. If you'll take a note at the edit history, the I believe the 3RR rule was not violated either through IP address or my SN. If it was, I sincerely apologize and I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again.

The evidence speaks for itself, two previous checks failed to prove that he was however the recent check I called for has and has confirmed past suspicions of Devanampriya's previous two years of wrong doing. Do check the comments regarding the check as it has been confirmed.

3.Take a look at Giani G's contribs. He has been exclusively cyberstalking me ever since user PHG--who is under review for original research and tendentious editing--put him up to it. All of his edits recently have been kneekjerk reverts without even responding to my points. They simply accuse me of vandalism. From the moment I sign on, he is on my tail needlessly.

That's irrelevant as I am undoing Devanampriya's destructive contributions to wikipedia.

4.Even his associate Aldux noted that at least one of my edits (see Porus page) had merit. And when I made corrections on the Alexander page (i.e the image of Alexander with his elephant cap) where it said "Alexander's Conquest of India", all I did was change it to "Alexander's conquests in India" which is more accurate (over 85-90% of India was untouched by him). Even though Giani changed it and drummed up some irrelevant reason, the other editors recognized the merit of my argument and retained it.

Aldux is not MY associate, whom ever Devanampriya disagrees gets lumped together as though we're all plotting in a conspiracy against him. as for India, when discussing ANCIENT India the Indus and the Hindu Kush is described as India hence my revertions in the same way modern day Afghanistan is no longer considered a part of India but Devanampriya doesn't seem to mind if Afghanistan isn't mentioned everytime India is discussed in these articles.

5.He has repeatedly slandered me with accusations of Nationalism simply because I correct mistakes pertaining to India. So is it not natural for me to then respond and accuse him of eurocentrism?

He removes SOURCED information because he is very xenophobic. These arn't mistakes as he likes to put it but are pieces of information relevant to the location and time within the article so do check MY contribution history to see what he removes. He calls all sorts of historians colonial even if they are writing about another civilisation eg he calls Tarn a British historian a colonialist even though he studies history regarding ancient Greeks in India. Do check the Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom as he slanders other respected historians of various nationalities with the same charge (as they do not support his view).

6.Giani's blatant accusations of vandalism have been attempts to cover up for his uncertain knowledge on many topics. He simply attempts to impose PHG's actions (which are under review above) and not legitimately respond to issues. This is counter to wikipedia's philosophy.

I admit my knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high, however that is not to say that Devanampriya's knowledge is any superior which I think may even be worse as he demonstrates this with his poor editing skill, uncivility and lack of rhetoric.

If you require evidence of his hostility, do check his contribution history as he tends to fill his edit summaries with personal attacks. Also do not forget to check the the edit summaries of the sock puppets above as they are also full of personal attacks. If you require specific examples do message me and I'll provide them.

([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Rebuttal to Giani G's note above

That's irrelevant as I am undoing Devanampriya's destructive contributions to wikipedia.

Undoing my destructive contributions? You admit that you have no knowledge on the topic, but have the temerity to call my contributions destructive? That makes no sense Giani g. You've just proven my point. Where is your evidence of my lack of knowledge? How are the edits destructive? You make knee jerk accusations of vandalism, but can't back it up because your "knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high".

Let the admins note that giani g makes blanket accusations without any evidence. This is the reason why I stopped logging in, because he doesn't take the time to educate himself on the topic and simply deletes everything without thinking. Even Aldux, his own admin enabler recognized this here [[98]]. This is the problem, and this is why giani g is degrading wikipedia's accuracy.

He removes SOURCED information because he is very xenophobic.

Umm, the content that was removed was MISOURCED. Narain did not endorse the views that PHG was advocating. And Tarn is an established philhellenic writer by his own admission. Have you ever read Tarn? Why don't you start with that instead of talking about topics that you have no exposure to or remote command of.

Here is E. Seldeslachts, a EUROPEAN scholar on Tarn:

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks.

So you keep reinstated OBSOLETE material Giani. And you call my removal of this vandalism? Shame on you.

Where are your references giani g? Where are your legitimate contributions to the related pages? You never back anything up, just parrot PHG's lead. If any critique is made, you yell "Incivility".

as for India, when discussing ANCIENT India the Indus and the Hindu Kush is described as India hence my revertions in the same way modern day Afghanistan is no longer considered a part of India but Devanampriya doesn't seem to mind if Afghanistan isn't mentioned everytime India is discussed in these articles.

Umm, other than putting your complete lack of knowledge of India and relevant historiography on display, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. "India" referred to the whole subcontinent, hence herodotus' descriptions of indians with fine hair in the north and those with hair reminiscent of ethiopians in the south, etc, in his histories. So I don't know what your source for this is here, but PHG doesn't count as a reference. Why don't you focus on topics that you actually know about, and I'm hoping there's at least one.

I made no uncivil claims against Vastu, I was merely pointing out Vastu's lack of credibility regarding the Indo Greek article and my comments can still be seen on the talk page on Vastu. It wasn't only me who called Vastu's credibility into question but other users as well. Do a control + F "giani" on the link : Talk:Indo-Greek_Kingdom#MAPS:_THE_RESURRECTION

Exactly, you are attacking his credibility even though he knows more about the topic than you do (by your own admission above, you clearly are ignorant on the topic). And if that's not proof enough, this post certainly is:

"Hi PHG, could you please give me a list of sources (i.e. the books used) for your Indo-Greek map, as it stands I do think your map should remain though I would just like to see the sources for my self to make sure, the arguements used against it seem very weak with an ulterior motive (i.e. out of xenophobia and anti-European sentiment) Plus I don't think Narain should be considered as a reliable source in comparison with Tarn (Eurocentric? Oh come on, Europeans are generally apathetic towards each other), Busagali as he is Indian himself during an anti-colonial, xenophobic and patriotic era. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giani g (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)." [[99]]

So let's see, you don't know what you are talking about but you comment. You ask PHG for sources so you can do his dirty work. You know nothing about Narain but attempt to discredit him. Then you make the most nonsensical claim about europeans. I think this speaks for itself.

BTW: this isn't uncivil?

"Vastu blatantly threw away his credibility when he revealed this map:

So I don't think we have to go over wether Vastu was right or not. I must say I prefer PHG's map to any other seen here so far. As for the unjust and pedantic criticism aimed at the article, well the article was peer reviewed and made featured status. I really don't see the bias or the POV in the article because it just doesn't exist, "aggrandize" my arse! I seriously would like quotes from the critics to be lifted out of the article if it's that bad. (Giani g 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC))"

[[100]]

You debase the quality of dialogue with your crude language and accusations. I suggest you wash your mouth with soap, or at least get some word-a-day toilet paper to enhance your poor vocabulary. To the Admins:

As you can see, Giani G, by his own admission, has no knowledge on the topic. He simply reverts anything I contribute to without even digesting it. Even his own associate and supporter Aldux reprimanded him on one occasion because of the brazen and thoughtless hatred he bears towards me. If there is inaccurate, misourced, and obsolete content, it is incumbent upon editors to remove it. That it what I have sought to do. Giani g only interferes and harms the wikipedia system. Please take this into consideration and reprimand him for his immature behavior.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence to show user Devanampriya's uncivil behaviour

Undoing my destructive contributions? You admit that you have no knowledge on the topic

Please I said no such thing. "I admit my knowledge regarding the articles in question are not very high, however that is not to say that Devanampriya's knowledge is any superior" That's nothing like saying I have no knowledge Now Devanampriya is reverting and pretty calling much calling me stupid in his summaries as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_the_Great&diff=prev&oldid=161730699

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurya_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=161730074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satavahana&diff=prev&oldid=161729417

"The reconstruction of Tarn, fascinating as it is, is now largely outdated" (p.265). End of the Road for the Indo Greeks."

Wow you're quote mining something you do not know about, check the Indo Greek talk page regarding this. Devanampriya has done this before, he cherry picks quotes to suit his agenda but forgets context is also very important.

So let's see, you don't know what you are talking about but you comment. You ask PHG for sources so you can do his dirty work. You know nothing about Narain but attempt to discredit him. Then you make the most nonsensical claim about europeans. I think this speaks for itself.

No I have to confirm his work is based on fact, I'm asking him for his sources so I can see for myself. Not sure why verifying information is a bad thing... I make a nonsensical claim about Europeans? What was it? Was it how Europeans don't like to be lumped together i.e. Germans, French, English being considered one homogenous lump as you seem to imply. I'm from the UK and I find your Eurocentric claims very silly as we don't hold hands with one another as you seem to imply

Where are your references giani g? Where are your legitimate contributions to the related pages? You never back anything up, just parrot PHG's lead. If any critique is made, you yell "Incivility".

Look at my contributions, look at the diffs, the information is sourced by credible people, the evidence speaks for itself.

I could critique the rest of his reply but I think he's done enough damage without me revealing anymore dirt ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

User:FourthAve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endorse (I've never been to Florida). LessHeard vanU 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He definitely needs to get his ethics in. (Someone had to say that. :) -- llywrch 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential problem conerning episode articles

I am not certain if this is our expected behaviour or not however I am bringing this to admin attention anyways: [101]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I missed something, so please bear with me. Lets take Indian Summer (Dawson's Creek episode), one of the articles in question that I reviewed during my spot-check of TTN`s clean-up work. On August 25th, TTN added [102] a {{mergeto}} tag on the article that included a discussion link to Talk:List of Dawson's Creek episodes#Episode notability. After 34 days, consensus was determined and two days later (36 days after the article was tagged) the episode was merged [103] into the episode list. Reviewing the final, pre-merger version of the article shows it to be a textbook example of what WP:EPISODE says to avoid: quotes, featured music, zero citations, no real world context, and a decorative fair-use image. Looks like a pretty clear cut case of cleanup to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit point

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

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

The WP:EPISODE guideline was drafted to help guide editors to better write articles and was a decent resource if used for this purpose (I am not madly in love with it mind you). While the guideline was never community approved (no community wide discussion), I think it was adequately worded on the 16 April 2007 version. Between then and 26 September 2007 article underwent a major rewrite, based on what I do not know. It was originally a MOS guideline (and should have stayed that way) and now is been turned into a notability guideline [104]. I am uncertain if there was an extensive discussion by the community as a whole for this abrupt and extensive change. I see no evidence of it. Guidelines and policies are not written by an elite group of people but are derived out of a consensus from the entire Wikipedia community as a whole.

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

When an article is low on quality, you improve it. When there are hundreds or thousands of articles on very similar subjects (like TV episodes), all with the same problems, all for a long time, you merge them. Nothing is lost, and we get a lot closer to following our content policies (WP:NOT, WP:V) and guidelines. I have redirected episode articles the day they were created, without discussion, as people felt the need to create articles for episodes that wouldn't be aired for two months...[105]. The problem here is not that these stub articles should get more time, but that less of these should be created in the first place. When someone is willing and able to make a better article, with out-of-universe content and reliable independent sources, then the merge can be very easily undone. Until then, these articles are only bad examples for new editors. Fram 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

And when there's nothing worth merging, we redirect.[106] So? Fram 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Block Review - Netmonger (talk · contribs)

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

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

To first go over what happened, Wiki Raja engaged in extensive vote canvassing related to a straw poll at Template_talk:Sri Lankan Conflict. An editor then posted a comment at the straw poll indicating he was canvassed by Wikiraja.[107] Wikiraja subsequently moved the editor's comment from a subsection of it's own, to a much less prominent position hidden among other discussions.[108] I reverted his edit, and he reverted back. I reverted again, and posted the {{uw-tpv2}} warning on his talk page not to edit other user's comments. Wiki Raja removed the warning with the edit summery "rm. vandalism", [109] but heeded the warning and stopped moving the other editor's comment on the talk page.

After that, from what I can see, User:Netmonger undid Wiki Raja's edit 2 times, adding back my original warning, and even posted on WP:AIV that Wiki Raja was removing the warning on his talk page.[110] When he was advised by an an admin that Wiki Raja could remove the warning from the talk page and he shouldn't add it back again again, he replied "I agree with what you said on my talk page".[111] From what I can see that indicates he didn't know user's could remove warning from their own talk pages, and when told by the admin that they could, he listened to that and stopped adding it back.

In the meantime, Wiki Raja added a message on Netmonger's talk page[112]

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

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

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

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

Are you certain the email was from Netmonger, and it was not forged? Anyone can duplicate text based email headers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't be absolutely certain, but I have no reason to assume that bad of faith on Wiki Raja's part. (And the header includes HTML, not just plain text). Mr.Z-man 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As Shell said, and I agree, I don't think his edits could be considered as harassment, let alone warrant blocking. As for the email, there obviously was bad blood between the users, and the threat by Wiki Raja was extremely uncivil, and, in my opinion, more than enough reason in-itself not to automatically "assume good faith" on the part of Wiki Raja

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

It was followed by Netmonger posting this

The joke you added to User_talk:Netmonger is getting old. Humor is great sometimes, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

on Wiki Raja's talk page. You have to question whether Netmonger's violation of the "last warning" resulted in this Joe Job punishment?

Also HTML can easily be duplicated. As long as the email was text based, I don't see how you can use it as evidence. If it was sent to you in the form as an attachment, I believe that would be harder to fake, although I think it's best if we get an opinion on that from a more technically proficient admin --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Wiki Raja to send me the header info from the original email:

Delivered-To: wikiraja@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.162.20 with SMTP id k20cs37375wfe;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)

Received: by 10.70.76.13 with SMTP id y13mr7388353wxa.1191146979295;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org
>
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])

        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h34si11144474wxd.2007.09.30.03.09.38;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com
: best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=
66.230.200.216;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass smtp.mail=wiki@wikimedia.org
Received: from vincent.pmtpa.wmnet
 ([10.0.0.17]:57070 helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <
wiki@wikimedia.org>)
	id 1Ibvk2-0007Kp-K8
	for wikiraja@gmail.com; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vincent [
127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8UA9c0a026094
	for <wikiraja@gmail.com>; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost
)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l8UA9cco026093;
	Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Message-Id: <
200709301009.l8UA9cco026093@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
To: Wiki Raja <
wikiraja@gmail.com>
Subject: Have you considered?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Netmonger <
netmongers@gmail.com>

This shows it was either sent by Netmonger through Wikipedia's email feature or Wiki Raja is going to significant lengths to get a short block (which I shortened to 12 hours per concerns her) on Netmonger. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all the trouble answering the questions Z-man, I just want to make sure a user wasn't wrongfully blocked here. Did you notice that the email address is netmongers@gmail.com (note the s), and do you know for certain that User:Netmonger uses the email netmongers@gmail.com? Is there a way for admins to verify that? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a test, I tried creating an account for "netmonger@gmail.com" (No "s"). The account was already registered so it is possible that it's a impersonator. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is Netmonger contesting his/her block, or claiming that s/he didn't send the email? Natalie 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support unblocking as soon as possible. This looks like someone created a throwaway account in order to implicate Netmonger; unless this editor suddenly lost all ability to use grammar, spelling and capitalization, its a pretty obvious troll. Shell ^babelfish 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this was done by mistake, shall we made a comment on his block log saying that it was a mistake? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: [[113]], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning.[114] Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

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

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

RedSpruce...again

RedSpruce has apparently grown weary of forum shopping. After two ANI reports, a deleted RfC, discussion on his talk page, my talk page, and the WP:EL talk page he has decided that everyone else is wrong and he will continue adding links anyway. I have explained policy to him as well as (Calton, FisherQueen, Merope but he seems to think the policies don't apply when he doesn't feel like it. Can someone else explain this to him? IrishGuy ^talk 01:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think his whole plan is to contravene policy in the hopes that I will block him...then he can claim admin abuse. He already attempted to claim: Since Irishguy has the power to block me, this is an admin abuse which is ridiculous. You can see where he alludes to this again here. Mind, he claims he will stop is another admin tells him to...and as noted above that has already happened. IrishGuy ^talk 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely invite anyone to explain this policy to me (whichever one Irishguy is saying applies at the moment). Irishguy refused to continue the discussion with me once it became obvious that he had no argumentative leg to stand on. Instead he prefers to edit war. [115] RedSpruce 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this: You're linking to a blog. 99 out of 100 times, that's a guaranteed no-no. The use of blogs is very restrictive for good reason; as a rule of thumb, they're unreliable. It is thoroughly incumbent upon the editor seeking to add such a link that it is inherently valid and valuable to the article to which the editor seeks to add it. Positive blog examples include two MySpace examples: Tim Story, director of Fantastic Four 2, and Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, both have had their myspace pages cited in the pages of the relevant film articles, where their direct quotes are sourced, or wherein they discuss progress on the film. Those are certainly far more valid, and were reviewed at the time on the talk pages and with talks with admins, about having those particular MySpaces moved to the whitepage, because relative to those two films, they are/were notable. Simply linking to a blog about films in general, as you seem intent on doing, is unacceptable. Had you sought to add some particularly insightful commentary found in a given entry, to the relevant fim, a reasonable case could be presented on the talk page, consensus to include be developed, and then an admin found to whitelist it. Heck, you could've even presented a good argument to an admin, and skipped the talk page int he interest of being BOLD, then brought it to the article, where talk page might discuss removing it, but you'd have still followed a reasonable procedure. It appears you've done none of the above. Instead, you continue to insist it's a good link, and edit war. IG shouldn't be edit warring, but neither should you, and given that he brought it here, he clearly won't be blocking you per COI citations you and others would invoke (fairly). Someone else, however should block you, or at least give you a final warning. In fact, Let's go on record. As an otherwise uninvolved, uninterested editor of Wikipedia, This is a final warning, "Knock It Off." ThuranX 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I'm afraid you haven't looked into the situation you're commenting on. I am not "linking to a blog about films in general"; what's under discussion are links to articles by noted film noir authorities. And in any case, as CBD notes below, the WP:EL policy page doesn't support anything like the policy toward blogs that you describe. In sum, since my edits are entirely in keeping with WP policies here, I'm not clear on what it is I'm supposed to "knock off." I ask that you either clarify your ultimatum or withdraw it. Thanks. RedSpruce 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins may not use their extra buttons to 'win' a content dispute. Citing WP:EL doesn't stop this from being a content dispute because that is a guideline, and indeed says only that we should generally not include;

• "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (emphasis mine)

Eddie Muller apparently is a 'recognized authority' on the subject, and thus RedSpruce has a reasonable basis for his belief that the link is appropriate. Which is also supported by what WP:EL says about links which can and should be added;

• "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
• "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He's got a reasonable case. There is no COI here. This is a good user with a long contribution history and empty block log. It's a content dispute. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stop edit warring. Stop threatening admin action on a content dispute. Discuss the actual issues. Why is this link less worthy than the other four included on The Big Heat? Does it really contain anything which can't be gleaned from the article and/or those other sites? --CBD 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the blog he wants to link to consists of reprints of copyrighted work, why should he cite the blog and not the original printing of the works in question? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reason not to (that I've been informed of), and because the online versions are freely available online. A great many online resources are also available in print; I haven't seen that cited as a reason to avoid linking to the online versions. RedSpruce 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cited references' and 'external links' are fundamentally different things. A citation can be made to any kind of source (print, online, television, radio, et cetera) for the purpose of providing verification for some fact(s) in the article. External links on the other hand are only to online sources and for the purpose of providing additional information not found in the article. Listing an 'External link' to a book obviously doesn't make sense... it's not a link. Some pages include books and other print media as 'general sources' (rather than inline on particular facts) in the 'References' section, but it isn't common and again is intended as verification of the text IN the article rather than something like a 'bibliography' section for further reading on the subject. The only 'bibliography' equivalent commonly used on Wikipedia is 'External Links'. --CBD 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert-warrior

Syed Atif Nazir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverts blindly on Islam-related articles, ignoring talk pages and edit-summaries. Here are his most recent edits to Islam-related articles. All of them have been of this kind, excluding his posts to the talk page of the currently locked Template:Islam.

• 03:22, 1 October 2007 At Ma malakat aymanukum, engages in edit-warring without having participated on the talk page, and ignores all posts there and edit summaries.

simply, let me quote the last edit which you have not responded in the discussion page.

"Thats all you keep saying but you have to my knowledge not provided any evidence for it and his page says nothing of what you say.Also, the first interpretation given on the subject has no author/scholar/whatever to back it up, at least this one does. Jedi Master MIK 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ". This is another comment by last revert by Jedi "rv please give some support for your claim on the talk page, not just your claim over and over again.". I don't need to repeat the same questions others are asking on the talk page. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 20 September 2007 same, Banu Qurayza.
• 06:59, 21 September 2007 same, Banu Qurayza.

of course, you kept on removing this tag and deliberately ignoring and reverting other administrator Refdoc addition of this tag to the article (see here). pls read Talk page here, disputes are going on and must be tagged at least ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 01:18, 1 October 2007 same, Cologne Mosque project.

Read talk here, you have been asked to participate in the discussion and you did not. I quote

"Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here.Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)".

You deliberately removed content nevertheless. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 04:07, 29 September 2007 same at Criticism of Muhammad, where he shows no understanding of the issues whatsoever is his edit summary.

discussion is ongoing and you continue to assert a polemicist, anti-religious, Extremist source Ibn Warraq as reliable without consesnsus, ignoring other editors. (see here) ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can something be done? Arrow740 03:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

my response below. thanks ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The old "others are just as bad as me" defense. See Converse accident. Yahel Guhan 04:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

this definition is invalid as it is no more "just as bad" given many reverts, edit warring etc. by Arrow as compared to me or other editors there. ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to admins: I don't know User:Atif nazir, or this particular controversy but I do know that User:Arrow740's description above could easily be used to summarize his/her own behavior on Islam in the United States, where he shows up to revert [116] [117] but never engages in discussion on the entry talk page, other than to taunt [118] or to reprimand/threaten [119] other editors and very rarely and tangentially on his own when invited to discussion on repeated occasions [120] [121] [122]. I'm not one to take out RfCs or complain at ANI about other editors, but this kind of hypocrisy is where I draw the line. Please take the appropriate action against User:Atif nazir but please also don't forget to look into the disruptive editing behavior of the person calling the kettle black here. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith seems to have a bizarre personal vendetta with me. As I indicated on the talk page at 05:35, 25 September 2007, I was swayed from my initial position by her arguments and my only edit since then has been to undo her edit removing 7000 characters with no talk discussion at 03:23, 26 September 2007. Regarding Atif, I assume that he has muddied the waters sufficiently to get away with it this time. Hopefully he will begin to use talk pages now, at least. Arrow740 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering who's getting away here? I will request administrators to look into responses I have put above which he terms as "muddying" and also not sure if it complies to WP:CIVIL? Thanks again ~atif ^{msg me} - 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

i would second PelleSmith's comments. for Arrow740 to condemn others as "revert warrior[s]" when he himself perpetuates edit wars on multple articles with minimal talk page interaction smacks of WP:KETTLE. ITAQALLAH 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

response to Arrow740

the same should be said about him. others comment about him also not participating on Talk and ignoring other's comments and also why I made those edits. :

• [Ma malakat aymanukum - 1], [Ma malakat aymanukum - 2]
• [Cologne Mosque project - 1], [Cologne Mosque project - 2]
• Banu Qurayza: NPOV dispute had to put in. Administrator Refdoc also put in the tag.
• [Criticism of Muhammad]: obviously Ibn Warraq does not comply to [[WP:RS].
• many comments about his edit warring can be seen on his Talk page, here are some: 1, 2

I will appreciate if his talk page, comments by other editors for his reverts can be thoroughly looked into. thanks for your help ~atif ^{msg me} - 04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

when providing diffs, you are supposed to provide the link to his diff, rather than the link to the following diff. And as for the Banu Qurayza link, that edit wasn't even done by Arrow. Yahel Guhan 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

for BQ, I am responding why I made edit to put in the tag. following diff are put in to show comments in response to his last reverts. ~atif ^{msg me} - 05:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who checks the talk page histories will see, I have many, many posts on them, while you have none. Arrow740 05:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

it is interesting to see why so many editors are asking you to respond for your edits on the Talk page, and not me? ~atif ^{msg me} - 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you dont post on a talk page, you cant respond to any posts. That's kinda logical.Bakaman 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If your edits are per consensus, no other editor will ask you to respond even if you did not participate in the discussion. For example, See the Cologne Mosque project Talk page section here (note that Arrow740 blames others for not participating). He did not participate at all in the discussion, however still reverted. Naturally, this is the last comment by User:Bless sins, "Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here.Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)".

As anyone familiar with the situation knows, citing BS here doesn't really help your case. Arrow740 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism

I've been told by ban editor "never again" to do the editing I've done. It sounds threatening to me. The above expression is Antisemitic, I've traced it to Hitler and Nazism. But I believe the editor, Mikkai (or something like that) wishes to keep his Antisemitic version (against scholarly sources) and seem to be threatening me. Also, I do not with to engage in an editors war with him. Please advise what to do. Thanks. --Ludvikus 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, Only lovers of Alfred Rosenberg would do such things is essentially accusing many different Wikipedia editors of Nazi-loving. The proper response to such accusations is a violation of WP:NPA, so I will not make it or suggest anyone do so. Secondly, you already have gotten into an edit war by reverting a reversion. Talk first, revert later, if at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here is a good candidate for WP:LAME. What is the point of this move war? EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not all that lame. The original article is about the expression and the particular conspiracy theory. Ludvikus objects to the article about the expression and wants to change it to an article about a particular obscure Jew-hating pamphlet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but how does moving the article about the expression solve that issue? Mikkalai is move warring together with Ludvikus but he has a point when he tells Ludvikus to create a seperate article about the pamphlet rather than move the other article. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of the participants have asked other editors, myself included, to help on the topic. Talk:Belarus#White_Russian_vs._White_movement for reference. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • They now have two identical articles except for the lead so I suppose that's one way of stopping a move war. They also have a merge debate going on so this seems beyond what ANI needs to get involved in now, especially since ANI does not resolve content disputes. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass image mistaggings by BetacommandBot

Recently User:BetacommandBot started tagging thousands of fair use images, the majority of them having proper fair use rationale for deletion. The problem seems to be in some little-known rule, that each fair use rationale must have the exact name of the article in it. Many images are used in a single article, and thus the enforcement of this rule is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Also, many rationales actually mention which article is meant, just not in the way that the bot is programmed to understand. There are several concerns at User talk:Betacommand, which describe how the bot disturbs the workflow of Wikipedia, clogging categories, spamming users with hundreds of warnings and so on. I therefore propose that the bot is blocked, and his tags reverted. It is a plague on Wikipedia, and must be stopped.  Grue  15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the third malfunctioning bot on this page, first martinbot, then SatyrBot, then this one. I don't know aboutSatyrBot, but MartinBot and BetacommandBot have always run perfectly as far as i could tell. Whats going on?(Oh no, are the bots rising up against us? RUN AWAY!!)--Jac16888 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They're rising up in response to this [123]. Kelpin 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, i forgot about that, even though i took an interest. No wonder they're rising up. Poor bots--Jac16888 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a malfunction. The fair use rational does need the article name in it. It is not a waste of time, if you think it is then propose a policy change at WP:NFCC instead of trying to get the bot enforcing the rules blocked. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot never run perfectly, and was often blocked. It is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia, actually.  Grue  15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot is running well in my opinion, performing the task he was appointed to. Most of the blocks were overturned or were the result of a bug. If you spotted a BUG, report it to Betacommand, but don't shoot the messenger please. The bot is only enforcing policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:IAR for a reason. If a policy is stupid, ignore it. The problem with bots is that they can't apply WP:IAR, so they should only be used to implement non-stupid policies.  Grue  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the human running it thought the rule was stupid, then he could tell the bot to ignore it. I don't think the rule is stupid, nor does ignoring it help us build a free encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot does not delete the images, an admin does. The admin can choose to either delete the image or to address the concerns (ie, write a rationale/correct it). If I mass untagged images put for deletion without expressing the concerns, stating WP:IAR, I'd expect an angry RfC against me. If you have a problem with the deletion of an image, take it to the deleting admin, not the person/bot that tagged the image for deletion (same applies for articles speedy deletions). -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there are so many images tagged, there is no way a human would be able to process them all. Eventually, someone will write a bot to delete them all, as it happened last time (I think it was User:Nandesuka, apologies to this user if my memory is glitchy), when a lot of deleted images could've been easily fixed.  Grue  16:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And yes, ignoring this rule does help to build encyclopedia, just by not bothering editors with implementing it. Ignoring this rule also helps to weed unsuitable images labelled as fair use, since the relevant categories would not be as cluttered as they are now, which is important to mantain the freeness of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame people aren't as enthusiastic about following the rules for using non free images as they are at uploading and adding these images to articles. These fair use rationales will all need to be fixed sooner rather than later, it might as well be right now. Nick 15:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of good-faith editors have complained about the manner in which it operates - its latest tactic, tagging images that have a rationale for deletion because they don't have the exact name in a way the bot has been programmed to understand, is ludicrous. Nobody will accept any kind of change at NFCC because it's owned by some truly ferocious free-content warriors, so the only way of improving matters is for the bot tagging to be done in a more helpful way - perhaps a message on the talk page asking for the name to properly added, and not tagging the image for deletion? Some of our more prolific image uploaders, who uploaded images in good faith and utterly correctly according to the rules in place at the time, are now getting subsumed by messages. I do note, Grue, that you haven't raised this issue with Betacommand, or notified him on his talk page of this discussion. Some diffs to illustrate where the bot is wrongly tagging images for deletion would also be useful. Neil ム 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's too many images to be dealt with by humans, which is why we have bots to do it. Machine readable information on images pages is essential. It might be possible to have Beta add some additional functionality which has the bot tidy up the information into machine readable format, or it might be an idea to have another bot that runs and formats the page as necessary. Nick 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When a rule goes unenforced for 2 years, and you start enforcing it, people will grumble. That is no reason not to enforce the rule. If the bot is making mistakes that is one thing, but if the rational does not have a string that matches the name of the article then it is just not valid. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Many images are used in a single article, and thus the enforcement of this rule is completely unnecessary and a waste of time" <--- not true. They might be used in a single article right now, but people often over time add the images to other articles. Thus, the hand-tailored fair use rationale provided by the person should specify to which article their rationale is directed. - Mark 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that it's following official policy(10(c)). That said, given that it's started enforcing something that's not been enforced for some time, had I written the task, I would have done it slightly differently; I would have initially informed people what the specific problem was (no article name), but without tagging, and let them know that the bot would start tagging in, say, 2 weeks. That would give them a chance to rectify the issue. But hey, that's just me and how I would have done it. That doesn't mean that the bot is mistagging, only that some people are unhappy that they have to go and do something about the policy they've failed to abide by. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a policy is hard to enforce is not the reason a policy should be changed. Previous lack of effective enforcement does not invalidate the rule. To further expand on what Mark said above, not only might they be used in other articles, but they may no longer be used in the article the rationale was originally written for, possibly making the rationale invalid. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The problem here is twofold: (1) Retrospective changing of the non-free use rationale template (the requirement for a specific article parameter in the template was only added recently); and (2) Tagging and speedy deleting when it would take less time to fix the rationale template. Regarding (2), Maybe the way to solve this is to tell admins that they will be severely cautioned (by "the community") if they speedy delete an image when it would have been quicker to add an article link to the use rationale. I presume I am right in thinking that admins don't speedy delete without considering fixing the use rationale template...? Maybe a message along these lines can be added to the template that BetacommandBot added to these images? Regarding (1), retrospective changes are a problem. It is similar to the arguments that upload license tags must not be substantially changed as doing so invalidates the previous uploads. The previous uploaders agreed to a particular form of the license, and it is that form of the license that must remain attached to that image. Retrospectively changing the license tag to say something new is misleading, as it results in (say) an image uploaded in 2004, having a tag on it that was written in 2006. The same arguments apply to the non-free use rationale template. What should have been done is to design the non-free use rationale template correctly from the beginning, or failing that, to create a new template that has a parameter for "article name", to deprecate use of the old template, and to mark the images using the old template as needing to be fixed due to bad intitial design of the template. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non-free use rationales - article parameter. Carcharoth 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink:

"This is not intended to be part of the deletion process, but as a tool to help fix legacy images. Check if an image has a valid rationale for the article(s) it's used in, if so simply add the name of the article to the Article parameter in the rationale template and the problem is solved. Only list the image for deletion if you are unable to determine what article the rationale is intended to apply to or if the rationale clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria."

And also see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria/Proposal. Part of the confusion here may arise from a cutoff date being applied for legacy images. Ones prior to 1 Jan 2007 are (apparently) not being tagged. Only those after 1 Jan 2007. Carcharoth 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I also get the impression that BetacommandBot's tagging is not based on the population of this category, but its own, independent algorithm. But that defence misses the point that the problem here is that one process (Betacommand bot) is saying "fix the use rationale in 7 days or the image will get deleted" (sometimes the problem is the lack of an 'article' parameter, sometimes it is another problem), and the other process (the category) says "this image needs an article name added to fix the use rationale - don't worry, the image won't get deleted, but this category is to help people update this new addition to the template". What these two processes should be saying is "this image was uploaded after 1 January 2007 and needs to be fixed within a week or be deleted", and "if the image was uploaded before 1 January 2007, you have plenty of time to fix it - if it was uploaded after 1 January 2007, then BetacommandBot may have tagged it to be fixed within a week or be deleted". Does that make any sense? Carcharoth 04:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only a little known rule if editors aren't reading WP:NFCC. A non-free use rationale must be article-specific (or articles-specific, if it applies to multiple articles). That's been the case for some time. The parameter in the use rationale template has been there off and on, but the policy has consistently included this language. Please don't blame the bots for helping enforce policies you aren't aware of or disagree with. Instead, suggest policy changes on the appropriate talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  04:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page at WT:NFC recently? You know I know about 10c and agree with it. I may not agree with the implementation of how to clean up images that don't comply with 10c, but please don't imply that I'm not aware of the policy or disagree with it. I have been involved in extensive discussion on the talk pages of the policy, so for you to say "suggest policy changes on the appropriate talk page" is frankly rather rude. My post above was intended to be informative, to bring people up to speed and direct people to the more specialised discussions. Quite what you post was intended to achieve, I don't know. If, as I surmise on re-reading the thread, you were responing to Grue's intial "little-known" rule comment, could you please make that clear? Carcharoth 04:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section break to separate my post from Grue's initial one. Butseriouslyfolks, if you were indeed replying to Grue, could you move your comment up there, and I'll remove my rather hasty response to your comment. Carcharoth 04:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Betacommandbot. This is ridiculous. Betacommand allowed the bot to continue running for about 9 hours after having received many complaints that it was misbehaving. This task was not an approved task for Betacommandbot as far as I can tell: it's certainly not listed anywhere. And if this had been taken for a small trial run, these problems would have been quickly discovered and the task would not have been granted full approval. Although Betacommandbot does a number of helpful tasks that aren't controversial, I actually don't think it's at all reasonable to unblock this bot as long as Betacommand continues to create new tasks on a whim without discussion and then ignores complaints that the bot is causing problems. Since this has been a long-standing problem with Betacommand and his bot, I think the bot should remain shut down completely until Betacommand reevaluates his approach. Mangojuice^talk 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And just unblocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have full approval and its running without error. so Im not sure why you blocked it. β^_command 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mango, this "new" task isn't new, and received approval at that time (We should do a subsection of ANI just for editors rants about Betacommandbot, so admins can keep up to speed, this is getting ridiculous) -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having participated in this exact discussion in a couple other instances I am going to sit this one out. However, I would like to add one thing. Betacommand is using an admittedly arbitrary Janurary 1, 2007 cutoff date for which articles it tags as missing the article linkback in the fair use rationale. Like it or not, that is a required field and it causes a lot of recordkeeping problems if people leave it off or get it wrong. Whether the cutoff date is January 1 or October 1, at some point we do have to start insisting that people explicitly state the name of the article to whic their use rationale applies. At some point you ahve to fill in the blank correctly rather than get it wrong and ask people and bots to second-guess what you meant. In pracxtice, if it is a simple error the reviewin adminstrator will probably give the image the benfit of the doubt and fix the rationale. But one way or another it has to be tagged and someone has to look at it and fix it. Wikidemo 09:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My experience with such backlogs being cleared is that at various points "helpful" admins wade in to "help clear these massive backlogs" and indiscriminately deleted image after image with only a cursory glance. In some ways, I'm hoping that this backlog, if properly monitored, will reveal the admins that take this kind of slipshod attitude to CSD. Carcharoth 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So did anyone understand what I wrote about "retrospective changing" and it being "quicker to fix these images than delete them", or is it possible that there aren't any ways to overcome these objections? Can I repeat my call for admins who speedy delete these images without fixing them to be named and shamed. All it takes in most cases is checking the article the image is in, and writing in the link. I challenge anyone to show me that various semi-automated scripts and tools to delete images take longer to delete the images than to find and add this single link to the use rationale. The alternative is, in some cases, deleting otherwise perfectly good rationales just because one step was left out, and in some cases because the article is implicitly mentioned but not explicitly named or linked. This is bureacracy gone mad. If someone can point out the exact number tagged, and where they are, then I'll be happy to do my bit helping to clear this backlog by adding in these missing "article" parameters. Carcharoth 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The new article parameter and Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink have no relation to the bot tagging images lacking an article backlink for deletion. The policy require such backlinks and the bot simply iterate over all non-free images and tagg anyone it find that doesn't link to the article it's used in. The category was created for one purpose only. To help humans locate images that use that spesific template (directly or via specialised templates that transclude it) but as of yet does use the article parameter (wich is most of them since the parameter is new). Many of those images do in fact have a proper backlink to the article somewhere else on the page and those will not be tagged by the bot, it's not looking for the parameter it's looking for any kind of link on the page. The parameter was added to make it more clear to people adding new rationales that an article link is in fact required, the category is to help humans track "legacy images" and over time I hope we can clear out that category by simply adding that parameter as apropriate (it will take a whilte though, there are several thousands images in the cat), though some of the images will no doubht be deleted for various reasons too. --Sherool (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you. I suspected it was something like that, but it is nice to have it clearly explained (finally). One request. Would it be possible for a category to be created to cover images in this category that are tagged by a bot for lacking an article backlink? As I've been saying, it is easier to fix those images than to delete them, even when they date from after the legacy cutoff date. I've said I'm happy to help out, but I'm having problem cross-referencing the categories. Is there an easy way to do this? Carcharoth 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is no way to make a template put something in a spesific category based on other templates present on the page. However you should be eable to get a list of such images by doing some category intersection scans with the CatScan tool. Once they get the database on the Toolserver up and running again anyway. --Sherool (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the idea of admins having an obligation to fix malformed fair use rationales ridiculous. If there is a fair use rationale for an image on its image page, and you want to modify it, you should change it so that it is a declaration by yourself that you believe its use in whatever article constitutes fair use under United States law. That is, you would have to overwrite the original rationale writer's name with your own.

The problem with that is that you are then asserting that you believe the image constitutes fair use in whatever article you are linking to with your edit. What happens if you don't think it constitutes fair use there, such as if you're like me and don't like the use of fair use images for decorative purposes? Should you take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and know that some liberal-minded fair use newbie will just write a generic (and blatantly untrue) rationale for it? Delete it? Force yourself to write critical commentary on the image in the article just for the sake of keeping it in the article within the fair use requirements?

I am not about to go around making fair use declarations which I do not actually believe to be true. In fact, I do not like making fair use declarations at all, because of the unanswered copyright questions of fair use declarations made by citizens of countries other than the US, in relation to copyrighted material that is not US in origin. - Mark 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, if you disagree with a fair-use declaration, then contest it. But don't mischaracterise images lacking the 'article' parameter in their rationale as malformed. That is a retrospective change to the template, and in many cases the template parameter didn't exist when the rationale was written. Please take the time to understand the point I am making here. If the article backlink exists somewhere else in the rationale, eg. in the description bit, then what is needed is for the rationale to be updated with an 'article' parameter (as I have done here, for example) and then (if you want) you can contest the rationale. An editor has taken the trouble to write the rationale - have some respect for that. Don't just use a change of the template followed by a backlog of tagging as an excuse to get rid of images you disagree with. And if deletion takes more time than fixing the rationale, then you are just wasting everyone's time, because what will likely happen is that someone will come along later and ask for the image to be undeleted, they will add in the parameter you couldn't be bothered to add, and nothing will have changed except that you wasted your time deleting the image. Of course, if there is no backlink, and a brief look at the article the image is used in doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria (not your interpretation of the criteria), then deletion is probably fine. Carcharoth 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Temporary suspension of CSD for images

Another point to make is that Betacommand acknowledges on his talk page that he left the bot running for too long. See here. I asked him to revert up to the point where he would have stopped originally, but he has said there is no point, and he will instead hold off on tagging images for a few days. Given that the over-run of the bot has created a backlog, would it not make sense to suspend CSD for the amount of time needed to cope with this backlog? Carcharoth 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just let the backlog control its self. β^_command 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that admins should work through that backlog slowly and methodically, rather than rushing through it and increasing the error rate? Carcharoth 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically that task would be perfect for at bot - lookup what links to the image like we do when checking for orphans and correct the fair use template parameters or if there is no proper template then fix that. Having a bot categorize something that could be handled by a bot sounds a bit too bureaucratic to me. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots cannot do that, since they cannot check the validity of the rationale. All BCBot does is check for a few parts of any rationale, some that it doesnt tag have a invalid rationale. β^_command 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But a bot could fix the problem that gets an image listed in Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. That is a trivial task. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And Betacommand's argument could equally be applied to showing how bots should not be used to tag images for deletion. ie. "Bots cannot do that, since they cannot check the validity of the rationale. All BCBot does is check for a few parts of any rationale, some that it tags have a valid rationale." The answer being of course, that the rationale is readable by humans, but not by machines. The real solution is to have bots tag images to be added to a backlog for humans to check. This is effectively what it does at the moment, and we rely on the admins clearing CSD to check and get things right at the point of deletion. So why not have the bot clear images (where possible) from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink into Category:Non-free images with a bot-generated article backlink. The latter category is then checked by humans. This is similar to auto-generated bot-added stub classes on article talk pages. So why not do things this way? Carcharoth 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a bot add links is a VERY VERY bad idea. it will just be added to another backlog that will never get worked on. And it will just muddy the water making valid rationales even harder to solve the real problem. And I disagree with your thoughts. BCBot cannot check to see if the rationale is valid for an image use, what BCBot can to and does is check for key parts of a rationale. Items that all rationales need. both valid and invalid rationales are skipped, But no valid rationales are tagged. β^_command 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to go through the bot's contributions and find examples? Putting that to one side, the proposed process wouldn't create any new backlogs. It would simply move the images from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink into a different category. No new backlog, just moving paper around. Ideal task for a bot. Similarly, if your bot tagged all the images in Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, it would simply be moving the images from one backlog (that category) to another backlog (ie. the relevant holding category, and then, after 7 days, the CSD category). Do you see what I am saying here? Your bot is only shuffling paper around, moving images from one backlog to another. It's just the backlogs you create are time-sensitive and end in deletion. And I've actually been looking through Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. The vast majority are valid rationales and bot-addition of the links will not muddy the waters at all. In fact, if your bot won't do this, I suspect someone else will soon write a bot and get it approved for this task (moving it to the category I suggested). Carcharoth 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<deindent slightly> To demonstrate my point, I picked four images at random from Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, and fixed them here, here, here, and here. I realise your bot would not have tagged any of those for deletion, because they already had backlinks, but maybe you would like to find some images that should be deleted, or where a bot adding links based on the current usage would get it wrong. I did find a few, but let's see what you can find. Carcharoth 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an example would help. See this edit where someone attempted to provide a fair-use rationale, but left out the article name parameter. What probably happened is that people are copying from old versions of the use rationale and changing the parameters. Of course, people shouldn't do this, and should notice the "ARTICLE NAME NEEDED" bit, but maybe adding something along the lines of "please use the latest version of the non-free use rationale template, instead of copying from outdated versions on existing images". Similarly, the current wording of BetacommandBot's tag says "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." - this doesn't say where the link should be placed. It would be clearer to say "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. If you fill in the parameters of the generic rationale template, you must fill in the 'article' parameter." Stuff like that. Do we have any volunteers to help improve the wording of the templates BetacommandBot is using? Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale - there is an immediate correction that an admin could make: "Unless concern is addressed" -> "Unless the concern is addressed". Carcharoth 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins should take care when deleting. I have asked several times for suggestions and improvements for the messages BCBot leaves. As Ive said before BCBot doesnt look for that new parameter. It looks for the article name, it doesnt have to even be wiki-linked. it just has to be there. As for the backlog it will go away as fast as humans can handle it. If a admin is mis-using the delete button take it to that admin. β^_command 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<BREAK>

Carcharoth, can you write exactly what you think a bot should do at User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks, I think we are having a communication problem here. β^_command 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. We've gone beyond the bounds of this noticeboard anyway, so that will be the logical place to continue. Maybe not tonight, but I'll try and gather some thoughts together tomorrow. Carcharoth 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Miranda Grell and related pages

On 13 Sep 2007, I created Miranda Grell, who is a Labour local government councillor who has been convicted of spreading false allegations in her election campaign that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. She was, notably, the first person to be convicted of such an offense under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

On 22 Sep, I edited the Bermondsey by-election, 1983 article, adding a link to Miranda Grell in the "See Also" section. The Bermondsey by-election is famous for the homophobic campaigning against the Labour candidate, Peter Tatchell, by an independent Labour candidate and, allegedly, the Liberal party (a predecessor to the Liberal Democrats). I felt that the Miranda Grell case was similar in that this was another scandal involving the sexuality of a candidate in a London election. Similar cases are sometimes listed in "See Also" sections.

On 23 Sep, Fys reverted my edit to the by-election page with the comment "you must be joking, she's got nothing to do with it".[124] I re-reverted with the comment "It's another case of homphobic political campaigning; "see also" is often used for comparable cases". Fys re-re-reverted with "rv, don't be so stupid, it's not remotely comparable".[125] I then took the matter to the Talk page in order to seek a wider consensus. I proposed the change there and sought further opinions. Neither Fys or anyone else has commented there. I am minded to drop the matter.

Immediately after his/her first revert, Fys nominated the Miranda Grell page for deletion,[126] ending the nomination with the comment "Also, probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent." Four people (myself, Nedrutland and two others) have responded to the AfD, all arguing to keep. The AfD was subsequently closed and the article kept.

On 24 Sep, Fys created a page for Maurice Burgess. Burgess is a former Liberal Democrat councillor who was convicted of paedophilia (indecently assaulting an underage boy, some years before being elected). Fys then edited the Miranda Grell page, adding a "See Also" section linking to Maurice Burgess with no explanation for the edit beyond "see also".[127] Nedrutland subsequently put further work into the Burgess page, including correcting at least one important issue (Fys had said Burgess was jailed for an earlier offence when he was actually given a suspended sentence),[128] but removed the link on the Miranda Grell page. Nedrutland discussed the change on the Talk page, arguing that Burgess "was not convicted while a councillor, the conviction did not lead to him losing his seat legally (as Grell's will - if she does not appeal successfully) and his offence was not electoral and predated his election". (I should note that Burgess was, however, charged while a councillor.)

On 26 Sep, I posted to Fys' Talk page, pointing out the discussions on Talk:Bermondsey by-election, 1983 and Talk:Miranda Grell.[129] Fys has not made any more edits on Miranda Grell or Maurice Burgess, nor entered into any discussion on their Talk pages.

I wish to raise a number of concerns. First, I feel Fys is ignoring WP:AGF in making comments like "don't be so stupid" and "probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent." But more than that I have come to the view that the pattern of Fys' edits constitute tendentious editing for the purposes of political campaigning: in trying to delete an article embarrassing to Labour (Miranda Grell, AfD unanimously rejected), creating an article embarrassing to the Liberal Democrats (Maurice Burgess) and linking to that article. In particular, I note that Fys has avoided the many opportunities to enter into discussion on these matters, including twice not entering into a Talk page discussion about contentious edits (on Bermondsey by-election, 1983 and on Miranda Grell). Fys' past behaviour should not be held against him, but there does seem to be a consistent pattern of behaviour.

What concerns me most is the WP:BLP context and the link to Maurice Burgess on Miranda Grell's page. Grell was found guilty of spreading the allegation that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. A link to a page about a Liberal Democrat councillor who really was a paedophile is not only inappropriate but could be seen to carry the implication that Grell's allegations are true.

I do not know what to think about the Maurice Burgess article. The reasons Nedrutland gave earlier (for not including a link to Maurice Burgess at Miranda Grell) could equally be used to argue that Burgess is not notable under WP:BIO (bearing in mind WP:NOT#NEWS). I am concerned that the page was written as a kind of attack page. However, the article does give one reliable source, Burgess was (briefly) leader of the council and his crimes were of a serious nature. Should Maurice Burgess go to an AfD? Bondegezou 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fys edited my comments above to remove a paragraph that he felt identified him. I didn't specifically identify Fys, but did make bioraphical comments about Fys that seemed pertinent. I apologise if these were too identifying in their nature. I restore below the paragraph Fys removed, but edited to say less about Fys:

There are some pertinent conflicts of interest here. On 26 Sep, in investigating materials to write this summary, I came to realise the identity of Fys as someone I have encountered online and I presume Fys may have recognized me from my Wikipedia account name. Fys is a Labour party activist. He has been repeatedly blocked by admins in the past for various incidents, including edits of a partisan nature. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom is particularly relevant here, covering edits around Peter Tatchell and resulting in Fys being desysopped. I must also declare that I am a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Bondegezou 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and not something that admins have any special authority (or ability) to mediate over. Please discuss this at the article talkpage (or each others) until you reach a) consensus, or b)the realisation that there will be no consensus. After that, dispute resolution is thataway... LessHeard vanU 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I recognise that there are content dispute issues here and have tried to discuss these on the relevant talk pages (as I detailed above). However, to clarify, I raised the matter as I am concerned about the WP:BLP issues (plus WP:ATTACKPAGE, WP:TE, WP:AGF and follow-up to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom), which I understand is the remit of admins. Bondegezou 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please issue warning to user:EditorEsquire re: ownership, NPV and removal of sourced quotes and statistics

Resolved

. - Brickexistab and 2 other socks blocked indef and EditorEsquire has 24 hours for the 3rr. I semiprotected the article for a week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Loyola Law School wikipedia, we're trying to:

1. Add a quote from the school's Dean. The quote is from a WSJ article. He removed the quote, explaining "Deleted alleged career prospects quote from dean; Bootstrapped from prohibited Loyola 2L discussion, built on bias, and independently fails wiki policies for same reasons." I have no idea what he's talking about. The quote is directly copied from a WSJ article. [130]

2. He is removing comparative career statistics, which have been on the page for months. [131] (Link from three months ago with these statistics [132]). These statistics help us to understand Loyola's career placement statistics. A statistic on its own isn't very helpful, so we found and added the same statistics for Loyola's local competitors.

Another user again tried to delete them, accusing us of picking cherry picked schools to make Loyola look bad. In fact, these are the only other ABA law schools in LA. We're picking schools from Loyola's market (Los Angeles.) A few users are turning the page into a Loyola ad, and preventing any objective description of the school from being presented. --Brickexistab 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All in all, editoresquire seems to think he owns the page, and that it's a marketing tool for his law school. This has gone on for a week now. Please warn him.--Brickexistab 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He's doing it again [133] and again. [134]--Brickexistab 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. [135] This is now four times in 24 hours and I reported him to 3RR.[136] Please issue him a warning or further discipline as appropriate. --Brickexistab 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: related archived discussion --Onorem♠Dil 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That was about the Loyola 2L controversy. This is about adding a sourced quote from the dean, and preventing the deletion of statistics. --Brickexistab 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not about the exact same issue, but it is the same editor and the same article, so I thought it still might be worth linking to. --Onorem♠Dil 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. Editoresquire posted a response on his talk page, which he forgot to link here. [137] He seems to think that by adding these statistics, and the quote, we are engaging in a conspiracy to denigrate Loyola Law School. Keep in mind these are statistics from U.S. News & World Report and a quote from the school's own dean. I think he needs a reminder re: ownership of articles. --Brickexistab 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move in the middle of an AFD is OK?

I am just wondering if changing the article name in the middle of an ongoing AFD is allowable? For some reason, I thought is was not. It has certainly confused me! --Mattisse 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I am requesting an admin to end the AFD on Psychiatric abuse which was moved in the middle of the AFD to Abuse of the mentally impaired without any notice on the article's talk page or the AFD page. I believe the whole AFD discussion is hopelessly confusing now and misleading. --Mattisse 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a wise man once said, "You must chill!" I just moved it back to its original title. It was a mistake for User:Jennylen to move it in the midst of an AfD, because it generates confusion. But like most things on Wikipedia, it's easily undone with a mouse click or two. There's no reason to end the AfD early (well, except that it's an ugly mess). MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am confused enough as it is! --Mattisse 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time I have ever moved an article during an AFD, and the only time I would ever recommend doing it, would be to correct trivial aspects of the title (spelling or MOS issues) that would not need discussion anyway. Someguy1221 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the past I've also done this once or twice if the emerging consensus on the AfD page has been strongly in favor of "keep but rename" (perhaps with some "delete or rename" thrown in). Of course, the important thing is to note any such actions prominently on the AfD page, preferably both at the top (for new participants) and at the end of the discussion so far (for the benefit of the closing admin). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved an article during an AfD, but only when clearly not a problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Cryobiology. WP:AfD doesn't provide guidance on this, but the AfD template says: "For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion." And that page has advice at: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion: "You must not rename the article unless you make sure the page still links to the discussion page." etc. It should be made clearer that this only applies to non-controversial page moves. Any controversial page moves should be discussed at the AfD, or wait until after the AfD closes and then be raised at WP:RM. Carcharoth 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the part you quoted from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, as it seems to refer to an issue with an old implementation of the {{afd}} template which didn't handle page moves as well. With the modern implementation, moving a page while it's on AfD shouldn't break any links. I've left a note similar to my comment above in its place. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the move during the AFD did break a link until MastCell fixed it. I was caught in the middle of the move and did not know what was going on. I clicked the template on the article page and it did not go to the AFD discussion. --Mattisse 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New user following in tracks of banned user, and leaving pleasant edit summary

User:WhatThisIs has started to edit the same type of articles as banned User:Daddy Kindsoul [138], and left this rather [139] pleasant edit summary on one such article. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFCU for him, even though I think it's bleeding obvious. -- Merope 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at 4 of the user's edits. They seem reasonable and are not vandalism. Therefore, shouldn't we AGF. Using the excuse of "this is the same person as a banned user" is lack of WP:AGF. My guess is that many of the contributers of this article are from Rome. If there is more or specific diffs that are troublesome, then that's a different issue.

Furthermore, the above complaint says "has started to edit the same type of articles". Quite a few people edit the same type of articles, be it sport, botany, history, etc.Mrs.EasterBunny 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the complaint may not be very clear, but four edits by only one user is hardly enough evidence to draw any conclusion. The editor has made edits to the same article that Daddy Kindsoul was involved in editing, and, furthermore, made the same edits to the article. The editor also has the same habit of calling any removal of his text "vandalism", and shows the same degree of civility that Daddy Kindsoul exhibited, as evidenced by his edit to the United Roma Crowd Trouble image (which, naturally, Daddy Kindsoul uploaded). I think a checkuser is a logical next step. We're not required to assume good faith when there's clear evidence to the contrary. -- Merope 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually more the nice edit summary they left, which I link to above, which I think hardly complies with WP:CIV. I brought it here because of that diff, as I didn't feel comfortable taking it to checkuser, though I to have my doubts. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the RFCU turns up +, I'll tell Mr.EasterBunny not to leave any eggs there next year.Mrs.EasterBunny 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Potentionally libeous information being added to Martha Hart article by range of IP's

• 206.40.96.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can somebody block all IP's in this range? They have been added potentionally libeous information into the Martha Hart article, see [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]. Can someone block IP's in this range please? Thanks, Davnel03 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 206.40.96.0/24 blocked 24 hours. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that this appears to be a dynamic IP targeting a single article, I think semi-protection of the target article is the best approach rather than a range block. I've therefore temporarily semi-protected Martha Hart. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My "Only Warning"

Earlier today I received this warning from an editor Sarvagnya about "edit-warring" in a dispute involving a Wikipedia Featured Picture on the India page. The image, Image:Toda Hut.JPG, has accompanied an image of the Taj Mahal in the Culture section of the India page since January 2007, when it was added there by bureaucrat Nichalp, who was also the main author (to the extent anyone is) of the India page and the main architect of its FA success. However, since its first appearance, the image has also invited attempts to remove it, made by editors who felt that it is not representative of India's culture. In the past the consensus overall had been to keep the image, as evidenced, for example in this talk page exchange. Last week, however, a new editor (to the India page), Thoreaulylazy, without any accompanying discussion, replaced the image with the image of a South Indian Hindu temple. Although his edit was reverted, a long but inconclusive discussion ensued on the Talk:India page. I suggested mediation at that time, but it was not taken up by the other party. Two days ago, another new editor (to the India page), Priyanath, again without accompanying discussion, replaced the Toda image with that of Rabindranath Tagore, India's only Nobel Laureate in literature. After some more discussion on the talk page and after I suggested mediation again, an RfC was agreed to and I created a section for it here yesterday. This morning, thinking that for the duration of the RfC neither image (the original Toda or the unilateral replacement, Tagore) should be on the India page, I removed the Tagore image. This is when I received the warning from user:Sarvagnya, which both accused me of near-3RR violation in my efforts to keep the Toda image and claimed consensus for his and others' efforts to replace it. The latter claim is, of course, not the view of everyone (see also this eloquent defense of the image). As for the near 3-RR violations, here is the sequence of recent edits that involve reversals:

I have two questions:

• Do you really think that the warning issued to me was justified? The consensus user:Sarvagnya was claiming in his warning consisted of himself (with scant experience of editing the India page), three other editors who are completely new to the India page (user:Thoreaulylazy, user:Priyanath, and user:The Behnam), and one editor user:Nikkul, who, in March, started the drum beat for the removal of the Toda image and then created three sockpuppets who promptly offered a vote each for his cause. (See user:Nichalp's reply to user:The Behnam here.) Meanwhile many older India-page editors, who have played a much bigger role in the page's FA status, are either busy right now or haven't heard about the dispute.
• Although I now teach only graduate students, I have taught undergraduates in the past, and still do interact with undergraduates (on summer fellowships) or high-school students (on summer internships). I say this not to pull rank, but to demonstrate that I am not socially inept or unused to communicating with individuals who bring different levels and ranges of expertise to the table. On the India page, an FA, I have written or co-written three sections: Lead, Geography, and Flora and fauna. In addition, I am rewriting another India-related article, Indian Independence Movement and have rewritten many sections of the Indian mathematics page. Most other India-page editors are kind to me. (See also here). However, my interlocutors, especially user:Sarvagnya, display a gracelessness that is unprecedented in my experience. If you have a few minutes read the first four or five posts here. Why can such people get away with issuing churlish warnings, and removing images unilaterally, while I have to write meticulously worded RfC's and then await that quality of discourse which I already know is not in the cards?

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Name Calling, Reverting, Incivility from Anon Editor/IvoBastardo

On September 20 I posted a notice here [146] about an anonymous editor who was engaged in uncivil behavior and refusing to try and come to a consensus about issues regarding the List of light heavyweight boxing champions, James Toney, Roy Jones Jr., Dariusz Michalczewski‎, Zsolt Erdei, and Julio Cesar Gonzalez. I have tried to approach this person and engage in a discussion on these pages: Talk:list of light heavyweight boxing champions, User talk:81.153.185.98‎, User talk:86.134.241.52‎. In response, I have only received statements like this [147] [148].

The editor is now going under 81.153.185.98 and had registered as IvoBastardo. Instead of engaging in fruitless edit wars with this person, I again come to Administrators to ask them to intervene.MKil 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

"IvoBastardo" is blockable as a usernamevio, and I'll go pester WP:RFPP for you. Just be aware I will ask for full-protection because this is a content dispute. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this probably is a content dispute. However, I'm trying to come to consensus about the issue. I've tried to discuss my views with the anon editor. He/She merely responds by saying I'm an idiot. How do you resolve a content dispute when one editor refuses to try and come to consensus?MKil 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)MKil

Have you tried giving {{npa}} warnings? If they disregard them beyond the fourth warning, report them to WP:AIV. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from a number of IP addresses against pages edited by Dbachmann (talk · contribs)

Someone from various IP addresses in southern California has been following the edits of Dbachmann (talk · contribs) and either reverting his edits, or blanking sections of the pages. Some of the IP addresses include:

• Jewpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, bad username
• Jewpedia1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• TheJewss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• 63.16.172.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.16.197.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.85.144.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.148.188.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with the taunt, "you guys are so stupid, anyone can drive around these days and connect to any IP range haha")
• 66.81.157.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.209.150.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with the taunt, "JEW-PEDIA will end soon Hah")
  • 66.81.157.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 216.175.101.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.173.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.160.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.173.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Pages include:

• Seal (device) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Second Athenian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kalash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now sprotected)
• Neo-Hittite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hippias (tyrant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kurgan hypothesis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which has been hit pretty heavily, so I protected it)
• Sredny Stog culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User talk:Into The Fray (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Into The Fray|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Talk:Macedon (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Macedon|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Maryannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User talk:Harout72 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Harout72|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Armenia, Subartu and Sumer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are undoubtedly more articles and IP addresses involved. Dachannien (talk · contribs) has been cleaning up a lot of the mess, which has been a big help, but it might be useful to see if these IPs are zombie proxies or if there's a discernible pattern of vandalism that can be addressed here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman asked me to stop by and give any info I can. The articles listed appear to be recent entries in Dbachmann's contributions list, and the vandal is doing revenge reverts after an editing disagreement. See also User talk:Dbachmann#Action?. There may also be some useful information located in this contrib log, which suggests that the conflict has to do with edits made to the article Mitanni on or around 29 September 2007. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The pattern of stalking is alarming. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We had the same this morning, and the anon claimed he was User:Ararat arev, wanting Dab to give him his phone number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block all IPs as open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. All these IPs have been blocked indef as open proxies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

64.209's block log doesn't have any indef on it; just the 24-hour for vandalism. Likewise, 63.16.197.113 doesn't have a proxy indef, just a 3-hour block. Are they not OPs? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know they're all open proxies? I think I missed the message in this thread that declared them as such. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of these at the time and there was no evidence that they were open proxies. Maybe someone has some evidence to the contrary? Otherwise, please undo your indef-blocks Jossi. Can we also not indef-block even proven open proxies? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assume that this was the vandal that Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Folantin, some others and I were chasing around in the wee hours of this morning. I've added some more involved IP's (I think C.s.c.w.e.m. may have hardblocked them all) above, just in case. Pages as well. I think that's all of them. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice one IP's listed twice above. and I notice that 75.51.160.83 has a clean blocklog. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Fixed. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming these are all OPs given the message above by Fut.Perf.. If that is not the case, we can simply softblock these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, my numerous typos and duplications aside, there are definitely more IP's. Let me know if you want them, I'll dig them out of my contribs and the pages. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks to everyone who helped take care of this. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits from Banned Sockpuppets

What do you do with edits from a banned sockpuppet? Even on talk pages?

This user, User:HarveyCarter, just talks trash in all of his edits, from no less than 26 sockpuppet accounts.

I propose to revert every single contribution he has made due to the track record of his edits. They are made just to make controversy, stir the poop, are insulting, vulgar at times, etc. His track record makes it clear that he does not care to make Wikipedia a valuable resource and promote Wikipedia in a positive manner or light. When we have sockpuppets such as him, I want to AUTOMATICLLY revert all edits regardless of content or whether they are on talk pages or not. Because of the way that they have seen fit to conduct them self, I want no readily available evidence that they were here. Thanks.

IP4240207xx 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BAN... you are allowed to revert all of a banned editors edits made while they were banned, though generally I'd suggest you don't revert edits to other users' talkpages but rather just inform them of the banned status of the editor and let them deal with it as they will.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Gremlin Violation -- Sockpuppetry

According to Wikipedia rules, in cases of accusations of sock puppetry, the suspected Sockmaster must leave notice on his talk page for at least ten days. Rogue Gremlin removed the notice within 23 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARogue_Gremlin&diff=161597563&oldid=161592414 JerryGraf 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs) does have the right to remove content or blank his/her userspace. nat^tang 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this for more information about userspaces. nat^tang 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RS1900 personal attacks and threats

User:RS1900 has made personal attacks and threats against me since I reported him as a suspected sockpuppeteer of User:Jai Raj K. The personal attacks include calling me a "piece of crap" and a "loser in real life." On his talk page, he calls me a liar and a blackmailer, and threatens that "Your days are numbered." [149] The threats also include saying that he "will not leave" me, which sounds like intent to wikistalk. He also tells me to be "ready for some firework" (sic), whatever that means. At the page for the sockpuppet case, he again calls me a liar, and falsely accuses me of blackmailing him and making legal threats. [150] Nick Graves 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RS1900 (talk · contribs) has been warned. If he acts disruptively again, I would fully support a block of RS1900 (talk · contribs). nat^tang 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MarIth

Somebody please speedy block User:MarIth, who is trying to pass himself off as User:Marlith, and is moving Marlith's User and Talk page to a variety of offensive page names. Corvus cornix 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Marlith has been blocked now, too, that's the wrong person. Corvus cornix 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And Marlith's User and Talk pages have now gone missing. Corvus cornix 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Nasty and skilled vandal. Took me about 5 minutes to just find the pages, but I think I've fixed it all. I wonder whose sockpuppet is this... Maxim_(talk) 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The worst part is that the guy started this campaign back in August and went under cover till today. Corvus cornix 21:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh thanks, I couldn't find the original page ><. Good work! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was created by User talk:Kkrouni as a joke Marlith ^T/C 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then Kkrouni should be blocked for page move vandalism. Corvus cornix 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni should be blocked for this admission - [151]. Corvus cornix 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my ip, was used at the beginning of the editing (oops...) but not at the end. I informed him of what he did, and Silver. Do a check user on MarIth, and then you'll see whatever the first part is .199 then someone else. --Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

+ I've pretty much left, how ironic I come back today to say a quick hi. Anyways, strike that, you don't care, ban me then, I don't use this more than once a week regardless. Believe whatever, as I have struggled through before, this time I've got no fight. Never mind Check User, I'm done. --Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv

User:Pgsylv has repeatedly demonstrated an attempt to impress a political agenda on Wikipedia (specifically, Quebecois Nationalism/Sovereignism - see Talk:Quebec). I do not know if this user has broken Wikipedia edit policies extensively (although he has been in an edit war regarding the status of nationhood of Quebec), therefore I am not recommending blocking/banning. I am recommending a review of this user (if possible) to determine how he can be stopped from continuing his agenda. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his/her talk page; we'll see if anything changes. Other input welcome. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility problems on Talk:Frida Kahlo

Against my will, I find myself involved in discussion on this page. Since I am involved, could another admin review the contributions of 70.18.5.219 in this discussion, and offer some advice on when incivility becomes something that should be halted with a short block? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

User:EliasAlucard on Nazi Eugenics is here

• removing the 3 valid applications of the source O'Mathúna (2006), which I had inserted, 2 of them on EliasAlucard's requests
• instead inserting a primary source racist Hitler quote
• inserting a primary source Haeckel quote endorsing eugenics.

This is part of a series of repeated attempts of this user to push in to this and other articles a primary source quote from Hitler praising infanticide.

On discussion:Nazi Eugenics, the user is confronting me with insinuations:

• EliasAlucard: If you feel offended because we are citing Hitler, then seriously, that's your personal issue. I had neither on the talk-page nor in edit comments said that I would personally feel offended. Instead, I had said that readers could feel threatened or offended from a primary source Hitler quote.
• EliasAlucard: If you think Hitler was evil,(...) I had not said that I think Hitler was evil.
• EliasAlucard: As for the Nazi eugenics victims, you can mourn them all you like in real life. But don't take it out on Wikipedia. I had not proposed to mourn the eugenics victims on Wikipedia. Instead, I had explained that if nazi sources would be used, the victims of nazi eugenics would not, and never could, have an equal chance to present their point of view about nazi eugenics.

By misrepresenting what I had said, EliasAlucard avoids to answer to my objections, and insinuates that I would have no neutral point of view. This tactics makes a discussion impossible for me. Finally, EliasAlucard tells me "move on", which is not exactly inviting to participate in editing this article. This is part of an ongoing conflict with this user, see also my earlier complain at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#Nazism.

Also related is the conflict on Eugenics, where EliasAlucard has violated 3RR today:

At 18:27, 18:28, 18:38, 19:03 on 1 October 2007, they are inserting a paragraph which had been removed before, for example 20:16, 25 September 2007. I should add that a 3RR-warning had been sent by another user at 19:06, that is only after revert #4.

I propose to disable further edits by EliasAlucard on topics related to eugenics.--Schwalker 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Last time you brought this up, EconomicsGuy told you to move on because like he said, you're trying to make a federal case out of nothing.[152] Seriously, it seems like you are looking for trouble because this isn't actually a problem. Look, it's super obvious to me, you have NPOV issues with Eugenics related articles. Your secondary sources should not be used. You are misattributing these quotes. Hitler is the one we're citing, not some unknown guy who has published an article about it. Your anti-Hitler bias is obvious here. And your attempt to once again try to ban me from editing these articles, isn't going to work, because I have not done anything wrong. I am just following WP:CITE whereas you seem to have major issues with the fact that we are simply citing Hitler because of something he said. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:09 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here, insulting someone by accusing them of "anti-Hitler bias" is a little weird. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're missing something here. That wasn't an insult. Schwalker refuses to cite Hitler directly in the article because he thinks Hitler is offensive. Therein lies the problem; Schwalker is not NPOV about this. Now I'm not saying you have to like Hitler, but if you're going to edit an article related to Hitler, you better be NPOV. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:37 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit odd to have a gigantic {{cquote}} from Hitler about the Spartans in this article. The quote is very long and made visually arresting by its format. A casual reader could certainly get the impression that the article is endorsing or glorifying Hitler's opinion.

Now, whether this is a problem that requires administrator attention, I'm not sure...you might want to try an article RfC to get more outside input. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is endorsing anything. That quote is very relevant to the article's topic and it's properly sourced. Just because it's Hitler and he's considered the embodiment of evil, self-offended users like Schwalker have a problem with reading his thoughts on eugenics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:57 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an appropriate admin action here. An RfC, as suggested previously, is a much better idea. Natalie 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not involved with the issues on Nazi eugenics, but on an unrelated matter, User:EliasAlucard has made four reversions in 24 hours on Eugenics, in which he has repeatedly restored a section, the removal of which was supported by four editors by my count. The problem that I have with the section is that the source utterly fails to support the assertion being made, and the source is inappropriate for an article on eugenics. When I finally placed a template to that effect over the section, EliasAlucard promptly removed it without really addressing the concerns expressed on the talk page. --Proper tea is theft 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are removing an entire section without justification. And no, it wasn't 3RR. And the section is not misinterpreted. The problem with these users is that they are so politically correct, they can't edit racist topics without bias. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:05 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Comments like that show why there's a problem. I suggest that an RfC should be made to settle the content issue. If uncivil comments continue then a user-RfC may also be warranted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem here comes from User:Schwalker and User:Proper tea is theft. I wasn't being uncivil. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard has been quite uncivil to a number of persons. Apart of this behavior, he repeatedly has tried to insert what started as a small sentence on Nazism (diff:

"Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children"

When questioned about his source, he found out other sources (to his credit) but instead of citing the scholarly article which he had put in reference, he cited Hitler directly. When again contested, he made some more research and again found out other sources. All of this with one objective: stating that Hitler praised Sparta (I have no problem including this in Nazi eugenics where it is relevant, but find it anecdotical - see WP:UNDUE - on other articles, especially compared to compulsory sterilization, Action T4 and similar Nazi eugenic policies) &, a much more problematic stance, claiming Sparta was effectively following eugenic policies. This is an obvious anachronism supported by original research. I have yet to find a historian of Antiquity which would import in his field the 19th century concept of eugenics, related to scientific racism, Darwinism and Social Darwinism, etc., in other way than simply metaphorical or analogical. On such a serious topic, evidently a historian of Nazism is more reliable than the sort of OR Elias Alucard is trying to impose here, this in accordance with WP:PSTS. Tazmaniacs 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic source claiming that Spartans killing babies was eugenics--not "Nazi eugenics." Sorry, but you lose :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Apart of your very scholarly use of Google Books, I should point out that this link is censored in some countries (I presume because of negationism and hate speech legislation) and therefore I and other Wikipedians do not have access to it. In any cases, a WP:RS concerning this matter would be a renowned historian of Ancient Greece, not the first Google Book hit improved by your own personal interpretation. Do not mistake an analogy (as in "Sparta practiced a policy which might be compared to modern day eugenism) with an identity. Tazmaniacs 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, eugenics was practised in ancient Sparta. That is an indisputable fact of history. Period. This is not the place to discuss that. Move on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:12 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with Vandal-only accounts that are not active

I came across an account that seems to be a vandalism-only account, and even stated as much on their own user page. This account has not been actively vandalizing since I discovered them, though the last occurance was 3 days ago. How would this best be handled? Obviously WP:AIV does not really apply here... Thanks! Arakunem 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a self-declared vandalism account, and it has indeed vandalized, the answer seems obvious enough. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. The account in question is EndlessLight for your review. I came across this account after their page was vandalized... after a quick review of page history and edit history, seems obvious to me. Arakunem 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EffK

User:EffK has just come off a one year block due to an Arbcom decision, and is running around repeating his assertions that only he knows what is true. At least he hasn't edited any articles yet, but it's a good idea to keep an eye on him. Corvus cornix 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

18 month block, actually. I fail to understand how policies allow for my entry as referenced to become an 'incident'. I see here an incident in the making, one contrary to WP policy. The ad hominem reappears instantly ('running around', 'at least', keep an eye on', 'autogenerated', '3 cent words', 'hyperbole', 'in his own world', 'trolling', 'block soon enough', 'he'll do himself in soon enough'....). The argument I actually made is that the plethora of articles relating to the verifications I effected, which when and if I am invited I can substantiate, have all either suffered from my blocking, or returned to a parlous un-historical state because of my punishment. How this can be sign of some new ill-will by me against the project beats me. I remind both these users that the project is supposed at this time to defend me rather than attack me. I state that my interest remains the good of the project, by constituting historical fact upon historical articles. I repeat that the good of society is a legally recognised concept, and that therefore verifiability, NPOV and AGF extend beyond the confines of even Wikipedia. I suggest users address the actual issues, as stated by me in good faith. EffK 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Using language such as "effected", "plethora", "parlous" makes one wonder just how serious you are, and how seriously you want to be taken. Corvus cornix 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is too minor to warrant attention, other than to say that it reminds me of attacks made long ago. I was pleased to see Cc did not quite join with Thuranx' open personal attacks. My advice is- dont. EffK 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, regarding this you might also be interested in this query. PS. I believe he wrote the Village Pump posting entirely by himself. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, EffK is already beginning to spam my talk page, kicking things off with a personal attack (whether I get paid for contributing to WP - a question harking back to one of the things he got banned for) - I at first let that slide because he was just returning, but as he has not ceased spamming overly long messages on my talk page all revolving around his pet conspiracy theories and insinuations against me I wanted to bring this to your attention. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wrote to the man as he had taken it upon himself to enter here, he replied, I replied saying if he didnt reply I'd take that as a wish that I not, but he replied. So that's roughly the situation. I also told him I would remove the entire to my page. At no time was I told not to write to him there....so, what does that tell you? EffK 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He is free to post on my talk page when he has something to say as long as he can put it concisely. He is not free to spam my talk page even though there is nothing to say. He is not free to shower me with accusations and his conspiracy theories. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block review

I'd like to request some more comments about my block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#user:MaplePorter. Marvin Diode is continuing to argue that the evidence is not very strong. I think he's wrong, but a few more comments will settle the issue.

By the way, anyone who cares to watchlist that page and help deal with future issues, your help is welcome. Picaroon (t) 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just watchlisted this. I don't think you should worry about this. The block as reviewed and upheld and MaplePorter can make further unblock requests if there is anything new to add. Marvin Diode is making very poor strawman arguments and I wouldn't put veyr much credence on them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Serial vandal but infrequent

Resolved

 – Anon-blocked

71.234.159.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to drop in every week or ten days to do a little vandalism. They are up to final warning status as of Sept 27 I think but just did another run. Pig^man 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly the same guy every time. Blocked for a month. Raymond Arritt 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And tagged. -- Avi 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Resolved

User blocked; Pages move protected. Real96

Someone moved it. Please revert. --Agüeybaná 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: the user was indef blocked. --Agüeybaná 02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich568117

This gentleman is a bit unclear on the concept of vanity pages. He's writing self-promotional bios on himself and his business, he's adding himself to disambiguation pages and rationalizing all the while that if his home-based computer business can't have an article, than neither can Microsoft. Go figure.  :) --PMDrive1061 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin deleted all the A7 stuff.--Chaser - T 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page protected

The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, especially the lead, has been a difficult one, prone to edit wars and controversy. Currently, under the auspices of the chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel (3rd separate mediator, I should add), we are finally engaging in some meaningful and appropriate dialog at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, over the last day, Omegatron (talk · contribs) has been making substantial and substantive edits to the article, seemingly unilaterally changing a number of things including edits that strike directly at the heart of this mediation. Despite being informed of the mediation, his edits, and requested to join the mediation process, the user continues to make unilateral edits.

Furthermore, and more importantly, the accusations of WP:BLP issued were so severe, that a huge list of sources needed to be compiled. These were combined into a few reference numbers. Omegtron has declared interest in paring down those sources.

For those of us involved in editing this article for around two years now, and who are cognizant of the many discussions that required, nay demanded, the long list of edits and various other compromises, it is very difficult to see someone without that background come in and make sweeping changed against consensus, compromise, and mediation that has gone on for the better part of two years.

Furthermore, looking at the users contributions, it seems that there is a significant amount of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH being applied.

Can the article be returned to the structure under mediation, the references returned, and the aforementioned user enjoined from making such unilateral, non-consensus-based, source-removing edits while mediation is undergoing?

I believe it is not proper for me to do anything more than ask here, as I am deeply involved in the mediation process.

Thank you, -- Avi 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

My edits speak for themselves. I have done nothing but clean up formatting and add a few neutral bits. — Omegatron 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excessive flagicons in football/soccer infoboxes

User:Morhveem has added excessive flagicons to the infoboxes of various football/soccer players' articles by tagging all the youth clubs and pro clubs listed in an infobox with flagicons, and in one case (Theo Walcott diff]) removing the nationality flag. He's got 40 some-odd edits, so could an admin auto-rv them all and talk to the user about that? Generally a player's country of origin is where he plays youth soccer, and country is generally discernible by team names or by using wikilinks, which is what they are there for. MSJapan 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin-based rollback is usually reserved only for clear vandalism (read the lists). You're correct that the first step is a talk page message, but you don't need someone with sysop tools to do that. Please try yourself first and repost here if you need a page protected, an article deleted, or an editor blocked.--Chaser - T 08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Wendy's article (and KFC also)

Hi,

The Wendy's article just came off protection and the person who had vandalized it for weeks before the last protection has started again with his fictional country (long and very stupid story). This user, who is going through various IP addresses, also did this same type of vandalism on the Kentucky Fried Chicken article. could we please put both if these articles back on protection so the editors that regularly patrol these articles do not have to keep erasing this guys constant moronic vandalism?

I really would like the protection to be permanent as fast food articles in generally are fodder for vandalism.

Thanks,

Jeremy (Jerem43 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

N Declined. I can't see much recent persistent vandalism warranting (semi-)protection. Next time, please go to WP:RPP. Sandstein 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I will go there instead. - Jeremy (Jerem43 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Inappropriate image

Resolved

The image Image:Baconator222.JPG, uploaded by User:Raglios (User talk:Raglios) is inappropriate and isn't used in any articles. I put the image up for speedy deletion (not sure if my category is right though). User was previously warned for uploading an inappropriate image. I suggest the user be blocked at this time. -Bonus Onus 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, editor warned.--Chaser - T 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, possible 3RR at Korean cuisine

Given my involvement through seemingly failed attempts to mediate and advise editors on policy, I'll recuse myself from taking action on the page and editors on this one. A quick summary of events:

• melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) and Badagnani (talk · contribs) really aren't getting along. There is constant bickering, edit warring and now melonbarmonster has really, imo, gone too far with several recent instances of trolling on Talk:Korean cuisine and reporting at 3RR for things of which he is equally, if not more guilty. Without going into too much detail about editing history, let's just say that both editors are well versed in why their actions are controversial. A few other editors are involved to varying degrees, with some choosing to ignore WP:V and others finding out how difficult the task of mediation is here. Were I uninvolved, I would block melonbarmonster 3 ~ 24h for the trolling, investigate the 3RR report against Badagnani and fully protect the article for at least a few days. Deiz talk 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Mayer

I proposed (PROD) Deborah Mayer for deletion when it was in its early stages and which looked looked like a news event, not worthy of Wikipedia, and which instead should have gone to Wikinews. [153].

The editor Mightyms then expanded the article, and removed the tag, which is fine. I wish for administrator input as to 1. Whether the article is now worthy of Wikipedia coverage (I believe it is as I did Google news search and there are 5 articles, but would still like outside opinion), but that is not the main reason I come to Administrators' noticeboard.

I would not have come here if that was it, however the editor then added in the edit summary tag, [154] this: (rm tag. The asian deletionist probably does not recognize that U.S. Sumpreme appeals are preceded by years of court procedings). I take great offense at that, while it is fine to remove a tag, the editor is being uncivil and resorts to labeling.

I did some further searching and it seems like this editor has a penchant for being uncivil, eg [155] "(Luca de Alfaro is not some "random" faculty unless you are an unaware idiot)" and [156] and perhaps even [157]. Would an admin please have a look and I hope I'm not being too picky or finical and what action might or could be taken. Phgao 07:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a talk page note. I think the Deborah Mayer establishes notability sufficiently, although WP:BLP concerns might prompt deletion in an AFD. Any other admins have comments on that issue?--Chaser - T 08:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chaser and I would value the opinions of other admins as well. Phgao 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary, particularly about "asian deletionist", is right out, and a warning is very apt there. As for being 'unaware idiots', it is his responsibility to teach us, not our responsibility to know everything about someone when we click the article - if we did, we wouldn't need Wikipedia. I don't see how the final diff is an attack, though. --Golbez 10:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't either, and didn't include it in my message. His response was contrite, though, so I think this is resolved.--Chaser - T 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickyrab

I would like to report this personal attack/kicking while they are down by a certain User:Rickyrab, who wrote

Methinks you're going to get banned anyway.... (looks for sysops with banhammers) d'oh, where are the banhammers?

— Rickyrab (talk • contribs, 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

[158]

The user already has been warned by an admin that it was totally inappropriate. Don't do that please, however given this users history of making comments like these, I would like a more serious warning to be given to him.Rex 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a history of prior conflict between the two of you, or else I would have given a stronger reaction. Was there one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had never even heard of this user, but his talkpage is full of remarks by others on posting childish or abusive comments.In any case, your reaction should have been stronger.Rex 11:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log I see that he was involved in the BJANDON dispute (like about what seemed a quarter of wikipedia) and caught a block there, aside from that his log is clean. I've briefly scanned his talkpage, but I can't say I found it "full of remarks by others on posting childish or abusive comments". I think the reaction and gentle warning was appropriate. 84.145.241.203 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the comment was meant to be humerous. Maybe WP:AGF here? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying one needs to get banned is humor? It gets hard to assume good faith at some point you know.Rex 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil, yes, childish yes, personal attack, no. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about kicking while down?Rex 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Milomedes

While I know a number of admins already read it, on WT:SPOILER User:Milomedes has constantly been prone to not only making personal attacks, but also spouting total nonsense about "public relations" and other things. I wouldn't know where to begin to show everything, especially as the majority of comments are in the archives. This is his most recent edit -- notice comments like there does seem to be a public relations (PR) problem with the name of the "hidable/hidden spoiler tag compromise". Here he uses an edit summery on an /archive page/ to state something (only edit being a blank line addition). Here is an example where he goes into a diatrabe of words that say a lot, but pretty much don't mean anything, as if he's trying to be purposefully confusing to make others cower. Here is an example of his constant talk about 'young users' being somehow discriminated against, as well as the (IMO bizzare) opinion that somehow the word 'warning' is dangerous but that spoiler warnings aren't warnings at all in the first place. In addition, he continues to insist that if WP doesn't have spoiler notices, people won't donate as much (I seem to remember a page that told us that we were not to worry about such issues when creating guidelines and policies, but I can't find it). Here he pretty much dismisses a casual observation study, claiming it's worthless because the person who did it dared to contribute to the excyclopedia (among other reasons). Here's another example of the mention of worrying about some grand boycott of WP and reduced donations, etc. I could go on and keep looking backward, but I think that's enough. Am I the only one who's head spins from most of it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

British National Party

I am not sure if this is the right place but a serious sorting out of this page is required the whole page has ground to a halt over one word. This may seem ridiculous but it has happened. The word in question is fascist (see Talk:British National Party), I request that action be taken to end this stalemate as quickly as possible so improvements to the article can be made. Please forward on to the appropriate area if this is the wrong place for the query.--Lucy-marie 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You are going to have far more luck at Request for Comments. Wikipedia does not make executive decisions on content, the parties must figure out how to reach a consensus. Reading through the talk page I see people who disagree, not people who are misbehaving. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC has previously been tried and failed to reach an consensus, where to next if another RfC fails?--Lucy-marie 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire process is described at WP:DR. If RfC fails and things haven't changed significantly since the last time you can try mediation if all parties agree to do that. ArbCom does not deal with content disputes and neither do administrators. If one of the parties eventually becomes disruptive by refusing any attempts to resolve the dispute that may open new doors to have that party removed from the debate. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks by Suspected Sock Puppet

An anonymous IP at the Juice Plus talk page is engaging in repeated personal attacks and escalating disruptive behavior[159][160][161][162][163][164][165] which has continued despite several warnings from other editors.[166] [167][168] This user has posted anonymously under several IP addresses that trace to 2 different IP blocks. The user appears to be JuliaHavey (talk · contribs · logs), who has a COI and previously admitted that they were a distributor for the product (Juice Plus) that is the subject of the article.[169] That user had made a habit of taunting editors from the sidelines and arguing for removal of well-referenced content that reflected poorly on her product. This user bowed out of WP earlier this year claiming that she did not like WPs policies,[170][171][172]] but now is back using anonymous IPs and is continuing with the same disruptive behavior in violation of WP:NPA, WP:HAR, WP:DE, and WP:COI. The IP addresses being used by this suspected sock puppet are 70.130.211.228, 72.255.25.138, 72.254.148.181, 72.254.131.83, and 72.254.158.183. The 70.130.211.228 IP address used in one of this user’s recent posts[173] traces to the same server as previous unsigned comments posted by Havey several times in 2006 (e.g. [174][175][176]). The remaining IPs all trace to STSN Holdings. Rhode Island Red 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy violations on Samael Aun Weor article

There have been some problems lately on the Samael Aun Weor article. One user recently started editing there and adding things which violated especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, but also which contained factual errors related to OR. Another editor of the article and I tried to explain to that user why his additions were mistaken and not allowed on Wikipedia, and pointed him towards the right policies and guidelines. But he didn't seem to understand or maybe didn't want to understand, because he kept re-adding his edits without any modifications to make them better. After a while I gave him a warning that if he persisted with his behavior I would have to ask an admin for help, and a while after that I gave him a final warning after which he stopped replying in the discussion and just reverted again. So here I am, asking for help with this matter. To me the only option seems to be a block, but maybe something else can be done. His user name is Bluemanang and he also uses 207.164.192.115. The discussion happened to be located at Bluemanang's talk page. The edits in question is:

1. In the section Physiology & Sexology where he changed an existing referenced paragraph into an unreferenced one which is wrong according to the existing reference.
2. The section Official organisms and dissenting organisms is very POV and talks about the "betrayal" of different persons from the Gnostic Movement and other related happenings. All of it unreferenced. Then some other OR stuff.
3. In the External Links section he made a division between external links leading to "Official and authentic" schools and "Dissenting" schools and is highly POV. The editor belongs to one of the said "official" schools. The whole issue of the different associations and schools is a very controversial one.

Thank you. Anton H 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe it would help if an admin or any outside person explained to him why he is wrong, because he seem to think that we just try to suppress information. Anton H 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I should admit that I do not know for sure that Bluemanang and the other IP are the same person, although they started the edits at roughly the same time, they both have French as their first language and have made the same edits. But now they have both responded to a poll as if they were different persons, so I thought that I would add this because I have no proof that they are the same. Anton H 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the last part, I discovered that Bluemanang at one point said that he had changed one particular thing three times, and one of those three times was done by the said IP-address. Sorry about all the edits, I hope this is the last one. Anton H 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dn4cfc

User has been adding a large volume of commercial promotion for the site www.recordstore.co.uk , as with this edit. Would someone please have a word with him? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Help for a WP:DUCKy situation

Resolved

 – Blocked and tagged

I'm hoping I can get some help with a little preventative blocking.

• Fatevan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan3.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatevan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1, 3, and 5 have made only vandal edits.
2, 3.14, and 4 are already blocked.
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 have no edits...appear to just be sleepers. --Onorem♠Dil 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Crazydoodle69

Besides the dicey username, this individual appears not only to have reposted a previous and very elaborate article called Trashcan Comedies, but many of the photos apparently used in that article back in March are still in the system. The user appears to have done some constructive edits, however. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I've just left another concern on the talk page; it's a failed AfD deleted back on March 19. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy violating article / conensus not respected

Greetings. There is an article I've come across, Hindukush Kafir people, that violates many poilicies, including WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources and policy againt discriminatory/racist content (the word, "Kafir," is a pejorative, possibly racist Arabic term meaning "ingrate"). The article also uses an outdate source (from over 100 years ago) that use obsolete scientific theories that are, frankly, scientific racism from the ye-old days of imperialism. Some people on the talk page have even said that the content is copied from it's source. Funny thing, is the source -- the lone source, I believe -- is so old it's in the public domain! (The source is Sir George Scott Robertson's Book titled "The Kafirs of Hindukush" from 1895.)

I'm not invested in the article but was thoroughly disgusted by it and had to do something. The talk page for the article has many people arguing with one lone user, Sze_cavalry01, over certain, particularly biased and discriminatory sections (and, in some cases, over the whole article itself). Everyone on the talk page (except for Sze_cavalry01, of course) has argued against the inclusion of this content, and many have been bold by simply deleting it when necessary. However, Sze_cavalry01 refuses to accept the consensus and continues to revert the article per his edits. This has gone on for months. Here is a link to the latest version of the article to which Sze_cavalry01 keeps reverting: Sze_cavalry01's Version. Also, here is a link to the most flagrantly prejudiced section in that old version: Sze_cavalry01's "Kafir Characteristics" Section. Brace yourself! The bias and prejudice/racism in this section is quite strong.

We've tried to reason with Sze_cavalry01, but he just won't accept the consensus. This will be evident from the discussions on the talk page. This is truly last resort; I feel that Sze_cavalry01 will continue in this manner indefinitely if not stopped by administrative action. Thank you very much for your help with this matter. And, of course, feel free ask me any questions you may have regarding the issue. Cheers, ask123 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued edit warring and refusal to discuss.

User:Arawiki is engaging in edit warring on the Bin Baaz article while refusing to discuss on talk , the issue being the insertion of a mistranslation of a non-English source. My last comments on the talk page were at 05:55, 25 September 2007 and 10:59, 27 September 2007, both of which went unanswered. Regardless, he has still inserted the edit again on four separate occasions. In addition, two other users have also left comments to him on talk which went unanswered. I left him a friendly comment on his talk page saying it's nothing personal and please discuss on the talk page, but he deleted it. He is engaging in similar behavior on Salafism and Qutbism. He has been warned for violating WP:3RR before and complied; since he doesn't seem to respond well to me, I would like to request that an admin can talk to him about this, as he responded to an admin positively last time. MezzoMezzo 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warriors.

Jennylen (talk · contribs) Librarian2 (talk · contribs)

Jennylen admits to recruiting Librarian 2 to continue her edit war

Spurious vandalism warnings and

Jennylen attempts to cast blame on others for her own editwarring.

Ditto Librarian2

I suspect Daoken (talk · contribs) was also recruited by them, but have no proof of this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See also this post yesterday about the same user attempting a controversial page move in the middle of an AFD. Orderinchaos 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Librarian2 claims he was not recruited, and that the thank you came out of nowhere. If this is true, then I may have acted over-harshly. Judge it and see what you think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurdity carried to the extreme by POV editors As someone has taken care of dragging my good name into dirt just for justifying their actions, I would like to make a very simple statement: To allow editors and unfortunately adminisrators to act in this way is not only a shame, it is a disgrace, however life has taught me that dishonesty carries its own weight and rebounce, so, please go ahead, make your ways as filthy as you want, you will be who need to live with that landscape, not me ℒibrarian2 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I continue to get messages at my talk page about this, a comment for the sake of transparency: it is obvious by the text in the message portrayed at the top of this discussion (link allegedly showing canvassing) that my message is directed to request administrator's intervention, a right entitled to any user who is not an administrator ℒibrarian2 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice

User has been engaged in edit warring on Abortion and Post-abortion syndrome. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/IronAngelAlice confirms that she has been using at least one sockpuppet account, Justine4all, to contravert 3RR on these articles and create false consensuses on their Talk pages. I believe this requires administrative action, per the checkuser's closing comment, so I am bringing it here. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IronAngelAlice for 24 hours. Justine4all has been indeffed. Please leave comments if you think other accounts are related as well or if you feel the user has abused those accounts in contravention to WP:SOCK. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note too the possible connection to previously blocked sockpuppeteer Bremskraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll look into that a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft was blocked for the first time on 05:48, 5 August 2007. IronAngelAlice's account was created the day after. -Severa (!!!) 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to the CU request there are several other accounts which are highly likely to be related which need investigating. I guess I should have checked to see if Severa was an admin, I answered assuming that Severa was, and that he or she would carry out the blocking and tagging. I believe it is fairly rare to bring a CU result to AN/I, the CU result itself seems to me to be viewed as the justification for any blocking/tagging carried out, without the need for an approval step here beforehand. There may be exceptions. But of course if one is not an admin, one would have to ask an admin to do it for them so... :) ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. From my initial review, there is significant overlap on relatively obscure topics between the "suspect" accounts listed in the checkuser request, and I'm strongly inclined to block them as socks based on the combination of technical and contrib evidence. As to Bremskraft, I'm going to leave that to User:wknight94 to look into as he may already have started - if these are in fact felt to be socks of Bremskraft, then all (including IronAngelAlice) should be indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In follow-up, after a review of contribs, I've indefinitely blocked Lvmoi (talk · contribs), Homelv (talk · contribs), and SpiritualLife (talk · contribs) as socks or meatpuppets of IronAngelAlice. They overlap quite signficantly in terms of articles edited, so even assuming that these are different people, the accounts are being used abusively. I haven't looked at the question of whether these are all socks of User:Bremskraft, though a quick glance suggests it's certainly possible. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From scanning contribs, it seems pretty clear that Bremskraft = IronAngelAlice. The most concrete tie I've found is this edit where Justine4all (which CU said was definitely IronAngel) reverts Jpgordon who had just reverted 70.173.47.6. 70.173.47.6's contribs look very much like Bremskraft's and IronAngelAlice's, especially its first edit which is to User talk:Bremskraft and signed as Bremskraft. You can throw in 131.216.41.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well whose edits have been corrected by 70.173.47.6 more than once. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably convinced as well. That being the case, should IronAngelAlice be indefinitely blocked? Bremskraft (talk · contribs) is not presently blocked, so it's not technically block evasion. Nonetheless, this is clearly a user who should be limited to a single account. I personally think that either Bremskraft or IronAngelAlice should be indefinitely blocked and the user should be encouraged to edit using a single account. Alternately, as this user is a recidivist sockpuppeteer, I'd have no objection to blocking them all indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My initial thought is to block IronAngelAlice for a long period - a week perhaps? - and indefblock Bremskraft. If she wants the Bremskraft ID to disappear - which she alluded to a couple times - I suppose we should let it. m:Right to vanish and all. She definitely needs to be told quite clearly to stop socking though. I've seen several positive contributors go down forever just for that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That IP cited above is Bremskraft. Compare [177] and [178]. I'm blocking Bremskraft indef.--Chaser - T 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Eh. Someone beat me to it.--Chaser - T 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops, I beat you to it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat conservative in my wording when reporting CU findings, I think. My findings convinced ME that IAA and B are the same, but I said 'likely' rather than 'confirmed' to allow for doubt, there is some tiny possibility they aren't. I wouldn't bet a penny on it though. We have a one account limit, if the other accounts are used abusively. As they were here. So one of them does need indef. I say B, why not honor their request. As for how long to leave IAA blocked, sure, a week this time, but that's it, would be my thinking. No more chances. No more socking either. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft was blocked for using sockpuppets, both confirmed and suspected, but was ultimately unblocked and extended a second chance. If this user had made just one more account, creating a new, single identity to escape the tarnish of the Bremskraft affair, I wouldn't have a problem. However, they went on to create multiple accounts to pose under multiple identities, falling right back into their old ways. I think we should treat this not as IronAngelAlice's second chance but as Bremskraft's third. I also apologize for not making it clearer to Lar that I wasn't an admin by the way in which I filed the CU request. It was the first time I had ever done so. -Severa (!!!) 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Breach of NPA

Yesterday, before I went to sleep, I voted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aktron. My vote was strongly disagreed by user:Petr K, but not only that, he committed several personal attacks against my friend and me: "Your friends and you personally have vandalized articles and offended other users – that's the main reason you (and others) were blocked several times."[179]

I asked him to apologize: User talk:Petr K#I demand your apologies. He refused. That's why I ask you to explain him WP:NPA and to force him to apologize both my friend and me.

Not a long time ago another wikipedian tried to ruin my credit here and he almost succeeded. That's why I have to care about my standing more than before. —V. Z. 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to seek dispute resolution. Even if it were, admins don't typically enforce requiring apologies from one user to another. I suggest you use the dispute resolution process if you cannot informally work out your differences. It is true that you do not appear to have any of the blocks that Petr K refers to in your block log though. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: It is true that you do not appear to have any of the blocks that Petr K refers to in your block log though. – It is not true. The user was renamed on enwiki and his block log was effectively cleared. Please, compare one block in log of his previous identity, his rename request and arbitration case. There are much more blocks on other wikis also. --RuM 23:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

overwriting your own images with watermarked versions

Resolvedno admin action needed, just discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

can somebody try and talk to Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs)? he is insisting on exactly that: overwriting his previously released unmarked images with inferior watermarked versions. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have let the user know of the relevant image policy, Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building. // Liftarn

I tried to reason with him, but he apparently doesn't understand, or want to understand. I'm deleting the watermarked images, leaving the clean versions uploaded on Commons. FCYTravis 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one reasoned with him or ever discussed what they were doing to his images BEFORE doing anything to or with them. You have his permission to delete all of his "watermarked" images from Wikipedia so that they are not available on Wikipedia anywhere. Motorrad-67 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving images to Commons is a standard, uncontroversial procedure, as it makes the images freely available across the entire Wikispace. I thank you for your previous contributions, and I am sorry that you no longer wish to contribute under our guidelines. FCYTravis 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he's reverting valid warnings and personally attacking people. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably best to just leave well enough alone; he's obviously upset at the moment and the warnings won't disappear from the history. Might be a good time to de-escalate. Shell ^babelfish 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. He will be happy now when all his photos (listed below) are deleted from Wikipedia. ^{Motorrad-67 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)}

He isn't attacking anyone who doesn't richly deserve it. Motorrad-67 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{speedy delete|Subjected to repeated past interference without my consultation}}

Please delete all of the images I have contributed to Wiki. Here is the list: Motorrad-67 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bevel-gear.jpg
• Image:629.jpg|S&W Model 629
• Image:Octabarn.jpg|Octagonal barn
• Image:Barn-and-box.jpg|Octagonal barn and mailbox
• Image:Dual-saddles.jpg|Dual saddles
• Image:Dual-saddle.jpg|Dual saddle
• Image:Craven-panniers.jpg
• Image:Topcase.jpg
• Image:Weiss-800.jpg|Weiss
• Image:Scarlett-800.jpg|Scarlett
• Image:Iowa-800.jpg
• Image:Lucille-800.jpg
• Image:R32-percival.jpg|R32-percival
• Image:R68-700.jpg|R68-700
• Image:R68-opposed-cylinders.jpg
• Image:R68-vcover.jpg
• Image:Golden-arrows.jpg
• Image:Pace739.jpg|Pace trailer
• Image:Pace500.jpg|Pace trailer interior
• Image:Bogey-wheels.jpg
• Image:Cardinal-singing.jpg|Singing Cardinal
• Image:Pyrr-seedblock.jpg|Male Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Pyrr-juvenile.jpg|Female Pyrrhuloxia
• Image:Cf-card.jpg|Compact flash card
• Image:R68-sidecar.jpg|R68 with sidecar
• Image:R32-front.jpg
• Image:Heated-handgrips.jpg|Heated handgrips
• Image:Cows-500.jpg|Cows
• Image:Feet-forward.jpg|helmetless Harley
• Image:Guzzidrive.jpg
• Image:Astronaut-in-space.jpg

The images in question have been freely licensed and accepted into the Wikimedia Commons. One may not revoke the granting of a free license. FCYTravis 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make clear the policy does not state that watermarked images are not permitted. Perhaps Wikipedia should attempt to work with photographers to continue to receive the quality images they have been. This is now the second instance in about 1 weeks time. The policy states images ideally should not be watermarked. However I do not see why letting him add a small identifying watermark would hurt the project anymore then losing yet another talented contributor. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If the policy isn't clear that we don't accept watermarked images, it should be clarified. Photographers can require that they be attributed by using either GFDL or a CC-BY license. We don't put credits on pictures in articles, however, either in text or via watermarks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not state it, I am not sure if people are misreading it, or if its wrong and needs clarifying. However its current incarnation says watermarks are allowed, however not optimal. Just to add perhaps the admin who dealt with the last situation would be better suited to handle this as they made a nice resolution with the photographer in question and resolved everything in an amicable fashion. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Watermarks are not allowed, apart from rare exceptions; the policy was just written poorly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, the policy pages determine what is allowed. If you are from WP:OFFICE, please let me know as you would be better aware. However if you are not, the policy page is what determines what is allowed, not your reading, or mine for that matter, of it. Since the page does not, and most likely has never, stated they are not permitted. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What a shock! WORK WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS???? Seven, what is wrong with you? Why ever would any of you want to do that????? Motorrad-67 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "working with" anyone. If you require visible photo credit to be stamped on your images, then this is probably not the right project for you to contribute to. Professional printed reference works do not stamp names on photos - instead, they have a photo credit reference section. Why do you expect Wikipedia to be any different? FCYTravis 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the policy page in question does not say its not permitted, I am not sure what the issue is. Is it possible to have someone from the "office" or however it is referenced, chime in? --SevenOfDiamonds 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the "office" here. The user in question provided freely-licensed, un-stamped images to Wikipedia. He later attempted to replace these images with stamped versions. We are not obligated to accept these new, lower-quality uploads as replacements for the original photos, because the original free license is still valid. The original versions have all been placed in the Wikimedia Commons. If Motorrad-67 chooses to cease contributing over this matter, that is regrettable, and it is his right. However, he does not have the right to decide what freely-licensed material we use. FCYTravis 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct he does not own the encyclopedia, he cannot unilaterally decide that we must use those. However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away. Some assets are not so easily replaceable. For comparison the Wikipedia community can choose to cast you out for no reason what so ever, however treating contributing people in this manner, only does a disservice to ourselves. As Wikipedia leaks contributing users, I wonder at what point the curve begins to slope. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider placing unsightly credit boxes on photos to be "a small technical issue?" Images with credits Photoshopped into them are inherently of lower quality than those without. The box detracts from the image and damages its free-content reusability. Individual Wikipedia editors cannot expect to have publicly-visible personal credit for their contributions stamped into the text of each page they edit, so why would we treat the contributions of individual photographers any differently? FCYTravis 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well hopefully people find a meaningful way to contribute above, however I tried to hopefully find a middle ground or resolution, however the policy page has changed since I last looked and that worries me greatly. This conversation based on policy is pointless if policy is changed at the drop of a hat. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Wikipedia is descriptive of current practice. In practice, we don't accept free images with watermarks; that's why the policy needed to be changed to correctly match our practice. We can discuss the policy its talk page here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history of the policy page, it turns out that until today it did say images may not have watermarks, until this edit: [180] — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven sez, "However we can choose to keep a contributing photographer over a small technical issue, or choose to push them away." Seven is an unusually sensitive and perceptive man. I have been "pushed away" for sure. Thank you, Seven. All this could have been avoided had someone like Seven simply chose to communicate with me before going hog wild on my photos. Motorrad-67 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being constructive here, let me suggest the following. Motorrad-67 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

This is not a formum for discussing policy changes. The right place for your proposal is Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, where it is also under discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate External Links

Hi, Looking for some advice. Links to an empty set of forums are being added by an anon IP. On removal (per WP:EL / WP:SPAM these are reverted as "vandalism" and reinstated. Frankly they add nothing but rather than get myself banned for 3RR I would appreciate the best advice on keeping the websites off. The articles in question are West Norwood, Herne Hill, South Norwood, East Dulwich, Penge, Lewisham and New Cross. Thanks, Regan123 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me the IP and I'll block, thats clear spam. Please do revert the links. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the IP, it is now blocked, future reports should go to WP:AIV. (spam is just another form of vandalism). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Thanks. The IPs are 87.114.150.81, 87.114.153.233 and also User:Stibble who added the links originally. Regan123 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance. Regan123 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Now 87.113.94.179! Kbthompson 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, 3RR doesn't apply when fighting vandalism. As for the IP, it hasn't edited since the warning you gave, so keep monitoring it, and if it spams again, report it to WP:AIAV. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Range block

I've blocked the range 168.216.0.0/16 for three hours. It's registered to the West Virginia Department of Education, and has been vandalizing the pages of many West Virginia schools over the past two hours. --Chris (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a bad idea to copy that to the unblock requests mail list for a heads-up . -- Avi 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User without control

I am really tired of User:Brkic and my patience has gone. Can somebody block this user because of vandalism and attacking of other users. Evidence for his attacks is here:article Ustaše talk pageUser Spylab talk pageUser Kuru talk pageUser Kirker talk page User Rjecina talk page 1User Rjecina talk page 2 . If his edits are not against wiki rules I will be surprised .-- Rjecina 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spylab one sounds like a badly transcribed chain letter. Blocked them for 24 hours for talk page disruption and threats. Orderinchaos 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottAHudson

This user is a piece of work. First of all, User:ScottAHudson was nominated MfD back in June. The page was kept because he made changes that made his Userspace more suitable. Now, he has everything back, including a number of his "favorite..." (clearly violates WP:NOT) as well as 18 sub pages for different TV shows. He keeps the subpages (which are near copies of original WP pages) and edits them constantly, with no real reason as to why. See his stats. Out of his 6064 edits, 4920 have been to his userspace. That leaves only 1026 to mainspace (most of which have been reverted as he is a "troublemaker" user). Can anything be done with this? Perhaps another MFD of his User page as well as the subpages? - Rjd0060 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Userpage itself is okay - there's nothing harmful or evil in stating what your favourite school subject or pet is. All those subpages where he maintains his own versions of articles aren't as copacetic, though - the MFD was heading towards a delete, and Scott user-requests-deletion'd his subpages to get a "keep". The MFD was closed as a keep based on the changes Scott made (in its original state it would have been deleted). As they have been recreated now the MFD has passed (sneaky), I've redeleted them. Neil ム 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the subpages were the main thing. He won't be too happy when he returns from his block. - Rjd0060 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Seaweed - Disruption and insults by sockpuppets?

User Dr. Seaweed seems to be disrupting the Herbert Dingle article and talkpage. Ignored all recent warnings on talk page and overview: here, here, here, here, here. Disrupting the talk page here, here, here. Suspect that user has recently created a few sockpuppets Brigadier Armstrong, Nurse_Hilditch and specially 61.7.166.72 with this inviting message. Could someone please check whether these are indeed sockpuppets, perhaps of still another contributor? Thanks. - DVdm 18:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors with the same focus are anons 72.84.72.142, 72.64.54.95, 81.156.63.242, 217.43.69.32, and 213.107.15.23; also Swanzsteve and Electrodynamicist.

—wwoods 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that whole page is heckuva suspicious. I'd suggest filing a checkuser request on this; in the meantime, I'll keep my eye on it. --Haemo 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page itself had sort of reached a more-or-less consensus among the pros, the neuters and the cons- so to speak - until this particular string of "newbies" arrived of out nowhere. DVdm 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - This activity is out of character for Swanzsteve, but is very much in keeping with the attitude and frustration of Electrodynamicist. IMO any checkuser activity should be focussed on whether Electrodynamicist is the sock-puppeteer. At the least, the sudden appearance of multiple new editors which are obiously SPA-s with identical agendas speaks of sock-puppertry. That these editors already have a strong opinion about the Herbert Dingle article and are familiar with undoing edits speaks of an experienced Wikipedia editor being behind this, and also one who is familiar with the article (and who therefore has almost certainly edited it.) --EMS | Talk 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

vandal

Resolved

This pathetic user has vandalised too many times to let it go unpunished. [[181]] . Realist2 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them as a vandalism-only account. I would, however, suggest you be more polite to other editors, even if you think they're being disruptive. Don't feed the trolls, etc. --Haemo 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aishwarya10.jpg

Some admins keep on reverting the cc-by-nc-3.0 tag someone put on Image:Aishwarya10.jpg. I tried to readd it yesterday. The site clearly states cc-by-nc, and people keep using popups to undo the adding of the tag (there's a policy against that, right?). No one's even bothering to discuss, and this is clearly the wrong tag. 71.58.97.225 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the tag currently says. You, and I presume your alternate accounts, keep adding a 2.0 tags, which tags it for speedy deletion. --Haemo 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hindu-Bear came along and added the tag (I am not that person; that should seem obvious as my account relates to Pennsylvania; I am, however, the second person who added the tag). However, you're missing the point; actually, it says cc-by, but the site says cc-by-nc, which brings up the speedy deletion notices. 71.58.97.225 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, actually my account says New Jersey, which is blatantly wrong... 71.58.97.225 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently someone contacted them and they agreed to a 3.0 released. OTRS has the emails. --Haemo 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The site does say cc-by-nc, but they confirmed by email to wikipedia that they released it to us under cc-by-3.0. They also confirmed that they know that means we can release it to everyone else as cc-by-3.0. User:Riana was the person who handled this, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Donjavy

Has continued to upload copyrighted material after being asked countless times to stop, and even blocked once. The most recent example is two uploads where he clearly gave a bad license (unit of currency for a picture of a band). 71.58.97.225 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats

Hi, folks. I'm sorry to open a wound which was healing, but I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats had been subjected to "courtesy blanking". This seemed like a bad idea to me, and to several editors who had commented at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats. I contacted ^demon (talk · contribs) (who had originated the blanking) and WJBscribe (talk · contribs) (who had reinserted it), and asked for them to explain the blanking decision. ^demon said that he didn't mind it being reverted, and I did so. However, WJBscribe has objected. I'm sorry to raise all of this again, but I suppose I need to find out what the general feeling about this is.

WJBscribe's position was that since the AfD used the real name of a contributor (Jimbo) and contained some assumptions of bad faith and comments which could be considered derogatory, it is appropriate the the page's contents be hidden from Google bots in the history. My feeling is that doing this gives an appearance that we're trying to hide our dirty laundry. Wikipedia is founded on openness, and although this incident isn't one we can be particularly proud of, it's better for us in the long run to keep the information in the sunshine rather than hide it in the history. People unfamiliar with Wikipedia's operations might not understand how to find or interpret the relevant diffs, and we shouldn't try to exclude these people from seeing what we do, warts and all.

If the content of the AfD were a serious breach of privacy for a private individual, then I would respect the blanking. But I don't see how a few derogatory comments about Jimbo rise to the level of something which needs to be hidden. Jimbo is a public figure, especially with regard to Wikipedia. He doesn't need us "protecting" his reputation — the entire Wikimedia empire stands as a testimony to his talent. There's a huge difference between someone assuming bad faith of Jimbo in an AfD and someone making a personal attack on a private individual. I hope that other admins see this distinction. However, if there's a consensus here that the page should remain blanked, I'll abide by it, of course. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't AFDs not show up on google anyway? [182] Someguy1221 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm- it does look from that as if they don't. Which does change things quite a lot. Did anyone think to let admins know they no longer show up on google? WjBscribe 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't want a thread here and even made it clear that I would rather accept a decision I disagreed with than have this drama further prolonged. Seeing as its here, courtesy blankings are just that, a courtesy. We should aim to be courteous whenever possible. If someone who participated in a discussion, reads a discussion, is the subject of a discussion on meta page which contains both (a) negative comments and (b) the real name of a person requests a courtesy blanking it should be done unless there is a very good reason not to. Blanking a page is totally trivial - the content can still be found in the history, but it has the appearance of closing the matter furth and hides the discussion from google Bots. The suggestion that we should extend less courtesy to a longstanding contributor than to others strikes me as odd. That discussion should be blanked because several people have expressed the review that it should be blanked. WjBscribe 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A recent AfD on a living person included the comment that he was a "notable crackpot and antisemite." It was subsequently blanked, I believe appropriately. Some Arbitration case pages that included accusations against editors whose real names were known have also been blanked. While I don't believe Jimbo should get special treatment above and beyond other editors and individuals, he should not be treated worse either. That AfD had many accusations of bad faith actions on his part, and rather than monkey with it by editing individual comments, blanking the entire AfD but leaving its history intact should anyone want to review the discussion seems like an appropriate action. Thatcher131 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO it should remain blanked, courtesy blanking should not be controversial and the afd is available in the history, SqueakBox 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the blanking seems appropriate. Even if it does not show up on Google, anyone referencing past AfD's can still check the history. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that AfD which is as defamatory towards Jimbo as the "notable crackpot and antisemite" comment. I agree that courtesy blanking is appropriate in some circumstances, but I don't see how this case rises to that standard. I also didn't see any evidence that Jimbo had requested the blanking, which WJBscribe seems to be assuming. If he did, that changes things; however, it would have been appropriate to mention that somewhere. Also, the fact that the blanking was originally performed by ^demon, a participant in the debate (and also the subject of some accusations of bad faith) gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

I'm not saying that we should extend less courtesy to Jimbo than to other public figures. But I think that the standard for public figures is different than the standard for private individuals, and Jimbo is definitely a public figure, especially in the context of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said I believe Jimbo requested it - as I said above, I believe a request by anyone who was involved in or read the discussion should suffice. Otherwise the result would be rather harsh on those who never discover a meta-discussion about them... WjBscribe 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about ^demon, he said that he didn't mind the blanking being reverted. I wouldn't have restored the page's content if he hadn't said that it was OK by him. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you're after consensus, leave it blank reblank it, because it's the courteous thing to do, and because it does no harm. Small upside, no downside. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

An argument can be made that the blanking does a small harm to Wikipedia, insofar as it gives the impression that as a project we're more interested in hiding an ugly debate than in open discussion. Since openness was one of the principles on which the project was founded, it's possible to see an attempt to hide less-than-complimentary content as hypocrisy. I know that the intentions behind the blanking are good, I'm just worried that it might give the appearance of an attempted cover-up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, it's an AFD on a restaurant, which ended as a "keep". There was no rank incivility, or upsetting topics being discussed. If such a vanilla AFD had taken place on an article that had been created by anyone other than Jimmy, would we have "courtesy blanked" it? Hah! It would make no more or less sense to "courtesy blank" all AFDs. Why don't we do that? It would, after all, be the courteous thing to do, and it would do no harm. Neil ム 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, the AfD should be linked from the article talk page, so who gives a flying fuck if it's blanked? Courtesy blank AfDs where people ask for it - it's not a big deal. WilyD 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think anyone did ask for blanking in this case. As far as I can tell, ^demon blanked the page because he thought it would be a nice gesture, after his conflict with Jimbo. That would be fine, except that it gives the appearance that we're trying to hide something. Are we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with the courtesy blanking. Folks want it, it's a courtesy, let's do it. Second, Josiah, with all due respect, I think that you're arguing against the tide here - and that's totally okay - I support and defend your right to do it. But I'd point out that I think consensus is moving against you, and while I know you feel strongly about it, is this the hill to fight for? I think your argument that blanking can do harm is a little weak. As WJBscribe said, it's a courtesy. Let's be courteous. We're not hiding the dirty laundry, it's all right there in the history. It's not like we're hiding revisions or anything here - we're not locking out non-admins. - Philippe | Talk 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One possibility to increase transparency would be to use the template (can't remember which one) that allows you to link to the pre-blanking version. Or to manually link to the pre-blanking version of the page. That way the process remains transparent to those who don't know to look in the page history, like, say the casual readers who read the LA Times newspaper report about this AfD? Seriously. Have a look at this week's WP:SIGNPOST for details (specifically, here). Also, the link to the AfD from the article's talk page could be tweaked to link to the pre-blanking version instead of, or as well as, the blanked version. Carcharoth 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those casual readers are exactly who I was thinking of. The material is "all right there in the history", but a casual reader won't necessarily know how to access it. I'd support a link to the pre-blanking version as a compromise move: the point is that the discussion should be accessible to people who don't necessarily understand all the mechanisms of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an opposing school of thought to "Courtesy blanking should be a courtesy extended to anyone who requests it." See (in sequence) [183], [184], [185] for example. [186] seems to have held, however. Mike R 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the courtesy-blanked version of the page, but replaced the "via the history tab at the top of this page" text in the template with a direct link to the pre-blanking version of the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussions no longer show up on google

This is news to me, and to a lot of other admins it seems, but per this Bugzilla report it does appear that AfD discussions have been added to robots.txt and can therefore no longer be found by google Bots. What effect does this have (/should this have) on the policy relating to courtesy blankings as their high google profile was one of the main reasons for {{Afd-privacy}}? WjBscribe 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't the only bot out there, and they could change their behavior in the future. I strongly support courtesy blankings when appropriate under the assumption that some day some search engine may index the content. Additionally, who knows what site could republish Wikipedia content and how that might be handled. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, noindexing these pages makes it harder to conduct an investigation. I rarely use the internal search feature because it's so bad. Now I can't use Google to look for an AfD. Bleh. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any crawler worth its salt will read and comply with a ROBOTS.TXT file. Burntsauce 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And you're sure that every site that mirrors or republishes Wikipedia also passes through a modified robots.txt? Um, I don't think so. Relying on robots.txt to hide info is a bad idea. What if some day somebody decides to delete that line from robots.txt? What's done can be undone. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but is a page protected with a robots.txt file any more or less open to republishing than a past version in an article's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(ed. conflict) This is exactly my point. We're not censoring anything, after all. Or are we. Burntsauce 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its still GFDL licensed so can still be republished (as can old revisions where the page has been blanked). All robots.txt does is create a list of pages that webcrawlers do not visit. I presume it is entirely possible to reprogramme a webcrawler to ignore robots.txt files, but reputable search engines (who have the highest profile anyway) are highly unlikely to do that. WjBscribe 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that the only difference in terms of privacy is whether the AfD discussion is readily available, or if the reader needs to go through the history? For the purposes of bots and downstream content users, the content is just as available in the history as it is on the page itself, right? If that's so, then all we're doing by "courtesy blanking" a page like this is restricting its content from casual readers who don't understand how to use the history page. Is that really worthwhile? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the "notable" Wikipedians, and also as someone that engages in investigations from time to time, I have to say that I support the idea of blanking AfDs when real names are involved, and of keeping some of the internal wiki-discussions off of Google. The actual discussions are still easy enough to review by anyone who has access to the page history, but it keeps all the personal attacks and sniping one step further away from the public eye. I do agree that this will make some investigations a bit more difficult, but I think that the tradeoff is acceptable. --Elonka 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

However, courtesy blanking does affect Wikipedia's own search feature. I've blanked an SSP page before so someone's name doesn't show up when you type it into the Wikipedia search box, and that seems to work. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is not google but scrapers who use wikipedia dumps to increase their own traffic. See for example http://www.md5security.com/San-to-Ava/car_speaker.php and control-F for my name. I have no reason to think these people will respect robots.txt even if we can guarantee that every legit search engine does. Thatcher131 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm scraped on that page too. But is there a reason to believe that a) such scrapers won't use past history pages as well as current versions, or b) that the copying of content onto those pages, jumbled around with whatever they're trying to sell, will have any negative effect on the reputation of the individual or individuals on whose behalf the page was blanked? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a major WTF. How do we go about removing AFDs from robots.txt? -- Ned Scott 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should AfDs be on google? WjBscribe 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I've used Google to search for things I can't remember the location of. Obscure MoS pages. Categories. Talk page archives. Sometimes, even if I only remember a snippet of a conversation, searching for the words and my username gets a result through Google. There is a reason they are called search engines... Carcharoth 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfDs weren't added to robots.txt, it was in there all the time. However, robots.txt had some bad formatting, resulting in AfDs being spidered by Google; that has been fixed. So AfDs were never ment to end up on Google in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

on-going low-level sockproblem

Hi - can we have a few more admin eyes on the help desk - we have a low-level troll who appears on a regular basis. This is the daily pattern - asks a question about Draafstein, a made-up language that is currently the subject of an AFD (it's a hoax), get's banned for playing games with userpages and then reappears the following day. A few more people playing whack-a-mole would be useful. His currently user-account is Blaaedenooricereichen (talk · contribs) --Fredrick day 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Draafstein was deleted a week ago as a hoax, so I speedy deleted it as a recreated hoax. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson block by Durova

I was directed here by Durova, an administrator, after a 24-hour block of Chrisjnelson in indirect violation of editing restrictions put forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. This incident occurred Sunday, September 30, on 2007 New England Patriots season. Initially it was a content dispute over the wording of a heading on the article. As a participant in the content dispute, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the differences in opinion between me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003.

Now, it should be said that Ksy92003 and ChrisJNelson have a long history of conflict dating back to around the time of the ChrisJNelson/Jmfangio incident and ruling. I won't get into any of it here, as it has taken place over a period of two months, perhaps, and on multiple talk pages and other discussions. However, one thing I do think is relevant is that Ksy92003, after ChrisJNelson's topic ban/1RR/etc. punishment, Ksy92003 asked ChrisJNelson if he could "monitor (his) contributions, just to see if (he is) following the ban or not." The first actualization of that that, if you will, came from Ksy92003 here. It is clear Ksy92003 is aware of the restrictions imposed on ChrisJNelson and isn't afraid to let it be known if they are broken.

With that in mind, the discussion at 2007 New England Patriots season began as it should. The users involved (me, ChrisJNelson, and Ksy92003) expressed our opinions on the situation. And it just so happened that ChrisJNelson happened to agree with my viewpoint, despite not doing so during the initial edit dispute. In other words, he changed his mind. Without making too much of an assumption, based on Ksy92003's past comments and actions regarding ChrisJNelson's "probation," as well as from other incidents between the two users, it's safe to assume Ksy92003 knew that ChrisJNelson was on thinner ice than he was and also knew what has provoked ChrisJNelson in the past. After three posts of opinion on the content dispute on Talk:2007 New England Patriots season, Ksy92003 decided that this personal attack of sorts on ChrisJNelson was necessary in his next posting: "You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie" Ksy92003 Revision as of 21:37, 30 September 2007. What happened after that consisted of ChrisJNelson defending himself against this attack, yet in a rather uncivil manner delving back into the disputes Ksy92003 has had with ChrisJNelson in the past.

Later, Bjewiki, who also knows ChrisJNelson well, reported ChrisJNelson's incivility in regards to his "probation" on Durova's talk page. Despite referring Bjewiki elsewhere for his/her complaint, and without investigating the rest of the discussion, Durova gave ChrisJNelson a 24-hour block. When I asked why, providing diffs, Ksy92003 wasn't also reprimanded for instigating the incident with a personal attack, Durova told me only the diffs provided by Bjewiki were looked at, and despite the fact that ChrisJNelson was blocked, no action would be taken against Ksy92003 and I should defer any other comments here (ANI).

That is all I have to say. Consider this a condemnation of Ksy92003's personal attack that has gone without repercussions, as well as an "open, informal" complaint against Durova. Pats1 ^T/C 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. If you look at [187], in my comment, I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to make a personal attack when I said that Chris seems to be a liar. I said “that's simply what you appear to be,” meaning that based on past experiences, it’s hard for Chris to be trusted. It would be too hard to find the diffs, as Chris’ talk page has been edited so many times in the past couple months, and it would be an incredibly long process trying to find the diffs, but Durova (talk · contribs) can verify what I’m about to say. I will try to provide whatever relevant diffs I may find.

A couple months ago, there was an RfC between Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). To avoid an enormous punishment, Chris made a pledge that there were only two football-related articles that he would edit: 2007 Miami Dolphins season, and the 32 NFL Team roster templates. Shortly after Chris made that pledge, he violated it nearly immediately by editing other articles ([188][189][190][191][192]) Durova said that Chris never intended on keeping that pledge, ergo the “liar” comment I made. In this diff [193] you can see where Durova says that Chris never intended to keep his pledge.

Additionally, you can see on that same version of his talk page a comment I left him in which he used the word “Nazi” in an edit in which he was reverting an edit I made. I, as well as Durova, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), and even Jmfangio, were offended by his choice of words and felt that it was directed at me. He declared that it was just a senseless joke not directed towards anybody. However, about three or four days ago, Chris e-mailed me and said that he did intentionally call me a “Nazi.”

He has lied, it has been proven, and he has admitted that. If that isn’t evidence that he is a “liar” then I don’t know what is. As far as why I used that word in my edit, it was because Chris originally reverted Pats1 on 2007 New England Patriots season in an edit in which he agreed with me. As soon as the discussion actually begins, Chris all of a sudden flip-flops to the other side. I didn’t see anything convincing with Pats1’s comment which would change Chris’ mind so easily, and therefore, I simply stated that it was hard for me to trust him because he has recently lied, been proven to lie, and has admitted to it. I don’t see what’s wrong with making a statement based on my observations and his admissions. Ksy92003(talk) 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were fully prepared to have the uncertain testimony of this individual on a discussion page, when you expected that it supported your position. It then appears that you only felt it necessary to consider the editors previous record when you realised that their position was different to that which you had... That is, at the very least, an inconsistent consideration.

Further, your failure to see the persuasiveness of the opponents argument, which is of course the reason for the initial dispute, is no grounds to deprecate anothers decision. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The ArbComm ruling made no restrictions on which articles ChrisJNelson could edit, only how many reverts he could make. Sasha Callahan 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement isn’t how I viewed the situation. I would’ve been curious if he had agreed with Pats, and then switched to my side. But I don’t care about it. I eventually dropped out of that discussion and conceded because I didn’t want to have any more to do with it. Since Chris and I have had our disputes in the past, and since Pats1 and Chris have been talking on AIM every now and then (something that Chris admitted to) I was curious and believed that perhaps the reason why he had changed was because he has a great relationship with Pats1 and a horrible one with me, and would’ve wanted to side with Pats1 just because he didn’t want to side with me due to our conflicts. That’s why I made that comment: because I couldn’t believe Chris, and I wanted to know why he changed his opinion so swiftly.

And even with that said, the comment I don’t feel was inappropriate. As I’ve already detailed earlier in this section, in that edit which I referred to Chris as a “liar,” I have backed that up with evidence as to why I felt that he is a liar and why it was hard for me to believe why his opinion was changed. I said in that edit that I didn’t mean it as a personal attack and that to me, he appears to be a liar. I wasn’t attacking him. I was saying what his character appeared to be to me. I honestly don’t understand what is the problem with making a comment based on my observations, my experiences, and things that Chris has admitted to. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This [194] and this [195] may be construed as personal attacks (the first against Nelson and the second against both Pats1 and Nelson). Am I a meatpuppet too? Sasha Callahan 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First: how would that be an attack on Pats1?

And second: how would those be personal attacks? Is it a personal attack to say that disputes that I've been in with a certain user has halted my editing on Wikipedia? I haven't edited nearly as much as I have in the past because of these disputes. Not sure how that's a personal attack. Ksy92003(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I entered the same diff twice. I've fixed it, but in the second one you accused Pats1 and Nelson of being Meatpuppets [196]. Sasha Callahan 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe I didn't even notice that they were the same. I noticed that they were eerily similar, but not 100% equal.

Anyway, I don't believe accusing users of being meatpuppets is a personal attack. If I accused Jmfangio (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet of Tecmobowl (talk · contribs), would that be a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, without backing up your accusations, it may be a personal attack (a minor one at that). Sasha Callahan 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry isn't even an official policy, partly because it's not something that can be checked. As I've said, Pats1 and Chris have had an existing relationship as they quite frequently converse on AIM, and they always side with each other; I've never seen them disagree. Do I know if they are meatpuppets? No. Can I somehow find out if they are? No. I don't see how this is a personal attack.

Also, look at that comment. "Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me." I said "maybe." I said "what it seems like to me." I never accused them of being meatpuppets, only raised the suggestion. Ksy92003(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's do get something straight here, though. I never "recruited" Chris for Wikipedia. Chris never recruited me for Wikipedia. I know Chris from about 4 years back on a different site. And believe me, we were the opposite of "meatpuppets" back then. Insert "Pats1" for "jmfangio" and you'll get my point. It just so happened that our interests crossed a few years down the line (March of this year) and that's the way it is. But Chris would have been probably the last person I'd recruit to help push an agenda on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Pats1 ^T/C 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And I believe that. Once again: I never made any accusation. All I did was raise the possibility that you two were pushing the same agenda. And knowing the way that Chris has always behaved towards me, since you say that you didn't get along with Chris originally, then it makes a lot of sense how you didn't get along with him at first. Not surprising, giving Chris' behavior towards me and others, like Jmfangio.

But one more time: I never said that you two were meatpuppets. I only suggested the possibility. Ksy92003(talk) 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator incompetence and misbehaviour

Hi, I am being 'stalked' by someone who I think is an administrator and wish to complain about them. The name of the user is Strothra. They have wrongly accused me and warned me for making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, wrongly accused me and warned me for vandalism, threatened to block me and are following me around Wikipedia undoing my edits (even reverting a sentence I had deleted which was incorrect according to the citated references). They are taking advantage of my lack of Wikipedia knowledge and experience instead of helping or explaining.

How do I make an official complaint (to a higher Wikipedia authority?) or any other advice forthcoming? Thank you. 82.27.39.34 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Strothra is not an admin. See here. For an example of the various rights that appear next to a user's name in that log, see here. The best thing to do, I would say, is to register an account and talk to Strothra at User talk:Strothra. Also, read Wikipedia:Welcome and see if that helps. Others may have time to look at the particular edits and give more specific advice. Carcharoth 22:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he warned you about edit-warring, and also about removing content. I don't really see any admin abuse here, since he's not an admin — I see a content dispute. --Haemo 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I don't actually edit that article and am not involved in the content dispute. What I was doing was issuing standard warnings for 3RR since there I noticed an ongoing edit-war on that particular article also standard vandal warnings due to continuous removals of cited text. And no, I am not nor have portrayed myself as an admin, but an editor who acts against vandalism and edit warring. --Strothra 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eric.kronenberger

Here we have an individual who has ignored all attempts at contact and has insisted on spamming the site via both his user name and IP to promote his home-based computer business. What part of "Wikipedia is not an advertising medium" do people not understand? Just frustrating as all get-out. --PMDrive1061 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a legitimate user to me. His contribution history shows that yes, while he's written an article about a business run by someone with the same surname, he's also written articles on completely unrelated subjects; yes, they may well end up being deleted but they seem to be perfectly good faith edits by a user who's only been on the site for one hour. Your comments on the talk page seem rather WP:BITEy - plenty of people write articles on friends, family, workplace etc as their first article. The article may have been about a non-notable company but it didn't look like spam to me, all it did was say what the company made. Also, where do you get "Home based computer business" from? The only articles of his you tagged as spam were about a book-binding machine manufacturer, and an (admittedly poorly written) article about a book (On Wings of Eagles) by Ken Follett, one of the most successful authors of the 20th century, many of whose books do have their own pages. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his contribution could be counted on two hands, and most were blatent advertising for his company and two book articles (which read like and were most likely copyvios from Amazon). WHSL seems to be his only valid contribution, but looks to be created to generate exposure and lacks notability as well I think. — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to defend any of the articles as I've no doubt they'll all be deleted, but I don't think the bookbinder one was spam for his company; the article says the company's owned by Bob Kronenberger; at a guess I'd say Eric is his child trying to be helpful. These edits were all within the first hour of the account being created - plenty of peoples' first edits are just as uninspiring and they go on to better things. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• My goof regarding his business. Sorry. However, I tried to reason with him and he simply kept trying to skate around the issue by removing the deletion notices both logged on and logged off. He didn't answer, either. I don't like biting newbies, believe me. I was once one myself and I hope I didn't bite too hard here. I had to drop out under my previous username because of too much pressure from too much NPP...and here I go doing it again. Someone slap some sense into me, if you please...sigh. OK, no more NPP. I came back to edit. Lots to fix. Thanks for the help. --PMDrive1061 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mothertrucker Band Page Deleted: Admin No Longer Active

I am in a band called Mothertrucker and our page which has been there for a long time recently got deleted the reason being:

"21:42, 20 September 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Mothertrucker" ‎ (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance)"

I have tried to contact the admin that did this but it says:

"This user is no longer active on Wikipedia."

So I can not find out why he randomly deleted our page. A slightly older not as upto date version can be found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/mothertrucker

Could someone please contact me about this and hopefully put the page back as it was if this is possible? Thank you.

James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestrucker (talk • contribs)

I suggest you take this to Deletion Review Sasha Callahan 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You should check out WP:BAND. The article probably did not meet the notability guidelines set forth there. Dean Wormer 23:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Its not "randomly" if he gave a reason: "CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance." Did you click on the links to see the detailed reason? Mr.Z-man 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure is Speedy Deleting under A7 was correct. According to the article (found on answers.com) the band toured the UK, which asserts some notability. The page probably should've been taken to Article for Deletion. Sasha Callahan 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aren't contested speedies normally restored and taken to AfD, if they haven't been through an AfD yet? Dean Wormer 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• They usually go to WP:DRV. However, I'm not going to take it there because I'm not going to act as a proxy for a band member, especially since while it probably shouldn't have been speedied, it would get crushed at WP:AFD. Sasha Callahan 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's requests like this that really badly tempt me to add some helpful tags to that line about "promotional articles about yourself" in MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Doesn't anybody bother to read anymore? —Cryptic 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the post-literate era. And if they do read, they don't think it applies to them. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a rude editor

Resolved

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

You're looking for etiquette alerts, not WP:ANI. --Haemo 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP is clearly being uncivil. He needs a block or a stern warning; not a Wikiquette alert. --Agüeybaná 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, being incivil means people need to be talked to, in general. That's what WP:WQA is for. They're not harassing other users, and their demeanor is not beyond what you would expect from an average teenager arguing strenuously. A block would be massive overkill, and I don't feel that treating them like a child would help either.

Can someone talk to this user?

JayKeaton has been causing me some grief over at Talk:Halo 3, accusing me and others of being Microsoft toadies, and me directly of working for Microsoft in an effort to remove criticism of the game. I've already risen to his baiting once before, and I'd rather stay out of it and keep cool, but could someone else talk to him? He appears to have had civility issues in the past. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned, for making comments like this one. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)