Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[6]

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[7] and one of the main articles[8][9] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Wikipedia, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Wikipedia" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Wikipedia to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Wikipedia with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Wikipedia, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Wikipedia in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Wikipedia completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Wikipedia leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Wikipedia puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Wikipedia editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Wikipedia" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly an unacceptable thing to say of course. Puttyschool should stop immediately and refrain from using such remarks or he would get blocked. But believe me, not all people would call it "anti-semitism." Other people of different confessions may get offended if someone would use something like "hindupedia", "islamopedia", "hamaspedia", etc. That happens here and we just call that "incivility." It has been discussed several times here and unfortunately there has never been someting clear. I hope people would get to a resolution. My point is that we should be firm in dealing with all this BS (with no double standards of course). All we want is a better atmosphere. That is my point and that is why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

On the other hand, I'd like you try to wp:assume good faith. If I had to block your second account it is because leaving an account previously blocked and starting a new one can be seen as avoiding scrutiny. If everybody does so then it would be impossible to manage Wikipedia. And of course, you were not the only person I check-usered. In parallel, I'm finished here, since "faysal" blocked me is sad because first, we don't want people to leave just for the sake of leaving and second, because I never blocked you. I blocked your second account. You were pissed off and that I understand (and I didn't consider any of what you said as legal threat - it happens) but that doesn't mean you are correct and right (saying thanks you and fuck you). Really Einsteindonut, we try to avoid the words enemy and evil. pathetic. I had offered you my help but you chose to not assume good faith. You'd have already been blocked because of all that but admins have used their cool sense. I hope this is clear.

Again, I suggest that you better think about the message I left for you on your talk page. That has been sincere and I am not interested in wasting neither my time nor the time of others. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it very sad that I am the one getting reprimanded and told what I can and cannot say in this case. I would hope that you and others can pay attention to the CATALYST of all of this in which you have spent critiquing me upon and spend more time with regard to that problem as opposed to focusing the attention and onus of the responsibility on the person who complained about it. I hardly feel I'm wasting anyone's time here, especially when people continue to blame me for the response to the original problem, rather than the original problem itself. Everyone here seems very keen on focusing on the complainer and not the complaint. I find that to be extremely troublesome. Thanks for all the "advice" "Fayssal" - go ahead and block me if you wish. I don't really want to be a part of something in which people can get away with making anti-semitic comments and then people who react to them are the ones who get reprimanded and inconvenienced as a result. Thanks for your offer to "help" Fayssal, but I'll seek it elsewhere. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about other editors« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(end of restored comment)

Puttyschool. Please refrain from doing that again. It could be that it is not considered as an anti-semitic remark but we all agree that it is totally unacceptable. Just don't do it again. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, I never imagined that you will remove my comments and others from this admin board, how dare you Please check Why Einsteindonut removed my two comments« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a pure accident. After you brought it to my attention I tried to re-add it, but then the page was updated and I got confused and couldn't. I'm happy to discuss whatever it is you were trying to say. In fact, I went back to try to find it and couldn't! I'm having some difficult times editing on these admin boards. I'm fine with whatever people want to say here though. There's no good reason for me to delete anyone's comment. I looked at that edit and i was trying to make a minor edit of my own stuff and I think I accidentally deleted yours. My apologies. I'm being 100% honest here. I'm ready to respond to whatever it was you said. I think you claimed that the JPedia comment was not anti-semitic. I'd be inclined to believe that it wasn't, but combined with the fact that you also claimed that the JPost was "just for Jews," that is what sealed the deal for me. If "Jpost" is "just for Jews" then certainly "JPedia" (in your mind" would be too, right? I mean, that's what you were trying to say, right? That Wikipedia is not "Just for Jews?" Yes, that is true, but that point had nothing to do with my edit, other than the fact that we were working on an article about a Jewish organization, and that I am Jewish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about me or other editors. you can focus only on my 3 words, dropping all other stories you have, like the GFDL license story. I think one of our arguments while reverting our edits was about your cutting and pasting from the JPOST article, then why you insist J mean Jewish, by the way is every “J” anti-semitic from your point of view or you select according to the circumstances, you can share your friends about your thoughts and ideas, but I’m not obligated to share your thoughts and ideas. About removing my comment, you removed two comments from two different places, is this "a pure accident", Wow, what a strange accident, which can’t happen in Wikipedia.« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only"[10], therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Wikipedia is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Wikipedia is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion"[11] along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you.[12] Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Wikipedia, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Wikipedia is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly why you are talking about, you method makes me looses concentration, your statement about Egypt is completely wrong, I never heard it before, but I know most of your statements are based uponWP:OR .
I was reverting your edits as I documented in talk page for two reasons, i) unlicensed image with a very long unreasonable funny story ii)you added un-encyclopedic words as they appeared between quotes in the JPOST article, and what appear between quotes means that the words are not the JPOST point of view, about my assumption that JPOST is for Jews only, I’m not a reader for the JPOST newspaper, so my assumption was based on a few articles I read from the JPOST and this can be wrong, but this does not mean that JpediA is anti-semantic, especially my comment was not a general one as yours but was specific to you and your edit to the article. I don’t know too much about the history of the “J” but I took it from the” J”POST, and I was telling you that Wikipedia can’t use the same words as JPOST. Another point; please revise your contributions and tell me where is your NPOV from your first account till this one, and the next.....
So In order not to lose my main point I want to remind everyone I’m requesting blocking your account as you removed two subsequent comments I added in two different edits, and I want the history of this page to be checked I’m AGF but also it is one of my rights to know haw this was a mistake.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The images licenses changed, as I mentioned. Also, apparently in your mind the "un-encylopedic" words are as follows:

"The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." from: Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion"[[13] upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Wikipedia pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Wikipedia. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

aharon42, "Jpedia" may be rude according to some editors POV, but sure it is not anti-semitic« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it from an Egyptian who knows. What is this, Egyptpedia? I assume I can get away with this, since no one wants to get on Putty's case for his remarks and since he is unwilling to even recognize what he did was wrong---thanks in large part to everyone focusing on ME rather than the catalyst to the problem. In any event, what can I really expect from people who are not Jewish? Do you see now why there are organization like the JIDF and ADL, etc? People don't even have a clue as to what anti-semitism is, and when it is there, no one even wants to do anything about it except "blame the Jew" for complaining about it. Thank you Wikipedia for proving something I already knew. Never mind. Case closed.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, is this another kind of drama? Can I say that your word is Anti-Egyptians, or you are also referring to Jews from Egypt and your word is Anti-Egyptians/Anti-Semantic as well? I don’t know how much time you need in order to learn, it is easy “judge the contents not the contributors”« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of you could do with a healthy dose of WP:AGF. Certainly the remark could be considered rude, but there's no need for this ridiculous argument -- just be the bigger person and step back a notch. If this sort of destructive bickering continues, there's a pretty good chance one or both of you will wind up banned from the article. Calm down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [14] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...

Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[15]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nagle is right on the money, actually. It's become clear that one or more editors at the article is a prominent member of the JIDF. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers [16] published on their Facebook page.[17]. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comments from admin noticeboard, he removed two comments from two different places, it is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:48, 7 September 2008 (

It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sir/Madam, I'm requesting to block the account for ever for the above reason« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I accidentally deleted one comment that I know of. If i deleted another one on this board, than that was an accident too. I'm happy to debate/discuss with you or anyone here, there, or anywhere. There is no good reason (other than a pure accident) that I would delete any of your comments in talk areas. Feel free to bring this onto my talk page if you wish, or re-submit them here. I really have had a difficult time editing on these boards and it is not my intention to delete anyone's remarks. My apologies if it appears that way, but it is true. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. Your edit has apparently caused a huge problem by messing up a page that now requires several people's work to fix. See below, the section, 'Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help?' If it was an edit conflict consequence, you are not wholly responsible for that mess, provided you did not know what to do when there is an edit conflict. The least you should do if lower your sights, and start learning how to edit, without damaging this project.Nishidani

It was an accident which is easily caused by editors following the instructions given at edit conflicts. These instructions have now been changed in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of this problem. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an accident and it has been addressed in other areas and I have apologized for it. Again, none of this has to do with the original complaint. Very interesting how all of this because about ME, and not the fact that someone made a very discriminatory remark with regard to religion on Wikipedia. Call it what you want here, in my hood, it's called ANTISEMITISM and I feel it's very important to call it for what it is, and I will continue to do so, when I spot it here, or anywhere for that matter, ESPECIALLY when nothing is done about it, but to reprimand ME for complaining about it.

Putty needs to know what he did was 100% wrong and why. He also needs to apologize as that remark is completely unacceptable, or else I should be fine making comments after each of his edits saying "what is this, Egyptpedia?" Or something to that effect and not face any sanctions whatsoever for doing so. THEN maybe people will get onto Putty's case (as they are doing here with me for some reason.) LAME LAME LAME. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice - having "Wikipedia = worse than Goebbels" on your userpage may make some editors less likely to listen to any genuine complaints you may have. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing is bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be dandy if the both of you two would just calm down and have some tea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, You know the only good point you bring is that one Egyptian, makes the Great WikipediA an EgyptpediA, wow how much Egyptians are great from 7500 year till now. Other points are not related to this section which is blocking your account.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I know all about ancient Egypt. There was a reason I left. I hope you remember who built your pyramids and I'm sure you remember 1967, hence your disdain for me, the article in question, the JPOST, etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a claims, or some thing to remember, it is WP:RS, As documented in ancient Egyptian articles, Egyptian built the pyramids and the culture was before Jews, at the same time, the concept of building the pyramids is against (Jews/Christians/Muslims) religions. Every one wish to have this owner, we don’t mind, but our culture was a documented culture and we have all old documents. About 1967 and 1973 which you missed this is completely out of line and we forgot all about the two years, but we did not forget that Jews are our cousins.
Please report this Luna, he did not accept the tea« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Report what? That you're still egging him on? That he's still taking the bait? This isn't going to stop while you're both trying to get each other blocked or banned. There's more to civility than acting nice for ten minutes to get a leg up on somebody -- politeness isn't a one-shot thing. Both of you should really stop trying to take the high road, because you're both just coming across as squabbling children. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or banned. I want some serious understanding from Wikipedia editors (rather than "you're being ridiculous!" and throwing the rule book at me, blocking me, checking me for socks, etc.) and I want them to help me to fully get through to Putty that what he said was not just wrong, but a serious personal attack based upon someone's religion. Unfortunately, no one sees it that way for some reason, which I find concerning. And finally, I want an apology for him after he fully comprehends what he did. The fact that none of that has even begun to happen is what "eggs me on." I pretty much tune out much of whatever it is he is trying to say since that comment and some of his other questionable remarks and reverts. In order to move forward, I need more affirmation that I make good points. He's actually egging me on far less than everyone else basically telling me that I'm crazy for having a problem with this. Civility should include something to the effect of, here you have an editor who tried to talk his points through and made a good faith edit. Another editor comes along and pretty much says "this ain't for Jews" w/out given a good reason for making the revert. It was very clearly anti-semitic. I'm just a bit shocked that others don't see it. That is all. Not calling for his banning or his blocking, but for more understanding from fellow editors, and helping me fully get through to him why it was wrong and why it was offensive, and a sincere apology. Since none of that looks like it's ever going to happen, I remain flustered. Trust me, it's more about everyone else response (or lack thereof) which is more frustrating at this point than anything else. It was beyond "rude" it was a fully personal attack on me and all Jewish editors on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the threats of blocking and bannings have apparently scared them so much that they are afraid to even come to my defense. I could care less if I am blocked and/or banned. It would say more about the problems with Wikipedia than it does about my activities here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page, there are a lot of editors here who don't get it. Standing here and holding your breath until you get an apology won't enlighten them. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not "very clearly" anti-semitic. A statement like "Wikipedia is not for Jews" could be interpreted in different ways; it could be taken to mean "Jews are not welcome here" (which seems to be your take on it, and would indeed be a troublesome sentiment), or it could be taken to mean "Wikipedia is not only for Jews" (an interpretation which assumes good faith and allows the editing process to move forward, and in fact a true statement besides). Given Putty doesn't seem to have a fluent grasp of English, it's difficult to make authoritative assertions about their intended meaning. If you want others to share your highly negative interpretation of the original statement, you'd do well to stop flapping your arms about our willful stupidity and start demonstrating a history of problems from this editor. Evidence is a must when making such extreme claims. I will take no pains to defend Putty's rather silly reaction to all of this -- really, an apology and/or explanation would have done more to calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::The fact that one's religion would be mentioned in a hostile tone with regard to any edits is completely wrong and unacceptable. The fact that you are watering this down is troubling. The fact that you think "Wikipedia is not only for Jews" is somehow AGF is absurd. The fact that you just rationalized is concerning. I think I'll start mentioning everyone's religion when I revert their edits hastily from now on, since that is acceptable here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been said tens of times that it is NOT acceptable. The user has been warned and if he tries it again he'd get blocked. Who said it is acceptable? Really, don't think about starting mentioning everyone's religion when editing. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to stop hand waving and start posting evidence to support your claims. Response? More hand waving, now in bold. Very charming. My point wasn't "Putty attacked your religion and that's okay" but rather "I'm not convinced Putty attacked your religion." A temper tantrum does not convince me I'm wrong. Illustrating a history of problematic statements would be more useful, in that regard. If Putty continues to make problematic statements, we can cross that bridge; for now, it's not clear what admin action is needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was actually just summing everything up in bold. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it behind you?

Einsteindonut, despite Puttyschool's offensive comment, I think it's clear that you're not going to get what you want: an apology or any sort of disciplinary action against Puttyschool. Despite what you've endured over the past 24 hours, please try to calm down. If you can, try to put this incident behind you — because it doesn't seem like anything is going to happen here — and get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia. Lord knows it needs improving. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Malik, about my comment, I apologize as it can be a misunderstanding comment, but I did not mean by JpediA the JewishPedia as he was trying to prove, and JPediA is not an anti-semantic word, and as you can remember I was calling you and other Jews editor to solve conflict issues, and I was working with you and Oblear and all editors without any barriers. But also check his comments, how may offensive comments me and other editors received from him from the day this article is created in WikiPediA, only as he don’t like what we did, so we must put a limit, what he don’t like we also don’t like, especially most of us don’t have COI« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this discussion any further. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very calm actually. However, if no apology? Then I'm not putting it behind me. I am improving Wikipedia (in my own mind at least.) Who am I bothering here? No one is forced to read any of this. I want it to be known that I make a big deal out anti-semitic comments combined with efforts by people to revert my editing decisions I made after fully discussing them in "talk" without their collaboration or input with regard to anything I discussed as to why I was making the change to the article. This isn't just about the comment. It is the entire context (from Putty's first comments when the article was first nominated for deletion) - to his constant trying to take out important and accurate, well-thought out and discussed edits because of his own cultural conflict of interest and his own personal problem with the organization.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished my tea, seems you don't like tea, all of us are improving WikipediA, can anyone comment on this« PuTTY^SchOOL 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a coffee person (who's waiting for an apology.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Einsteindonut and Puttyschool really need to take a break from Wiki. At this point, both have made extremely offensive comments to each other, and which are therefore offensive to other Jews and Egyptians. Personally, I think the JPedia comment is anti-semitic, but I see no history of Putty posting anti-semitic POV elsewhere on Wiki. I have a hard time taking the AGF road though given his defense of stating it is not anti-semitic, which is no defense at all. I honestly do not think Putty understands why it is anti-semitic (he is not alone), but it is. He has given a sort of half-hearted apology, and I wish both you guys would leave it at that. Sposer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sposer, I think I must also apologize “for the poor choice of the term”, According to my discussions with Michael Safyan [18] I found that if the term “might give offense…” to at least one editor, then it is wrong to use it. Sorry next time I will take care about every “J”.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions?

I've personally given up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article as it's too much of a battleground with baiting and conjecture well after everyone has been cautioned about such issues. The article is under Arbcom restriction yet the personalizing seems to not let up. I'm also uncomfortable with the original research to out anyone associated with the group - digging through Facebook and posting on wikipedia seems like a terrible idea when these people have death threats against them - to me that's a WP:BLP issue.

I would support full protection on the article - it's largely stable despite the ongoing quibbling - and possibly semi on the talk if trolling is also an issue. Banjeboi 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues when (a) all the people involved use pseudonyms and (b) they've published the "names" themselves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they are all pseudonyms - and just why are we diving into that original research on wikipedia anyway? - and, though I've not spent much time on Facebook, unsure they have really "published" this list. Two references were used to name David Appletree, do we have a RS that that is a pseudonym? If so we should state it, if not I wonder, given the death threats, if we should remove it. Banjeboi 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the matter and ways to resolutions

Let's see and clear up this mess:

Notes: Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles are under ArbCom restrictions.

On-wiki problems:

a) There's a total lack of AGF. Users from both sides of the fence still need to make big efforts to AGF and work together in peace. I applaud and encourage though user:Aharon42 and other people's efforts to make that happen.

b) Someone (IP) made this very nasty anti-semitic edit. The problem is that this user denies being behind those edits. 2 admins have investigated the issue.

Update: User is blocked for 2 weeks after some evidence was presented below.

c) Someone made this unaccaptable remark. That is totally uncivil and rude and should not happen again under any circumstance. If this happens again a block would be in order. Aharon49 has asked me to give my views on this and why I didn't consider this remark as anti-semitic. There's a big difference between attacking someone by saying "you are a dirty X" and "this is not Xpedia". It is still a gray area and the only way we'd know if it was really meant to be anti-semitic is to check the history of the contributions of the user who made the comment. We can still AGF until we get sure about that. So far, no indication of such a tendency has been noted.

d) Sockpuppetry has not been abusive as discussed above. Also, there are a few sleeper accounts belonging to one established user. I am waiting for some answers and explanations from some involved parties before taking action. I've made some checks and that covered a few accounts concerning parties from both sides of the dispute. My fellow checkusers can review that or verify the logs if needed.

e) Some editors have gone so far and got the names of some alleged JIDF people. This needs to stop (it is a precedent AFAIK). I suggest all names be oversighted (though the fact i am a member of the ArbCom, I have no oversighting tools). If this happens again blocks would be in order. We must respect the privacy of everyone as it is sacred.

Off-wiki problems brought here:

a) JIDF has tried to out and violate the privacy of Wikipedia editor user:CJCurrie. It says "[It is] currently updated for the time being, just because we feel like being nice....." I hope reasonable people at JIDF refrain from doing that. JIDF people must understand that Wikipedia editors are humans and outing them in such a shameful way instead of addressing the real issues or enter in a sincere dialog with our editors is not a positive thing.

b) It seems that JIDF is a bit obsessed with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been faced with a somehow similar situation (see the CAMERA ArbCom case. Please read one of the important principles laid out by the ArbCom... "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") It is for the best of everyone involved that this stops. Wikipedia is open to everyone and there's no need to push that hard to the limits.

c) The subject of the article (JIDF) promotes "some weird stuff" (check the link at the khaki/yellow box at the left column). This is not "defending" as in 'jiDf' but "attacking". JIDF sympathizers must think about balance and mutual respect before accusing others of "anti-semitism." JIDF website links to thereligionofpeace.com (tRoP). tRoP titles include nasty and crappy stuff such as "California Muslims Angered They Can't Incite Murder of Jews..." (I say: all California muslims?), "Why are Muslims Powerless? Short answer - too much religion, not enough education. Muhammad warned Muslims against pursuing "knowledge that benefits not" and they've been following his advice ever since..." (No comment), etc. Attacking a whole religion because of some bad terrorists is nonsense and I'd urge JIDF sympathizing editors to be aware of the fact that this creates a very bad atmosphere over here. Nobody is innocent. Hatred and nonsense comes from all sides (not necessarily one).

So any resolution would depend on the willingness of involved people from both sides to address the above points and reconsider their actions. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, thank you for laying out the issues. Your "on-wiki" points are nearly perfect, except for the history of Putty's comments and editing with regard to the JIDF article. The second half of your thinking with regard to "off wiki" stuff is problematic. It seems outside the scope of my original complaint, and I believe "on Wiki" rules do not apply to to off-wiki content. Regarding CJCurrie and the JIDF post about him he actually outed himself on Wikipedia itself. The JIDF didn't "out him," the letter someone sent to the JIDF officially outted him after the JIDF indicated that they know who he is through the information he had posted on Wikipedia itself. I believe if certain Wikipedia editors are going to mass vandalize the project in a serious and vindictive manner, and face no sanctions from ArbsCom, then things can happen off-Wiki (as we see in this case.) In other words, "on wiki" neglect of certain issues can bring about "off wiki" consequences. Had the situation been dealt with quickly and fairly, then perhaps the JIDF would not have gotten involved. I believe (since you are bringing it up) that perhaps an ArbsCom case should still be considered for CJCurrie's questionable edits and removal of all "zionism on the web" links (for the most part) on Wikipedia. It was vandalism pure and simple in response to Oboler's exposure of the Electronic Intifada problem, and CJCurrie got away with it, which I feel is indicative of other underlying problems within the Wikipedia project itself. The entire case regarding CJCurrie is laid out on the JIDF site is very telling. All of your points in the "off wiki B" section seem to be completely disregarded by editors like CJCurrie, as a matter of fact. Your "C" Point regarding "off wiki" content seems completely out-of-place and irrelevant. While you might have certain opinions about the JIDF site and the content they provide (which is completely unrelated to Wikipedia), it is still just that, completely unrelated to Wikipedia. Again, thank you for laying out the issues in a clear and concise manner. In summation, I believe your "on wiki" assessment is nearly perfect, though much of your "off wiki" assessment is "way off" and should be outside the scope of Wikipedia ArbsCom considerations.--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you agree with my on-wiki points, could you please gently remove the "Wikipedia = Where the antisemites an anti-Israel POV pushers roam free. Where Holocaust denial and revisionism are given nice platforms, anyway" and "by all means, please overwhelm me with your rules and wisdom, because this system is clearly working to create great atmosphere for Jew hatred, demonization of Israel and the rationalization of Islamic terrorism" from your userpage? That would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'm not sure that the statements on my user page tie into your "on Wiki" points which were concerning one isolated incident as opposed to system-wide problems. However, some of your "off Wiki" points tie into some of those statements (especially with regard to rationalization of Islamic terrorism..) In any event, once a full scale (if there is such a thing) ArbsCom case with regard to the problems of CJCurrie happens and sanctions against him are implemented, I will reconsider my personal views about WP, until then, I can only go by what I have learned about WP and what I have experienced in my short time here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. We cannot be a newbie for the rest of our lives. We cannot have one classroom for every editor. My request has been gentle and is part of the AGF stuff above. You are not in a position to set conditions on what we have to do and not. If you want to discuss CJCurrie stuff, I'll suggest you file an ArbCom case. For now, your userpage statements are not appropriate at all and go against our AGF guideline and it is clear soapboxing as explained to you above. The question of userpages was a bit complicated years ago and it is considered as something clear nowadays. I hope you take this as a serious request. You may not like it but we are not bargaining here. If you have substantive evidence to back up your claims please present it to the ArbCom. If not, defamatory content must be removed. People have asked you gently. If nothing changes, people get warned. If the problem persists people get blocked. If that doesn't help people get banned. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Fayssal, this user DOES deny being behind those two edits. As far as I know I'm not blocked and nobody but you seems to be claiming it was me, so can you please leave me out of this absurd drama? My edit history speaks for itself. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I said the opposite? Have I accused you? I have the total right to have questions as other admins had. I've done the checks myself and all what I've done here is report what happened alongside other 8 points mentioned above. And yes, people are not blind to see that your edit history speaks for itself. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. All I know is that you've mentioned me here twice and now I'm asking you nicely to please leave me out of it entirely. I'm here to write an encyclopedia and I want no part of drahmaz. Thank you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you have made some edits to the JIDF article which weren't all that Kosher. I find it extremely troubling that you or "someone who happens to be within your ip range" vandalized my user page and the JIDF article with swastikas, which put me on the defense from the onset. It is my hope that WIkipedia will fully investigate the situation in order to make sure that "it wasn't you" as I personally find it TOO COINCIDENTAL. Therefore, I'm happy that your name is being discussed here so that we may get to the truth of the matter. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I listed that IP at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. If any further discussion of NoC or the IP is needed, it may be worth another subthread. I may have more comment on FayssalF's substantive post at a later time. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, combined with the fact that an IP address attributed to him was responsible for vandalism in the form of multiple swastikas on my user page and JIDF article, the following edits to the JIDF article are the reasons why I feel Nobody of Consequence is highly suspect:

Added "totally disputed tag" from the very beginning

Continued to litter the article with deletion tags

Oboler rightly calls him out on his vandalism through marking for deletion tags and he responds

All that being said, what can be learned here? Both "NobodyofConsequence" and Puttyschool had issues with the existence of this article from the onset. I believe neither one of them got their way as the article still exists, so they manifested their frustration in other ways. It's very telling when people demand that something be deleted so many times and then we have the opportunity to watch their subsequent edits to that article---especially when, by all indications, anti-semitism begins to seep out as it has (in the form of swastikas and "jpedia" comments combined with "the JPost is just for Jews" etc.

Don't get upset with the Jews who understand how these things work, but this is PRECISELY how it works, both on Wikipedia and throughout history a) People don't like Jews b) People would rather that Jews wouldn't exist c) Because Jews exist, that upsets people d) Anti-semitism rears its ugly head.

By the same token, an article about a Jewish organization which fights anti-semitism is bound to attract all sorts of clever and not so clever anti-semites who will do everything in their power to try to deny and/or mask their inherent hatred of the Jew, and especially of Jewish organizations which know how to detect it and fight back.

Considering Jewish history and the problems online it really shouldn't be that difficult for people to see how much everyone hates the Jew here. The fact that everyone is pretending to not see it is insane. If this entire episode was about african americans or homosexuals, then very strict sanctions would certainly apply, since that double standard happens in real life too. All WP is showing here is that it is a pure reflection of reality. If anything, I appreciate the opportunity as it allows me to understand these issues and patterns even better. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have no single doubt now. User is blocked for a 2 weeks. The rest is nonsense (referring to your a, b, c, and d points) and you better stop it for once now that the user is blocked. You also better keep that fight off-wiki. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I appreciate the action you took. What determines the length of time? Seems to me anyone that would vandalize pages with swastikas should be banned forever, but I admit I don't know what determines these things. Promotion of Nazism (ie. Murder/Genocide, etc) is "kinda a big deal." I'm sorry if you think my points are "nonsense." Your telling me to keep that fight "off Wiki" seems a bit odd, considering you just helped me to acknowledge it and fight it. Anti-semitism, the promotion of murder, genocide, Nazism, etc., has no place on Wikipedia. My "fight,"if anything, ties right into WP's own rules of civility. I have just been using different language since I am new here. However, I do think it is important to call things for what they are, and let me be very clear, anytime I am talking about "anti-semitism" on Wikipedia, I am, in WP terms, talking about INCIVILITY. That being said, I urge people to do a "find and replace" in their minds in order to understand what I am saying. I would hope that fighting incivility and promoting civility would be welcome here. Again, thank you for taking action. I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Of course, someone is likely to revert the block, as they did in Ashley Kennedy's case for her continued edit warring. These people who feel so strongly about the JIDF article feel that way for reasons, that's all I'm saying. Those reasons are not always so civil and taken in the context of their feelings about completely uncivilized political movements and the rationalization of those movements' actions, as well as peoples' edits regarding Holocaust denial and revisionism and their various supporters and proponents, etc. It's extremely telling. Most people don't just get on Wikipedia to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about. In fact, that is the whole reason why I got on here and I'm sure if there was a poll, that would be true for everyone. Not everyone can be passionate about everything, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the same people would flock to the same articles with regard to certain topics in which they are passionate. In any event, that is how I come to my POV about certain motivations. I take the entire context of everything, not just seemingly isolated incidents. Nothing is a coincidence in my world, and I do not throw around any allegations just for the sake of throwing them around, and I always do AGF in the beginning actually. So when it seems like I do not, one can assume that I have good reason for that. I admit that sometimes I do not explain how I arrived at "C" without explaining A and B. However, please be advised that all of my conclusions will always have the facts to prove them. I don't do things just for the sake of doing them. I try to make valid points. Again, thank you for seeing my point, though I wish for him to be banned forever from Wikipedia. Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. In fact, well, I'll just keep that to myself since people can't make threats here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What determines the length of time? That depends on many factors and it is called admins' discretion. Fellow admins can review the duration and the block itself and make comments here or on my talk page. Block durations are not a problem. They can be tweaked if needed or if the initial one is not appropriate.

I said that You also better keep that fight off-wiki. It is probably my english though I don't think so. For me it means that you, in your quality of an editor, better keep Wikipedia free of fights (referring to "Jewish organization which fights...")

I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Now you know that we don't make empty claims here. Only differences and evidences are accepted. That is to say that if you keep on accusing people without proof, you'd find yourself being blocked.

Of course, someone is likely to revert the block. Please AGF. This is the last time I'll be asking you this.

please be advised that all of my conclusions will always come with the facts to prove them. So far, you could only prove one (after this whole lenghty thread).

I wish for him to be banned forever from Wikipedia. If repeated, of course yes.

Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. As far as everybody is concerned here, nobody promoted Nazism. That was not a promotion, it was a nasty personal anti-semitic edit.

Now, Einsteindonut, have you read my last message regarding your userpage above? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. Yes I have read it, can you please explain why I cannot leave it there? I'm sure it will change eventually, as I like to change things often, but if it doesn't break any rules I'm not sure why I should be required to change it until I feel compelled to do so. This does not mean I don't appreciate what has been done. You just brought up the CJCurrie case and I believe until that is revisited that I still have the same thoughts. I appreciate knowing that I can provide links and differences t o prove my points about certain things I find problematic. One area of disagreement, I'm surprised that you'd regard someone's multiple anti-semitic use of a Nazi symbol on wikipedia as not a promotion of Nazism. It was not just on my user page, but on an article for all to see as well (as well as the symbol of jihad.) In my mind, that's a clear promotion of Nazism and Jihad and not merely a personal attack, since it went on the article on the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is not a promotion of Nazism. Please read marketing promotions and advertising campaigns to understand why it is not. The offending user's aim was clearly to offend you and not to market and ideology or a product.

I'll tell you why your userpage is problematic:

• First, have you ever read Wikipedia:Userpage?
• Second, I first assumed that you came here to complain about some anti-semetic stuff and other uncivil comments. Now, it seems that you are shifting your focus and getting interested in user:CJCurrie. Have you ever interacted with him? Have you ever edited together? No. So? Why are you focusing on him??? What strikes me is the fact that JIDF has been accusing this same user for a lot of things and that included posting an alleged picture of him. Now, that the offender is blocked for the anti-semitic remarks, what is the reason for keeping those statements up there? There's only one thing I can explain that; that you are here to pursue an agenda which can be targetting CJCurrie and accusing some other editors who don't share your POV. That is why your page is just soapboaxing and I do not see any reason why keep accusing other editors there. If you got problems with editors, you have to follow the dispute resolution process instead. If that fails then you have the ArbCom. Does this makes sense to you? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

your first point, i'll check it out. however, my point is that some of his post of a swastika and the jihadist flag on the JIDF article, had nothing to do with "me" per se. it was an attack against a wikipedia article and the organization in which the article was about. two separate incidents. one at me. another at the JIDF article, for the casual readers to see. have i ever read the WP userpage rules? i think i skimmed them. if there's something specifically i should know, let me know. lots of reading. have i ever interacted with CJCurrie? Yes, absolutely. Have we ever edited together? Yes, absolutely. On the JIDF article. When I saw his name and tried to edit with him and interact with him, I was reminded instantly of what I had read from ZOTW regarding his efforts to delete those links and did not think it was a "coincidence." I understand what you told me, but will have to learn the processes. Allow me to ask you this flat out---is there anything on my user page which clearly breaks any WP rules? If so, I will take it down, but I would like to know precisely why. I see lots of things on many user pages. For example, I have seen many people who have "i am for the right of the return of Palestinians" in little user boxes. Is that not soap boxing? I certainly think if people can take such political stances on their user pages, that I should be able to express some of the issues I have found with regard to Wikipedia? Then again, if I am clearly doing something against policy, then please clearly express it and help extract it from any articles explaining those policies. If not, then I think it's just your personal opinion that you don't like what is on my user page. Which is fine, but I don't see why I'd have to remove it so long as it is not breaking any rules. In any event, I have made some minor changes to some of the text which might be a bit better. I believe Dr. Oboler had already pursued the problems with CJCurrie to no avail. I personally didn't like CJCurrie's demeanor nor his edits w/ regard to the JIDF piece. That, plus all of the edits outlined by the JIDF are highly suspect of POV pushing, combined w/ the fact that he removed around 200 ZOTW links after the electronic intifada story broke, and i think you can see some problems. I don't think I'm accusing anyone of anything in particular on my page. I have some links that people can choose to read, or not. Again, I'll be happy to take stuff down if it is clearly against the rules and if I could get into some sort of trouble for it. I'll look into all those processes you mentioned. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope Fayssal won't mind if I add a little instructive levity here about what Wiki is about. Apropos Einsteindonut's loose remark that

'Most people don't just get on Wikipedia to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about

I am now straining the bean through a psychotic sieve as I try to imagine what passion drives those thousands of marvellous editors who contribute to or have written good articles on digamma, Brazilian copperfish, Lemba, Dot matrix printer, Theme, Escherichia coli, or Giuseppe Piazzi. Does one really need to be passionate about the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, Hemorrhoids, or Phlebitis to write about them? The point is, we are in here to contribute material of substance to over two million articles, and not wage cultural wars by waving the flags of political correctness everywhere, especially at imagined dust under invisible rugs Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also say that it might not require "passion" per se, but knowledge on something, and if not particular topics, then people have a passion for editing/writing in general and that is why they are here. Can you please explain what you mean by "straining the bean through a psychotic sieve?" It seems with the constant reminders of my own civility and to AGF and all the other rules that they very much are "waves of PC flags" though I am not sure what exactly you consider to be "imagined dust under invisible rugs" and who it is you think is waving flags of PC at them exactly. A veiled personal attack is still a personal attack. Or perhaps I'm just imagining things again. If there wasn't something under that rug, then someone wouldn't be blocked currently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We're in here to write articles, not conduct political battles, or dob in one editor after another (what is the count in here now on both sides, including below?) for administrative action or off-site criticism. Wikipedia has a very strong record for acting promptly and vigorously against any variety of racism, including antisemitism. Most editors know how to deal with it, We do not need specialist witch-hunters. Just as we do not need mirroring comments likening our collective and collegial work to the works of Dr. Goebbels, or assumptions that most non Jewish people are anti-Semitic. That itself is as troubling a quasi-racist quip as anything you yourself have adduced in here to support your campaign. In normal man's language it means, 'if you are not Jewish, you have a very high probability of being someone who hates Jews': most people in here, under that assumption, qualify in your stated view as antisemites, which is highly offensive to the entire community. When I noted it, I did not run to administration. As has been the case with many such statements, one ignores it. Enough of this. One establishes a reputation here by content-edits of quality, not by the volume of one's comments on other editors. This goes for Puttyschool as well.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"We're in here to write articles" - that's funny, I thought you don't do that anymore?[19] - where you say, "I've retired from editing wiki" Anyway, if you have proof of WP strong record on dealing with anti-semitism, I'd like to see. Regarding your with-hunter remark, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Also, regarding this comment I made, I'm surprised that you'd bring this up after you and I discussed it at great length and I fully explained why I said that and what I meant. Regarding reputation, I've never fared well among those who wish to ignore certain things. I'm not here to win a popularity contest obviously. If I was to do that, I'd know exactly what to do, but I'm not one to pretend that I don't have a POV on something and I'm not one to ignore problems or point out WP rules every two seconds. I'm just here doing my thing. I believe I have made some decent contributions, which are then batted down by people with the opposite POV. My interest are the I-P conflict and Jewish issues. It is not my fault that I am interested in working on things which have a high propensity toward some degree of controversy. Enough people didn't ignore some of my comments and actions (including CJCurrie and others), so I'm just learning how to kvetch from everyone else. Sorry if that bothers you for some reason. By the way, since you claim to be so keen on ignoring the things that bother people (or at least this is the advice you give) why don't you hone your own advice and ignore me and my complaints and comments and not call attention to them on your own talk page and on this board? Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me, but have I asked you to remove anything? Have I asked you to stop? Nope! I say bring it on! This is fun. If people don't like it, as you said, "ignore it!"--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find my truthful comment funny, I'm glad I've improved your day. To 'edit' means to contribute to texts, which I no longer do, as opposed to dropping a word or two of advice on talk pages to lower conflict and assist potentially good editors who have a problem or two, to get beyond their 'passions' and just write to the text with quality sources. This is an indirect way of assisting wiki in the drafting of articles, without editing. If this is 'hypocrisy' of the kind that you think 'fun', by all means, be my guest and laugh away. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF, Please check if this account J Hoffer (talk · contribs) is it another sock-puppets.
Einsteindonut, I don't know how you can find time to write all of this, it needs a lot of time from me to read all what you wrote, you will finish WikipediA papers, I’ll appreciate if you can provide a Summary « PuTTY^SchOOL 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two quick comments:

• Contrary to Einsteindonut's assertion, I have not "outed" myself on Wikipedia. I did not contact the JIDF after they allegedly "outed" me on their site, nor did I encourage anyone to do so on my behalf. I don't care if people wish to criticize my edits (or speculate on my identity in private), but I do not take kindly to defamation, intimidation and harrassment.
• I've already explained my actions re: Oboler and ZOTW. If you believe I acted improperly, you may register a complaint in the appropriate forum. Posting what you allege to be my picture on your website is unlikely to benefit your case, nor that of the party you wish to assist. CJCurrie (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

More socks discovered

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) == J Hoffer (talk · contribs) == Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) (the latter one using proxies).

While checking I've discovered some relatively unrelated weird and odd sockpuppeting but not related to Einsteindonut. I'll be discussing this with fellow CUers. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

if it's not related to me why do you have me with the "=" signs of everyone else?--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to some other established accounts (people unrelated to this mess and totally unrelated to you). Checking your accounts led to the discovery of another mess (totally unrelated) which I'll be discussing with the ArbCom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this Einsteindonut: a)you were talking with me in talk page as two (sometimes three) different persons. b)you were reverting the edits using your long list of different accounts in order to go around the 3RR. c)What about your vote stacking, you put seven votes in each AFD. d)you are the only source of trouble from the time this article is created till now. f)in addition to your COI. Shame on you. Please delete this user from Wikipedia, and repeat all AFDs he voted on« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time for you to change the way you act here. I hope this is clear. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to eat my words about the sockpuppetry not being deliberate. However I still think you need to tone your rhetoric down. If you document the voting by sockpuppets and they would be enought to swing things, you might be able to open a closure review.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week; several unblock requests have been lodged and declined. see hsi userpage and its history for details. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can preventing a person from editing (me) can be considered a good action. I am not against someone editing the articles by providing sources. But what if he removes my edit completely. I had edited the articles by providing valid sources. Someone (By78) blanks those edits the Admin (Jauerback) comes and supports it. Is that not a violation of Wiki basic right or edition of the article by every person by providing valid sources. How can Wiki admins allow blanking of those good edits. No reason is given expect that he disagrees with me. On what? No one knows. Just disagree. No source provided to prove his point. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I had provided detailed explanation. Admins says he is least bothered about the content. Then why is he the Admin. Revoke his Admin rights.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them why they ar reverting you?Geni 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, as I've tried explaining to you on your talk page and on the talk page of the article, I have no position on what the content of the article is other than it remain neutral and properly sourced. In the past, you have attempted to add content from unreliable sources that are outdated from which you tend to pull out your own opinion from. Your "attempts" to discuss the changes on the talk page have been solely to accuse others of vandalizing your work and to repeat the same poor reasoning on why your content should be included. Then, without ANY consensus, you make the changes to the article. Before you add any content to that article, you need to gain consensus to do so, because you obviously can't seem to do so without pushing your own POV into every sentence that you write. So, let's summarize what you need to do: 1. Discuss on the talk page without making vandalism accusations. 2. Gain consensus on the content, wording, and sources. 3. Add to article. 4. Rinse, repeat. Fairly simple, huh? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to see WP:COOL? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block for civility violations or repeated NPOV violations is not a cool-down block. But I see no mention of blocking here. Am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you still is not acting as a responsible administrator. Absolutely agree that the article must be nuetral and the Admin must make sure that it is neutral. What you are doing is just the opposite. You are supporting someone who reverses my edits. Those edits I made was by providing valid sources and remember that this time I had not even removed any links or sources added by By78. I had tried to include the real issues with valid sources and explained the same in the talk page as well. Now why are you reverting my good edits.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out a single recent edit done by anyone that I had removed or blanked like By78 is doing. What I had done is provided more information and links. What I am complaining is that these edits with links are being blanked by By78. The reason in plain explanation is hatred. Jauerback, If you can provide proof of me doing anything against Wiki rules, I will quit editing the Arjun MBT pages, If you cannot prove it I suggest you quit being an Administrator. Are you ready to take the challenge. This challenge is not just to Jauerback, anyone who thinks that I am wrong in this issue can take up this challenge.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of time to list the occasions where Chanakyathegreat pushed his POV by reverting other people's edits because he has demonstrated an amazing capacity to ignore reason and facts. I don't try to use reason with my cat because she cannot reason as humans do. In Chanakyathegreat's case, I am convinced by now that when it comes rational thought, he distinctly lacks it. When faced with overwhelming evidence supporting a position he does not like, Chanakyathegreat will simply resort to making groundless accusations against other editors' integrity as opposed to focusing on debating the points in contention. The edit history for Arjun is for all to see. Chanakyathegreat doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, Chanakyathegreat has exhibited a pattern of POV pushing. For those who are interested, simply check out the discussions for "Great Power" and Chanakyathegreat's own talk page regarding this topic to see how he tried in vain to get India listed as a great power, only to be repeatedly rebuked by fellow editors for POV pushing. As for the Arjun article, also see its discussion page to see the extent of Chanakyathegreat's blatant POV pushing and lack of rational thinking capacity. The consensus on most of Arjun article's content was reached a while back, yet Chanakyathegreat stood alone in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts, despite his repeated claims of strictly adhering to truths. Chanakyathegreat, simply claiming to side with truths/facts does not make you stand on the side of truths/facts. You have to earn such accolades by action, and action is where you consistently failed to live up to your self-proclaimed reputation for factual integrity. It just goes on to prove how irrational you truly are that you have resorted to challenging people to "prove" the accusations of your POV pushing, seeing that the discussion pages and edit history for "Arjun" and "great power" are littered with the dirty laundries of your POV pushing. This is really sad, bro, really sad. By78 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to win over by accusing other rather than stick to the topic of why are you blanking good edits and why you should not be blocked for such an action. Now don't come up with more accusations against me. Answer this. Your point that it was the summer trial that the tank has problem has been debunked. Hopes you accept it and changes the article back to the version that I edited. Now please don't reply with more accusations against me you are like that, you are like this you.. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tip number one: No labeling anything as "hatred." That, in itself, is "hatred."

Tip number two: If this is the only reason for which you want to revoke Jauerback's admin rights, you still need a little more to go on.

Tip number three: If you would like to present your argument, I suggest you do it after some time off, perhaps after a nice walk in the park or a hot cup of tea. Then, come back.

Trust me, the way your argument stands, even if you are right, it is hard to believe if it comes from someone who might be so full of anger that his judgment is clouded. I am not saying that you do have clouded judgment; I am only suggesting that that is the perception you are giving to others, judging from the tone of your writing.

Rest, meditate, vacation... Just take your mind off it a moment then come back. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

La Pianista, I can prove you wrong. By78 reverts and accuses the other contributer, just have a look at his contribution list.[20] His recent contributions are attempt to put the negative versions about the Arjun MBT and also made an attempt to deliberately hide certain facts while editing the the Economy of India page. I agree that one is free to edit any page in Wiki but Why should one hide facts and try to put only the sad affairs. It is deliberate attempt believing that it is the right way to tarnish the image of one nation. Now can you disapprove the above and say that these things are not done because of hatred. If not then what else is it?

Regarding anger, I don't have it guys. I want the rules of Wiki to be upholded and the person given freedom to edit the pages by providing valid sources so that truth remain in Wiki pages. Also I request that the Vandalization like blanking pages need to be stopped immediately and the spreading of hatred, unnecessary accusations against a person is also stopped in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had provided proof for the summer trial being successful and the problem with the winter trials. I hope By78 will understand and change his opinion of the issues being from the summer trials. Hope that he revert the page back to the version that I had edited.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT talk page as well. In the comparison chart the Arjun status is put as doubtful by him. The tank is in service with the Indian army 43rd armoured division. It's already inducted and the status must be active. I had even provided the source. He knows it well, but still has reverted the talk page. These are the reasons I say that By78 is doing these kinds of things deliberately and he need to persuaded by Admins from such kind of anti-Wiki actions so that his contributions are for the good of Wikipedia rather than such vandalization. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Detailed explanation has been provided on the content of the edits. Also the apprehension of By78 about the summer/winter trials has been explained to him. Do anyone like to know anything more about the edits or is there any question regarding the same. I will be editing the page and hopes that it will not be blanked. Any violation of accusation will be reported here to keep the discussion of Arjun MBT talk page clean. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. You should know that participation in Wikipedia is voluntary, provided that you adhere to a certain set of guidelines, which you are all too willing to ignore. You want to stay, but you are not willing to abide by the rules: I really do not have a solution for you. I think you should follow your own advice, which I directly quote below: "Wikipedia towards its demise The quality of articles is hit. Vandals are allowed to push their own version with a single source without realizing what is it. No constructive discussion takes place about the subject. Attempts are made to present an older, wrong western viewpoint trying to tarnish other views. Truth or reality is hidden under the guise of neutrality whereas none exits. The Admins not only abuse good contributers but helps Vandals or directly indulge in Vandalism and don't use their brain. Rules are brought out punish good contributers rather than punish the culprits, just like some oppressive regime. THERE IS NO FREEDOM IN WIKIPEDIA ONLY THE FREEDOM TO VANDALIZE PAGES. If this continues WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED FOR EVER. I quit contributing to Wikipedia. Thank all for the cooperation. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)" Your proposal sounds reasonable to me. By78 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you have reverted it again. This is what By78 has to say."If you truly believe your content for Arjun is based on consensus, then I invite you to edit the Arjun article. Go ahead, be my guest. Don't stop editing the Arjun. Stand up for your views. Go! By78 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)"

It seem good behavior and how you came to the conclusion that it is "this wasn't based on consensus and you know it; your talk page discussion was a dare, not an agreement."

Jauerback, you still did not explain consensus on what. Allowing incorrect information to stay is not consensus. It's supporting vandalism. I don't want to do it. If there is any error in the edits that I made and anyone is pointing out that error by providing sources. I will accept it. Let there be constructive argument. Let the content of the page be with correct info. Kindly answer my question, consensus on which part? Which edit of mine is wrong?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move alongTznkai (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just now a little flap over at the talk page of the NPOV policy. Things were going fine, till Shoemaker's Holiday came in and poisoned the well against me. He didn't even get it right. I removed it, but he put it back. This is not the first time he has tried to get me. I would like someone here to issue him some sort of warning that this kind of pursuit of me is inappropriate. Now, everyone here knows what his other username was. Everyone knows (as he revealed it in his request for adminship recently) that he was desysoped partly for a block of me, and also that I played a major role in his RfC, which the ArbCom no doubt took into account when they desysoped him. I am sick and tired of his following me around and trying to "get" me. I have refrained from bring up his past, which of course is even more relevant than mine, in discussions. He has not accorded me the same courtesy. Here are only the recent diffs. I can, of course, dig up the other diffs of his trying to get me, on several occasions which I remember. But I am not here to try and get him sanctioned. All I want is a warning to him that this vengeful behavior should not go on any more.

I remove it here Here is the section where it's put back and discussed. He continues to compound it. FYI, I'm under sanction only for disruption, and POV pushing is one of the things which people spectacularly failed to prove against me. I even requested the ArbCom tell me if they thought that such was the case.

If the people here would like to go over and raise the tone of the general discussion it would be of great help. I personally don't think edits undertaken with such care over such a long time should be met with such surprise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Martinphi's description of my arbcom case; however, it is also merely a distraction from the matter at hand, as I can prove my description was correct:

From the Arbcom decision:

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([5]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([6], [7]), threatening disruption of the project ([8]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([9], [10]).

Then later:

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

He is cited for soapboxing, and this is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." I'm sorry, but the arbcom clearly intended disruptive editing to include POV-pushing.

Here are the diffs to the NPOV policy:

Long-standing version	New version
None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.	In order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible, in a neutral manner, to the reader, no single view, even the most popular, should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth".
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.	Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	[Deleted]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the related thread at WP:AE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing: Shoemaker hasn't read the edited version. The paragraph he says was deleted was revised to:

Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates. Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

Further, I think he may not even presenting the actual original, that is a recently edited version.

But let's say he's right. Poisoning the well and saying I'm in the soup for POV pushing when I'm not, and insisting on keeping up the attack- wow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that's two other paragraphs in the original, that's not the deleted paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to be dealing with both User Shoemaker and Martinphi over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a bit of it therre, but not much, and it's rather changed in foxcus. More accvurately::

Original	Changed
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.	Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates.
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. N.B. This section comes later: Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.	This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

It is, at the least, a major shift in focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. Martinphi is the canonical example of the civil POV-pusher, as far as I can tell his main focus within Wikipedia is to legitimise fringe and pseudoscience topics. This behaviour is completely repeatable, and to find him trying to change the policy under which he has been repeatedly knocked back in his attempts to lend legitimacy to the fringe views he supports is definitely disruptive - not only does it violate the ArbCom restriction, it also violates the policies he appears to be trying to change! Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JzG, but when you said "this behaviour is completely repeatable" I presume you meant something else like "irrepressible," "repugnant," or something similar? If that is the case, I agree completely. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that it is repeated wherever he is active. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if you commented on the content rather than the contributor. I have no desire to wade into the fringe/mainstream debate, but just a friendly reminder. Brilliantine (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the content comes from? A contributor, and one who has been sanctioned for using Wikipedia for using articles as a soapbox for his own personal opinions on fringe topics. It's all fine and good to say we should focus on the content, but the reason the content keeps going bad is because MartinPhi's goals are completely contrary to Wikipedia's goals, and there's no reason to think he will ever change. People have to focus on the real problems or else we're all just wasting our time here. Why play whack-a-mole over and over and over again? The time spent could be better used improving the encyclopedia instead of constantly fighting back someone whose goals are incompatible with the entire project. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Guy's comment. The discussion above it was not particularly superb, but was at least substantive. Guy's comment offered nothing of any further use and was the type of comment that generally only serves to inflame situations. Since he's acknowledged some civility problems himself, I'm sure he won't mind me pointing this out. It's merely supposed to be helpful. Brilliantine (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Could we please leave off this subject? There is currently no damage that I am aware of or that has been reported to me. --Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really OK?

Um... anyone think it's something less than a good idea for an admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be hovering over the contributions of an editor he's recently been in conflict with,([21],[22], [23] (DunstandandRann),[24], etc) not because the editor (me) has done anything wrong, but because the editor doesn't subscribe to the admin's ideas about policy?

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. ([25] Emphasis added.)

Since when has it become suspicious behavior to disagree with an admin about whether an image upload is policy-compliant or not? This really doesn't seem right. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If an admin suspects that someone may violate policy it makes sense for that admin to monitor the person. I don't know who's right about the policy (I haven't looked into the dispute), but keeping an eye on someone is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. --Tango (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else, my contribs are out in the open, available for inspection, all 22,000 of them, and if FPS or another admin came across instances of bad actions and decided to keep an eye on me, that would be one thing. I've done that same for a number of vandals -- they do some vandalizing, you check their contributions to see if there's more, when you find it you undo it and post warnings, and if you're an admin perhaps you eventually decide to block. But that's not what FPS admits to doing. He admits that he's keeping an eye on me because I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Doesn't that strike anyone as a dangerous thing that can lead to no disagreements about policy, because there's no discussion, because the herd has been culled and anyone who disagrees has been hounded off the project?

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing FPS of that, not in any way shape and form, nor am I suggesting that such behavior is going on, or prophesying that it will happen. I simply think that using a difference of opinion as a basis for following someone around and checking their edits is kind of a real bad idea. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed's antics about non-free images included edit-warring to keep an obviously replaceable map graphics, and another [26] that he aggressively defended with the bizarre argument that while it was being used just as a "substitute" for a possible free image, it was nevertheless not "replaceable" by the latter (here). This is enough to give me reasonable grounds for expecting some more of his image work probably requires cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can review all our past arguments again if you'd like, but I doubt anyone would be terribly interested, and the point here is that all these things are cases where I did nothing wrong, I simply disagreed with you, and in most of those instances, other people disagreed with you as well. Are you so entirely and positively certain that your interpretation, your views, your opinions, your analysis, your take on image policy is so completely, totally, absolutely 100% percent correct that whenever you declare an image to be non-compliant, even to disagree with your declaration is tantamount to misbehaving? Can you not see why someone might find such a view to be disquieting, to say the least? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, RFCs aren't supposed to be a way of forcing an editor away from an area they have been working at and in this case the doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus against FPAS. The correct forum to discuss this is the RFC. Sorry to say this Ed but your conduct here just makes you look like a petty wikilawyer and I really thought more of you then that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? How do you figure that? I came here because this is the place where you come for administrative action. I thought that if my view of FPS's behavior was shared by uninvolved admins, someone could advise him to, you know, not go out of his way to shadow me. But, in any case, as I remarked elsewhere, if FPS sees something wrong with an image I upload, how difficult would it be for him to run it by another editor, who could then contact me if they agreed? In what respect is that trying to "force [him] away" from image work?

You know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the community's consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable behavior. If that's the case... I don't know. ... I guess I'd have to seriously reconsider my committment to the project, because that's something I would find it quite difficult to live with, I think. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble with the "wikilawyering" thing. The man posts on my talk page, at first I laugh his Big Brother act off, but then it starts to bother me, and then it starts to bother me a lot, so I come here to see if something might be done about it, and I'm accused of "wikilawyering"? Wow. Just... wow. I'm not coming here in an hysterical state, screaming and carrying on and calling for people to be desysoped, as so often happens when there's conflict between an editor and an admin, and a charge of "wikilawyering" is laid on me? Huh.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for referring to petty wikilawyering. Perhaps forum shopping would fit better? You have an RFC but you want to extend the drama to an admin noticeboard as well. So I think petty forum shopping is a better discription. My apologise for mischaracterising your behaviour but you really need to settled for a single location for your crusade against Fut perf. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment, and assume that I'm telling the truth, that FPS's post on my talk page actually concerned me. Now, if I wanted some administrative relief, how would posting about his actions on the RfCU help me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? We aren't going to block FPAS for leaving messages on your talk page so there isn't any admin action that is going to follow from a message here & and do you honestly think it would help having someone tell him to lay off? If you raise it in the RFC and there is extensive support that FPAS shouldn't be reviewing your contribs then there will be a significant level of moral pressure on him not to. The trouble is that an RFC inevitally raises the entire temperature on any dispute and this kind of thing, is, I'm afraid, what happens. Perhaps I should have been nicer in my comments but honestly, I wonder what people expect sometimes when they get embroiled in personal disputes like this. It not like we haven't seen it before and its high time that we stopped chasing out defenders of the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ask for a block? Am I being in some way unclear about what I hoped would happen here? Geez, talk about "raising the temperature"!Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Admins don't have any special powers except blocking, deleting and protecting. Aside from that being an admin adds no extra cachet to any discussion. So, if you don't want a block, would you like us to delete or protect FPAS? Otherwise this isn't something that requires admin action. If its having a word then anyone can do that. If its to guague community consensus on his actions you already have a RFC to play on. So, seriously, what did you expect us to do about this that requires the use of admin tools?. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, they have the power of the bully pulpit!

Indulge me and, once again, assume that I'm telling the truth, and further assume that some folks here saw my post and agreed with my concerns, at least to the point where they thought it was worthwhile to talk to FPS. So, if those admins were to go to FPS and suggest that it would be preferable, for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, for FPS to channel any concerns about my image-related behavior through another uninvolved admin, don't you think that might carry a little more weight than if I made that suggestion? You see, that's administrative relief.

And there's a larger point - I really think it's a pretty crummy precedent to set, and if that kind of behavior becomes broadly tolerated or acceptable, Wikipedia would be a decidely less pleasant place to be, so, besides my specific concern about FPS, I wanted to raise, for administrators, in a place that administrators frequent, this issue for their consideration, something which, again, can't be done at FPS's RfCU.

I'm not asking for special dispensation from the pope to misbehave, or to not have my edits scrutinized by FPS or anyone else, I'm simply suggesting that FPS and I are, in the Wikipedian sense, involved, with all the problems that brings with it, and that his following me around on the basis of our disagreement over policy is a really bad idea. I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial concept.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Anyone who edit warred in the last few days to keep this image obviously does not understand our policies on non-free content, and so reviewing their uploads is perfectly acceptable. FPAS has done nothing wrong here. Honestly, what do you want us to do? Jump at FPAS and say he shouldn't be reviewing your edits, as they're obviously all sound? Well, they're not. Would you be happy if I was reviewing your edits instead? It makes no difference, we're both admins experienced in the same area. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you would do that, I'd be grateful. There seemed to be a couple, the next few down his upload log, that were movie screenshots of actors in some movie role, used (as far as I could tell at a first brief glance) without any substantial commentary and with captions that implied they were used only to show what the actor looked like. Those would have been the next batch that would need a bit of looking into. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Checked down to mid-August, and I believe Spartaz is reviewing them also. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't actually see the image, or the image page to check out the fair use rationale put forward. No link provided to the deletion review so err how do we judge? Since edit warring was mentioned, how about the removal of images from articles, to declare them orphaned so they can be speedily deleted and then edit warring to keep them orphaned. Justin talk 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was of a map- the map itself was not significant, it was being used to show the location. Obviously replaceable, but Ed removed the replaceable fair use notice without comment, not once, but twice. Anyone who has done that in the last couple of weeks obviously has little to no understanding of our non-free content policies. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is badgering ok?

There is no reason for FPAS to follow Ed around as Ed is an editor in good standing. Just because you have lost a number of fights with him does not make him a bad editor. If this were any other person doing it, they would be rightly called for wikistalking. Given that the two have been in a number of disputes, I believe that FPAS should cease his antagonistic behavior and find something else to do. Yes, Virginia, the project will survive even if FPAS isn't following Ed around. That and the fact that it is FPAS, not Ed, who currently has a behavioral RFC open against him. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Valid point. Fut Perf, your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Those are not valid concerns. Ed has little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg. I see no issue with tracking the edits of a problematic user in this field, with someone who openly disregards our policies and guidelines towards copyright. seicer | talk | contribs 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seicer, I personally have a grasp on the subject matter and disagree sometimes with FutPerf. So what? Just because I don't agree with one person's interpretation of some vague rules doesn't mean every action I take should be scrutinized. Talk pages are there for discussion and reasonable people can disagree about things. As for these the "little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg" I'll assume you meant something else because there is no evidence contained on that page whatsoever and the image in question seems appropriate under its fair use rationale. Am I missing something here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you Ed? seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seicer, just because Ed's knowledge of Fair-Use and NFCC (which is correct I might add, but that is neither here nor there) differs from yours, it is no reason for an admin (Fur. Perf.) to follow (read: stalk) Ed around Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the somewhat interesting fact that even though pretty much everybody in the discussion about that logo agreed that its appearance on 120 pages was not a policy problem per se, Seicer posted this on FPS's RfCU (which I presume he was aiming my way, but maybe not):

If one user cannot see why the usage of one non-free logo on 120 articles, they should be sanctioned as such, especially when such unconstructive behavior spreads across four noticeboards and several talk pages.

So according to Seicer I'm so dumb and irresponsible, and know so little about fair-use and Wikipedia image policy, that I thought it was hunky-dorey to use an image on a large number of pages: Q.E.D.!! What a maroon!!! Except that in the discussion right here on WP:AN/I, both sides ended up agreeing that the number of pages it appeared on wasn't an issue.

So, who is it who knows nothing about fair-use and image policy? (And who, incidentally, felt it necessary to insult me personally in that thread?)

*sigh* You know, I wouldn't presume to know how much Seicer knows about fair-use, or Wikipedia image policy, or the cost of ponies in Peoria. "Seicer" is just a name connected to some text to me. And I've never, to my recollection, said that FPS doesn't know a lot about those subjects (fair-use and image policy, not necessarily about the ponies) - in fact, I presume he knows more than I do. But those have never been the issues in this conflict. The issues have been about the way policy is being enforced, and, specifically, the conduct of FPS in enforcing it, and I certainly know more than enough about those subjects. (And I supposed I will learn even more about it in the future, since it seems to be of little interest to folks here that an admin is dogging the steps of an editor based not on the editor's actions but on the editor's opinions.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All but one administrator agreed, and of course, the hotbed of a few vocal editors who can't tell the difference between abusive fair use in 120 articles and fair use in one article. It was taken to multiple forums and the image was not unprotected or restored; you're only crying about spoiled milk at this point, because its entirely moot. It won't be overturned, and it won't be unprotected for as long as we have editors who ramble on about reinserting the images. FPS may have some issues with being a hothead, but your posting history reveals much the same when tensions run high and emotions turn sour. Your mischaracterizations on your userpages, as noted below, is just one example of that. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of wikistalking, someone might want to have a look at Ed's little attack page in his user space, here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Attack page? Interesting interpretation -- but, hey, feel free to rummage through the attic. Hey, if you find my old copy of Introducing... The Beatles, would you let me know? (Unless it's a pool of melted black vinyl - in that case, help yourself, maybe you can get a quarter for it or something.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you probably thought it was an attack page, because I copied this quotation onto it:

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RedSpruce

I can see where the negative vibes and disdain for the community and its processes in this quote could lead you to believe that it was an attack page, but fear not, I do not endorse the opinions in that quote, I'm just keeping it as an example of how not to comport yourself in Wikispace. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, on first impression that section of your Todo page strikes me as rather disturbing and stalkeriffic. Putting it in sarcastic glowing terms doesn't get around that, it makes it worse.

I had been hoping that this was just a one-on-one conflict, but your ongoing behavior here and the existence of that page are convincing me that you do in fact have a behavior problem. It would be a sign of good faith to remove that section. It would be another sign of good faith to tone down the discussion on this page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of endless fascination. Quite extraordinary, really. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 10:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material indicated from that page, as per your instructions. Next, I will deal with posting justifications for a number of images I've uploaded (mostly pictures of cast members on film articles) which have been nominated for deletion by User:J Milburn as being "decorative".

Fascinating.

Mr. Spock
Star Trek
(TV and film series, 1966-1991)

Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that quote above is not what I meant at all. Ed is perfectly free to quote me on that. I meant more the list of enemies and the little jibe against the "little admin that wasn't" (we all know who's meant there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial Solution

If there is some reason for which a deletion is contested (even a speedy deletion), perhaps it should simply be put through the regular deletion process. Plenty of new users want to contribute and simply make a mistake (yours truly is included in this bunch). By simply giving it a few days to work itself out, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. This would avoid the appearance of the person who nominates an image for speedy deletion, keeps it an orphan through edit warring, and then ultimately deletes it as something that simply cannot be done. No matter the correctness/incorrectness of such an outcome, there will always be the thought that such an individual was judge, jury, and executioner. By taking this route, it would avoid the appearance of impropriety. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I really don't see the problem with this. NFCC policy isn't always the black/white digital decision portrayed and there is often a need for for debate and community consensus denied by the inappropriate application of the Speedy process. Justin talk 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Firstly, leaving obviously poor non-free images in an article, even if the uploader really wants it there, is not always the best idea. If anything, the image should be removed while it is discussed, even if there is a reasonable debate- this is always the way I have worked it, even when others are challenging my own images. Secondly, that's not really what this thread is about, so this does come across as forum shopping- this thread is about how FPOS 'stalked' another user. Frankly, if we're in an environment where an admin cannot check the contributions of another editor, when that editor has shown he has extremely bad judgement on a topic, then we have a very strange situation indeed. Ed has admitted he would do the same thing with vandals/trolls, and I do not see how this is different- I do not think Ed is deliberately out to harm the project, obviously. Before someone jumps down my throat, pointing out that disagreeing with an admin does not mean you're ignorant of policy, note the example I gave in my last post. Ed's understanding is clearly poor. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. This suggestion is an attempt to avoid any appearance of undue bias by any admin, not this specific one. I also concur that an image need not necessarily be included in an article while the IfD process unfolds. That said, perhaps we need to include a disclaimer stating the image should not simply be labeled as "orphaned", but something along the lines of "removed from some article. As there is no longer a use for such an image, it should be deleted." Without that link to the article, there is no way to easily link it back to its placement to see whether it was appropriate or not. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the example we can't actually see? Justin talk 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins can see it [27]. It was a map showing the area of the Southeastern Anatolia Project in Turkey. Maps can always be re-drawn, so they are always replaceable (unless they are themselves being discussed as unique historic documents of course). This one could have been replaced with any existing map of the same geographical area; moreover, there was already a similar (and more informative) free map in the article (Image:Ataturk regions-GAP.jpg). Ed edit-warred on the image description page, using the "undo" function without stating any reason in the edit summary, twice removing a deletion template that had been placed there (not by me), which is explicitly prohibited. This was clearly disruptive behaviour on more than one level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• BQzip, get your facts straight. There hasn't even been any allegation in this thread that I put anything not through the regular deletion process. In fact, I didn't delete (or even nominate) anything at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  FutPerf, please re-read the above and note I never even mentioned you specifically. I stated a solution to the appearance of a problem which could be remedied by a simple change in policy (not saying this is necessarily the best option available either, just trying to foster a solution). I didn't say anything in this section specifically regarding you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, I still can't see anything requiring any admin time in this issue. Ed has made it pretty clear that he resents Fut perf checking his contribs. Fine but frankly we can't not watch for image vios and since we don't actually have very many admins willing to do this, who is going to do it if Fut perf doesn't? The earliest comments show blatent forum shopping and the comment about Admins being able to bully people shows what this thread is really about. There is no evidence of Fut perf behaving unreasonably in reviewing Ed's edits and his interactions look reasonable right now. So, no. This isn't something for admins to deal with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speaking as someone who has been involved in the RfC and such, I have to agree with FutPer and Spartaz to a degree here. There is nothing requiring admin intervention nor is it productive to batter FutPer around wikipedia trying to find someone to lynch him. Now, do I think that FutPer going through the contribution history of those he is in conflict with is a great idea? No. I don't. I think it will lead to fights and to problems, but we are not FutPer's mother to stop him from doing things that might end badly. This kind of thing is best left to people like Spartaz who have FutPer's best interests at heart and who will, I am sure, let him know if he takes something too far. There are plenty of admin, it seem, watching each other so we also have to trust in them to step in. In summation: Lets just get some editing done. Narson (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  How, though, will these admins become aware of whether FPS takes something "too far" if FPS's actions aren't noted by somebody somewhere? Also, does suggesting that someone might speak to FPS about toning down his behavior really constitute "trying to find someone to lynch him"? As I've mentioned above, I'm not here with hysterical claims, calling for FPS's head or demanding that he be desysoped or topic banned - that would be ludicrous under the circumstances.

  Clearly, though, and to my chagrin and dismay, the consensus of people on this page is that it is perfectly OK for an involved admin to dog the steps of an editor he's involved with based solely on the fact that the editor disagrees with the admin on policy issues. I think that's a pretty darn dangerous precedent to set, but so be it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  When a user is being berated across multiple pages for the same thing, you can be sure other admin have taken an interest, and it does feel as though that editor is being lynced. It is pretty obvious that I have my issues with FPS. I found him to be callous and downright rude at times. However, he has acknowledged he gets frustrated from time to time and that is what caused his flirtation with the civility. He has stated on his RfC that he aims to try and avoid such behaviour in future and I believe he deserves a fair shake of the stick. God knows, I would hate to have people examining my faults, for they are many, so FPS has earned a degree of my respect through this process. Now, that being said, the other issue Ed is that what you want is not really what ANI can give, I don't think. Your issue with FPS is as a pattern of behaviour that you see on his part. Nor are 'precedents' set here. If you truely believe that FPS is beyond redemption, that his behaviour is so bad, then there is always ArbCom, but I would ask if you can't, perhaps, give FPS the benefit of the doubt and only react to his words, rather than a perceived (real or not) pattern of behaviour? Narson (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever said or implied that FPS was "beyond redemption", and I think I've been fairly clear (see above at various points) about what my reasons for coming to AN/I were. Of course, that seems moot at this point, since it's pretty clear that the concern I felt is not shared by a majority of commenters here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wonder of It All

Apparently, I'm such a profound threat to Wikipedia that I've now got three admins, working around the clock, vetting every image I ever uploaded! (See here and here.) Simply amazing. As I said, an endless source of fascination. One hopes there's a sociologist or a social psychologist keeping tabs on all this stuff. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. " ? I would just be thankful for the attention and move on. If, in fact, it is stalking and it is unmerited, then they will eventually look like dicks. If it is temporary "Hey, this guy is talking a lot on AN/I, I'll go look at his contributions", then it will fade away. Further, if what they are doing improves what you have submitted, then it's pretty defensible. Protonk (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am most certainly moving on. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck of an AfD

It isn't time to close it yet, unfortunately, but can some other admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir? It seems every day I'm getting another request on my talk page to block some obvious set of sockpuppets, and the discussion has rather fallen apart a bit. Keep an eye out for some of the less obvious sockpuppets I haven't taken care of yet, and if necessary please close this mess early. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is some trainwreck of an AfD and it certainly is a mess. Wow, its good im not an admin and i feel for whoever has to close that one. Good luck! Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp has proposed a solution at Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It looks good to me, but I'd welcome input from more experienced admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for resolution of a dispute with a moderator

Hi

I have been threatened with a ban by OhanaUnited for what he considers to be inappropriate editing. As he is currently busy with a new job he doesn't have time to conclude our discussion on the matter. I have no problems with real life taking him away from Wiki, however this leaves me in limbo and I don't like having things like this hanging with no idea when its going to get resolved. So I was wondering if someone could pick up where he left off and help conclude the situation. My disputed editing can be found here[[28]].I just want to get things resolved so that I can get back to editing.

Thanks

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of "don't delete talk page discussions" do you not understand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was archiving not deleting.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did once delete things on the talk page for my account because I didn't know/understand archiving at that point. I removed a notice of speedy deletion for an attempt at an article on the Klub Foot and a notice of Orphaned non-free media, both times because I didn't think it would really matter. (Please note that I kept the discussion about my edits on the RuneScape article). Later, when there were multiple instances on an articles talk page of the same discussion and dead topics I then archived and edited it's talk page to try and make it better, following the guidelines. btw I thought WP:BITE was supposed to be in play around here?FlashNerdX (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pakhtun Tanoli

Here's a list of edits on my user talk: [29], [30], [31] and corresponding admin action, [32] and [33].

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, and a heap of suspected IP socks but his original account itself seems to be open. So Tznkai suggested I report this here. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A little background. De728631 reported[34] this incident on WP:AIV and I declined[35] it at the time. Following a conversation on my talk page I've reviewed the differences determined the following:

• Pakhtun Tanoli and the reported IPs are almost definitely the same user.
• This user probably doesn't understand the appropriate place for the contributions.
• This user is not evading a block via sockpuppeting, because I can't find any recent blocks to evade.
• This is not vandalism as such, but it is problematic.
• This user does not stick with any one IP for any significant duration.

This leaves us with something of a sticky widget, because I'm not going to range block all of 88.*.*.*--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh g'wan. Do it. It'll be funny. HalfShadow 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if we've determined its abusive sockpuppetry, we could start by blocking the main account and all the registered socks, and worry about the IP's later. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biggest CIDR range we can block is a /16, so that one would take rather a long time ;) Stifle (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved when this first blew up earlier this year and am familiar with the history. I'm going to indef the root account ( Pakhtun Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ). I'm also going to put a 72-hour block on 88.3.0.0/16 (the source of most of the recent foo). De728631 - I recommend that you have your talk page semi-protected for a week or so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another Sarah Palin thing

Could I respectfully request a neutral admin to look at the contribution~s of Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs), specifically at Political positions of Sarah Palin? Personally I think this is POV-pushing, especially on such a high-profile topic, but I really don't want to do the edit-warring thing. Kelly ^hi! 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a very quick look, but the edits look pretty well-sourced at first glance. Who defines what is NPOV in situations like this? Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked 20 hours and counseled by User:Tznkai, an admin apparently recently back from 30 months off. GRBerry 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books was blocked for 3RR violation after specific (on his talk page) and general warnings (On the article talk page) as well as truthful, if snippy comments in edits on that page by other editors.--Tznkai (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page there, there was a peculiar claim concerning this editor. I don't know how convincing the claim is, but wanted to highlight it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics

I have stumbled into a mess regarding the Austrian School of economics. Apparently, there are WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE issues in that most mainstream economists view the philosophy as heterodoxy (at least that's my layman's take on the situation). Proponents of the philosophy, however, want very much for it to be reflected favorably, and frequently, in Wikipedia articles. This disagreement has spilled into numerous articles, including Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Credit crunch, Credit cycle, Fractional-reserve banking, Full-reserve banking, Inflation, Monetary inflation, Monetary reform, etc., etc.

My first involvement here was dealing with the blatant sockpuppetry of Karmaisking (block log). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. I also recently blocked a new SPA for 3RR at WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked). Some time ago, Gregalton asked for my advice, to which I basically replied “Don’t worry about it.” (See User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8#Why.) I can see now that my casualness was a mistake. The POV-pushing, sockpuppetry, harassment, and edit-warring have become extremely disruptive. And now Gregalton, one of the few editors working to keep the various articles NPOV and properly verified by reliable sources, in my personal opinion, has been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. See WP:AN3#Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours).

Quite frankly, I am in over my head and this report is rapidly become WP:TLDR. In short, I am proposing the following:

1. A community ban of Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking.
2. An unblock of Gregalton (talk · contribs · count · block log), whose edits were not an actual 3RR violation, and not disruptive under the circumstances. He has so requested.[36]
3. A possible topic ban for SPA Misessus (talk · contribs). Does that typically require an RFC?

Most importantly, I am also requesting watchlisting of these articles by experienced editors, preferably those with an economics background. As such, I will post notices of this discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a big problem. I don't think the mainstream view is so much that the Austrian school is heterodox, but rather that it was a stream of thought more or less within the mainstream that ran out some time ago, and that most of what was valuable in it has now been absorbed. What's left is a bunch of people more interested in talking about the greatness of the Austrian school (for example, here on Wikipedia) than in doing economics.JQ (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't been so much absorbed as debunked and superceded. That said, there are certain concerns related to the use of mathematics in economics that cannot be written off as fringe but much of it can including what is being debated here. Note that there has been a campaign among so-called civil POV pushers for years to push these heterodox theories on Wikipedia - and not just Austrian economics. Anyone who dares confront these people are met by armies of sock puppets and/or meat puppets. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry are clearly worries with this article. However, ANI is not a topic forum: This is neither the place to discuss opinions on the topic, nor the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with that. But occasionally it is necessary "to discuss opinions on the topic" to insure that edits comply with the official policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. If the edits do not, and a pattern of blatantly disregarding those polices is shown, then admin action is entirely appropriate. I renew my call for a community site ban for Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log) and consideration of a topic ban for Misessus (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the 'Austrian' editors as long as they 'play nice' (no sockpuppetry, no revert warring, no personal attacks, no pushing POV, minding WP:UNDUE). The trouble is that they don't play nice. Their continual harassment prevents real progress in economics articles. lk (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A look at Inflation certainly confirms the problem. Lots of edit warring and a complete POV Fork at Monetary inflation.JQ (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

During Congressional hearings on monetary policy before the Committee on Financial Services in 2000, Alan Greenspan, at the time chairman of the Federal Reserve, when asked about the view of the Austrian school on inflation and business cycles said the following: "I will be glad to give you a long academic discussion on the Austrian school and its implications with respect to modern views of how the economy works having actually attended a seminar of Ludwig Mises, when he was probably 90, and I was a very small fraction of that. So I was aware of a great deal of what those teachings were, and a lot of them still are right. There is no question that they have been absorbed into the general view of the academic profession in many different ways, and you can see a goodly part of the teachings of the Austrian school in many of the academic materials that come out in today's various journals, even though they are rarely, if ever, discussed in those terms. [...] So all I can say is that the long tentacles, you might say, of the Austrian school have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country." [37] -- Vision Thing -- 07:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Gregalton

I have asked Stifle to consider unblocking Gregalton. Obviously, that was not my primary reason for posting here. — Satori Son 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am about to head off for the night — anyone can feel free to unblock if you feel it's justified. Just to note that he has violated 3RR 1 2 3 4, and none of the reverts were simple and obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits one and two show only one revert since there was no "previous version reverted to" (see this comment by uninvolved Coppertwig). The third edit seems entirely unrelated, and the fourth edit is clearly a simple vandalism revert. Perhaps these are not the correct diffs, but based on them, and since Stifle has retired for the evening, I have unblocked Gregalton. I am soon to retire myself, but further discussion is encouraged. — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about image

Hi, I recently rm'ed links to Image:Penis_van_een_Puber.jpg in a couple articles where it was really adding nothing. I suspect the licensing info may qualify it for speedy by CSD-I4, but I don't feel like merely tagging it with "no licence" before prodding. I'm thinking that there's another CSD for putative images of teenagers' erections that an admin here might want to employ. Pete.Hurd (talk)

It's on Commons, you'll have to get it removed from there. But I imagine 16 years old is legal in the Netherlands. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal for what? Being naked in a picture? It depends on whether the image would be considered pornography. If the image were pornographic in nature, the depicted person would have to be at least 18 years old. --Atlan (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment

After last year's Arbcom decision, I swore I'd stay out of all things related to Merkey. I'd still be doing that if he hadn't decided to harass me in the real world.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see [38], [39], [40], and [41]. Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey [42], and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Wikipedia and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice [43] for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

• 166.70.238.44 and 166.70.238.45 where a tracert ends at a host that includes 'jmerkey' in the name
• 69.2.248.210, which resolves to Calculated Research & Technology, which lists a company named Omega8 as a partner, which is the exclusive distributor of Merkey's "Forensic Filesystem" according to materials on a site that Merkey controls.

I wouldn't bring any of this up if Merkey hadn't escalated things dramatically in the real world. When he began editing from 69.2.248.210, I was certain it was him based on the topics chosen and the fact that the IP address could be easily linked to him. Did I say a damn thing? NO. I let other people notice it and handle it, and this was the proper thing to do. I monitored the situation closely, but made no comments at all. The last thing I want is to have any dealings at all with Merkey, not on Wikipedia and certainly not in the real world. I also don't want certain people to start jumping on me and claiming that I'm an SPA against Merkey.

But this is really serious when you make phone calls and trying to mess with peoples' lives. What's he going to do next, show up at my house?

On 25 June 2008, Merkey called my employer and tried to get me fired. He asked to speak to HR, and told them who he was (including providing a phone number), and "you've got a problem employee on your hands." He then claimed to have checkuser results from Wikipedia indicating that some large percentage of my edits to Wikipedia were done from an IP address that resolved to my employer. He never asked directly to have me fired, but his choice of words made it clear he expected I would get fired as a result of his call.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey accused me of stalking him, but then almost a year later, he called my employer and tried to get me fired. Now I'll say this: if he had called them at the time that I was allegedly stalking him from my work, that's legitimate ("one of your employees used your computer systems yesterday to harass me in an internet forum"), but a year later? After I've left him alone completely in real life? That's way over the line. I want nothing to do with him, and almost one year after my last interaction with him on Wikipedia, he decides to move his battle from Wikipedia to the real world.

There's not a whole lot Wikipedia can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat [44] and a veiled threat [45]) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Wikipedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true. Obviously, he doesn't have access, but I wondered if he had managed to get someone else to divulge information to him. After some delay, the ombudsman replied that there is no information in the checkuser tool indicating that my IP addresses were accessed or disclosed. That seems like a good clarification to add, that checkuser was not actually involved. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned [46], this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the facts are what you say they are, I would support extending the ban on Merkey to indefinite and irrevocable. I suggest you email the arbitration committee (see the email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM). Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sail too close to the WP:NLT wind, surely that telephone call would be slanderous? Brilliantine (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's that simple. Merkey is a bit of an oddball but it's undeniably the case that he has also been royally trolled on and off Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No matter how badly other people have trolled him in the last year, there's no justification for messing with me in real life. Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP. From my limited understand of the situation, messing with people in the real world is part of what got Daniel Brandt indef'ed. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you've been in contact with Merkey before. Can you get his version of events here? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - while this could be a serious situation, proceeding down the road with anything related to this based on one side's claims is a procedural and ethical mistake. Merkey's side of the story should be asked for and heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded - he deserves his say, even if it will probably involve a lot of wikilawyering. Let him e-mail his comments to Guy or someone else of his choosing. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. Harassment is unacceptable, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block has been implemented. — Werdna • talk 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've noted it on the related arbitration page. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block but I have unsalted his talk page if he wishes to participate to this discussion via that channel. His userpage remains salted (now extended to indef). Kwsn (Ni!) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pfagerburg, how did you verify it was Merkey that called (and not the GNAA)? --Duk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who called presented himself as Merkey, and provided a phone number which I presume is Merkey's. (No, I don't have the phone number; HR would have it.) He followed the pattern that I became accustomed to last year - claiming that I had stalked him, threatening to sue me, and asking that somebody (in this case, my employer, previously, admins or AbrCom) do something about it. Like the old way of spotting sock puppets prior to CheckUser, it fit too well to not be Merkey.

Something else I thought to mention: I'm not the only person who has had an apparent vendetta from Merkey spill over into the real world. I will not divulge the details publicly, but the gist of it is that someone who criticized Merkey off-wiki (and was never on WP) found out that copies of his message board postings were sent to someone who is in a position of authority over him. As in my situation, it happened several months after the alleged wrong. This person has communicated many more details to me privately, and I cannot offer those details to anyone here, unless/until I get his approval. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Merkey has commented on this issue yet (if he is even aware of it), so there's no confirm or deny. He has denied other things in the past, such as posts made to LKML where the headers clearly indicate that the e-mail came from a machine under his control, and of course denying that he was behind the posts from the anonymous IP's noted above, despite what Occam's Razor (to quote Sir Fozzie) had to say about that. He's welcome to deny it, but that doesn't constitute proof that he didn't do it.

The person at my work who took the call is out of town for a week, but I will check with him to get more details when he is back. I have a few aces up my sleeve that can prove whether or not it was Merkey, if that becomes necessary.

If it turns out that someone impersonated Merkey (essentially a variant of a joe job), I will 1. offer my apologies to Merkey for this AN/I, 2. request that his ban be reset to the 1-year term that was previously in effect for block evasion (by SirFozzie as of 12 Aug 2008), and 3. provide any information I have (including the phone number if it is made available to me) to assist him in tracking down the responsible parties, if he so chooses.

Duk, I can't get the absolute confirmation from HR until next week. Some of the information will be of a confidential nature (such as the phone number which he provided, the name of the person he called, the company where I work), so posting it here doesn't seem like a very good idea. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank's Pfagerburg. So we don't really know if this was Merkey or someone impersonating him. I think we need to hear from Merkey. Did your HR person have caller ID?

To Werdna, let's not go hog wild on the infinite blocking based on well meaning hearsay that is based on well meaning hearsay. --Duk 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion on Latino (demonym)

Resolved

 – sock blocked, block reviewed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted edits by 888aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Upon checking the page history at Latino (demonym) it became obvious that this is a sockpuppet of 999aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked indefinitely. Please block 888aaa and check if there is any more problems. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked. Feel free to revert any problematic edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Delancey

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long time nuisance talk-page contributor whom I'm sure has been discussed here before. See web page maintained by victims!. It seems to me to call for long term deprivation of editing privileges. I mentioned this on vandalism page, but since he has only made two edits to real articles, they sent me here. The problem is trying to discuss something with this guy (over several days) only to find out after wading through his junk that it is pretty much total nonsense. I thought I was holding a discussion with a non-native and was trying to be extra careful. Eccentrics can be fun, I suppose, but do we really need him? 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The site you linked to is an artists' site. It's on DGD's work. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to follow, I agree. Here is one a bit easier, inside Wikipedia, on a serious issue: Talk:Slavery#To_The_Economics_of_Slavery. Apparently he always writes like this according to the website. This is disruptive. I thought he was serious for a day or so and finally decided to examine his user page for some sort of clue. That's when I discovered that he is not a serious editor. I guess if he is just part of the landscape and something we all have to put up with occasionally, like old Uncle Ned, we can do it, I suppose. I'm not sure why, though. 11:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like classic schizophrenia (disorganized type) to me. He probably has no idea that what he is writing is gibberish. (See word salad or schizophasia). Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There is some template vandalism at the bottom of the Canada article, and I'm having trouble locating the exact template involved. Any help would be appreciated. AlexiusHoratius 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Must have been fixed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Jeff3000 (talk · contribs) - thanks. I blocked 190.139.108.170 (talk · contribs) for a week, as it's not the first template vandalism they've done, and it's a nuisance to find. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone for me too, it must have been a cache issue with me; I had seen the revert on the template's history, but the vandalism was still showing up. Thanks AlexiusHoratius 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A note: this is part of a pattern of vandalism via proxies, aimed at templates and always inserting the same vandalism. A number of commonly-used templates were targeted and have been indefinitely fully-protected, and a couple of proxy IP's blocked for two years. Acroterion _(talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

persitent 'semi vandalism' to multiple pages involving the verbs 'comprised (of)', and 'composed (of)'

I'm not 100% whether this could be considered outright vandalism, however it appears that the edits of User:Giraffedata are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Giraffedata has edited multiple articles and has vigorously removed the verbs "comprised {of}" from each article. Occasionally he substitutes other verbs such as "composed of" or "containing" and therefore, many of the newly edited articles no longer make sense. Some examples:

• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]

Numerous users have requested that he explain his actions on his talk page, but to no avail.

Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• His edits look fine to me. "Comprised of" is grammatically incorrect. Epbr123 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It is incorrect to use the phrase "comprised of". See this MOS discussion for refs, but almost all style sources say to use comprises when the meaning is includes and use another verb for the passive voice meaning is made up of. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also consider the disputed edits OK. Deor (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's replacing a non-standard variant most people consider to be an error by one that is standard in all dialects of English. How is this vandalism? — Coren ^(talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's the problem, I'm not sure 'most people' would consider it an error; grammatical 'errors' in common speech and writing are pretty common, I think this is just one of them. They certainly should be corrected, but all these edits would have needed was an edit summary, and there wouldn't have been an issue (at least not for here). --Ged UK (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary looked fine to me, and a quick look in any manual of usage confirms these edits are good. Brilliantine (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; all these edits by Giraffedata seem correct. The verb "to comprise" means to contain, so "X is comprised of Y" is wrong - this should be "X comprises Y" or any of the other variants Giraffedata has used in the above diffs. Even though "is comprised of" is sometimes incorrectly used, this does not make it correct. This is in no way vandalism. Please note that WP:VAN specifically states that vandalism is a deliberate effort to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Is he back? (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction/ban proposal on User:Naadapriya

Background

Last week, following some edit-warring concerns, I'd opened an article RFC on contentious material Naadapriya has been pushing to keep included in the article. I'd expressed the concern that his edits violated WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and at times, WP:V. Although at first it seemed the article RFC lacked input except that of User:erachima who had a very poor understanding of policy as it were, it eventually had more than adaquate feedback: User:JzG, User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Mspraveen, User:RegentsPark, User:David_J_Wilson and User:VasuVR were among the several uninvolved users that have shared the concern I have over the content Naadapriya insists on including, and the poor conduct he has continually exhibited. Naadapriya's page and talk page speaks for itself - the concerns have been expressed by other editors and administrators and those concerns have not been put to rest. But the bulk of the problems can be found from this section onwards on the article talk page. I have provided a few diffs below, but one can detect the problems just going through those 2 or 3 sections.

Users have found that Naadapriya:

• misrepresented sources (most particularly through novel synthesis, but sometimes also making statements that are not found in those sources which violates verifiability policy);
• often used unreliable sourcing (violating reliable sources policy);
• makes assumptions of bad faith that editors such as myself, in improving in the article, are submitting "weasels or make believe books and Jl articles" which have less weight than self-published sources. [52] (Note: this diff also demonstrates the POV he has been pushing since he arrived at Wikipedia - which is why he resorted to sockpuppetry in the past);
• gave undue weight to a view that is not widely held (violating of NPOV policy);
• has a habit of edit-warring - see Special:Log&page=Carnatic_music;
• engaged in wikilawyering over the block he received for edit-warring [53];
• restated arguments that were already addressed (a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and;
• continually makes assumptions of bad faith for several of those users who gave their uninvolved input in the article RFC, while disrupting Wikipedia - using it as a battleground to harass those users who do not conform to his POV-pushing. A clear example is found here. Another example consists of a recurring theme - Naadapriya is repeatedly claiming I vandalized the article [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] when it didn't occur, and he was told in no uncertain terms that insisting that it has, is very problematic [59]. Yet his response has shown no change [60].

The ultimate conclusion of the RFC was that the content could not be included. Naadapriya has meanwhile vowed to reinclude the contentious content. I think it is reasonably clear that these sorts of issues cannot adaquately be dealt with through the usual means of dispute resolution. I therefore submit the following proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user is acting in bad faith, but he or she is certainly very difficult to ork with. For instance, after I analysed some of the sources that were online and found they didn't really back the claims - ambiguous statements were made definite; statements about a class of subjects were rewritten as if one of the subjects in that class had sole possession of that class's attributes, and that kind of thing. When I then asked Naadapriya to quote the section of the book he or she had, so as to check a claim sourced to it, they went off on tangents four times.

I don't think there's bad faith, but they are extremely disruptive. Their lack of research skills isn't in itself a problem, as such things are teachable, but combined with a fanatical defense of the poor content, it becomes highly problematic. I'd suggest a mentor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 1

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 year.

• Support; if he edits in another area instead, the editors in that area are also going to end up ripping their hair out as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I would be inclined to try a topic ban first; if this user can contribute productively in areas where they are less emotionally vested, then perhaps we may resolve this without the need to boot them. If they cannot keep to a topic ban, or choose to engage in the same behaviour elsewhere, then we have a clear indication that they are not Wikipedia material. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'd also rather see a hard topic ban (which I do think is needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, left a proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 2

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Carnatic music, broadly construed.

• Support - this minimum measure (community sanction) is certainly needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'd looked into this a few weeks ago and think a topic ban would be fitting. This would be a way to let Naadapriya keep editing the other Indian topics he seems more helpfully drawn to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, a topic ban should be attempted before more permanent actions. GlassCobra 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't hold out much hope of this editor's activities' ever making a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. His responses to the concerns raised by other editors seem to me to have been utterly bizarre. Nevertheless, I think it's worth giving him a chance to show that he can make positive contributions to other articles. It appears that no-one had previously informed him of this proposal. I have now done so. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support if (and only if) combined with mentorship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It is possible that User:Naadapriya is acting in good faith and believes that their view is neutral and accurate. Which it may well be but the reality is that the sources don't stand up to scrutiny and the content of those sources is often exaggerated. A topic ban will give him/her the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the encyclopedia beyond this article and is the appropriate first step before more permanent actions. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As per User:David_J_Wilson, I found the editor's responses, to the questions raised by other editors, not helpful. He seems to be an editor who is hard to discuss with and that could be frustrating at times. Though this might be a temporary suggestion, with an able mentor, I hope that the editor improves in his standing with his other contributions. Mspraveen (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Works for me. As others have said, without doubting the user's good faith, it is clear that he is unwilling or unable to understand why his proposed edits are problematic. Perhaps if he edits some topics on which he has less fixed opinions, he may come to understand and in the end become a valued contributor. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Canvassing

Just a note, disruptive canvassing at this DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should bear in mind though that, as you were the closing user, this post here can be seen as canvassing as well. Not that I want to imply it, I just think you should have contacted a neutral admin directly instead of posting it here. SoWhy 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. AN/I is not canvassing. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it is. I say it can be seen as canvassing. Users may assume bad faith if the one, who accuses them of canvassing, himself goes and posts the debate somewhere with high traffic. While WP:AGF is of course important (and I do not assume bad faith that those editors will actually complain), I still think that this should be taken into account. Just to prevent any reason for complaints from popping up. SoWhy 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't. AGF doesn't even play a role. "Canvassing" is the gathering of a particular SET of editors who share a certain point of view in order to for those editors to participate in a discussion. Usually what follows that is "with the intent to shift the results" but intent is tricky to judge. the admins and editors who read AN/I do not comprise a specific set of editors with regard to this particular (or honestly, most any) debate. Bringing an issue that needs admin attention here is appropriate. We may say that other, lower level methods should have been exhausted but that isn't necessary. And lowering the threshold of the accusation from "canvassing" to "this may seem like canvassing" is not cool. It maintains the cloud of impropriety over the accused but allows the accuser to disclaim responsibility. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, this is an incident, and this is ANI. My message fits no criteria for bad canvassing. I did not canvass keep voters, and my message here is neutrally worded. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection review

If others would review my action here, I would appreciate it. Today I happened across User talk:193.62.43.202, which was indefinitely semi-protected [61] in November 2006 (672 days ago) by (retired?) Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Bizarrely this semi-protection appears to be in response to this unblock request. Since I cannot fathom any reason to leave this IP's talk page indefinitely semi-protected, and as Can't sleep, clown will eat me is not around to answer any questions (not that he ever answered questions about his admin actions), I have gone ahead and unprotected the page. Since this is violating my personal 0RR for admin actions, I wanted to post it here for review. If consensus holds that my unprotection was unwarranted, I will revert myself and re-protect. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM made a lot of unwarranted IP talk page protections, and you were right to lift the protection on this one. Endorsed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2006, the software feature to set an expiration date on protections had not been created yet. All protections from 2006 were indefinite so an indefinite protection going that far back shouldn't be looked at as necessarily abusive - just one that was put in place and nobody bothered to lift it. --B (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at his log shows a good amount of long protected user pages. I might just go through a few myself. This might be something worth having a bot running through and pumping out a list for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin not using proper procedures or protocol, indef blocked user without any prior history

Tom Harrison appears to be abusing his administrator powers. A friend of mine contacted me by e-mail to get involved in this, as he has been indefinitely blocked from editing and the blocking admin does not appear willing to discuss the issue. In short, my friend's account is registered under the name Dine Peril. He is brand new to Wikipedia and is just becoming familiar with the rules. He has no warning for misbehaviour whatsoever on his talk page, and the history of the Talk Page will confirm this. He made a good-faith edit to today's Featured Article, but failed to cite his source. Immediately afterward, Tom Harrison indefinitely blocked him without any warning or notice. None of the proper templates for issuing warnings were used. I believe this was not a fair use of administrative powers and I would like to see some sort of action taken in this matter. Thank you. Ace Trigonometry (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:MEAT--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And your little dog too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question [62]; note the highly deceptive edit summary. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut Kralizec, surely you mean 'descriptive' edit summary? Pints of Badde Fayth all round please landlord! Srsly, good block ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To put it in further context this was Dine Peril's previous contribution. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, even if not obviously a WP:MEAT puppet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Ace Trigonometry as a sockpuppet of User:Dine Peril. The account was created 2 minutes after Dine Peril's post on his Talk page, and the other contribs have a, how shall I say, similar quality to them. Sanity check plz. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dine Peril's obvious expectation of receiving some sort of warning prior to a block indicates to me that he knows the workings of Wikipedia, and is trying to game the system. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballard Designs

(Copied from my talk page) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:216.235.145.178

I was hoping that, as the most (relatively) recent administrator to deal with this user, you could look into user 216.235.145.178 and see whether or not another block should be applied. Previously, a four month block was imposed in November 2007 due to several instances of spamming pages with external links to a 'Ballard Designs' business. But as soon as that block was removed in March 2008, the user began to spam a number of pages, and even contributed links to the page Ballard Designs that was created by another user.

Was it the user's attempt to make the subject more legitimate? Likely. But it stinks of advertising.

I only came across the user's violations because of a previous incident of linkspam from August 2007 that I removed just today. Granted, there aren't as many incidences of linkspam as before the Nov 07 block. However, looking at his/her most recent edits - March 2008 to August 2008 - I am inclined to believe that he/she is going slow and steady in his/her linking, as to avoid arousing suspicion. With this user's edits and Atlrshr's creation of the Ballard Designs page, I suspect this is his/her/their attempt to not only legitimize, but defend the idea that his/her links/edits aren't incidences of (business) spam, as was put forth in the previous argument over the Nov 07 block.

That said, would it also be possible to see if there is a relation between user 216.235.145.178 and user Atlrshr? I find it highly suspicious that Atlrshr creates a page and edits on a topic that was previously a point of contention.

I edit a lot but by no means am I experienced in this sort of thing. Any help that you can manage will be appreciated. Please and thank you. Ultatri (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article probably needs to go to AfD anyway (my opinion is made pretty obvious by the article's talkpage). An assumption of good faith suggests that User:Atlrsher may have simply forgotten to login but, I think otherwise you may want WP:SSP as opposed to here (though as usual I could be wrong). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the SSP part is obvious and incontrovertible. The trick is handling the article and the named editor. Whole article and named editor might need to go. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since this IP removed an advertisement tag in August 2008 from an article about their own products, it's safe to say there has been no reform. I know that hardblocks are drastic, but according to WHOIS this IP belongs to Ballard Designs. A hardblock of the IP for three months should take care of Atlrshr if they *are* a sock, and will have no effect on them if they are not. (Saving the time and trouble of a checkuser). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. I'll do that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist is also a possibility here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

No further action required. See content below. --VS ^talk 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Wikipedia's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[EC] I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS ^talk 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved?[63] Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai certainly has an ingenious style in smearing. I followed his link to an earlier contribution from the anonymous editor IP 76.171.201.224 - the one about which Tznkai said "guess who else is involved?" In fact Ricky81682 was mentioned that earlier time along with others, and unless I misunderstood, there was absolutely no conflict between the Ricky81632 and the anonymous editor. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

I wonder what Tznkai means by my "suspicious" writing style? Perhaps we will be enlightened in the course of his sockpuppet investigations....

Rick81682's advice to "let it go" is a cop-out. Tznkai has set a hare running and should have the guts to follow through with a sockpuppet referral. For that reason I am removing the "resolved" tag (it plainly isn't resolved) and putting this item back on the noticeboard. Is that a legitimate procedure?

(Oh, like some others, I have only now found my way to this item. I was looking for a sockpuppet allegation against me that was allegedly entered somewhere here by Rjecina. All the links seem to be dead, and I haven't really fathomed the archive process yet.) Kirker (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on this matter over at User talk:Tznkai#Sock thing at ANI and mentioned AlasdairGreen27 and Rjecina there. Those who are wondering about any new sockpuppet complaints that might concern them could look at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc, filed on 8 September by Rjecina. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of administrator Tznkai my "pathetic" "small-minded mentality" [64] will not start another "idiotic" [65] try to block Kirker. In my thinking he must recieve reward, but we are having new warning...

Can somebody show me place where I can start meatpuppets actions because of edits Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 on this page, in articles Magnum Crimen and Miroslav Filipović--Rjecina (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, cut that out right now. You are not helping at all. Stop with the allegations completely. A lot of them have been proven false, so quit repeating them to try to gain the upper hand. Otherwise, this thread was already archived not just once but twice. Can someone please manually archive this section, and split out the subsection below with a link? I really really don't like my name being dragged into this many threads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682: an acceptable level of adjudication?

Ricky81682 blocked me for 31 hours, citing that I had refused to respond to complaints about me. He took that decision ten minutes after putting a notice on my talk page that I was the subject of a complaint. Was I really in error for failing to respond within ten minutes? I have put that point to him and no answer was his reply. He says that I refused to respond to a complaint against me a few weeks ago, but the record shows that I did respond. The only other complaint against me was in November 2007. I never knew about it, no action was taken against me and the complainant himself was banned. I have put all this to him too. No answer.

Why was it Ricky81682 who leapt in to deal with the present matter? Another editor put to him that he had a clear COI (conflict of interest?) - a point he seemed to concede. And someone else suggested that a block of 24 hours instead of 31 would be appropriate - a point which Ricky81682 ignored as far as I know. I asked him if there was a procedure whereby I could register a complaint against him, but again no reply.

I was blocked in response to a complaint from Rjecina, who is a disruptive and negative presence on Wikipedia as would be quickly realised by anyone skimming his contributions. One charming example, and this on a TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs&diff=prev&oldid=233977689

Rjecina also pushes a POV agenda but I concede that he might not be detached enough from the issues to realise that he is doing it. In answering some of his assertions, I said I was doing so only in the hope that others might see what an idiot he was. This was a flippant remark in the course of a substantial and reasoned response, as Ricky81832 knew well. As Ricky81682 also knew when blocking me, Rjecina had asserted among other things that my parents were born in Yugoslavia. (This was a desperate attempt to undermine my credentials as a disinterested editor.) Moreover when challenged, Rjecina went on to say that if I claimed otherwise, he would not trust my answer. (It's all there on my talk page.) And this is a guy about whom I am asked to assume good faith, LOL.

Set against the general pattern of Rjecina's behaviour towards me, my incivility was a trivial matter. I would never waste my time entering formal complaints about Rjecina's pathetic conduct, and I assumed that in return he could take robust responses on the chin. Obviously not.

In presenting his version of my history on this page, to justify his actions, Ricky81682 chose to put into my mouth a paraphrase of what I actually wrote, in order to suit his own agenda.

Ricky81682 stated that I cannot work with others. Anyone who looks at my editing history in the Ante Pavelić article for instance, or Stepinac, will see that he displays only his own ignorance with such a statement. And anyone looking at the Miroslav Filipović article will see that I am primarily concerned with bringing some of the crap on Wikipedia's Balkan pages up to the standard achieved in many other areas of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes I do this in the face of pathetic whining from editors like Rjecina, obsessed with pushing their small-minded agendas. Rjecina hates the Filipović аrticle as I have rewritten it of course (see its talk page), but there's nothing he can do about it despite his best efforts, since it is self-evidently non-POV and is comprehensively sourced throughout. I suspect it is his frustration over this matter that drives some of the wilder allegations of sockpuppetry etc that he makes against me.

In responding to an earlier complaint against him on this page, Ricky81682 proudly drew attention to a previous commotion in which he involved himself. A surprising response in view of his professed concern to spread sweetness and light. He has also said he will apologise if his blocking of me was unreasonably hasty. Where will he put such an apology, if it comes to that?

All in all, I would say that at the very least he needs to take a little more care over the matters in which he chooses to involve himself, or step aside so that progress can be made in a subject-area of Wikipedia that falls woefully short of an acceptable standard. Kirker (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to be uncivil to other editors by calling them pathetic. Consider this a block warning for personal attacks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance this isn't clear enough, no more personal attacks, or I'll issue a block. Subject to another administrator's review of course. For the next 24 hours, no further warnings will be issued on this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was making no personal attacks - just putting cogent complaints about what seemed like unreasonable behaviour. That much, at least, Wikipedia should be able to live with. Moreover I described no-one as pathetic but described Rjecina's conduct as pathetic. But let people form their own views about that by looking at the record. For instance the Magnum crimen talk page (say from here onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnum_Crimen#J._A._Comment.27s_revision_.28September_2008.29) Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally Tznkai showed how little he knows about my recent squabbles when he gratuitously floated a fatuous rumour that I'm a sockpuppet.Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, calling someone's actions or them pathetic is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. An apology is encouraged, but not required.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, I'll put a way an admin once told me. It's hard to people to determine who is doing good edits and who is doing bad edits. Incivility, on the other hand, is clear. Acting uncivil makes it harder for people to take you seriously, no matter what you do. You can either take that as constructive criticism or ignore it completely under the guise of "I do good work, so I can act however I want." Regardless of everyone you work with, Rjecina seems to be a problem. Again, as I've asked, if Rjecina is doing something wrong, please explain with specific diffs. Pointing to a talk page and saying "they are disruptive" isn't helpful. I saw you mentioned the sockpuppetry allegations, which I've warned about (here albeit too late for your tastes, I guess). I agree that this checkuser request may be a bit much, and again, you should simply warn Rjecina and report on that conduct. Long diatribes again and again aren't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ricky81682, some of that I understand. My spat with Rjecina comes down to this: if he fabricates gratuitous assertions, for instance about my parents, and follows that by saying he is not going to believe any denial I may make, he forfeits any entitlement to an assumption of good faith and I will happily make facetious references to his own parentage as I did on your page. If he dishes it out, he should be able to take it, without running off to the admins at the slightest pretext. But he knows that when he does complain, he will always win, simply because I could never be bothered to complain about him. Kirker (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou

• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou

Seeyou is a WP:SPA editing articles related to Bates method. There is some evidence that Seeyou has a COI with the subject, but not enough to make a case for WP:COIN.

Seeyou's behavior is once again becoming highly disruptive, to the point where there are discussions to expand the RfC/U with the problems since it was written.

Seeyou is not fluent in English, which exasperates the problems.

The problems since the RfC/U include canvassing, personal attacks, gaming the MedCab and RFC processes, and general WP:OWN problems. The problems appear to be quickly escalating. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Ronz is saying. I initially got involved on the articles to stop IP spamming and wound up getting involved in the arguments. When I started editing the talk page, Seeyou was hardly civil or neutral, accusing Famousdog (talk · contribs) of paid editing and creating sections titled "For the Objective Reader Part <foo> of X". Recently, however, he's dropped these behaviors if only to use WP:MEDCAB as his own personal artillery. Practically all of his Medcab cases have been closed without resolution. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to either start another RfC, or if you believe the issues to be serious enough, a request for arbitration. Wizardman 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat block review

Blocks for legal threats are not my forte, so I would appreciate a review of my actions. I indefinitely blocked 83.104.51.181 (talk · contribs · block log) for this legal threat against Daniel Case (talk · contribs). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good NLT block, maybe shorten it to a year since it looks like a residential IP that will eventually be re-assigned. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty blatant legal threat, yeah, the block looks fine. And that IP looks quite static - a review of its contribs suggests an interest in footballers and other problem edits in the past anyhow. (Mind you, we don't usually block IPs indef - I'd suggest shortening it to a definite time.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not real sure what to do about the block duration, but since the {{uw-lblock}} defaults to indef, that is what I went ahead and used. This IP has threated the just switch IPs before [66], but has not, to the best of my knowledge, done it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, but I recommend a block duration of 3 years or so. IPs are usually not indefblocked.  Sandstein  19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot like actions for user

Resolved

 – Blocked.

Can someone please see what they think of User:Psaywer1972 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked. Didn't respond to talk page messages, practically all edits unconstructive. If they want to explain themselves they can RFU. Black Kite 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like this was a "Random article" vandal, repeatedly clicking on that link and adding one {{fact}} tag somewhere in each article. Deor (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Eldereft Engaged in negative WP:OWNERSHIP/edit war WP:TROLL activities

I have tried to seek WP:3 mediation with user User:Hrafn, but in response User:Eldereft claims that tangential comments from other editors preclude it's two party guideline: [67] (Eldereft is not a contributor to WP:3, my request was removed apparently to aid Hrafn, whose activities have not been commented on favorably from two previous WP:3 in which I and he have been involved: Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion and Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion) He has also begun to tag informally approved and review articles in a way that I believe can be fairly categorized as a negative form of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TROLLing to make a WP:POINT. Examples are recent edits with User:Hrafn to [68] and [69]. The Issues in Science and Religion was reviewed positively as a stub in Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion. The List of science and religion scholars was reviewed by [70] User:Rocksanddirt and I have sought Rocksanddirt's counsel before adding this list's link to other article's See also sections. [71]. User:Rocksanddirt responded here [72]. (The point is that these articles have had some review and oversight other than by me.) I would like User:Eldereft's recent tags to be removed since the actions are non-wikipedia hyper-verification standards done in order to make a WP:POINT and ask that he or she stop tagging my articles further. The issues are really with User:Hrafn, but User:Eldereft appears to be intentionally interfering to make a WP:POINT with the WP:3 process. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322, your whole rant is based on a failure to assume good faith. If articles lack reliable sources for notability or are based on a neologism which isn't in use, they're subject to review. As for others becoming involved in your mediation, you seem to have forgotten that you named several other editors but failed to provide diffs of the alleged problems you had with these users. Last I saw, the case was stalled awaiting information from you. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Christian involved with a non-religious person (Hfran), the accusation that this is a failure on my part to assume good faith (WP:AGF) seems an ironic one. Moreover, The underlying issues have really between User:Hrafn and me and others have just recently join in and are tangentially going along with User:Hrafn. A clarification at WP:3 seems necessary, to me. For if you are refering to the WP:mediation cabal, then that process doesn't work here, because I am one editor with a dispute with potentially several (those who are going along with User:Hrafn). The resources required are potentially enormous and I believe beyond those of a single editor. That process seems really set up for a bi-lateral multi-party resolution. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: sorted out by a response to your belated post to Eldereft's talk page. Pity you didn't think of doing that before posting here.[73] . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The question of keeping the item up for WP:3 is resolved, but evidently there are still questions of Firefly disputing tags. Hope all is now clarified, bedtime for me. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not my strong suit, but I do periodically contribute Third opinions (both successfully and not so much), as Firefly322 may be aware. The first edit in question, removing Firefly322's request, was performed after checking into the situation; most relevantly, I found this section indicating a consensus to merge with another page. Since the post mentioned only "the existence of talk page's main-space article", I judged the matter to have been resolved. The subject area is something that interests me occasionally, so I then performed the indicated merge. As I am passingly familiar with both Hrafn and Firefly322 (and some of the other editors involved in the merge consensus), I would not have presumed to offer an independent third opinion, but I considered myself to be by that point operating outside the strictures of WP:3O. I am not sure what WP:POINT I am supposed to be making, but when I found Firefly322's re-addition I issued an apology. This was a full day after the event, but still prior to this present thread. The preceding diff also contains my notification to Firefly322 that I had prodded List of science and religion scholars.

Tags I have placed recently include aforementioned prod and a request for page numbers. Possibly this latter is the motivation for "hyper-verification standards"? That article contained 46 citations to the book that is its subject, but provided no indication of where in the book an interested reader might pursue the topic. This is manifestly not an indication of any suspicion on my part that the statements being supported are dubious; I find it perfectly credible that the book treats these topics.

Interested editors may note that there is currently Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. I am not at present a party to this case, but it concerns this family of articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 - would you please expand on your views concerning a putative relationship between religiosity and willingness to assume good faith? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In order to correctly assume good faith, one must have developed a discernment as to what faith means. Anyone can claim that WP:AGF has been broken and anyone can claim that they are WP:AGF, but unless one has some sense of what faith is, what it is to truly believe in someone or something, then the word faith when spoken or heard is weakly meaningful if not meaningless. So I don't see how WP:AFG works where an editor is consistently crude towards me and has stated that he is of no faith. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(interposting) dave souza comment about WP:AGF seems outside the bounds of wikipedia guidelines, because even per wikipedia guidelines assuming good faith is a two way street that depends upon certain mutual things. These things are partially outlined here: WP:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks and WP:Civility#Apologizing. Hfran rarely apologizes a rare example, nor does he or she recipocate in words of kindness. (I tried a friendly word of kindness, Hrafn never responded.), and again see what Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion mentions about someone's questionable civility on the page with which I have had to deal with Hrafn quite a bit. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that saying about people in glass houses can apply here, since as far as i can tell you're fairly serious above about suggesting that atheists and agnostics can't assume good faith. I assure you that this is highly objectionable, and that such views make it likely that this project is not for you. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod notice. The inclusion criteria for the list need attention, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooper Brown

Can someone who doesn't have a history with the editors involved (there must be someone) put a stop to the current idiocy at Cooper Brown? Brief background; CB is a parody column in an British newspaper – and a blatantly obvious parody to any British reader – but one US-based editor is insisting on treating him as a genuine journalist. ("I wanted to flag the notion that maybe this is fiction. Maybe even probably is fiction. We know that the newspaper isn't fact-checking it. Guantanamo Bay is in Mexico? My operating assumption is that it's a spoof. But I can't put my operating assumptions into the article.") Can someone break out a fresh box of TROUTs and deliver them appropriately? – iridescent 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• We could just send it to XfD. All of that back and forth and no one has sources...hmmm. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble it, it's undoubtedly a genuine (albeit fake) column – and written by TV star Dom Joly, who's undoubtedly notable – so an AfD would almost certainly fail. – iridescent 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Also, count me surprised that the article is parsimonious. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) is requesting unblocking. He was most recently blocked by User:Prodego for "Disruption through repeated legal action." Guido had been previously blocked for legal threats; Prodego undid that block on August 1, apparently because the legal issues had been totally resolved. Then, on September 4, Guido posted a non-specific note [74] about his involvement in another legal dispute; according to the analysis of other admins this edit was the immediate reason behind the block. Guido now says that the legal action he referred to in this recent edit is already resolved, and wants to be unblocked. So what remains is the question of whether Guido ought to be indefinitely blocked for having taken legal action repeatedly. AFAIK, these two incidents are the only ones. Guido quite strenuously argued against being blocked the first time, as there was a question whether the legal threat took place on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia or here. So I don't see a repeat abuse problem here, and furthermore, at the essence of WP:NLT are two points: (1) keep legal actions from interfering with Wikipedia, and (2) don't use threats of legal action to try to influence Wikipedia articles or editors. Neither one of these was a problem here. It would have been better for Guido to not mention the legal issue at all, but he certainly wasn't using Wikipedia as an inappropriate channel for communication. And the action was apparently based on off-wikipedia acts, not about Wikipedia editing. So I'd like to see an unblock here. Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that I'm opposed to pressing Guido for details about what this legal issue was, per the spirit of both WP:AGF and WP:NLT (i.e. Guido mostly kept it off of Wikipedia, we should try to do the same). Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some residual concerns, mainly related to the tone of m:Requests for comments/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request. While projects are not related and we ban people other projects welcome, I still have questions as to why Guido didn't want this discussion brought to ANI. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something that needs to be made very clear before I feel comfortable unblocking this user is the fact that this situation will not happen again, he will no longer make legal threats and even if he has engaged in legal action with another user it will not be mentioned here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable. It should go without saying - but it's better said than unsaid. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Users should not bring up legal action, period. Not as a definite threat, not as a pointy allusion. Based on what I've read to date I'd support an unblock with a caveat of "Don't ever mention legal threats again" and if he sincerely wants to avoid disrupting wikipedia because of a legal issue, use {{wikibreak}}. GDB tends to make and cause a lot of noise wherever he goes, intentionally or not, but hasn't quite reached the point of irrevocably breaking the community's patience. Regards Meta, what happens off wiki(.en in this case) stays off wiki. Unblock, but I'd have this as his final warning about invoking mentioning the legal system. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up after the first situation I believe. Prodego ^talk 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly better reaction this time, slightly less overt discussion. Shows a small amount of learning, which is better than nothing. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Guido has agreed to no longer mention any legal action on-wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think Guido is evil or beyond being brought round. He is clearly very angry about the sabotage to his pet project. I suspect he will get over it in time; I am optimistic that the risk from a second chance is low in this case at this time. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I when I unblocked him, and I was quite optimistic too. I do not have a problem with second chances, I routinely give them to anyone who has any indication at all of an intention of collaborating. Third chances don't work the same way. Prodego ^talk 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:65.117.144.104

Resolved

Last warnings are no good unless they really are last warnings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have blocked the IP, but for future reference AIV is that way →. Tiptoety ^talk 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV needs looked at

Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_8#Mathmo where I have reverted my close of the AFD in question. Does the DRV need to be closed now? The AFD can be reclosed by an admin - cause that is what it takes to grok consensus here? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I closed the DRV and relisted the AfD. It can be closed whenever anyone likes. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is 217.95.240.21 a bot?

Earlier today, 217.95.240.21 started editing for the first time, and for the next 4 hours or so, edited approximately a page every other minute. Some of these edits were to archived AFDs (see here, here, and here), and many were to user pages.

If it's a bot, it's not following policy. If it isn't a bot, it's something that (imo) should be looked into. Thanks... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it making good edits? If so, welcome him/her/it. A page every other minute is not fast if the person is doing wiki-gnome stuff. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed it and encouraged it to get an account. It's edits appear to be good and constructive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear about this when I said it was editing archived AFDs and user pages--no, not all of the edits are good. Having looked at them, about two-thirds were edits that shouldn't be done by a bot (or even an over-zealous newbie) (47 of 135 were good, if you want to be precise). I don't think that dropping 80+ warnings on an IP address would help any, which is why I brought it here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dorismith here. Something is definitely strange. Its one thing for a newbie to do a few small changes.. but this is hours of tedious editing. Good on them if they actually did it... but editing user pages and closed AfDs isn't appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be consistently changing The Lord of The Rings to The Lord of the Rings across a large number of articles. I don't think it's a 'bot, because sometimes they also fixed another typo in an article when doing so.[75] The only problems are that 1) they don't use edit summaries, and 2) they're fixing user pages, talk pages, and archive pages that aren't worth fixing. They even fixed something in a sandbox.[76]. So don't bite them; just educate them a bit. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Medes

For the past two months, 87.211.199.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently edit-warring to push a Kurdish nationalist POV at Medes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has been reverted by numerous editors in line with talk page consensus but has continued despite multiple warnings. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review his contributions and the article history and determine if preventative measures are appropriate. I would favour blocking the IP but, as I have been one of the editors to revert, I wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety by doing so myself. CIreland (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for steady edit warring for weeks over the same shred of content, with no talk page discussion at all. I'll keep watching the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fullfilms - only for SPAM

Please see contributions here. USer is only adding youtube links and links to a site they seem to be associated with based on the name. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A spammer in the works. He was indef-blocked by User:Orangemike. [77] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:96.250.13.105

96.250.13.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly removes referenced content and replaces with unreferenced opinions on the Impellitteri page despite repeated warnings. Hondo77 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a slow-moving content dispute, better suited to the article talkpage than ANI. I've left the IP editor a note, as there does seem to be some confusion about what constitutes reliable sources and original research, but for future reference, explaining to an editor why they are in violation of policy and opening a discussion is usually preferable to templating warnings on their talkpage and arguing in edit summaries ;) Dispute resolution might be helpful too. EyeSerene^talk 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tim Boetsch

It's probably nothing, but I just discovered this legal threat on the Tim Boetsch article (an IP wisely removed it). I'm guessing the threat is in response to this act of vandalism by an another anonymous IP. The user that left the legal threat is named Tboetsch. The editor could be a fan or the subject defending himself in response to the vandalism. Either way, figured it wouldn't hurt to report it. I've also notified Tboetsch of this thread. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arutam- Shuar mythology

Resolved

In 2006, I posted an article on Arutam (The name of ancestral spirit given by Shuar; Amazonian tribe). Administrator: riana_dzasta decided that my article is a copy of a web page. Sure it is a copy of MY web page at http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/arutam.html

If he or she will do some basic search, she will find that I am the owner of minelinks.com address and my name is plastered on many pages along with my picture. No, he or she quickly decided that I was a plagiarist; a direct defamation. Voiding the information based on shallow research.

Thanks... that what one gets for contributing something unique, not a rehash of digested information. So, thanks anyway, my future contributions are over. I don't need to face shallow evaluation and quick decisions. Anybody interested in Amazonian Mythology can go to my pages starting at: http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/index.html

I know what I am talking about since I live for last 20 years in Amazon basin next/with to dying (REAL) cultures.

Rafal Swiecki, geological engineer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.197.67 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly Rafal, it is often impossible to verify whether such articles are copyright violations - after all, anyone could have registered your username and claimed to be you. However, although the article was deleted for being a copyright violation, it would have been deleted anyway - it read like an essay, was unsourced and it was actually difficult to discern what the article was about. Should you change your mind and return to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you in an attempt to rewrite such an article. Yours, Black Kite 06:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina Article needs attention

Someone appears to've tampered with either a template or the article itself so a rather offensive floating text piece pops up with a racist/anti-semitic message and some poor fellow's personal info. Unfortunately figuring out how they did it is beyond my ken of wikipedia. Zelse81 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse pic on the main page? Pls remove it.

• Copied from WP:ERRORS:

Image:MRstatue.jpg is a {{derivative}} work; there's no Freedom of Panorama for U.S. statues, so the photo should be fair use (unless there's permission from the sculptor). --dave pape (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's switch to Image:St Wulfran's Church, Ovingdean 20.jpg and remove the fairuse pic which somehow misses a fairuse tag. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting {{editprotect}} at the DYK talkpage gets no response yet. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Can someone take a look at this [78]. The IP appears to locate to a library so it would seem fairly likely that it's just a kid messing around, but nonetheless ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Useful links - 203.24.110.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); It's a bomb threat against this Australian school in the same state as the IP: usually enough for us to act upon. Any Aussie admins awake and want to make a call? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have, on general principles, blocked the IP for a couple of days. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG. WTF. Call for the police, bomb disposal, national guard, secret service, united nations and the seventh Calvary. The terrorists are using wikipedia again! The "encyclopedia anyone can troll".--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that reply helps to ensure a lack of drama. Well done. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in Australia. IMHO the threat is not credible and does not worth acting upon. Just a primary school kid, I guess Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I would concur that this is not a credible threat, I would fundamentally disagree about the not worth acting on assessment. IMV all hoaxes (whether phone hoaxes, letter hoaxes, e-mail hoaxes or web hoaxes) that make bomb threats should be reported to the relevant authorities. Yes, it probably is some kid who thinks this is incredibly funny. He should rapidly be converted into a kid who has had a first hand experience of a ride in the back of a police car, lest he continue thinking such things are funny. Mayalld (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to you. Normally a specific threat against a specific school on a specific date would trigger a call to the authorities per Jimbo's opinion on these things. But if you think there's nothing to do here, that's fine too. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive editor on Obama / Palin

Brand new WP:SPA editor Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after disrupting the Sarah Palin article[79] and abusing editors there[80][81][82] started adding disparaging trivia at Barack Obama with abusive edit summaries[83][84] - reverted by 3 or 4 editors - and directly insulting editors (in this case me) there.[85][86][87][88][89] The editor was already warned by an administrator that further abuse would result in a block[90] and that the Obama pages are under article probation,[91] and invited to learn editing policies.[92] None of this seems to work. I'll step back and avoid any further engagement (it only seems to be inciting this person), and leave it in your capable hands. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This condescending editor has censored and escalated this conflict though his/her accusations, threats and intimidations. Now he can game this by bullying me, gaming the rules and play this game, but truth is truth and the world is watching...Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because of his radical left-wing nuttery. OR you may have forgotten to hand in your preconceptions at the door. user:Everyme 07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OR may be not removing my reasonable comment and threats of "Banning" it would be a pleasant editing environment if disagreement of opinions are not labeled as "personal attacks" by editor unwilling to be polite.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stick to talking about reliable sources, please be polite and folks will stop talking about blocking you. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment left on the Obama talk page isn't discussing ways to improve the article - it is just an attack on other editors. Tvoz/talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Way true. Rather than harking loudly to Orwell, less kerfuffle is stirred up by calling it systemic bias, followed by politely citing a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours, hope he would edit more cooperatively after cooling of Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Robinepowell

Another report about User:Robinepowell.

This user's contributions show a continued pattern of doing what she will, ignoring requests, warnings, blocks, and previous notifications at ANI and 3RR. To sum all this up, she marks her edits as Minor when they aren't, engages in multiple WP:3RRs, removes content and references, reformats references so they don't work, changes formatting set out by the WP:MOS to a style that is plain and simply wrong, and uses a scornful tone in edit summaries.

The first ANI thread about her was in December 2006, regarding the removal of references here: [93], [94], [95]. As a result she was blocked for 24 hours. Following that, she received numerous warnings about removing/refactoring references: [96], [97], [98], about changing the date format in articles: [99], [100] and [101], [102], and other formatting issues [103], which resulted in her first 3RR report and second block ([104]).

Upon returning, she was repeatedly asked not to carry out similar disruptive and vandalistic edits, [105], [106], and [107].

This year to date, she has been blocked six times. My very first interaction with Robin was in late January of this year, when I gave her a level 4 warning for content removal (she'd already had three other warnings in the same thread for doing the same to other pages). For the next seven days she continued to be warned for committing similar edits, until she was blocked for 48 hours [108]. As soon as she returned, she was warned for committing the same offence [109]. For the next seven days, the same warnings and requests [110], until she was blocked for four days [111]. Not two weeks later, she was blocked again for a week.

I gave her another warning a month after that for content removal and date formatting [112], and User:The Rambling Man opened a line of communication. I then extended an olive branch, [113] but this had no effect either. In April 2008 she was given numerous warnings for content removal, 3RR, etc, and was blocked for 48 hours. The same day the block was lifted, April 29, she was reported at ANI. She was then blocked for a week, before the blocking admin, User:Pigman, decided to up it to two weeks, due to the number of blocks she'd already had for similar things.

As soon as that block had expired, she again continued with her disruptive edits and on May 12 was reported to ANI for a third time. User:Ckatz blocked her for two weeks, although it was extended to one month by User:EdJohnston.

Finally, last week, she was asked to stop messing around with date formatting yet again by myself and User:Bignole [114] for these edits: [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. Today she went ahead and made exactly the same kind of edit that she has repeatedly been asked not to. While date formatting may not seem like a big problem, it can be. Linking dates is now depreciated by WP:DATES, allowing all readers to see dates in the way the editor originally intended them. Removing commas is grammatically incorrect. Additionally, she is changing the format of dates from Commonwealth (dd-mm-yyyy) to American (mm-dd-yyyy) in articles that does not call for it. Degrassi: The Next Generation is a Canadian tv series. The article date format says that Canadians use either format. The MOS says to stick with the established format so there is no reason to switch them around. This is especially true now dates are not linked (autoformatting would have arranged them as set in user preferences). Another reason Degrassi: The Next Generation should stay using the commonwealth format is that it is part of a Featured topic, and all the other articles in it also use the commonwealth format.

Something really needs to be done with this user. At her last ANI report, User:EdJohnston said her next block should be indefinite. I am inclined to agree. Despite the warnings, and despite the blocks, she continues with her tendentious and disruptive editing. As evidenced by her talk page (which helpfully hasn't been archived) I don't think she is willing to listen when people try to help, or has any intention of stopping. Ever. I do not wish to block her myself as I've had too many dealings with her in the past. Someone else needs to do it, please. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• support if anyone needs support..this is pretty obvious. Uncooperative, long term, plenty of chances to change.--Crossmr (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. Robin has been blocked nine times since December 2006, all for disruptive behaviour. She has also demonstrated a distinct unwillingness to listen to expressed concerns, or to modify her behaviour - despite ample warnings and efforts by others to help her. I would support extending this further if others feel it is appropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, and support extension to indef. The above report and links do not make pretty reading, and there's every indication that once the block has expired we'll just see more of the same. With over 3000 article edits and two years on the site, there's no excuse for not knowing how things work by now. This person needs to find somewhere else to play. EyeSerene^talk 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)