Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Hezbollah userbox

Unresolved

 – moved continuing discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. slakr^\ talk /

User:Raggz

Unresolved

 – Moved thread over 50kb to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

slakr^\ talk /

User John Celona

• John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --Jkp212 (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. [1],[2],[3] Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the Peter Yarrow discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.John celona (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on [[Peter Yarrow}]. The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Wikipedia at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. John celona (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user in question is being somewhat tendentious (as is, truth be told, User:Jkp212 from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making WP:POINT edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : Albion moonlight (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, John celona stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in this edit concerning articles Holocaust and Holocaust denial. He has not backed down from that statement. Holocaust denial is uncivil and offensive.[4]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will find that was in reponse to a threat from a user on another page to my posting of my mother's experience in WWII France. The user threatened that by posting my mother's truthfull recollections I would be prosecuted in France! My response, while "in your face" and sardonic was not unprovoked by such a ludicrous coercive threatJohn celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these the "truthful recollection" that you refer to, which are essentially Holocaust Denial? : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=144901749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkp212 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment, while offensive and totally a jerk move, was also 7 months ago. The time to complain about it was then, not now. I agree, however, that running to other articles to edit them to his idea rather than find consensus and then act isn't the best solution, and that having been asked to wait for that consensus, any further edits of the sort are POINTy. A warning is urgently needed for such system-gaming, and maybe a block. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a BLP dispute on one page has any connection to pages on deceased persons to whom the BLP doesn't apply. If an administrator tells me to desist from putting these verifiable links to pages on dead people I will do so. John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user Celona has violated the 3RV policy over the last day or two. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, could you provide us with one article where that is the case?John celona (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Krupa --Jkp212 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::False. As anyone who goes to the revision page can plainly see. [[5]] Please point out where I made more than 3 reverts? If I had, you would have had me blocked in 5 minutes flat. Perhaps you should be blocked for posting false information, removing properly sourced material from non-BLP articles for BLP rationales and posting false and unsourced material (as you did on the Peter Yarrow page at 20:00 on January 8, 2007) claiming a Judge stated a child "coerced" her adult molester into sex while the sourced material clearly states she "resisted the advances" of her molester. [6] [7] [8]John celona (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and while there's clearly some edit-warring going on (for which it takes two), I don't see a WP:3RR violation. Could you provide diffs of the three offending edits by John Celona? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Below are some of the edits. I will note that there were a number of editors who had requested that he not make those edits at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183097877

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183112037

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183304527

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183320993

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183531276

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183624764 --Jkp212 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'd rather not have anyone blocked, and if user Celona now understands how disruptive this type of thing has been, and avoids doing it, then I would prefer that there not be a block. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From 23:19 8 Jan and 21:56 9 Jan, he reverts three times to a version initially edited in just a couple hours earlier. If it's not an actual textbook 3:24 ratio, it's close enough, especially in light of the repeated requests for him to wait and find consensus. Add to that his current wiki-lawyering attitude, and it's enough for a block to prevent more reversions without consensus, and to allow consensus to begin to form. That way, after 24 or 48 hours, there will be some premises regarding consensus to whihc he can add a statement, one which he'll have 24-48 hours to prepare. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is cause for a block here. He didn't exceed 3RR, those edits occurred days ago, he's been discussing the matter on talk pages, and there isn't a consensus one way or the other. Wikilawyering charges may be leveled all around. Page protection, rather than an individual block, would be more appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In his latest less-than-helpful edit, this editor has now accused me of being a stalker, on my talk page. I've responded to him there. If one views the totality of this editor's contributions, one is left wondering why this editor, who might fairly be called a troll, is being enabled to the extent that he is. David in DC (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" is a word you are very familar with, as it is oft used by exasperated editors towards you, as a cursory look at either your talk page or your behavior on discussion pages shows. To wit, from July-"[edit] Trolling

It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour. Nick 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)" . You can, and surely will, continue to slander me in the most venomous manner. I suppose it is easier to do that than to discuss the reason you are stalking me-that you want to censor properly sourced material from the article of a well known political/cultural figure who served a prison sentence for forcibly molesting a little girl who "resisted his advances". [9], [10], [11].John celona (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused Waterboarding to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

• here
• here

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page here on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. Lawrence Cohen 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the Blackwater Worldwide artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to WP:OWN the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to WP:ANI or WP:RFCU on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of  Unrelated on RFCU within a week. That is the Wikipedia equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from WP:OWNing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. Neutral Good (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.

Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email.[12] That may be forgiveness, not vindication. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - Alison ^❤ 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by User:Neutral Good that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. BLACKKITE 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to synthesize the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own original research. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, the RfC page.)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to endlessly argue against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have consistently asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on Talk:Waterboarding as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are wrong, and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've told both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want less attention drawn to Talk:Waterboarding...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has nothing to do with the waterboarding article specifically in this posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. htom (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Wikipedia, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? Lawrence Cohen 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to WP:OWN this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying WP:CIV. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob 70.9.48.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. Neutral Good (talk · contribs), based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: [13], [14]) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I protected the article again only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. henrik•talk 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to WP:OWN the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Wikipedia policy known as WP:OWN. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Wikipedia, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Wikipedia for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the Talk:Waterboarding page and the edit histories of Badagnani (talk · contribs), Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs), and Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk · contribs) certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding Badagnani (talk · contribs), since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor: I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. Arkon (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus soapbox plus tendentious editing is a noxious and all-too-common combination. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has already explained, on Talk:Waterboarding, that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this[15]. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is WP:TE, I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, THEIR trolls. Neutral Good (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. Neutral Good (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to waterboarding. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.

I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the problem

Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that Waterboarding is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Wikipedia articles. 144 sources say Waterboarding is torture, a solid half dozen to a dozen say it's not. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year 1400, predating the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of WP:AGF. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I know I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the entire problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually every new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on abortion, Holocaust denial, or global warming. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it may be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a global world view primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of very vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the WP:FRINGE side of things per WP:WEIGHT. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media every day the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after 209.221.240.193, a confirmed IP address of User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per User:Alison sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been quite civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Wikipedia in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly every single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the articlethat is simply not so. New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.

Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you decline to mention was that this fake consensus was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Wikipedia to post that very section. Abusive meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was not discredited.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search[16], I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. Fram (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching infrequently and endorse Lawrence's summary of the situation given above. Orderinchaos 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey and socks at it again

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated here. Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them in this user's contributions. Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Was an IP check ever done here? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} , but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on WP:RFCU. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. Hut 8.5 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for anybody to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. Corvus cornix_talk 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Last time CheckUser was run it turned up a number of sleepers. Awbrey is clearly not going to give up, this obsession behaviour is part of what got him banned, so it's not a waste of effort to run checkuser when a new batch of socks starts to mess about - better than locking the articles, since that reduces the chances of their being expanded and/or merged. Andif anyone feels like starting that logic of Charles Peirce article to merge the stubs on terms only he really used, now would be a good time :-) Guy (Help!) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i have nto been folowing the controsversiy but it hitnk that it would be betetr if jon awbery were listened to. he might have some valid auobjections to the way wiki proceudr eworks sna dit would be betert to listen tohim and get his input to se eif he is genuinely trying to be construcitve or is actually just an ordinary vandal. if he is genuniately trying to be constructive, then it would be best to appease him by bbaning all of his sockpuppets except one andf orce him to use his remaining account to take on a leading role in repairign adn reorganizing the articles he damaged. i am a firmly believer in diploamcy as a way for encyclopedic success sand he current fascist slash-and-burn tactics of only hunting down the symbtoms of a potential vandals' behaivor rather than the root cause is antithetical to both the idea of fredom of speech and that of diplomacy. Smith Jones (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from what I gather from all the activities of the sock/meatpuppets, they seem to be blanking the pages based on a remark made by SlimVirgin on User talk:Jimbo Wales Awbrey's work; according to them, she said "... it's probably all original resource for which a realiable source might be hard to find." Awbrey took offence at that comment and instructed users on WR to blank the pages. Am I correct? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(side-remark,

• The related discussion is archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#JzG
• A subsection of that section (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Original Research accusations) dispels at least part of SlimVirgins contentions.
• Making a link to that archive subsection (e.g. in an edit summary [17]) appears to talk sense to those who thought wise to follow JA's advise.

Hoping for non-confrontational solutions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

iv that is indeed the case that it would be beter for this issue to be taken to arbitration betwen slimvirgin, jw awbrey and this thugs, and user; jimbo whales to discuss this issue. baning random sockpupets wll only increase teh amount of restnetment int hte atmosphere, leading to a rbeakd own of order on wikipeida and a lot of hurt feelings on either side. it might ahve the neegative efect of even driving away awbrey and causing him to even stop blanking th pages, which would be an unfortunate since the loss of ANY editor, no mater how seemingly problematic, robs this encylcopedia of a valuble and priceless source of experince, dedicaiton, and wisdom. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of an overreaction to one editor's comment by another editor. I don't think ArbCom is required for something like page blanking and simple vandalism, even if it is on behalf of the author; I'm fairly certain that Awbrey's work on the logic articles (in fact, pretty much all of his article space) Never mind, it was universally agreed upon that that is not true; only logic-related articles were useful. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) was much appreciated; however, in Wikipedia- and other spaces, he created several disruptive pages (see here for the discussion that let up to his ban). Wiki-editors make comments that others construe as offensive. Maybe we should accept that everyone here does not know everything and move on. ArbCom is not needed for something like this. Awbrey was warned to stop with the "project-spam" and didn't. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

you may be right about arbcom but then again i never actally mentioned Arbitration Committess- that was an issue that you brought up, wich many people might see as a strawman argument. when i said the word 'abritration' i meant an informal dispute resolution betweenthe two users either on the talk pages, on this page, or privately via email or osme kidn of chat program. obviously slimvirgin and awbrey are having an intense, unresolvable dispute regarding whether or not certain thigns should have been said or not said, but that does not mean that we should rnadomly accuse someone of vandalism and block the to solve the problem. arbitray rule-enforcements only isnpire resentment and lead to further vandalism and bad faith assumptions down the road. the best and the onyl realy moral and decent path is conflict resolution that invovles both parties on an equal disucssion ground rather than having one person act as an inquisitor and the other serve as a tdefnese. this is really disturbin and if the behaivor does not stop then a permanent ban from the internet might be required but it woudl bemuch better if this can he headed off since it would be far beter to have awbrey continue to blank pages here than to have him banned forever and lose anoter great mind that can help use improve this encyclopedia for both our generations and genreations to come. Smith Jones (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... From what I can tell, the general term for taking something to the Arbitration Committee is "arbitration." The more general term is "dispute resolution," which is I now see what you actually meant. Also, as said above, it may not be Awbrey himself that is doing this, but rather a parade of meatpuppets. The proposition about letting Awbrey come back to edit is an interesting one - however, this is a community thing, so the Wikipedia community should be the one to decide whether or not Awbrey merits a second chance. As an aside, this is getting a bit long, maybe it can be moved to a user talk page? GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

whose talkpage?> i dont like it when peopel post things to my talkpage a lot and im not sure tha tit belongs on your talk page either. mayb e if jon awbrey could login or somethign twe could continue it there. and i agre ewith your reservationsr egarding the community; my sugestion was only a suggestion that the admins or the wikipeida community at large to consider. a full iunvestigation sohould be launched to make surte that it s acutally aubrey who deserves to be baned and if there is no other way to resolve this disupte otherwise. oh, and i dont think that the word "abritration" was invented by the Arbcom and they shouldn tbe the only ones who can control that words meaning. Smith Jones (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues between Awbrey and Wikipedia are not at root a personality conflict; at least, nobody's personality except his. Awbrey considers himself an expert on certain subjects in which he is not considered by many to be an expert, and in which he has no formal training to the best of my knowledge. This led him to attempt to write a number of Wikipedia articles slanted towards his own personal POV without sourcing in most cases and without regard for bias and undue weight, since his ideas and theories do not conform to the established academic consensus on them. When informed that Wikipedia's policies forbidding original research and unpublished theories did not permit what he was doing, he attempted to change Wikipedia policies to let him publish his theories here and was disruptive in so doing.

Essentially, Awbrey was banned for being a disruptive user who refused to accept certain set-in-stone policies. Whether or not any personality conflicts resulted, I submit that the results would not be changed either way; Awbrey's beliefs and attitudes conflict with what we're trying to do here and thus with fundamental Wikipedia policies, and he has been extremely disruptive when Wikipedia users and admins prevented him from ignoring Wikipedia policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One slight complication is that Awbrey apparently has, or has had, some sort of proxy- or account- sharing arrangement with other abusive users such as MyWikiBiz - previous checkuser requests have come across nests of sockpuppets that seemed to have both Awbrey and MyWikiBiz sockpuppets intertwined with each other. But either way, if a sockpuppet is disruptive, we can simply block it no matter who it is. :) krimpet✽ 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs from January 7, you'll see that using checkuser, I blocked a whole lot of Awbrey socks. I think I got most or all of them that existed at that time. I also range blocked him to make sure he can't register anymore. If you see any new Awbrey socks popping up (new as in they edited after Jan 7) please let me know. Raul654 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus

Resolved

Main page: Talk:Adult-child_sex § Deletion_.26_Redirecting_of_an_Article_Without_Consensus

moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.

User:Jayjg

On 3rd January I suggested here and here the deletion of this section on the Khazars page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated WP:NPOV and was WP:Fork but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a WP:RFC would not be reliable due to WP:COI and asked for reasons for relevance instead. At this point Jayjg posted basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “interests”:

• I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11[18].

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this this one, this one and this one.

• Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. [19].

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

• David Irving is a legitimate historian [20].

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

• I ”Passionately” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page [21].

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "an idiot with ridiculous ideas" which supports this.

• Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. Neutral Good (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a permanent neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --Tom 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne appears to be referring to this edit. Thatcher 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite unfair a comment to make. It goes against both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, this issue was discussed in the Arbcomm on Allegations of apartheid. At the time, editors expressed concern about the chilling and poisonous effect such comments have on the editing environment. Jayjg's name was mentioned at the time, but the arbitrators chose not to include anything on the subject in the Proposed decision. The entire case was closed without any conclusion. Perhaps this should be taken to the Arb Comm currently in place for Palestine-Israel articles here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If any more parties are added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict RfArb, I think the conflict itself will end before the RfArb for it does. -- tariqabjotu 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done then, Tariqabjotu? Tiamut 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban them all and let God sort it out. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a personal bias. From each person's point of view, one's own views are precisely neutral and everyone else has some bias or other. To interpret what Jayjg wrote to be an accusation of anti-Semitism, one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that Jayjg thinks everyone who has a bias other than pro-Israel is anti-Semitist. Please assume that Jayjg is assuming good faith. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a personal attack be in good faith? If I showed a marked bias then maybe, but I ask you to check the above edits and decide if they support what Jayjg intimated they did. The problem I have is that most editors wont check them but accept Jayjg's word (implication) that I'm anti semitic. I'm sorry but anti Semitic is the only word I can find that applies to these "interests" I supposedly have and is a word many who read his post will assume. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please strike out the words "Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic" in your comment above or provide a supporting diff in which that word and that allegation actually appear. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the "word". What "personal attack"? You claimed that you "have no personal bias" and Jayjg disputed that. You've also implied that others are biassed mentioned COI and POV in connection with other editors-- were those personal attacks? Re checking the edits: If you wish to discuss factual errors, my suggestion is that you post corrections on the article talk page or an appropriate user talk page, or if really necessary, bring it to this noticeboard, but not in a thread in which you also make an exaggerated and inflammatory accusation. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg disputed my claim by posting my edits and making incorrect claims for their intent. When this was pointed out, by me posting corrections on the article talk page, he refused to apologise (which i would have accepted) as he should and would have done if he had made the claim in good faith. That makes it a personal attack. As you appear to support Jayjg's attack on me as justified I ask you to point to what in those four edits even implies possible prejudice on my part. I didn't claim bias. As there were no actual facts in dispute and none of the dissenting editors would support their claim of relevance despite being asked, my claiming COI (personal interests) and POV (a mental position) was justified and not a claim of bias (unfair influence) against anyone. Check the dictionary for the meanings of those three terms, it's called semantics.
Let me point out that I made that claim after an editor suggested the purpose of the edit was to hide information. The discussion was relatively civil until Jayjg (who had never posted here before) jumped straight in with his accusation. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you would also consider striking out or modifying "being accused of anti semitism" earlier in this thread? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry NO. It's correct English. From my high school dictionary:"anti-Semitism • noun: hostility to or prejudice against Jews." Prejudice is what he accused me of. Wayne (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a relevant diff in which Jayjg used the word "prejudice", and then replace "anti semitism" with "prejudice" in your comment closer to the beginning of this thread. Until I see such a diff, it's my understanding that Jayjg disputed your claim to have "no personal bias", but that "bias" and "prejudice" are not the same thing. It's important to be very precise with words when discussing these highly inflammatory issues. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out a comment by me about "bias" above, but note that in the comment I struck out, I didn't say that you "accused" anyone of "bias": I used the word "implied". Note that I've nevertheless struck it out. You could similarly strike out your words above where you say something about Jayjg "imply(ing)" anti-Semitism. Since he did not use that word, I think words can be found, not using that particular word, to summarize what he said that would give a more accurate impression.

I'm not defending any attack by Jayjg and I'm not making any judgement in this situation as to whether what Jayjg posted was or was not accurate or was or was not an attack. If you had brought forward an accusation against Jayjg without yourself making an exaggerated and inflammatory claim, I might have followed some other path. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are very intense emotions connected with this topic. It's important to act in such a way as not to engage those emotions in others any more than necessary. If someone accuses you of "prejudice", while it might according to the dictionary be correct to say "anti semitism", it would also be correct to say "prejudice"; and saying "prejudice" would have the advantage of not bringing in a word which also has other definitions, definitions which will tend to pop into peoples' minds at least briefly when they read your comment, inflaming those emotions. In this particular detail, I gently suggest using the least inflammatory wording that correctly conveys the situation. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not an 8 year old kid. I am crediting Jayjg with enough intelligence to know that many if not most editors would assume that is exactly what he meant. That's the way I took it and I doubt many here can claim they would not have at least considered that was what was meant. This is upsetting enough without being condemned for complaining. Leave it for the admins to work out as they have access to more info than either of us and can make up their own minds about what was said and meant. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that User:Jayjg has made accusations of this sort. WP:AGF isn't set in stone (it's a guideline, not a policy), and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend indefensible personal attacks. CJCurrie (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's comment doesn't actually accuse Wayne of anti-Semitism, but it continues the use of subtle and condescending personal attacks that Jayjg uses to attempt to obtain the upper hand in content disputes, in addition to off-wiki canvassing and cabalism ([22]). Since the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ArbCom decision apparently hasn't stopped this nonsense from Jayjg and his associates, then perhaps it needs to be brought to the ArbCom's attention again. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tying up arbcom with endless disputes doesn't work. I think my solution will work best and produce immediate results: modify the controversial article template, adding new parameters that allow editors to request mediators on the talk page rather than separate mediator subpages. Mediators can watch categories for these changes. Now, for enforcement, add "admin requested" params. that will also populate watched categories. Anyone abusing these requests will be warned and if needed, blocked. This will reduce the load on admin noticeboards by 50 percent, and require active particpation in analyzing and resolving conflicts, rather than passive discussion and arbitrary decisions. Mediators will participate where needed, and neutral admins will step in to enforce. Problem solved, and everyone can get back to writing great articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Notice

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.V-Dash (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jéské Couriano has been notified of this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. Friday (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...V-Dash (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• For background see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/V-Dash. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe Jéské to have done anything wrong. V-Dash has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet this diff and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, User talk:Orange Boomerang removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "stay off my talk page." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.

Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's userpage from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that "[He] is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).

While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not SPD V (talk · contribs) - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost (Dash Jr (talk · contribs) here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash feeds them by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.

In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?V-Dash (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?V-Dash (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.V-Dash (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own cabal (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -Jéské ^{(Blah v—_^v)} 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An argument is still an argument regardless how old it is Jeske. Or did you forget about the very vague warning you put on my talk page? Sorry, but rules can't apply to one party and not apply to the other.V-Dash (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here can see I apologized for it. The only reason you can't is because you tuned out the warning that went with it and thus the whole paragraph. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeske Jeske, let's not even forget about the part where you cussed me just because I questioned your vague warning. See, this could've been avoided had you not came onto my talk page and tried to incite me into an argument with you. Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of your behavior as an admin. I mean, how can you uphold things when you're the one who causes them? Yes, I am accusing you of something. Remember the DnD arguments? Yes, YOU told ME to go to the discussion page and call it a board game. Then you berated for weeks just because I refused to see it your way.V-Dash (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen, V-Dash. After you call "Admin Abuse" or "Harassment", you need to provide proof. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof? What the fudge did you think I was talking about earlier Jeske? Remember the vague warning? The constant banter at me for calling DnD a Board game?V-Dash (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Jack Sparrow>But where have the diffs gone?</Jack Sparrow> -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're referring to movies now Jeske..V-Dash (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<Yahtzee>Also, you have one second to name any administrator's noticeboard where coming without evidence is a good idea. Time's up. That's what I thought.</Yahtzee> -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See? He's doing it again...V-Dash (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<George Carlin> You show me a guy who's sitting there giving evidence to back up his accusations and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any fucking trouble.</Carlin> I am also going to note that this is the third thread V-Dash has started against me, and, like the last two, he has provided no proof and simply made accusations sans evidence. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys take this somewhere else? There's no plausible case being made that administrator action is needed here. Friday (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You see Friday? We're back at circle one. See, all Jeske had to do was kindly explain his vague warning on my talke page when I asked, and this argument and report wouldn't have been started. I believe he did that warning on post so he can hopefully get me into an argument in order to make it like I'm doing something wrong.V-Dash (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To all those reading this topic, read this diff. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No excuse Jeske. Btw, you said something different than you did here. You said you saw the post and just decided to give me a warning regardless. But it took you like two days to finally answer why I got the warning AFTER someone warned you about it.V-Dash (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [23] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. This report is worth a look. (I speak this neutrally). Durova^Charge! 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But that report cannot be a proof of anything. It is just a collection of unrelated diffs, put together with an obvious purpose. Has anyone tried contacting Ehud and verifying his actual personality? I just received a communication from Ehud, he told me that he is willing to provide any information that admins may require to ascertain that he is a real person, not related to Adil in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at WP:AE board: [24] Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I handled the unblock request in this case. I did not see any evidence linking the two, so I accepted the request. It has sense been overturned after a conversation on my talk page. As I stated there, I do not agree with this method of blocking and did not endorse the reblocking of this user. Lara❤Love 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier if blocking, unblocking or independent administrators simply contact each of the blocked users to verify their identity. I have asked for this earlier at WP:AE as well. After all, the verification of physical identity to determine that Adil Baguirov is not Ehud Lesar is more legitimate than a wholesale assumption, based on nothing but User:Fedayee's speculations, often including simply harassment and attacks on the identity of User:Ehud Lesar. I mean look at this [25],, what does the proclaimed Jewish identity of Ehud Lesar have to do with this? Or does it really mater in Wiki what ethnicity the contributor is? Or should any Jew from Azerbaijan editing in Wikipedia be assumed and blocked now as a sock of Adil Baguirov, just because User:Fedayee believes so?

But there is more, which has to do with AdilBaguirov than with Ehud Lesar, because User:Khoikhoi was inactive, for several months. Then he suddenly shows up and blocks User:Ehud Lesar, as a sock of User:AdilBaguirov. Checkuser denies any connection, and I would also like to remind that right before getting blocked after the first ArbCom, User:AdilBaguirov attempted to file an RfC - [26] on User:Khoikhoi conduct, which, however, didn't gather enough support. So perhaps, sudden reappearance of User:Khoikhoi and blocking of just anyone as a sock of Adil, based User:Fedayee's speculations, has something to do with their conflict.

As far as User:Alex Bakharev's conclusions go, I shall remind him that previously, he also mistakenly blocked User:Londium on a conviction that it was a sock of User:AdilBaguirov - [27], an allegation which turned out to be untrue later [28]. On another instance User:Alex Bakharev unblocked the reported and even confirmed by RFCU as a sock User:Pam55 of User:Behmod, against the protests from admin User:Allison - [29]. Yet later User:Behmod was again caught with another sock [30] . So perhaps, assuming good faith, Alex Bakharev's conclusion is mistaken in Ehud Lesar case as well, and needs another review. Regards. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex and Khoikoi are the two admins who know Adil Baguirov’s way of using socks the best, there is Francis Tyers who comes next and who was an Admin, Francis_Tyers was the first to submit a checkuser because he thought it was Adil and this much before the evidence was accumulated. Then there is Golbez to ask, but since you have ousted him, I doubt you will listen to anything he says.

The evidence provided is not the only one I have. The Church of Kish alone is a giveaway. The Church of Kish doesn’t even qualify as very notable. Less than 5 people have studied it and published anything about the church. One of those who 'studied' it was Adil Baguirov. [31] (from his zerbeijan website he initiated the Albanian nature of the Church) scroll and you will see his picture with the church, and his 'research.' The person who created the church article was a throw away account [32] who created an article on Adil’s OR. That account was created at the beginning of March (the period in which Adil created his other Jewish account [33] ) and was obviously Adil. Ehud was engaged on that article and another which both were also edited by Adil socks in the same period of time. Another giveaway: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. [34] Here, Ehud Lesar, who claims to be a Jew and uses this to make himself sound neutral, is claiming that another member is obviously impressed by Adil who thinks a lobbyist who acts as an ambassador of Azerbaijan in the United States is someone to be impressed about. He repeats this more recently: I must say that it's rather positive that you're so impressed by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar. [35] Ehud knows that we know he is Adil, this comment is the same sort of sarcasm Adil was using or his other socks were using.

Also, all of Ehud’s theories are identical to Adil’s, here in his defence he provides himself more evidence [36], In the part that starts with secondly you will see the subject of the speeches Adil Baguirov gives whilst his lobbying outside Wiki and at large Azerbaijani-American gatherings. And it was according to him that Wikipedia should be edited to balance this myth he believes in.

Putting the emphasis on checkuser when the rest of the evidence is screaming I’m Adil is irresponsible. It would take one user registering an account to proxy for him, and this fixes the issue of open proxy and IP address, checkuser will fail. This was why Vartan and I brought Elsanaturk and from Ehud’s answer it seemed that there was something true in there. The reason we suspect Elsanaturk is that there is evidence that he already proxied for him, but this is another issue and unless it could change anything on the blocking of Adil, I don’t think at this point it is necessary to post the evidences. When we brought the issue, Ehud’s reply was this [37] Neither I or Vartan said this explicitly anything such, we only said that we believe that Elsanaturk might be involved. Not that he was Ehud, Ehud expanded this and insinuated and blew it out of proportion to discredit us.

I am ready to furnish more evidence upon the demand of the administrators.

And BTW, Londium was a sock of Adil, Alex was right; checkuser should not be run to catch Adil, many of the socks of Adil, which were registered the same days as other confirmed socks, failed the checkuser test when they were obviously Adil. Ehud is one example. - Fedayee (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, you're going to furnish evidence that Ehud Lesar is a person Adil Baguirov? Or in statements like "We have Ehud, who we all know is Adil", who is "we", are you claiming you have a group "working on Adil/Ehud case"? Will you also please produce physical evidence that user Ehud Lesar is the identity of Adil?

Your evidence here [38] does not establish such link, it only makes allegations about Adil having used socks. The fact that both users referred to the fact of Zangezur and Geycha republic is not an evidence of sock- or even meatpuppetry. And let me remind you of evidence you did not include in your report, while reciting various usernames in your assumptions of bad faith:

• I, Atabek, was once blocked at Yeprem Khan - [39], reported for reverting the edit of one of those sock accounts attributed to User:AdilBaguirov - [40].

And again, what does the ethnicity of Ehud Lesar or your conclusions about them have to do with Wikipedia? I believe pursuing someone's identity or attempting to expose their ethnicity, especially when you're not an administrator in Wikipedia authorized to do so, is considered falling under WP:HARASS policy. I recall there was another user "blocked indefinitely" for doing so, see first block comment.Atabek (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=62#copyright

ibe leive that this issue is a simple makstake, but i must cuation all the admins involved to avoid any esemalance of impropriety. when problems go wrong its easy to just round up and get rid of all the jews but history should so now that its the wrong decison to make. ethnic claims sould not be used solely as a deicsion whether or not to blok or unlblock a user, since even if the block was otherwise justified sit makes it seem like itwas an expression of racial hatred REGARDLESS of the admins' intent. i would recomend having this case looked over by a panel of admins to make surethat there were no mistakes or fualty assumptiosn makes on the behalf of any of hte usurers hereon this bebopard. Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Fedayee's evidence carefully. There was no ethnic motive behind the block at all. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, just my 2 cents, I don't know Ehud or Adil, just general thoughts. The checkuser uses IP address, so once changed it doesn't work. Now to detect user by his behaviour can only humans that knew him for some time and his style of communication, and humans are pretty good at it. So Fadayee and Vartan, who knew Adil confirm Ehud to be Adil based on the little clues lie type of communication etc. And they are pretty confident that he is Adil. They didn't accuse any other user, like Grandmaster or Atabek or me to ne Adil, the specifically targeted Ehud, so there is a reason why. Now what are the reasons for anybody else to believe that he is not Adil other then failed checkuser? I didn't find any. It looks like evrybody knows that he is Adil and Azeri side is interested to keep this user Adil even under different name... Steelmate (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also this Adil is blocked in "Wikipedia for a period ending August 23, 2008" so only 8 more month and he is free? Shouldn't there be more harsh mathods applied to this user who is using sockpuppets? Steelmate (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Steelmate, your question is very illogical. How can anyone accuse me of being Adil’s sock, if I was here long before Adil joined? I’ve been editing for more than 2 years and have more than 10,000 edits, accusing a long time editor will not work. Same with Atabek, he is a long time user and he is well known to everyone involved in editing region related articles. Ehud was targeted for a simple reason that he is a relatively new user with a very limited number of contribs. So it is relatively easy to link him to a banned user and get him banned. This happened despite no real evidence being presented and cu returning negative results. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, in such cases a questioning admin may contact individual contributors and ask them to identify themselves instead of blocking contributors based solely on the report of the individual from another side of conflict. Fedayee's evidence as well as list of users he cites in his report is based on ethnic motive, which is already known and defined in two relevant ArbCom cases, to which he was a participant. I believe if there is continuous assumption on behalf of some admins that Ehud is Adil based on Fedayee's report only, while others ask for additional review, then it may be expedient to perhaps request User:Jimbo Wales to investigate the issue and identify whether Ehud is Adil or not. Atabek (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was posted by an individual on the other side of the conflict. Three neutral administrators familiar with the AA situation evaluated Fedayee's evidence. Furthermore, Jimbo is human, so asking him is just the same as asking any other administrator. They have their own take on the evidence, which means they have no real way of knowing the truth. Also, I contacted Ehud and asked him what proof of identity he was willing to give (Grandmaster mentioned above that Ehud could confirm his identity). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, at least 3 other admins, including those handling reports at WP:AE on a regular basis did not find Fedayee's evidence compelling. Clearly, there's no consensus among the admins that this user is a sock and that Fedayee's evidence can be taken seriously. And Khoikhoi's sudden appearance looks very strange. Have you personally tried contacting Ehud and verify his real life identity? If not, why haven’t you done so? Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, returning to Wikipedia after a two-month break to block a contributor based on Fedayee's report or attributing several socks to a banned user, when they're found later not to be such, is not quite neutral. And especially this past mistake shows that evidence needs to be reviewed again by another administrator. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi was asked to review this user's edits a while ago. He took his time, but he finally reached a conclusion and then issued a block. As a neutral administrator, I reviewed the evidence posted by Fedayee and other stuff brought to my attention. I re-blocked because I believe the evidence shows that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I apologize, I did realise that an element of the evidence seems just that. It was perhaps my fault since I did not develop about the relevancy of that bit about Jews. What is questioned here is that Ehud is a Jew to begin with. If you browse the evidence you will see that Adil pretended to be several ethnic groups with several names. The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, and most names are Russianized, Lesar can not be an Azerbaijani Jewish name (which would have been the only escape route). The point here is that he falsified an identity like he did previously and even after he created that account.

The other evidence about the Algerians and Jews also is not meant to have any ethnic motive. The claim of Algerian Genocide is mostly defended in the international arena by lobbyists of the Turkish republic, one of the most active ones on the web run a journal in which Adil contributes in.

Atabek’s request on the identity of Lesar should be considered as invalid given that in the past an obvious sock and throw away account has requested such and was unbanned. Adil has relations across the globe and would have anyone proxy for him giving fake identity, he is not just some user. The Lesar family (David Lesar at its head) runs Halliburton which has a major contract in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan main oil export pipeline project, Adil work for those projects too. The sock created the name by association (the Israeli prime ministers name, and the president of the Halliburton familly name).

Also Atabek, unlike what you write, Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil, there is no published material anywhere which claims a republic such as Geycha. Ehud dismissing it qualifies as evidence and on several occasion when this was brought he failed to provide any source. Having failed to do such, this remains specific to Adil Baguirov.

One more thing which fails comprehension. Grandmaster, how in the world did Ehud contact you when it is impossible to email him, because he did not provide an email address. He could not have emailed you unless both of you communicate elsewhere and he would have known your email address off wiki. Please provide some explanations here as someone can not contact if that person does not have an email address set. - Fedayee (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, I don't believe Wikipedia registration anywhere says that new user needs to ask approval of Fedayee to register a certain name. Ehud has a right for his name as well as his claimed identity. I don't know what makes you believe that you're granted a right to question someone's ethnicity and use that as a justification for blocking him. There are thousands of Jews and mixed people living in Azerbaijan, often under Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, or mixture of names. And I believe you need to one more time review WP:HARASS. Adil Baguirov has a publicly available profile, major webpage, publications, which everyone can view, read and interpret, and already have been discussed across various articles in Wikipedia, such as Azerbaijan for example. Where is your proof that everyone reciting his writing is just him? Atabek (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And Fedayee, per your claim from your report that "Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil Baguirov" - here [41]. Is this also Adil Baguirov? Again, I believe administrators need to be seriously familiar with the topic of the conflict, before reading your report and making conclusions over it to block people. Atabek (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not his claimed identity which is given justification, but the fact that he created sockpuppets to sound as neutral non-Azeri or non-Armenian contributors. There are thousands of Jews living in Azerbaijan, but Lesar is not an Azerbaijani Jew name and Fedayee proved that in his evidence.

This is becoming ridiculous, do you really think that the claim that Ehud might be reciting Adil publications hold water? No one bothered reading or reciting his work on Geycha alleged republic here on Wikipedia, but Ehud Lesar, who happens to have registered hours after it was a confirmed that Adil will be banned. This same person who happens to have read something which was not used by any other contributor, also was the only one who was missing when Adil's sockpuppets were at their pick, and the sockpuppets only stopped when Ehud reappeared. There was a clear correlation between Ehud's presence and the end of the sockpuppetry issue. Also the Church of Kish, which was again obviously created using Adil’s OR and you guys continued editing it. Then when it was questioned, Ehud came in and defended using Adil’s OR or the other socks which were at the time just recently blocked.

Also Atabek, you misunderstood Ehud's claims. The link you provide relates to 1992, where few Azeris near Sevan and Zangezur created a flag claiming independence as opposition to the declaration of the NKR. Adil Baguirov's claim has nothing to do with that flag, his claims are pre Soviet Union. In fact, the only claim on the web coming close to it, is from Adil’s website. VartanM (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, there was a South-West Caucasus Republic in 1918, an unrecognized Muslim Turkic state created for few months on the territory of Erivan governorate, what's now called Armenia. There is a reference and as far as I remember a whole paragraph or two about it in Firuz Kazemzadeh, Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921, New York Philosophical Library, 1951. Also, there were 200,000 Azeris prior to final exodus from Armenia in 1988, and the historical name of "Sevan" is Lake Goycha (Gokcha), that's how it's recorded on maps in references of that period. What Adil was doing with Zangezur and Goycha, and whether Ehud was reading his material online or not, is the separate business. But you can't claim that this was Adil also. Atabek (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This case can be easily resolved. One of the admins needs to contact Ehud and verify that he is a real person, and not a sock. This can be done by phone call, chat or even a webcam chat. There are many ways of doing it. So far none of the admins even attempted to do that, and this shows that no serious investigation has been conducted. Strange appearance of Khoikhoi after many months of absence also shows that he was apparently contacted off wiki and given misleading info. There were too many arbitration cases covering Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, do we really need another one? Why this issue cannot be resolved without the need to get involved in a lengthy litigation? Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi independently reviewed the contributions of this user over a long period of time. I was informed that Khoikhoi was reading through this user's contributions more than a month ago. This tells me that he did not make some quick decision. He examined the user's contributions, and found evidence of a connection to AdilBaguirov. I contacted Ehud about confirming his identity. He suggested a webcam chat. A webcam chat or a phone call would not prove anything. How would I know from a webcam chat or a phone call that I am talking to the real "Ehud Lesar"? Also, put aside the AA differences (doubt this will happen, but it's worth the suggestion). It seems this whole issue has escalated to mudslinging from both sides. I will ask some other uninvoled administrators to review the evidence and make their judgments. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is what I'm asking for, a real investigation, and not a block based on personal assumptions. Webcam is not the only way of proof, Ehud can give you more personal details proving that he is a real person. Just ask him for whatever proof you need. It is no good that you don't even attempt to make any real check. Also, I find it very strange how some admins handle this sort of issues. Just a few days ago a compelling evidence of disruptive activity of User:Andranikpasha across multiple wikimedia projects, English wikipedia included, was presented, but no action has been taken against that user. [42] At the same time Ehud was blocked without any real evidence or investigation. Is this a proper way of dealing with this sort of issues? Grandmaster (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

• Ehud account was created the same day it was confirmed that AdilBaguriov will be blocked for a year by AA1
• Ehud Lesar claims to be Askeranzi Jew from Azerbaijan, but the last name is not Azkeranzi and neither it is Azerbaijani Jewish
• Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do
• Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic[43] and has writen about it extensivly.
• Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.
• Ehud never contributed when there were other Adil socks and only came back when others were blocked.
• Adil's socks so far impersonated Armenians, Jews, Russians and English.

There are way to many coincidences to AGF and think otehrwise. VartanM (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the above is a proof that Ehud is a sock and does not exist in real life. Admins need to verify his personality, and Ehud is willing to cooperate. Grandmaster (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another non-confirmed, blocked as a SPA, then unblocked, most likely Adil account [44], Batabat also claimed that his not an Azerbaijani, voted in support of Atabek and Grandmaster and pressured administrators that he wanted to call them and that he can prove it on webcam[45]. We've been habituated with Adil's tricks long enough. There should be limits to all of this. VartanM (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look at you arguments.

Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do

And you and Andranikpasha edited the same articles, to which most of other Armenian users did not contribute, does it mean that you two are socks? Of course not.

Ehud edit warred in the Church of Kish article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic [46] and has writen about it extensivly.

Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.

There are plenty of publications about both church and Geycha in Azerbaijani press, the fact that you are not aware of any is not a proof that Ehud is a sock. I mean how can anyone seriously consider such arguments as a basis for a permanent block? And Batabat was not a sock either, the allegations about him were proven false. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, where is this going to end. Grandmaster, if Batabat is not Adil, then he is some clone. These are his first four contributions on Wikipedia. [47], [48], [49], [50]. Very Adil (we can actually use his name as a verb now) of him to replace Persian with Turkic. Then the next thing he does is to go to Khoikhoi's talkpage to defend Adil, ehmmm…, I mean "Dr. Baguirov" from his words. [51], [52]. Then the next thing he does, he votes to keep the FORK article [53], [54], which was deleted regardless after you guys voted en mass by coordination to keep it. Then he voted with you guys to oppose an FA article. [55] He becomes member of the Azerbaijan Wikiproject. [56] Then he pushes Adil’s sarcasm to its end, with a 100% Adil comment on his userpage. [57] After that comment he is blocked as a sock. This obvious sock then wants to be unblocked. [58], he emails an Admin and wants the email to be posted here. [59] Check the similarities, he proposed to call him or webcam him to prove his identity. Batabat after being unblocked claims that he has to finish two books excusing his future absence. [60] This was on March 13, two days after the Church of Kish article was created. The logical explanation would be that the email to the Admin was made hours or a day or two later, which closes the gap for those two days. Fedayee’s assertions are without a doubt correct, such obvious cases with a mountain of evidence would nomrlaly not even require a checkuser. Also Gm, your claim as well as Atabeks on so called "Geycha" does not make sense. Firuz Kazamzadeh's reference was regarding the Ottoman backed territory, which was away from "Geycha", "Geycha" wasn’t even included in the maps of the Azeri representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. Only Adil came up with these bogus claims. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, your speculations are not a proof of Ehud being a sock. The Geycha argument is simply ridiculous. Since when two different people cannot mention the same topic? How could that be considered a proof of sockpupputery? Then Hetoum and Meowy are socks, because they tried to use the same Armenian source on Church of Kish. Any independent and real investigation will prove that Ehud and Adil are not related, and I'm gonna get such investigation carried out. For the moment I'm just trying to work out some solution that could help us avoid lengthy litigations. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not two different people. It's the same person. Best case scenario a single purpose account and a meatpuppet but i'm still convinced it's just another one of his socks. Look how many socks Adil had and just like with this one, you used to claim that his other socks weren't socks either yet we saw how that turned out. The evidence against Adil's sock Ehud is a lot more than just both of them using the same source. You know Hetoum and Meowy have nothing to do with eachother so what's the point of your analogy? I find it odd that you are spending so much time on Adil and his socks instead of contributing to articles like you used to ages ago. No Azeri articles in need of improvement?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"I just received a communication from Ehud" Ehud doesn't have an email address[61]. How did he contact you? Where did he get your email address? VartanM (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud emailed me a couple of days ago, after this whole harassment campaign against him started. I did provide my email address, and I receive plenty of communication from wiki editors, Armenian users included, btw. Is this against the rules or what? Grandmaster (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud doesn't have an email in his account, he could not have emailed you, unless he knew your email address before hand. Do you have a diff where he asks you or you give him your email address? VartanM (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true, he can email to anyone, who hasn't disabled receiving through Wikipedia, even if he disabled receiving email from Wikipedia to his email account. Once he emails someone, his address becomes available for reply through regular email interface of the respondent. Atabek (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how he did it, but he emailed me. If he chose not to receive email from other users, it does not mean that he doesn't have an email in his account. He might have chosen not to receive mail from others, but in that case he can still email other users. And what does it matter? Does it somehow prove that Ehud does not exist in real life and is a sock? Grandmaster (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been in communication via email with me as well. He first emailed me to thank him for unblocking, then again when he was confused about not being able to edit again (not realizing he had been reblocked). Since then, I've received several additional emails regarding his desire to prove his identity. Apparently, Adil lives in DC or NY. Ehud, according to himself, resides in TX. He has offered to do a webchat, log onto Wikipedia and post whatever I request on his talk page while on cam. If that's not enough, he seems willing to do what's necessary to prove his identity. Lara❤Love 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM and others, you can email any contributor while being blocked, by using "E-mail this User" feature, on the left hand side of the menu. This can be done as long as both sender and recipient have email address added to their Wikipedia account. It's frankly a waste of time to question these technical features.

Per your comment above, VartanM, what's really ridiculous is that a group of 3-4 people attributes one person to another without having any physical evidence of identity, having checkuser turned down, with a clear purpose, of eliminating the contributor, just because he claims to be Jewish and supports "the other party". I am not sure how far does Wikipedia go in terms of "presumption of innocence" or what's known here as WP:AGF. But I don't see it as normal that user gets blocked first based on obviously dubious report, no checkuser evidence, and supported by some admins and rejected by others, and only then, while blocked, is being asked to help prove that he is himself, and not someone else. Moreover, he is being charged that his username is inappropriate and he should call himself something else just because other party wants so. How does username Ehud Lesar violate any Wikipedia rule?

And Nishkid64, per your comment that Khoikhoi was reviewing evidence for several months, are you claiming that Khoikhoi was absent from Wikipedia for 2 months just to review claims against Ehud Lesar vs. Adil Baguirov? Interesting, I wonder what would be a reason for such a strong interest on behalf of what you perceive as a neutral admin, so as to take a time off Wikipedia for that. And I wonder why far more serious and checkuser confirmed allegations like this [[62]] and with relevant discussion on ANI are simply ignored, while all concentrate on fact-lacking report of Fedayee. Atabek (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM and Fedayee, apart from this comment of Fedayee: The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, falling simply under WP:HARASS policy, what do you mean by most Jews in Azerbaijan, how about those who are not most? I shall remind you that President of Armenia, Robert Kocharian's last name, comes from Turkish word "kochari", which translates as nomad/migrant. So do many other Armenian last names have Turkic roots. Does it mean that he is not from Armenia but something else? Such form of claims are simply baseless. Atabek (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a really strange situation. A couple of admins blocked a guy for no good reason, claming that he was a sock despite the lack of any evidence, now the guy who was blocked says that he is willing to prove that he is not a sock, but whatever he suggests is being rejected. Webcam is no good, it might be someone else sitting there, phone call is no good for the same reason, well then, Nishkid64, you propose something. We know that you are a good admin with plenty of knowledge about Wikipedia system. What does it take to prove that one is a real person and not a sock? What kind of proof do you want? Name it, Ehud said that he is willing to cooperate and provide any evidence that is necessary, he just wants to know what exactly he needs to do to prove that he exists in real life. We are all human begins, we all make mistakes, and admins make mistakes too. But if a mistake is made, there should be some way of correcting it. What is it in a situation like this? Any useful advice will be appreciated. Grandmaster (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, Ehud claims to be from Texas. Coincidentally, Adil Baguirov works for an energy consulting firm based out of Houston, Texas and Washington, D.C. Grandmaster, I would like to see some sort of documentation (passport, for example; he can blank out sensitive info with a screenshot), but I'm not even sure if Ehud's willing to consent to that. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you know how many people live in Texas. It's not a small village, is it? If Ehud presents you the proof that you want, will you lift his block? Grandmaster (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, mind WP:PRIVACY? To be honest, this is a first time I see an administrator publicly asking for someone's passport number at ANI. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate for you to contact Ehud directly and discuss with him what you need, just like Lara says she did above, instead of reposting sensitive information here. And nice comment about Texas :), and George Bush is from Crawford, Texas and lives in Washington D.C. too, he could be Adil's sock. Hope someone still has a sense of humor in this whole ordeal. Atabek (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, it was only a suggestion. I'm fully aware of WP:PRIVACY, and I know that he can refuse if he wants to. There is no sensitive information (how could talk about a passport be sensitive???) posted here. Ehud suggested the same thing (webcam chat) to Lara as he did to me. I argued that it wouldn't prove any identity. If you have ideas for a definite ID confirmation that would not violate Ehud's privacy, let me know. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've advised Ehud to send an image of his identification showing photo and name through WP:OFFICE. So let's allow this time to happen. Lara❤Love 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lara, as VartanM said, he can send you id of his friend, that is not going to prove his identity. I think the only reliable way is to verify that IP address used is not registered for person under name Adil. This way we can find out if he is Adil (in case his name is registered as user of the IP address) but he might have been using public places for internet, so it might not work as well. Steelmate (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I think this guy is Adil, as many people have identified, otherwise why would they? I am a new user as well but nobody identified me to be a sockpuppet of anybody else, be it Adil or Artaxaid or other "smart" people... Grandmaster could have been sockpuppet of Adil that he is running for more then 2 years, but also no claims regarding him being sockpuppet of Adil. Unfortunately the Wikipedia has no technical measures to establish identity of the user. So people remain it's main force that can bring forward evidences of his activity. Steelmate (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Lesar family lives indeed in Texas, like Ehud Lesar (because he's Adil Baguirov) as Ehud confirmed himself. Adil works as an energy consultant in Houston Texas from where the Lesar family runs its Halliburton: [63]

Lesar family and Adil Baguirov work together for the construction of pipelines to export oil from Azerbaijan. I wonder how further Atabek wants this to be pushed, I didn't want to post this piece of evidence but you guys have pushed me to do it. I have more involving more users. I am done with this. So Lara, they will furnish you any evidence you want, they have all the resources they want, they could have one of the members of the Lesar family furnish their ID to have Adil here if they wanted. We're dealing with more than just innocent members. You don't know the situation, some Admins like Khoikhoi are aware of it. - Fedayee (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, none of your speculations is a proof that Ehud is a sock. It is a pity that people in Wikipedia can be banned on the basis of speculations, without any real proof of being socks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your way of dismissing evidence and then claiming no evidence has been provided is starting to be fishy. Grandmaster, don't you realise that you are accusing a couple of Admins to have blocked someone without evidence when they said the evidence is compelling? Do you mean to say that they are lying? The house is on fire and you dismiss it claiming that the claim of fire is speculation. Adil has used the name of the Lesar family one of his clients to post here; I think the gravity of the situation would require an indefinite block on Adil's account as such actions are unacceptable. - Fedayee (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There's simply no evidence to address. Admins are human being and can make mistakes. What you call "evidence" is simply a collection of unrelated diffs which prove nothing. i addressed some of Vartan's claims above. Compelling evidence would be something like this: [64], which for some strange reason resulted in no action. This particular issue can be resolved very simply by verifying the existence of Ehud in real life. So far we have not received any clear instructions on how to do that. From what I see, no matter what Ehud does to prove his existence, it will be rejected by certain people, who are unwilling to accept that they made a mistake accusing this user. The gravity of the situation actually requires immediate investigation of all circumstances that resulted in this block and how certain users were lobbying for it. But I hope the issue will be resolved without the need to take it to other authorities. Grandmaster (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, putting our national conflict aside, I am saying this as someone who has contributed alongside you for a long time. Disengage yourself from this; you will say things which you may regret. Claiming no evidence and so energetically pushing this makes this whole affair sound even fishier. And your comparison with Andranikpasha’s case can under the circumstance sound as you are attempting the change the subject. Grandmaster the evidence provided on Andranikpasha was not denied; we questioned its validity in regards to Andranikpasha’s contribution here on English Wikipedia, where he is behaving. So under no circumstances can it be called dismissal of evidence. - Fedayee (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I disengage myself from this and let the innocent person remained blocked for no reason at all? On the contrary, I will be actively engaged in this until the problem is resolved, and I always stand by whatever I say. I don’t see that I said something that needs regretting. As for the rest, were these edits not made in en wiki? Grandmaster (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, given the possible relations between Atabek and Adil off-wiki, how strong would that make Atabek’s case if the Arbitration committee concludes it is Adil? You claim innocent person but you didn’t have any problem with Azizbekov being banned even though he was not a sock of a banned user. I didn’t see you do anything anywhere else like you do here. In fact, your persistence is unusual; this is why I asked you to disengage. The evidence for you would not look as one, but they do for others and your way to claim there was no evidence sounds only fishier. - Fedayee (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from blocking admin

Hi all. Before I explain my reasons for my block, I would like to request that people assume good faith on my part. Although I have been inactive, I still check up on these kind of things from time to time. I have known Adil for years, and this type of behavior matches that of all his other socks in addition to Adil himself. It was very typical of Adil to come out of nowhere and jump into edit wars ([65], [66]). In addition, compare some of his comments ([67], [68]) to Adil's messages ([69], [70]). Dmcdevit said on his talk page, "this will need an admin to make a judgment call based on behavior", and that's exactly what I did. Khoikhoi 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi. I'm glad that you joined this discussion. No one is assuming bad faith here with regard to your intentions, but people make mistakes, and this clearly is the case here. Ehud is a real person in real life, and not anyone's sock. He is willing to prove that, and I hope you will make some time to talk to him. Grandmaster (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I fail to see any similarity in the diffs that you posted. Maybe it is just me and you could explain us which line or part you believe is similar? You are making a mistake, and it is not too late to correct it. Just give Ehud a chance, talk to him in person.

And the argument that coming out of nowhere and jumping into edit wars was very typical of Adil does not make much sense to me either. If we use it as a basis for a permanent block, I can recommend analyzing behavior of a number of other people here. Fresh example, almost every Armenian editor turned up to vote for deletion of the category of Azerbaijani khanates: [71]

Some of those users turned up after quite a prolonged absence for the sole purpose of voting there. See for example User:Davo88, who has not contributed since 11 December 2007, but somehow became aware of the voting on 5 January. Before voting he made only one edit in December, one edit in November, and no edits in October. [72] Is Davo a sock? Using the same logic, he must be. I mean, we need to be reasonable here and give Ehud a fair chance to prove his existence. He has a right to keep his real life identity secret, plus, even presenting a scan of ID is not considered a sufficient proof by some people here. Ok then, what is the way for a blocked user to prove that he is not a sock? Is there any at all? I know Khoikhoi for many years as a fair admin, and I'm sure he will help us to find a way of resolving this issue. Grandmaster (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, assuming good faith with regards to your actions, can you please, provide a list of conditions/requirements that must be met in order to confirm Ehud Lesar's identity is not that of Adil. It seems like Nishkid laid out some conditions, but then whatever is done does not work for him, and seems like the objective is simply to keep Ehud Lesar blocked and off the Wikipedia and permanently accuse Adil of socks without any real proof. It's really disturbing that a contributor on Wikipedia can be just accused and blocked without any real proof of identity, moreover, accused by Fedayee of not being truly Jewish. Are you supportive of such line of argument? Users Fedayee, VartanM, Andranikpasha always show up on various pages in order or simultaneously and revert, etc. often bringing similar positions as say banned Artaxiad (with 34 checkuser confirmed sock accounts) and Fadix. But this does not establish a ground to assume summarily, without proof of identity, that they're socks of each other. So, I simply ask for some reasonable approach, perhaps, contacting both Adil (whom you know for years) and Ehud, and confirming their separate identity, by defining your conditions. Moreover, this kind of summary block of checkuser unrelated users establishes a dangerous precedent. Who can guarantee that tomorrow one of the conflicting sides will not try to establish a sock account posing as the user from the opposite side, making similar edits, just to get that long-time user blocked? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is an effective way to prove real-life identity in this case without having Ehud edit with a trusted user looking over his shoulder (literally) while the banned user (who is actually willing to cooperate here) edits at the same time (even then, some may argue that the password for the latter was given to a proxy). Short of a polygraph test, what can he do? El_C 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Is there some sort of an established procedure that needs to be followed in situations like this? Grandmaster (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud refused to provide identification to me. However, I told him he could send the picture of his passport through WP:OFFICE. He said he would do this. We'll see what happens now. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A picture is hardly any evidence... - Fedayee (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the burden of proof is being placed on the accused. If you can't prove he is a sock, I don't see how you have a right to block him. If there is only speculation and assumption regarding possible sockpuppetry, he should be treated as an individual editor and any action should be based on his editing patterns as opposed to those of another, in this case Adil. If he's edit-warring, having civility or NPA issues, then block accordingly. Otherwise, leave him to his editing. Lara❤Love 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is contribution evidence linking Ehud to Adil. There are certain things that Adil did in his edits. These things have also been found in Ehud Lesar's editing. I don't see how that's speculation or assumptions. The people who say he is not a sock are the ones who Ehud sides with - the Azeris (Grandmaster and Atabek). They are just dismissing Fedayee's evidence and Khoikhoi's analysis of the contributions because they do not want to lose one of "their" editors and they think this is some ethnically-motivated block (apparently, they think that because an Armenian provided the bulk of the evidence in the case, then it must be clearly biased). So far, they argue that Ehud's innocence can be proven by his real-life identity. I haven't seen any of the Azeris show on-wiki evidence, showing that Ehud is not AdilBaguirov. Lara, there's another thing you should know about the AA case. Most of these editors (both Azeris and Armenians) spend their time edit warring and making Wikipedia a battleground. This is why the dispute has gone to ArbCom twice. Adil was banned until February 2008 (later extended to August) because he was one of the worst offenders. Since then, Adil has resurfaced under a number of socks, some of which were never detected by CheckUser. When you see evidence that a new editor, who just happened to start editing at the same time it was determined that Adil would be banned from Wikipedia, makes contributions similar to those of AdilBaguirov, then you naturally will suspect that there might be something going on. Fedayee provided a comprehensive list of similarities in the contributions of these two editors. Khoikhoi, an admin on Wikipedia who has spent more than 2 years in the midst of the AA situation, examined the contributions of Ehud Lesar, and found that he was definitely a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that there are four (possibly 5, if you include Daniel Case, who declined the unblock request) neutral administrators (FrancisTyers, Khoikhoi, Alex Bakharev and myself) who independently determined that Ehud was a sockpuppet, by looking through the user's contributions and/or through Fedayee's evidence. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Lara, Adil has used countless socks and many are not on the list right now. Did you take a look at Batabat, the same claim, the same request… he wanted to call and webchat. We aren’t even talking about any evidence. We are not dealing with a user who was banned then is using another sock, we are dealing with a user who runs this account in parallel to several others to disrupt. Then let’s invite other banned users and say as you say. Adil is living in Houston Texas and Washington DC. I guess he didn’t mention you this important piece about Texas. Even the location points to him, neither that one of his major client is the Lesar family (and that he usurped their name). And we aren’t even at the beginning there as we aren’t even discussing about the conflict of interest and Adil’s involvement off wiki, including meatpuppeting off wiki to bring people to fight Armenian propaganda. - Fedayee (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Davo has been a member of Wikipedia for nearly two years, and you know why he does not contribute much on English Wikipedia and you kow that he still checks it. Stop using analogies which you know aren’t accurate.

You never have you addressed all the evidence posted here, on my evidence page and the arbitration enforcement. Singling some of them and answering to them with obviously wrong analogies is far from dismissing the evidence provided. When taking all the evidence together and treated together, there can be no resonable doubt. - Fedayee (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 is providing inaccurate info by saying that only Azeris dismiss Fedayee's info. Fedayee's allegations were rejected at WP:AE board by at least 3 admins: [73] If the evidence was so compelling, why do you think it was rejected before? I think Nishkid64's persistence to have Ehud blocked is simply gonna result in another arbcom case on this topic. We still haven't received any explanation what a blocked person needs to do to prove that he is not a sock and why someone actually needs to prove that he is not sock, when there's no proof that he is a sock? Nishkid64 is simply siding with one of the sides of the dispute, i.e. with Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors, blindly accepting their "evidences" and not giving the unfairly blocked user any chance to defend himself. Such approach is not acceptable, and will lead only to further escalation of the conflict in this part of Wikipedia, which as we know usually result in another arbcom case. Grandmaster (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are escalting things unnecessarily. You are also exaggerating Ehud as an editor and misleading everyone else by polarizing this case as "us vs them". What does it mean: Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors? That's quite strong language there. Ehud is by no means just another Azeri editor as Grandmaster is trying to portray him. Some might even read your last few comments as borderline threats. Again, any neutral party reading the mountain of evidence compiled against Ehud can tell that it's a single purpose account and a sock of Adil. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a response to Nishkid, who actually introduced this us vs them terminology in this thread. He said in his above post: The people who say he is not a sock are the ones who Ehud sides with - the Azeris (Grandmaster and Atabek). Somehow he failed to mention that neither Lara, no admins at AE board are Azeris. Using Nishkid's language, people who were lobbying for Ehud's block belong to another national group. I don't see any necessity to stress national affiliation here, but since Nishkid started doing it, I have to address it. Grandmaster (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee's original claims were unfounded, because uninvolved admins at AE did not have any specifics of sockpuppetry. Much of the admin involvement came before Fedayee had organized his evidence and posted it on a user subpage. Picaroon commented that he wanted more behavioral similarities and that he was a bit confused about the whole Geycha thing. Jayvdb read it, but never commented on its merits, as far as I know. Thatcher closed the discussion because there was "no confirmation of sockpuppetry" and placed Ehud Lesar on revert parole. Judging from this, I don't even think Thatcher read the evidence. He made his judgment based on the discussion of AE. So, Fedayee's allegations were not rejected or dismissed at AE by at least 3 administrators, as Grandmaster claims. In fact, it appears only one user actually commented on Fedayee's evidence - Picaroon. Apparently, he wanted some sort of behavioral analysis of the two users' editing patterns. I don't take sides in the AA dispute. I just enforce policy. I did not blindly accept their evidence. I also told Ehud Lesar last night on Google Talk (read above) to send a picture of his passport through WP:OFFICE. I've been more than cooperative in these dealings. As for the "us vs. them" thing, I only brought it up because of your numerous references to AA ArbCom cases and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan. Also, my previous response was directed to LaraLove. Why would I would refer to her if I'm talking directly to her? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that threads at WP:AE are being closed without actually being read? If not, what in your opinion "no confirmation of sockpuppetry" supposed to mean? Grandmaster (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See the diff I posted of Thatcher's contributions. He closed the Eupator section on AE at 03:06, 31 December 2007, and the Ehud Lesar section two minutes later. The time differences for his previous contributions show that he was editing every few minutes. I don't think you could grasp all the evidence posted by Fedayee in just a few minutes. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not mean that he did not read the page before, while discussion was in progress. Grandmaster (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is my take on this situation. I know that I am as qualified as the other side, but I think my insides should be considered. First of all guys, the evidence posted here alone should be enough not even needing to read what is on Fedayee's page. The relation between Adil and the Lesar family should not have been exposed here. It is obvious that Adil made a mistake by choosing this name without the knowledge of the Lesar family. So it is understandable that he will try to do everything to prove he is not Adil. We are dealing with a potential usurpation from Adil’s part of the family name of one of his clients. I acknowledge that by saying this: I am not making things more simpler because now Adil will be attempting with more energy to prove that he is not Adil, but given the evidence, this leaves no doubt anymore. It is Adil’s interest to bring this to arbitration because he has nothing to lose. So all the administrators involved here should prepare more evidence (I don’t believe more is needed though). If the block becomes definitive, it is also maybe a good idea to contact the Lesar family to report Adil's abuse. It’s their family name which is used to post this nationalistic bombast and nonsense anyways. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will I be not assuming good faith if I point out that Grandmaster wrote above: with Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors,... Correct me if I am wrong, but did I miss something? Was Ehud Lesar not claiming to be Ashkenazi Jew? If Grandmaster is admitting that he is an Azerbaijani editor he is basically admitting that Ehud Lesar was a fake name. I wonder what are the chances that there is an Azerbaijani Jew with a Sephardic name (Sephardics are a very small minority of the Jews from Azerbaijan) living in Texas mysteriously just like Adil, and where the Lesar family lives. Whitepages don't have any records about Ehud Lesar, and most if not all Lesar’s from Texas are from the Lesar family. One way is to contact David J. Lesar, he probably knows all the Lesar's from his hometown. But what I suggest is for Adil to drop this and leave it at that, because I personally will not accept some pictures which can easily be forged as valid evidence. I am just fed up with this, Armenian and Azerbaijani editors have enough problems to coexist on Wikipedia without Adil's disruptions. VartanM (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, your argument about Ehud Lesar's username has absolutely no relevance to the question whether he is Adil or not. There is no Wikipedia rule that says a contributor is not allowed to register a username of his choice. Just because MarshallBagramyan has a username does not mean he is Marshall Bagramyan. In fact, such arguments as questioning contributor's ethnic identity based on his username or to claim that person being a sockpuppet of another is simply a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY.

Nishkid, your argument that only Azeri contributors are in support of Ehud not being Adil is an accusation without basis and an assumption of bad faith as:

• 1) You have so far produced no legible proof that Ehud is Adil, but only trying to justify the block after fact;
• 2) Just about every Armenian (that's opposite party) contributor above has been commenting claiming Ehud is Adil's sock, having no proofs either.

So there is an obvious interest to get rid of a contributor along national lines. And now you're essentially accusing myself or Grandmaster of lying that Ehud is not Adil, pouring accusation on a banned User:AdilBaguirov, who can't even defend himself here, and blocking another contributor User:Ehud Lesar based on VartanM or Fedayee's ethnic claim that "he is not a Jew" (as if that disqualifies someone from editing Wikipedia). This does not seem to be quite neutral administration, especially when you have no proofs for your accusation.

And it does not matter if 4 or 104 administrators support you, this is about finding the truth, clearing people of false charges, and preventing from future dangerous precedents of frivolous blocking. Ehud Lesar case should be pursued further, and if necessary, with the involvement of ArbCom and User:Jimbo Wales, until his identity and baseless charges against him are cleared. I personally will seek no further interest in editing Wikipedia, if people are just being blocked frivolously just because someone else accuses the person of not being Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jew. Supporting such reports by an administrative action, in my opinion, is a gross violation of any form of civility let it alone the definition of the term free encyclopedia. Atabek (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be definitely be pursuing this further until the issue is resolved. But at the moment I'm trying to get the problem resolved by consensus with the blocking admins. If it does not work, we will have to take further steps prescribed by Wikipedia rules for the dispute resolution. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the diffs provided by Fedayee, Khoikhoi, VartanM and others not evidence? I have provided evidence. You claim it's all ethnically motivated (what does Geycha have to do with Judaism?). Also, am I not allowed to defend my own block? I've been more than willing to listen to people who debate the sockpuppetry claim. However, none of you have provided any sufficient evidence arguing otherwise. You have now resorted to accusations of ethnic discrimination and you claim that there is no evidence at all. Provide diffs or other proof. If you can't do so, then leave the matter alone. Your intimidation techniques are not going to scare me into unblocking Ehud Lesar without any proof showing that he's not a sockpuppet. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to WP:FURG. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (Twinkle adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --Thinboy00 @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with WP:FURG, otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current use of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he has a large number of these things, none of which provide a valid fair use rationale. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. WP:FURG is a guideline, and execptions are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --Thinboy00 @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --Thinboy00 @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --Thinboy00 @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: Image:HalRoach 001a.jpg. Did you read WP:FURG before uploading? This is what it looked like at the time. Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --Thinboy00 @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't delete articles with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. Wikidemo (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there were templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pats1

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we assume best case. I think you should read WP:AGF and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously don't want to do, but will if we have to. You might try Mediation. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to Arbitration, but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an RFC, or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --Thinboy00 @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. RFC is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as RFC, Arbitration, Mediation I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .

[Special:Contributions/72.0.36.36|72.0.36.36]] (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath for too long... Pats1 ^T/C 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when Pats1 (talk · contribs) got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{trivia}} from the Ted Ginn, Jr. article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Pats1 attitude

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks Ksy92003 I appreciate the review.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." Pats1 ^T/C 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Ksy92003(talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and Politik426. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pats 1 uncivil?

Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Wikipedia processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. Pats1 ^T/C 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not thinkKsy92003's opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber

Turtescrubber is inserting material into an article that is already in the article. I reverted here, and he reverted back. I do not want to get into an edit war, and so the article now contains several paragraphs that are repeated twice. Perhaps an admin could look into it?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, Ferrylodge has been blocked before, several times before, see [74]. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) But not Turtlescrubber, see [

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Turtlescrubber]. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And does that end the discussion, Bearian? ArbCom overturned the ban against me. How is that relevant to the issue I raised above?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is going against an article consensus that left the article locked for weeks. He never really accepted the consensus to keep the section in the article and has a horrible case of wp:own. He has worn all the editors on the page down with his constant bickering. I cant take him anymore. I recently stood up for him when a group of editors wanted him to be banned again, I wish I hadn't. I cannot assume good faith with him anymore. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point. Bearian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, no article should contain multiple duplicate paragraphs. This article was previously protected in response to edit-warring by, among others, Turtlescrubber. Now he is edit-warring to repeat material that is already in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am following talk page consensus, something you obviously have a problem with. Why did you get banned in the first place. You were the one who stripped the article in the first place and you are slowly doing the same thing again. You should be ashamed of yourself. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "stripping" an article to remove duplicate paragraphs. There was no consensus anywhere to have duplicate paragraphs. You have repeatedly inserted duplicate paragraphs today, and that needs to stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, its a bad habit you have. You were, in part, responsible for the original protection of the page because you kept stripping the article of any religious content. Now you are slowly doing the same thing, first you remove the CONSENSUS Section on Mitt Romney's religion. When you have the material scattered throughout the page, you are going to slowly delete or "phase out" or the material. I have seen you do it before, there are reams on the talk page about this, you are going completely against consensus, again. The funny thing is that you wrote the damn section to get the page unblocked and as soon as it was unblocked you started whining and trying to dismantle the section and shuffle the information off into the void. You are a Mitt Romney supporter who does not like the fact that him being a mormon is detrimental to his election chances. You have a serious case of CONFLICT of INTEREST and you do not OWN the page, no matter how many edits you make. If anyone wants to see a good example of this users talk page and editing style, look to the fetus article talk page. Ferrylodge is doing the exact same thing there and pissing everybody off. Par for course. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

People can go see for themselves. Every paragraph that Turtlescrubber has jammed into the article today was already in the article. Now each of his preferred paragraphs appear twice in the article. Is this so complicated?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the consensus version. You are the one that went against consensus and scattered information throughout the page. If they appear twice then we should removed the scattered non-consensus material, then everybody is happy. Is that what you want? That would be fine with me. Instead, I think this is your excuse and the only argument you have. I say leave the consensus derived paragraphs in the article, it tooks us weeks to all agree on that section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of the consensus-derived sentences remained in this article, before you began edit-warring today to include duplicates of those sentences. The only exception is a sentence about Mrs. Romney's family, which is now located in the separate article about her.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section and placement of the section was part of the compromise. You know that. You have tried to undue the consensus multiple times. Once again, the fact that all the information is in one place in the article and the placement of that section were both parts of the consensus. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw a long time ago, Turtlescrubber edits suggests a very liberal political viewpoint and Ferrylodge a very conservative viewpoint (but not a goose stepping facist or racist). Censensus will be very difficult but can be achieved if BOTH want it. Saying that one was blocked but they were not is NOT the way to begin to achieve consensus.Congolese fufu (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a moderate and I have never run into you before. CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE, Ferrylodge is violating that consensus. It's in the archive. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seek the middle way between the two extremes. The best compromise I can think of is to merge the two sections together: everybody wins. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What two sections? And are you calling the hard won consensus made by weeks of discussion on the talk page one of the extremes? I don't see how following the consensus of a dozen editors, against one who eventually agreed, is an extreme. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no hard-won consensus to have multiple paragraphs about the subject's Mormonism, and then repeat every last one of those paragraphs twice for added emphasis. As I said in my first comment above, I'm not inclined to edit-war about this; as far as I'm concerned Tutrlescrubber can now go and reinsert the material again, so that it appears in triplicate.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sections, "Early life and education" and "Religious background". Talk page discussion by several users here seems to question whether consensus exists, so blaming Ferrylodge doesn't seem right. You also seem to be very angry and upset about this, when what is needed is calm appraisal. —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to read the entirety of the third archive and part of the fourth to see the consensus and the reaction that other users had when ferrylodge tried to break the consensus. I don't know how to link to specific sections in an archive. Ferrylodge has been trying to break the consensus from literaly day one. He was stopped immediately by the outcry of the many editors who had worked so long to gain the consensus. I have never been as frustrated with any editor that I have been with ferrylodge. Just look at his arguments on this page. They shift everytime he is wrong and he never stops. Its almost psychotic or obsessive compulsive. I understand why he got banned in the past. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My arguments on this page have not "shifted." No Wikipedia article should contain duplicate sentences, much less dozens of them. Inserting duplicate sentences strikes me as vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then lets keep the religious background section and remove the stray sentences. Everybody is happy. Deal? Or are you going to shift your argument again or just ignore this bolded comment? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I think I solved your complaint. Why aren't you responding? Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My response is below, at 04:42, 11 January 2008.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you changed your line of argumentation and ignored my original statement. You will keep doing that very thing ad infinitum until you exhaust the patience of everyone on this page.Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, this is why we should encourage page moves when archiving talk pages, as the diffs are preserved in each individual archive. If you can't find the links in the specific archive, then they are on the main talk page under the date, which means you have to go hunting. Let me address the problem another way. If you were willing to make a concession but also wanted Ferrylodge to do the same, how would you meet him half way? What part of this argument are you willing to give up, and in the same way, which aspect should Ferrylodge concede? —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do and I do appreciate it. My sticking point is the second section of the article should be the religious background section and most of the religious material should be kept therein. This was part of the consensus and it allows us to see when material is removed. I don't care about content. Good, bad, negative or positive.Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The reason I came here is because duplicative material should not be jammed into an article. All of the other issues are tangential, and should be worked out by consensus at the talk page.

I cannot think of a worse reason to keep a bunch of sentences grouped together than because "it allows us to see when material is removed." If you don't have the time or energy to watch the article or participate in the talk page, that's no reason why everyone else must arrange your favorite parts of the article in a format that will make them easier for you to monitor. And, again, the main point is that it is vandalism to take dozens of sentences in an article, copy them, and then redundantly paste them into the article.

When I invited Turtlescrubber to the talk page today, he declined. Turtlescrubber, if you would undo your duplicative edits, and come to the talk page, you'll see that none of the consensus-sentences about Romney's religion have been removed, except for one sentence about Romney's wife's family (which is now in the article about Romney's wife). The consensus-sentences have been put into several different sections of the article, to which those sentences correspond.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith from you ferrylodge. I have talked with you about this very subject dozens of times on the talk page as seen in the archives. We have talked about this over a period of many weeks. We had a consensus. You don't like it and want it changed. You will eventually scatter the material throughout the article and slowly delete it as you have started to do. That is why having it in a section is the only way to keep an eye on it. That is because of you and your obsessive need to "clean" your candidates article. You constantly edit the article and slip in changes when no ones looking. I am a normal persona and cannot keep up with the obsessive amounts of edits you make. Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Turtlescrubber, you can go to the history page of an article, and select any two versions to compare. You don't have to compare consecutive versions.

Additionally, as you know, you have made a grand total of one talk page comment this year. Here it is. You said, "I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page." As you must be able to acknowledge, I did not remove a single reference to religion from Mitt Romney's page, except for one sentence about his wife's family, which is now in the seperate article about his wife (although the editors there shortened it because they thought it was a "digression" even in the article about her [75]).

And getting back to the point: please stop duplicating your favorite material in the Mitt Romney article. Just because you want everyone to be aware of his Mormonism does not permit you to repeat dozens of sentences over and over again. That's vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. There would be no duplicate material. If "all other issues are tangential" than this should be a workable solution. What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Would that solution to the duplicate material work for you? Please answer yes or no and than say why! Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys actually looking for some action from an administrator here, or are you just bringing a content dispute to AN/I? Bringing an argument here probably isn't helping either one of you. There's WP:RFC for that. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Elkman, as I said in my first comment, I would very much appreciate some action from an administrator here. Isn't it vandalism for a user to insert duplicates of dozens of sentences in an article?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't bring this to the page. I just want to return to the consensus version and then I will be happy to leave the page alone. Jesus, do you want to remove the duplicate material. I'll do it. No problem. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I removed the duplicate material as per your concerns. I hope this situation is resolved. I am going to sleep. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus agreement

Hello everyone. I have taken a much-needed break from editing on Mitt Romney but I was right in the midst of the consensus discussions that Turtlescrubber refers to, and I will be glad to report what the consensus was at that time. But I am not willing to hunt down the diffs and I'm doing this from memory because I've already wasted too much of my life arguing with a tendentious editor on this and other matters. I am not going to get embroiled in this here or anywhere else - I don't have the time or the interest to respond to the volumes that I expect will ensue, based on previous experience. So I will report and I will leave and you can decide what to do about it.

Turtlescrubber is completely correct that the agreement that allowed the full protection to finally be lifted was that there would be a section on "Religious Background" as the second section of the article - that is, directly under "Early life and education". This was a consensus agreement, that included editors who had taken different positions initially. It was a compromise based on the Eisenhower model, but it didn't last too long before tinkering with it began. There were requests that the consensus agreement be left alone so that the article could enjoy some stability, but apparently that went out the window. There was certainly no agreement that once the page was unlocked the religion section could be dismantled and distributed throughout the article. There was a proposal to move only the second paragraph (I think it was the 2nd) to the Presidential campaign section, but no agreement that I know of was reached on that - I was one of the editors who said I might be willing to consider that but I never did agree to it. And in any case, part and parcel of my even being willing to consider it was that the Religious background section would remain as the 2nd section of the article, as many of us believe that his religion is one of the first things that people look for discussions of when they come to his article.

For that reason, I would totally oppose the dismantling of the religion section and never would have agreed to it if I were actively editing there now. I believe that breaking up of the religious background section is designed to downplay references to his being a Mormon, for whatever reason, and while I might not think that every biography should have a prominent religion section, I think this one needs to. Further, I think that the way the material has been edited has been in a not particularly neutral way - it seems to be also designed to remove any hint of negativity or critical view - again, you can decide for what reason, as I don't care to speculate right now.

Of course no one thinks that the material should be repeated in the article (other than perhaps an echo in the intro) - Ferrylodge is right about that. I would hope Turtlescrubber really didn't have that in mind as his final edit, and his bolded section above clearly indicates to me that he does not want the material duplicated. I think he was re-instating the section that had been agreed to, and I believe he'd agree to remove the duplication from the other sections if the consensus agreement to retain the separate section is respected.

If a new consensus has been reached, I don't know anything about it, and I acknowledge that consensus can change. But not by strong-arming, one would hope. As I said, I have been on a break from this article, and I may or may not go back to it - I haven't decided. But if this AN/I item is an indication of what's going on there, I'll be less likely to. I would have hoped that Ferrylodge's experience in being banned and having a arbitration lift the ban because of discomfort with the banning process would have shown him a different path, but it sounds like not that much has changed, which is unfortunate. I hope this helps, but I mean it - I really do not want to go another ten rounds with you, Ferrylodge. So try to resist temptation to invoke what you think my politics are and any other tactic, and see if you can respect the consensus that I and Cool Hand Luke and others worked really hard to achieve after a long period of full protection. One other thing: I have had absolutely no contact with Turtlescrubber or anyone else about this - no one asked me to come here and comment, I just saw it on AN/I and decided to try to help out. And I am sincere in that - I am only commenting here in an attempt to help. Tvoz |talk 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And, it looks like there was an almost simultaneous edit here and that Turtlescrubber removed the duplication - I haven't looked at it - so will the consensus Religious Background section be maintained? That no doubt will determine whether this matter is resolved or not. Tvoz |talk 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus works for me. I asked the guy four times if he wanted me to remove the duplicate material, if you hadn't come along he would have just changed his argument to the next silly thing he thought of. Resolved now. Super, I don't want to go any more rounds with ferrylodge either. I do have a life. ;) Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This matter has now been resolved, because Turtlescrubber has now removed dozens of sentences in the article that were duplicative as a result of his edits a few hours ago. I do not agree with the way he has taken ownership of this article, but at least he has removed the vandalism by not repeating his favorite parts of the article twice. I would also kindly request him to investigate more carefully in the future, before falsely accusing me of removing material from the article, and before edit-warring yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Real consensus

I don't believe you have a real consensus. You need to stop fighting. Tvoz and Turtlescrubber are known liberals and Ferrylodge is a known conservative. There is little attempt at consensus from what I can see. Can you please calm it down?

I take the yawn to be a disruptive comment.Congolese fufu (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Now I'm a "known liberal"? Who are you anyway - I've never even seen your name before so how exactly do you know who I am, and why are you denigrating my attempt to help out here? In case you didn't notice, I wasn't fighting, I was trying to help out by providing testimony as to what transpired before, and in case you didn't notice I'm not trying to re-achieve consensus, as I did that already. In fact I agreed with Ferrylodge that the material shouldn't be duplicated, and before I finished posting my comment Turtlescrubber had already removed the duplication. So maybe you should mind your own business and not characterize people's politics when you know nothing about them. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, don't remove other people's comments on AN/I - I reinstated a reply that Turtlescrubber made above that you took out without explanation or authority, as far as I can see. It's not your prerogative to remove what other people say in a forum like this. Tvoz |talk 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your name in the newspaper before I saw it on Wikipedia. If I divulge it, then it would potentially invade your privacy. Your name made national news. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, and you remembered it. I don't think so. Nowhere did it say anything about being a liberal, by the way, so try again. Or, on second thought, maybe don't. I'm done here. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the newspaper with me but another newspaper has a different article online. Just google "Tvoz". To find it higher in the search page, google "Tvoz wikipedia democrat". The article isn't the same but it talks about Wikipedia and Tvoz being a Democrat and Ferrylodge being a Republican. All I see in the above comment is hate. Read my comments and you will find that I have been completely neutral yet all I get are attacks. Congolese fufu (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for you two to go back to your corners and cool off. Congolese fufu, DO NOT remove other editors' comments from AN/I, unless it's blatant vandalism, even then let an admin remove it. Those kinds of tactics are a short path to a block, for sure. Tvoz, comments like "maybe you should mind your own business..." aren't really conducive to the situation either, are they? Someone needs to be the party here to rise above, take a step back, and get perspective. You're BOTH better than this.. Edit Centric (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::::Edit Centric, see your user talk page for explanation of Wikipedia software problem. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough. But I don't appreciate the baiting, and don't think it was deserved. I was trying to help. Cheers. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Understood. However, you're both equally ferrying the spat down the Wiki-river, fufu by baiting with the whole "known liberals" thing, and tvoz by taking umbrage (while justified) in such a way as to be bordering on incivility. Tvoz, keep the helpful attitude, no matter what, and you'll be ahead of the game. Congolese fufu, drop the party-line talk, and concentrate on the article. Both of you try to find some middle ground, and work toward the betterment of the article, and the forwarding of knowledge to the end-reader. That's the aim here. Edit Centric (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Equally"? If you say so. Seems to me there's a difference between baiting someone without cause (I have had no dealings with this person, at least not under that username) and calling someone on doing the baiting, even if a bit pointedly - but so be it. And his helpful instructions here and on a couple of talk pages on how to find my name in case anyone missed it were gratuitous and irrelevant, and could be grounds for an AN/I incident report of my own as they would seem to be against policy. (Curious, too, that he claims to have read the newspaper article - there is only one - and remembered my name and my politics, yet the article came out in September before his account was even created.) CF is not an editor on Romney as far as I know, and I've been staying away from it recently, so there's no middle ground to be sought. I was not involved in this current dispute, my aim here was to help get that process back on track, as I know the two editors who were in the dispute and some factual background seemed to me like it might help break their logjam. No good deed goes unpunished, however. After over 9,600 edits you'd think I'd remember that. Cheers, again. Tvoz |talk 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What admins can do if you bring a dispute here

If you want action from an administrator, here are some things an administrator could do:

• Protect the page for a while until the differences are ironed out. Of course, protecting the page at one editor's preferred version would make the other editor unhappy.
• Call one editor's edits "vandalism" and roll back their edits. Wikipedia:Vandalism says that content disputes aren't vandalism, though.
• Block one user from editing, but not the other. This won't fix anything; it'll just anger one of the users and encourage the other one to gloat in victory.
• Block both users. This might quiet things down for a while, but it won't make anyone feel better.
• Delete the article outright. Nope, I'm not doing that.
• Attempt to determine who's right and who's wrong, based on Wikipedia policies. I could spend the next half-hour or so doing that, but that won't help achieve consensus.
• Stop reading AN/I and play Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock for a little while longer. I'm tempted to do that, but it's getting a little late at night.
• Remind the editors involved that there are other options for dispute resolution, such as WP:3O and WP:RFC.
• Encourage the editors involved to actually discuss their differences at the article's talk page, and if they can't get resolution, then invite other editors to provide their opinion. There's a little bit about it at Talk:Mitt Romney, but only from the two users involved. Surely there are other viewpoints.
• Apologize for calling either one of these editors Shirley.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if I can get a five-star review for Miss Murder. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny. I didn't read it at first thinking it was dry policy. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elkman. Surely, inserting dozens of duplicate sentences into an article is vandalism.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest, you two. You've presented your evidence, had your bicker, taken up a huge amount of space, and reached a resolution. Time to let it rest. Pairadox (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty good, you should make that into a template for when other users want an admin to "fix" their content dispute. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I love it. —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But then I'd have to figure out how to make it a template... (hint, hint) Pairadox (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Rly?

And yet again Ferrylodge is in a contentious dispute in which he misrepresents others, claims consensus, accuses those with whom he disagrees of vandalism, and the reaction of the general populace is to treat this as though it were a one-on-one dispute - I assure, you, it is not. Ferrylodge has a gift for causing this kind of drama, and making it appear that it is a "both parties are guilty" dispute. Yet although FL has accomplished this with Severa to the point that she left the project, Andrew c to the point that he avoided FL, myself to the point that I also have had that interpretation given me - and somewhat rudely, very recently - and Tvoz, and on and on and on - none of these editors have this kind of "dispute" with anyone else. How many times must this happen before people clue to the fact that the common denominator is Ferrylodge? He causes contention, he is the source of the problems. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the probation or mentoring? I thought Ferrylodge was asked to keep away from certain areas, and this[76] suggests he's raising a fuss again. .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

KC, I really would appreciate if you would try to be more understanding of the situation. Do you really think it's fine for an editor to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? The editor in question finally agreed to remove the duplication, and yet you place the blame on me. Why?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I note your edit immediately prior to the one above was to remove another editor asking why you "feel the need to always try to pull up past drama between us (and other users with whom you have butted heads)" from your talk page. Gee, you've removed four instances of different editors asking you to avoid personal attacks and focus on content, and to avoid drama and BLP and POV editing since Dec 28. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that what I asked about?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you attempted to drag me into a content dispute in which I am uninvolved. This is nto the venue for that, nor am I interested in playing referee between yourself and other editors on the Mitt Romney article. Admin intervention is not required for the content dispute; that is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You said that I made a false accusation of vandalism. Is it not vandalism to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? Thankfully, the duplicative material has now been removed, so the issue that brought me here to ANI has been resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(after EC, reply to Dave souza):

The ArbCom remedy was "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing" - nothing was said specifically about his NPA violations, incivility, harassment, or his activities on political articles. So although certainly action may be taken by any administrator, they would not be part of ArbCom enforcement unless the remedy applied were banning from the Fetus article, which certainly would calm things there, but not help those on Barak Obama or other political articles. Indeed, although much evidence was provided (including an unaddressed 7RR) about his unacceptable activities on political articles, for reasons beyond my comprehension one of the findings of fact was that "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion ([59], [60]), but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics ([61])." [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge] - apparently his edit warring and POV pushing there was considered "reasonable", or perhaps they didn't see the need to specify political articles as well as pregnancy and abortion articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the discussion here is probably less than productive. A Request for Comment would probably be the best way to go, with notes left on any relevant WikiProject talk pages and elsewhere about the discussion. I do think that this matter is serious enough, and probably visible enough, that it should have an organized discussion regarding the specific merits of each position from as many parties as possible. Would that be agreeable to both sides. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, please clarify. Are you referring to the controversy at the Mitt Romney article that seems to have been resolved because the duplicative sentences have been removed?Ferrylodge (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The decision to have the religion section may likely have been reached on the basis of an inadequate consensus, if there were not sufficient parties involved. This is an election year, and I personally expect that there will be a lot of similarly contentious arguments in the future regarding this candidate and others. I even proposed earlier a separate politics/culture noticeboard on that basis. In my eyes, the RfC would best discuss (1) how relevant is the matter to the subject, (2) should the related content have a separate section, (3) alternately, might it best be spun off into a separate article, with a summary section in the biography, and (4) where would that section be placed in the article. There might be additional objects of discussion as well. But an RfC would be the best way to handle that, as such discussion should be open to a broader audience than just those who watch the admin noticeboards. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a valid suggestion, but it's not really the issue that brought me here to ANI. The issue thnat brought me here to ANI has now been resolved, because dozens of duplicative sentences have now been removed from the article. As for inclusion of the info in the religion section, the main controversy is not whether that info should be included in the article, but where it should be included.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus on the article talk page and it seems to not favor Ferrylodge. Am I missing something? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I think it would be helpful if you'd clarify. "Consensus" about what? There was no consensus at the article talk page to include dozens of duplicate sentences in the article. That's why I started this section here at ANI.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again Ferrylodge? You know darn well you are not supposed to get in trouble by being difficult and editing against consensus and engaging in contentitious edits and making insults. I would suggest that we should go to Arbcomm enforcement and expand the terms of the Arbcomm decision. The articles on which he is restricted should include all political articles and their talk pages and all abortion and reproduction articles and their talk pages. If he so much as offers a hint of dispute, block or ban him. That would slow him down a bit.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this matter has been resolved, because the editor I was objecting against (Turtlescribber) has removed dozens of duplicative sentences from an article that he inserted duplicative sentences into.[77] Please don't say that I have edited against consensus, or made contentious edits here. I am not the person who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into an article. I think if you want to ban me, you ought to show that I have done something wrong, though I admit you may be successful in banning me regardless.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FL, with all due respect, I have seen your RfCs and Arbcomm discussion. All I see is layer upon layer of dishonesty, lies and sleeze. Sleezy lawyer tactics, but the truth is dozens of other editors here on Wikipedia seem to have severe problems with you to the point of leaving Wikipedia altogether because of your bullying and harassment. I just know what I see. I have not researched in detail this recent episode. I just know your track history. And you and I know very well that being involved in articles where you have a long ugly history of problems is a very very very bad idea. So I am afraid I do not find your blandishments and pleading particularly compelling. So you are always right, and the other 50 or 100 or 200 editors who have problems with you always wrong? Seems a bit hard to swallow to me. But you just go right on trying to make that argument and see how it works for you, ok?--Filll (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, "I have not researched in detail this recent episode." So then why all this fighting here? Dredging up the past serves no purpose. Can we all just move along? Discussion is thataway --> Talk:Mitt Romney. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing the article, as I state above, this is not the proper venue for content disputes. Your direction to an article talk page is missing the issue; Ferrylodge is being disruptive, violating NPA, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if FL is for Obama or not. I do not know the nature of this particular dispute that was about duplication. What I do know is that FL has had a long record, over a year's worth, of personal attacks and being extremely difficult for others to work with. I might agree with him on the actual details he is promoting. I do not agree with his agitation and bad behavior.--Filll (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it my job to mark this section as "resolved" or is that something that I should leave to an admin? I am satisfied that the concern that brought me to ANI has been resolved. The user who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into the Mitt Romney article has removed dozens of sentences that were duplicative.[78]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as per [[79]], it is unlikely that there would be any possibility of anyone involved being subject to restriction based on this discussion. If others wished to request the ruling be changed, however, that evidently is an option. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter, Thatcher's response was in response to whether Ferrylodge can be prevented from editing politics related articles based on the arbitration committee decision placing him on restriction for abortion and pregnancy related articles. The answer to that is clearly no. However, that does not mean that no one can be placed on restriction as a result of the ongoing discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True. My statement was based on the fact that there has to date not been particularly clear consensus on this page that sanctions on this instance are likely. However, for the purposes of clarity, it probably would be in everyone's best interests that any further discussion cover only that matter. I am proposing a new RfC on the Romney page itself, and inviting views from as many relevant parties that might be interested as I can. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive quote

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on User:Boris_1991, one of the quotes that reads:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?Bless sins (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boris 1991's user page does not violate Wikipedia:User page. Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages. Jecowa (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked him to remove it: [80], which should have been your first stop. Viridae^Talk 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.Bless sins (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)

• Short answer: Offensive content is not allowed in userboxes to prevent Wikipedia from looking poorly.
• Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Wikipedia as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Wikipedia's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. Jecowa (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really an incident, so perhaps we should continue the discussion elsewhere, however the page has been previously nominated for deletion. Given the user has stopped editing, if the page was renominated, I would 'vote' delete as his user page doesn't help promote a cooperative atmosphere. Addhoc (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages" is flat-out incorrect. A userbox, either in userspace or substed onto a user page, is part of a user page and subject to the exact same standards as other userpages. There are additional requirements on pages in the Template namespace, which is where the Hezbollah userbox was deleted. —Random832 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes prohibits anything divisive. Under this criteria User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad would not be allowed in a userbox as it was definitely divisive. As far as I can find in Wikipedia:User page, the closest thing that comes to prohibiting User:Boris_1991's statement concerning Muhammad in a user page is its prohibition of extensive use of polemical statements. One sentence is definitely not extensive. Jecowa (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(FYP) This is WP:BURO run amok. He can say that, but just not in a box? What if it was a big box containing other things, like his entire user page? Is it our policy that rectangles have magic powers, or do we a policy on statements written inside pentagrams that I've just never run across? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing putting that statement in any size box would be okay as long as it's not using one of the userbox templates. Jecowa (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Kendrick7, I too find the policy "standards for userboxes are different from standards for userpages" to be very peculiar. If this policy is indeed true, then it should be changed.Bless sins (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apollo Victoria Theatre

Apollo Victoria Theatre, some advice please.

Text from this article was reported as a suspected copyright violation, last night. The article was (correctly) immediately deleted. I looked at the text and compared to the reported website. This was almost word-for-word the History section of the article. I restored the article, removed the offending text, deleted the article and restored the latest version to ensure that the copyviol was not available in the history.

Today, I have had a chance to investigate further and the bulk of the wiki text has been in place since at least 16 Dec 2005, subsequent amendments have been made by multiple editors to create a text which is identical to the current text on these people's website. Applying Occam's razor, it is more likely, the text here was copied from us. The basic question is how to handle this? Reinstate the text I believe to have been copied from us, with its complete edit history, or rewrite the article so, it doesn't infringe the now cr material that I think originated here?

A number of editors have worked hard to improve the London theatre histories and these texts are now appearing in copyright material on the web. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Kbthompson (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say reinstate and note on the external link that the copyright asserted there is actually copyfraud.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'll work out something later tonight. Kbthompson (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

125.26.162.120 (talk · contribs)

I blocked 125.24.* and 125.25.* previously, due to persistent vandalism. Range blocks (1 week) have expired last month, but strange edits to Singapore have occurred again. I am not confident that it is the same guy, but perhaps someone can keep an eye on them. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

user:CreationSCS

CreationSCS (talk · contribs) and his suspected sockpuppets (IP edits) has only made vandalizing edits. His greatest gem is change in the words of Ustaša WW II song when he has changed words so that this song on wiki now call for the death of Croatian president Stipe Mesić (and late primeminister Ivica Račan) [81]. His other vandalism has been this [82] . In this article he has deleted statement confirmed by 3 sources (first is on english language) which are speaking about Montenegro constitution. His last vandalism has been in article [83] where he is again deleting statement with sources. I am tired of reverting his calling for president death and other shits so I ask that this user be blocked. One of his suspected sockpupets has been warned by me that he will be blocked if this vandalism do not stop [84]. --Rjecina (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now after my revert is better possible to see this word playing in the song --Rjecina (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I have NO "sockpuppets". I am a new user.

Second of all, this Rječina is propagating lies about me not just here, but on vandalism and talk page as well. I AM CORRECTING THE SONG'S WORDS. This song of fascist Croat singer Thompson INDEED DOES call for death of Stjepan Mesic, and asks a dog to !$@% Ivica Racan's mother.

Then this user claims I'm vandalizing the Serbs article, when he makes no sense. He linked to a journalist report and to a pro-Serbian complaining party in Montenegro WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONSTITUTION. I am tired of this.

I wish to point out that Rjecina is well aware of all this and intentionaly wants to block me because of a dispute I have with him on Croatian wikipedia, out his pure furstration. He intentionally says that I "called for death of Croatian president" because he hopes that you would discard me and believe these outragous claims. CreationSCS (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can either one of you cite a reliable source as to the correct lyrics? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have shown 3 examples of his vandalism edits. Because I have not expected that there will be question about lurics I do not have source here (but I will look) but on other side for his 2 others vandalism edits we are having english language sources which user:CreationSCS has deleted from article. In article Political entities inhabited or ruled by Serbs he is deleting [85] statement confirmed by 3 sources that Serbs are minority in Montenegro ( this is english language source ). Similar thing he is doing in article Lewis MacKenzie [86] where he is deleting statement confirmed by english language source that this UN general has recieved money of Serbian lobby. For the end I will only add that article Serbs of Croatia is protected because of his vandal edits (IP address). What is more needed that user be declared vandal and blocked ? --Rjecina (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I now have many interesting data about song. The Centre for peace in Balkan is clearly stating that song is from 1942 (version which has been on wiki on 23 June 2007 [87] . Late primeminister of Croatia Ivica Račan is born in 1945 !!. Version which CreationSCS is writing on wiki is version of Croatian band Thompson of 21 century. This is english language source --Rjecina (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the lyrics are copyrighted and shouldn't be in the article, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In my thinking article need to be deleted but this will never happen....--Rjecina (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem user Oni Ookami Alfador (talk · contribs)

(1) He's randomly deleting huge chunks of the floppy disk article (even though I objected; I stated at least some of those chunks should be saved, as they are useful). I also requested we get consensus from other editors before deleting one-quarter of the article. He refused.

(2) On the talk page he is using phrases like "for christ's sake" which I find highly, highly offensive. As offensive as if he had used the n-word against me or my family, and I think this user needs some kind of admonishment to tone done (and most importantly cooperate) with other editors. Thank you. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that both of you need to stop edit warring or you will both be blocked for 3RR. You also need to stop calling his good-faith edits vandalism. Nakon 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And both of you have now been blocked for 3RR. Nakon 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic because they introduce original research into the article, not that there is enough of it already. But either way, instead of constantly reverting (which gets you into the WP:3RR) trap, how about taking it to the talk page to discuss the changes? x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright??

If someone is posting copy and paste material from a website and claiming it is verifiable source material, is that vandalims or at least an infraction? If so, does the 3RR rule apply? I've removed the material three times which means I cannot remove it again, but my understanding is it shouldn't be there in the first place. It's on List of Las Vegas episodes IrishLass (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations can be considered vandalism after the poster has been duly warned that posting copyrighted material violates Wikipedia policy (WP:COPYVIO). Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They were warned under an IP and then signed in and used an old account to revert. Can some else just revert so I don't violate 3RR? IrishLass (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, based on your word. Pairadox (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I suggest you go through that page and remove all the redlinks for individual episodes. Pairadox (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I tried once a long time ago but it got reverted. Thanks for the revert. IrishLass (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, removing copyright violations is an exception to 3RR. —Random832 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I can understand her reasoning for not wanting to even go there. Pairadox (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've already removed the info three times, I don't want to push the limits. Thank you for the assistance. I've removed the redlinks. IrishLass (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Chiefsfan364 account compromised

Account believed compromised, as per contributions and this article's history. Please consider a temporary block until the situation is resolved. haz (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked pending resolution. Nakon 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked reduced to 24h for vandalism. Nakon 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, does anyone else not see User_talk:Chiefsfan364#Hello.3F as an indication of him having control of his account? John Reaves 10:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism by User:Moose Sheriff

Compromised pages include America, Hartford, Connecticut, Paris, Worcester. See [88]. --Polaron | Talk 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has already been indefinitely blocked. Kusma (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everything's been cleaned up. WilyD 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Something is still wrong with America and Worcester was a copy and paste move so its history is now missing. --Polaron | Talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Worcester is showing a history for me, and what's wrong with America? WilyD 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed America. Somebody had deleted the wrong page. Kusma (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Worcester has been fixed by Slakr so I think that's all of it. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious debates over Harry Potter (again)

This anonymous user has received a one-week block, but has recommenced an edit war using a different account. Serendi^podous 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to semi-protect? —Random832 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think probably yes. Serendi^podous 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. When we have a troublemaker, we block the user. Leave the article alone. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. For context to those not familiar, the IP editor is adding long amounts of extraneous information about the way the early christians adapted extant holidays and incorporated them into the christian faith, like Yule and Christmas, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder: he's back

Sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder (talk · contribs) has returned from what was apparently only a several-month-long vacation with these edits. Please be on the lookout for similar behavior at his other favorite articles, listed in the above-linked dossier. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep watch University of California, Riverside and University of California, Riverside campus ST currently active there. Going offline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerique (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

75.3.224.238 (talk · contribs) now. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate (GROSS!!) picture in Wikipedia archive showing up in Google Earth for London, Ontario

Hi all, Not sure where else to go with this one. You know how Wikipedia articles with coordinate templates show up on Google Earth? Well, while using GE to take a look at London, Ontario, I noticed, in addition to the article on the city, another article that came up as this WP help desk archive. The popup window in GE showing this article also shows a photo of a penis with a couple of big gross chancres. Yikes! The archive contains a discussion of how to find coordinates in GE and add them to articles using templates, but the example code was nowikiied. I also didnt' see the photo on the actual archive page, so don't know why it's showing up in GE. Anybody help with this? Thanks, Doonhamer (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The help desk archive you're talking about had an attempt to link to the image, but the editor didn't specify a colon before the image name. When viewing the help desk archive, the MediaWiki software doesn't display the image inline because it's on the image blacklist and could be used for vandalism. However, as far as I can tell, Google Earth uses its own rendering engine for Wikipedia content. (Or does it? I'm not 100% sure.) Apparently, that rendering engine is more than happy to render otherwise-blacklisted images inline. I edited the archive so it contains links to the image rather than an attempt to actually put the image inline. As far as erasing that image from your mind goes, though, I think you're on your own. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I can't imagine that that archive page should be showing up at all on Google Earth though. If GE does have its own rendering engine, would it also ignore our nowiki tags around the coord templates, and pull in the archive page? I thought about removing the coord templates from the archive, but I didn't want to possibly go against policy (editing an archive seems to be an action at cross purposes to itself). Is that an option? At any rate, I cleaned out the memory and disk cache in my Google Earth app, restarted the app, and navigated back to London, ON. The image is still visible. Ugh. I do remember reading at GE that the Wikipedia articles are only updated periodically, not continually (that's why new articles with coords can take a while (weeks) to show up). Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about how either WP or GE works to resolve this quickly. Doonhamer (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the archive page, replacing the braces around the coordinate templates for London ON with parentheses. That should stop GE from rendering the the archive page at its next update (if that is indeed what was causing it). Even if it is, it's likely the changes in GE won't appear until the next time GE updates its WP coordinate database. If an administrator knows a better/quicker way to resolve this, or a better forum than this noticeboard for this issue, please advise. Doonhamer (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if Google Earth has got rid of the link. There are five articles associated in that area on Google Earth and currently none have offensive images. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What a relief. I restarted GE, cleaned out the cache again, but was still seeing the image, but after restarting my computer, I'm also not seeing the drawn-in archive page and its stomach-churning photo. If no one else is seeing it, I suppose this particular issue is closed, but it makes me wonder whether there are other internal Wikipedia pages with coordinate templates in them that are being rendered in Google Earth? Doonhamer (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am gravely concerned over the handling of User:Eonon

** Click show at the right to see the background information on this incident.

I became aware of an issue with this user when I was reviewing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion last night. I saw several of the user's uploaded images listed as nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G5 (Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned, with no substantial edits by others.) I consulted Wikipedia:List of banned users, and saw no such ban, so I removed the tag, and left a talk page message for the user who tagged it, User:Willirennen. His reply a day later was "I apologise when I made a cock-up of a CSD tag, I pressed banned on the TW button when I though that it means that it had to be deleted because it was a created by a user that is now banned. I feel afterward that I pressed the wrong tag and didn't know what to do with it, plus I didn't feel I am in a position to remove the tag." I checked Willirennen's contributions to see if he made any other errors that should be mopped up. I found that he had repeatedly tagged every creation and nearly every edit by User:Eonon, including reporting the user to Wikipedia:Usernames for adminstrator attention. "Violation of username policy because: Matches the name of a company or group; This user has COI issues that he wishes to totally ignore as he has removed a COI tag twice, plus an advert tag, without any form of discussion. This is why i am reporting this user. The other question is should Ebay stores like this one get a CSD." I noted that User:Eonon was in-fact subsequently indefinately blocked by User:Orangemike, although nobody did him the courtesy of leaving him any message or template (eg Uw-ublocked) to tell him so, or what he could do to get unblocked. Looking at Eonon's contributions, including deleted contributions, I see some clear mistakes that did require correction. However theya re just the type of common erros described in WP:BITE. After several of his contributions were deleted, he got several templates dropped on his user talk page. He was clearly confused. He asked several times for help, but all he got was insulted, overly templated, wikistalked, and blocked. NOBODY took the time to reply to him, or gently, kindly explain how he could contribute positively and avoid the problems he was having. Specifically he wrote: Hope someone reads this.. i am really confused. + and anyone guide me a little? + i just want to make a page with eonon and sbo2 information + i didnt want to advertise or anything like that. I just want people + not to get confused with eonon and sbo2~ + i just want to put some facts.. i didnt even put anything about eonon's product.. + *crys* + + i just wanted to make a simple page of the existence and sbo2~ + i the deletation is ok but why block me.. i will write a better one.. + i mean it took me the whole night figuring out how wikipedia works with + the scripts and everything.. + please please i bag of anyone with power here give me a chance.. to repair + my page.. i need guidance and tips i think i am starting to understand.. ok i should have read more about the information + but i am not really good at writing.. i will not edit or create any pages for now + but how can i be unblocked? i will look for someone else with better understanding to + write the page without sugar coating everthing.. because some thing like meizu i guess is + good enough i just want people around the world to understand our company when they search on wikipedia + because if you type the name eonon in google there are alot of people in forums asking about eonon + ive seen people mistake Sbo2 and eonon.. when they are the same company~ i just want to provide information + but maybe its my love for the company i beautified it alittle. is there a way i can look for someone to write + about eonon in a right way? Willirenner then tagged the images that I had untagged with another csd template, under criteria CSD#I1.(Redundant. Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, of something else on Wikipedia. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with Subst:ncd or Subst:ncd instead.) Each of these was deleted under the same criteria by User:East718. I researched and found that no such duplicate image ever existed. It was just another error on Willirennen's part followed up by an error on Eaast718, four times over the course of 20 hours. 03:42, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Paypalaward.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Sbo2logo.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Eononlogo.svg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) 23:55, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Kcar.jpg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image) Several points along the way, our system of checks and balances failed to recognize that this user was getting a total lube job! Everyone was just really content to pull the triggers on their semi-automated patrol programs and click adminstrator buttons without investigation.

So I have to ask:

• What was so urgent about Eonon's flawed contributions that we had to reach for our biggest flamethrowers before talking to him?
• Why are users who are not familiar with speedy deletion criteria using a semi-automated patrol program like TW?
• Why are adminstrators not investigating before fulfilling requests to delete user contributions?
• Why would an administrator block a user for a username infraction without ensuring a message on the user's talkpage was left first, asking them to change it themselves?
• Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?
• HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE?

JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any of the articles that the user was creating, but they were apparently making COI spam edits to an article with the same name as their User name, in such a manner as to indicate that the User name was being used to advertise. That's a violation of the Username guidelines, and the "usernameblock" text that they'll see when they try to edit will explain all that. Their spam article was deleted, the spam on their User page was deleted, and the copyright violating images were deleting. What's the question again? Corvus cornix_talk 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Jeske went to the trouble of explaining it all (c/w relevant links) on the talk page as an addendum to one of the template messages. As Corvus put it, what was the question again? --WebHamster 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The questions are those little bits of text in between the bullets (big dots) and the "?"'s above. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As but but I will add my account. The reason why I reported him was after an COI tag was given to that user, he proceeded to remove it (isn't this considered to be a violation) and as a result, I had to give him a warning, which he ignored on number of occasion. Not to mention that I remember that the page reads like a advert for his site. I CSD'd the pictures because they were associated with the deleted article. As for my comment for the TW, I sometimes find it a little bit confusing to use as these buttons doesn't indicate what this and that button does, also with the five levels of vandalism warning when three is needed to report a vandal to be blocked. Willirennen (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why account creation should be blocked? I have not done this when blocking company or corporate names, even when they've been used promotionally, but I don't spend a lot of time in the blocking arena. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's normal usernameblocking, I allow account creation, but if it's hard blocking a username, then it's usual to block account creation and enable autoblock. bibliomaniac15 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that account creation should not be blocked, unless they return with a new account and spam again. Corvus cornix_talk 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMike, do you have any objections to Eonon's block being revised to allow him to register an account within username policy? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by what the user with TW says above, he is not yet ready to be using it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Willirennen, please voluntarily remove twinkle from your monobook.js. —Random832 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What is required to close this incident?

As the initiator of this incident report, I would be satisifed that it was resolved if all of the following were done:

• User:Willirennen either remove twinkle from his monobook or agree not to use the features for a period of time that will be adequate for him to study the CSD categories and other related policies, and a mentor assigned to advise him on when he can use it again (I volunteer).
• The block of Eonon is revised to allow account creation.
• User:Eonon's user talk page blanked and only the uw-ublocked template readded Eonon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User:Orangemike acknowledge this incident report (no action or detailed response comment required)
• East718 has already replied on my talk page and I am satisfied with his reply

JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the templated messages from Eonon's talk page, but left the welcome message and some comments. With regards to East718's comment on your talk page, perhaps he would wish to peruse Wikipedia:No angry mastodons#Edit when you're at your best?  :) I would also like to see the other things considered: TWINKLE, the block on Eonon and Orangemike's acknowledgement (and perhaps comments :-).

Also, with regards to one of your original questions, Jerry, "Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?", I do not think that this incident indicates that you are too sensitive, and I do not think that this incident is okay. I think biting newbies is a very systemic problem, which needs to be curbed. Thanks for your report here. --Iamunknown 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I modified the block on Eonon. Orangemike does not appear to be around.JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The only purpose for my requirirng orangemike to acknowledge this incident is to ensure that he was aware of our proposed sctions (and actions we already hasve taken, now) so that he had an opportunity to object and provide information we might not have had available. He could do this by signing this page, replying-to or deleting the notifications on his user page, or making any edit to wikipedia, since the mediawiki interface will tell him there are messages on his user talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the block has been modified to allow account creation (good call on that, I think, since Mike is not here to respond quickly), I've left the user a modified version of {{uw-ublock}}, prefaced with a personal note to explain why it's there, on his or her talk page. He or she may find it useful, since it contains specifics about changing account name. I also left a note explaining how to place {{helpme}} on his or her page for quick attention. If you (or anyone reading this) should think that modified block template might in itself seem bitey (totally not my intention), please feel free to remove it. My hope is simply to clarify things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might also email the user? to let him know about all this and that he's ok with a new username? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did that right after I modified the block. JERRY ^talk _contribs 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not removing the latter, I will be happy to take up the latter but for how long, considering there is vandals that need to be dealt with, plus the amount of vanity garbage written on the site and if they don't stop, they will just continue. I will be happy to take the mentoring bit. Willirennen (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am just using the TW on a limited basis, but not using it to CSD articles, but that user has just contacted me asking me to create a site for him, but trouble is I don't plan to until March, the question is, can he be allowed to recreate the article. Willirennen (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Melanie McGuire article

I was checking Category:Wikipedians looking for help and noticed this. I believe there are several privacy concerns that should be addressed as well as possibly protecting the page. I would appreciate more eyes on this. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The user that wrote the comments seems to have some legitimate complaints. This looks like a clear WP:BLP violation. The article in question was deleted as a BLP violation it looks like. What more is to be done? Do we need to redact the users comments as themselves revealing private info? It seems a sad story, but what further action should we as admins need to take? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the article appears to resolve most of the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have been settled on the user's talk page so this thread can probably be marked resolved. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Return of User:Mmbabies

68.92.33.104 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LTA/MMB for the litany of IP addresses he has used since he was last reported to WP:ABUSE. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Now issuing death threats - [89]. Corvus cornix_talk 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat - [90]. Someone needs to contact the Houston police? Corvus cornix_talk 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

you cant be seriosu they're is no need to coontact the Michigan police it sis obviously just an emotinally-unstable user who has taken some of the discusions a bit too muchto heart. it owuld be more effieincet and more effective to deal with im here on wikipedia rather rthan gettinga SWAT team deployed to hsi house, which just might pis him off enough so that he'll come over to your house and tryto harm you and your family. if the threats ezcalated, then i would recomend police internveiton but right now he should be warned and if that faisl he should be blocked. Smith Jones (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? You also need to read the history of Mmbabies before you comment. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you are overactingi have no t read the history but i have recieved death threats on the internet before and there are really not that scary. Smith Jones (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

if you look at his "threats" you wil not ice that they are generic threats made by millions of trols and vandals on tiwkipedia every single fricking day, he deifnitely deserves to be IP-blocked permanent-lieka but caling the police would jus t be a waste of time sincetheyd have a hard time tracking him down and there i s very little that ecan do to stophim from hurting or killing other peopl basde on a few weird coments on anencyclopedia. Smith Jones (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have great difficulty understanding you when you write like that. Can you use Firefox or something with a built-in spell-checker? As far as Mmbabies goes, this user has made many, many death threats on Wikipedia. It already has escalated, as the report shows. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He has done this for a year, Smith Jones. I think it's pretty well justified for a police report. We've taken every action we can possibly take on this user, including range blocks for AT&T's Houston node, meaning for many users in the nation's fourth largest city, signing up for a username is compulsory for them to edit, and abuse reports to that provider that have gone unanswered. He has attacked my talkpage too and frankly we're all pretty sick of it, especially on WP:TVS and those dealing with Christian television (his favorite targets). Trust me, if this was just 'some kid', he would've been bored by now and gone away, but this user has left personal information, addresses and telephone numbers all over his sock edits. That's not 'generic' as you say, but dangerous. Nate · (chatter) 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will be sending an abuse report to their ISP in a moment. May not accomplish anything, but does get the problem on record. Will leave other responses to other people. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated edit problems from moving IP

Hi - I have come across a problem and not sure of the best way to address it. There is a section of information in the article The Rain Tapes, called "Distribution of Material" (its at the bottom). Over the past month, there has been a user who repeatedly deletes this section (see history). It is not a registered user, but it seems that the IP address used by this person changes each time they edit (perhaps using internet cafes??). This has led to a problem in sorting out the situation. I and others have left messages on earlier talk pages, but then different IP addresses are used in subsequent edits. I have invited the person to explain or discuss the deletion in the 'edit summary' box when reverting, but this has never occurred. This is getting rather tiresome for me and a number of other users constantly reverting this deleting. Is there any action that can be taken?? I was thinking perhaps asking for semi-protection to at elast encourage the person to register and then engage in discussion on their talk page?? Any advice?

Some previous warnings at various Ip addressed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.203.120.228 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.188.169.180 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.202.91.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.200.159.132 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.141.93.62

Thanks JKW111 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest requesting "semi-protection" at WP:RFPP. I put in a request here. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection has been granted for 1 month. If this becomes a problem again, request another. Be sure to mention previous protection, and that the anon editor has been issued multiple warnings (diffs help). / edg ☺ ☭ 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, all these IP addresses seem to be via America Online. This implies a home user with a non-static IP address, which is common with home DSL (and almost always the case with dialup). I doubt much effort is being made to change IP addresses; the user may be unaware of their address changing. (Someone else probably knows much more about how AOL grants IP addresses than I do.) / edg ☺ ☭ 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Utcursch

User:Utcursch is abusing authority and showing discrimination towards Hindus. User:Utcursch is a Sikh Extremist who is influencing hate between Hindu and other religon communities.

due to 1984 terrorism in India. you can see page Bhindranwale who was a famous Rebel Saint who kills hindus, doesnt need to be locked and has been locked for a really long time. User:Utcursch has shown discrimination to me as well and has caused tensions between religons.User:99.237.253.131

... HalfShadow (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• This item was originally posted at the top of this page, and I have taken the liberty of moving it to its proper chronological location; and I have checked- it did look like this originally. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Date warrior/ honorific deleter/ possible sockpuppet

I am concerned about the conduct of a new autoconfirmed user, Simplonicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although he represents himself as a new account as of 12-24-07, he has focused exclusively on making edits in an area of long-term controversy. This began with removal of honorifics [91] [92] [93] and proceeded swiftly to date-warring, first by creating a new template Template:History of the Chinese, created solely to replace Template:History of China with a BC/AD version of the same template, and putting it into articles against consensus and without discussion. This should be compared to the actions of Foula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who left the project not long before Simplonicity arrived. During the last 24 hours Simplonicity has date-warred numerous articles frequently leaving the misleading edit summary "datings conventions were mixed, consolidated on one". His consolidations always consist of changing BCE/CE to BC/AD, never the other way round, frequently in articles where BCE/CE is far more numerous. [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] (There are more removals of honorifics and era style changes that occurred while I was in the process of filing this ANI.)

Simplonicity has also altered two important templates, Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia and Template:South Asian history without the slightest discussion or any semblance of an attempt at consensus in such a way as to facilitate his date warring. On at least one article, Middle kingdoms of India, he began by changing the article, which overwhelmingly favored BCE/CE, to BC/AD,[99] then used this change as an excuse to change to his preferred version of the template.[100] Simplonicity has done all this in spite of being specifically familiarized with Wikipedia's policies on date warring on his talk page.

I also ask that this pattern of abuse be compared with the following blocked or disappeared users.

• Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Compower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jpetersen46321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nownownow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: In at least one instance Simplonicity changed CE in the title of a book to AD.[101] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Article abuse of Stan Polley

Since last November, the following IP addresses have inserted the line "soulless bastard" at the end of the biography of Stan Polley. Although the person is quoting a line from a suicide note that had referred to Polley, the insertion by the following IPs attaches this as a personal opinion in agreement with the note. It is a persistent issue with the article and it needs administration attention. Thank you.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• 163.231.6.85
• 163.231.6.88
• 163.231.6.86
• 163.231.6.66
• 163.231.6.67
• 163.231.6.68
• 163.231.6.65

The abuse is continuing and I had to make another revert today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert again today.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IP abuse at Arbcom workshop

There's an anonymous IP user, 69.76.37.158, attacking other users at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop (in multiple sections of the page). This user's posts, both there and at Talk:Matt Sanchez, make me suspect it is banned User:Pwok. Would someone run a checkuser to try to confirm or deny this identity and semi-protect the workshop page? Thanks. Aleta (Sing) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page, after waiting a little while for the IP to withdraw the attack. I would also like to know if the IP is a regular user, in case the user is related to the arbcom case. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One of the issues in the case is long term baiting by single purpose IPs and accounts, usually short lived. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the language is strikingly similar, I don't think this is banned User:Pwok at work here. Pwok was infamous for a dozen or so changes at once, as he refused to use the preview button and tweaked his posts a word or two at a time. Also, he used a Comcast IP address in Seattle, while this is a RoadRunner IP address in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be nice, but I don't think it will reveal much, since there are no other addresses with which to compare; I don't think it is any of the regular editors editing under an IP address. Horologium (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for your insight, Horologium. Whoever this IP is, s/he is continuing to post comments very insulting to any editor who has ever worked on the Matt Sanchez article at Talk:Matt Sanchez, essentially accusing all of us of conspiring to lie about Matt and censor the truth about his "40 videos". Aleta (Sing) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's not likely to be Pwok, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the handful of contributors to his attack site. (Exercising editorial restraint; it's not the first description that ran through my mind.) Can we just temp-block to IP to make him go away while we are running the arbitration case? I had not planned to continue adding evidence, but I may reconsider if Sanchez (and good-faith editors who disagree with the IP) continue to be attacked by halfwit unregistered editors. Horologium (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Socks4life

This user added themselves to Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jlomcc ([102]). Bizarre, to say the least. Any admin want to handle this? shoy 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, they quite literally asked for it. Mr.Z-man 06:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TNTPRO

Every edit this user has made has been blatant vandalism Special:Contributions/TNTPRO. They've been reverted, but I suggest a block, pending the outcome of whatever the sockpuppet case is. MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinately as a vandalism only account. In the future, use WP:AIV for clear vandalism like this. He was adequately warned, and continued. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Philippe

Philippe (talk · contribs) is removing listings from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention because the editors haven't edited yet. Are we really requiring that inappropriate user names be allowed to edit before they get blocked? Corvus cornix_talk 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There was some fairly in depth discussion about this in the last couple of months - I'll try to find some diffs - but my recollection is that we were requiring contribs of some type to avoid folks who were just creating names to see them listed there. If I'm in error, I'm happy to stop - but if a name is created, with no contributions, and it's not incredibly inappropriate, what's the harm? - Philippe | Talk 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The harm is that by blocking before they start editing, we preempt the inappropriate user from starting to edit and getting their inappropriate username in edit histories. Plus, 1-you're frustrating a good faith listing by an editor who found the user name offensive, and 2-you're requiring people to wait with bated typing fingers to keep checking to see if the user with the inappropriate name starts editing before you can list them for an inappropriate name. Corvus cornix_talk 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the name is blatantly inappropriate, I totally agree. If so, I block on sight. However, if it is marginally inappropriate, and there are no contributions, I'm inclined to wait for them to edit before blocking, creating a talk page for them to issue a block notice, etc. I'm happy to change my actions if I'm out of calibration, but I seem to recall some pretty aggressive discussion about this. - Philippe | Talk 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. So, if I come across an inappropriate username, I can't list it until they've edited, so I have to squirrel the name away somewhere in my User space or in my memory so that I can check for their edits in the future. Corvus cornix_talk 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the type of username. If it's something obviously foul, no reason to wait for edits. In the case of "promotional" usernames, such as the ones Philippe removed, they are often borderline enough to justify waiting for edits, to see if the account is indeed being used for promotion. There's also something about WP:AGF and WP:BITE in there somewhere. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For diff purposes, the discussion is question is here [103] at the section called "No-edit reports". It was hotly disputed, so perhaps it's time for wider input from the community. I certainly understand your feelings. I tend to be of the idea that we shouldn't create talk pages (and perpetual histories) for accounts that never edit. - Philippe | Talk 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a question of how blatantly bad the usernames are; I notice my threshold seems to be higher than some others, recently. In any questionable cases, we can always watch a potentially suspicious user for behavior that will make their good or bad faith more clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)

User has reverted my edits 5 minutes and 3 minutes after I made my edits. These were the users 2nd and 3rd edits today - rather unusual. Blanking of episode lists and character lists is common practice at the moment.

User has also voted on FLRC just 13 minutes after myself.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat has redirected the lists after TTN merged the characters to the list. This is an obvious WP:POINT. As to the timing, I had not even realized it, I just fired up laptop and looked at what was going on. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. So why is it that TTN is allowed to make such edits and why is it that I am not allowed? -- Cat ^chi? 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reference to the movie Magnolia? --Jack Merridew 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take contested redirects to AfD; all these edit wars are getting to be more than a bit disruptive. We have AfD for a reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All Oh My Goddess! character articles (nominated for redirectification by Jack Merridew and redirectified by TTN) and episode articles (nominated for redirectification by TTN and redirectified by Jack Merridew) were bulk redirectified.

As visible with this edit TTN makes such edits. Special:Contributions/TTN has more examples of mass rectifying. User has over 1000 edits this month - almost all mass redirectifying. If there is nothing wring with that, there is nothing wrong with my edits.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting articles, in itself, not generally a problem; edit warring over that redirect, potentially far more problematic. I'm not intending to single you out in particular, I've seen more than a few people doing this recently. Contested redirects should be discussed, not brute forced. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted. Not once. Jack Merridew reverted twice on this particular case. If you check TTNs past 5000 or 500 or even 50 edits you will see plenty of examples of brute forcing. -- Cat ^chi? 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the articles should be deleted, AfD is freely available; other than that, what's the issue, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN is mass blanking articles had been doing so for months. The problem is me trying to commit similar edits which upset Jack Merridew. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset, I just undid your disruptive edits (on two different lists). --Jack Merridew 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you revert similar edits by TTN? -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he restores your redirects, at this point, I would probably talk about it; here, where ever. --Jack Merridew 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this? -- Cat ^chi? 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the feck that is. --Jack Merridew 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a diff where TTN recently blanked the content of an entire "list of characters" article. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm rarely wins folks to your point of view. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He redirected the merge targets, removing everything out of pique. I don't think anyone was advocating that. --Jack Merridew 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw you mentioned that (haven't taken too close a look, but assuming your description is accurate that sounds worth discussion) -- I figure the AfD onus should be on those who want article(s) removed, similar to the situation with contested prods. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? TTN, Jack Merridew and other members of the club vote together manipulating AfDs. Happened before many times. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his disruptive behavior is the issue here and should be the focus of this discussion. This is far from the first instance of such conduct by this user. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I redirectify articles thats "disruption" if you or TTN does it thats good conduct? -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the perceived intent that is the determinative factor. --Jack Merridew 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belldandy for the prior fit. And note that it went to DRV, too. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yet Belldandy is now a redirect along with every other character. Why can't I make edits such as this yet TTN can? -- Cat ^chi? 10:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, it's pretty clear that those redirects you made was an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way. This isn't the first time you've done this either.

Also, if you have been paid any attention to WT:ANIME, you will find that there has been discussion about merging episode, and to a lesser extent character, articles that are unable to independently establish their notability. Neither TTN nor Jack Merridew have been a significant party to either of those discussions nor are they members to WP:ANIME.

As for the Beck article, I've reverted the redirect because the content of the article had not been merged into the target article, no equivalent content exists on the target article, and there has been no discussion to simply blank the redirected article either. --Farix (Talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I make edits like TTN and people yell at me! I do not believe TTN has even read those articles. No human being can read that fast. I did merge it in a TTN-like manner. I removed the crufty non-notable material off. Link article has all the "notable" material which may also be redirectified. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are gaming the system. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

well since the redirectors have been doing it for months without sanction it would appear to be the aproved method.Geni 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This behaviour is childish and WP:POINTY. If you believe the method that has been used, to be wrong (like White Cat has made clear), then you do not use the same method yourself. When have two wrong's ever made a right? Seraphim ^Whipp 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you view their method as wrong? If so why are you not takeing action against it?Genisock2 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no, I don't view their method as wrong. They are fixing a problem that just wasn't recognised unitl now...or rather it was recognised but no action was taken. There are two sides to this and believe me, I can sympathise with both. Many argue, "people come to wikipedia for tv episode articles and that's why our encylopedia is popular and useful". I can appreciate that and it has occurred to me that if we destroy the usefulness of our encylopedia, then in turn, do we de-value it? But on the other hand, making these articles comply with our policies is a good thing and there's a very good argument that, by removing non-compliant material (non-comliant because it is a WP:NOT#PLOT regurgitation), we increase the quality and respectability of wikipedia. Did you see the Smallville (season 1) page that Bignole wrote? That is the sort of high quality content we should be aiming for.

My point was that White Cat views their methods as wrong, so for him to use them, shows he is making a point. That does not benefit the encylopedia. Seraphim ^Whipp 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea; if you take your two lists to Afd, I'll abide by the consensus reached there. I promise to not oppose deletion. (not promising not to comment; this offer good for a limited time only. Batteries not included. Void on Texas.) --Jack Merridew 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Useerpage

This user supports the independence of Tibet.

This user supports the independence of Chechnya.

This two inflammatory userboxes are present in different userpages. I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. A discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You know the 2005 userbox war happened for a reason. Political userboxes and religions userboxes are not allowed. That was the consensus back then and I see no evidence of a change in consensus. People have started creating political userboxes in their userspace. I however heavly doubt ANI will offer a solution. -- Cat ^chi? 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smoth 007 has a userbox supporting independence of Palestine and the above-=mentioned userboxes are present in User:Noor Aalam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You would think that someone who complains daily about userboxes (yet wanted to create controversial ones himself) would have learned about deletion process by now rather than complain here everytime something bugs him. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. Yet you link to a MfD that you are aware of. Given that, what do you think the proper procedure would be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this two userboxes are not constructed in one particular page. The userpages on which the userboxes are present, are written in raw codes. There is no specific template of these two userboxes. So what I need to do now? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot use MfD here because the userboxes are not constructed in a specific page. So in which process these will be deleted? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing as long as it isn't worse than it is now. If larger parts of the user pages turn into campaign posters then use MfD. You are very unlikely to get more out of this than sympathy for the idea that user pages shouldn't be used for this. Lots of people have the suppoprt for Israel boxes yet nothing happens to them - it takes more than that when they aren't transcluded on there - mainly because the lack of transclusion makes it harder to quickly list everyone who believes this or that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much wrong here. Sure, they could be considered inflamatory, but they aren't as badd as some. Though I would watch that userpage to make sure it doesn't get worse.--Phoenix-wiki 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think this kind of thing is the definition of gaming the system. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS give it a freakin' rest. If there are support of <insert faction here> userboxes then it should be okay to have userboxes supporting the other side. WP does not take a political side, if you continually delete one side without the other then you are in effect determining a WP bias. So quit with the userbox posse and go do some editing. --WebHamster 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. According to your argument, a userbox can be created with a text "This user support nuclear war". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are telling that it should not biased, i.e. it should not be biased towards peace, or disruption. So the equation becomes:

• Peace = biased
• Disruption = biased
• Not supporting peace, not supporting disruption = Neutrality. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This two userboxes are definitely inflammatory. Who occupied Tibet? Who occupied Chechnya? What is going on in Tibet and Chechnya are sucsessionist movement and userboxes supporting them can not be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be tolerated by you, the rest of the editorship seems remarkably unconcerned. Look, they aren't hate boxes they are expressions of belief. They doen't say they are right, they don't say what should happen, they don't say kill the ruskies or the chinks. They say that the user believes in whatever they are saying. That is not inflammatory. Now please get off your high-horse and do something useful with your time. --WebHamster 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The practice is that a userbox can speak against, but only in favor. "This user supports GW Bush" is an acceptable userbox. "This user supports the impeachment of GW Bush" is not acceptable asa userbox. A userbox can support the american Army, or for that matter the Iraqi insurgents. We have no business deciding which one is an instrument of oppression. A user can not say: I support killing the American invaders" -- or for that matter "I support killing the Iraqi terrorists". DGG (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is trying to make a WP:POINT about the deletion of several of his userboxes here. Which is a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Wikipedia near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... dave souza, talk 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case - is the identity with User:Profg proven? In that case, a good long block/ban is in order, as he was apparently already under parole for previous disruption, and this is as clear a case of disruptive behaviour as you can get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[104] - it's self-admitted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, and considering the existing parole imposed by User:B after a previous ban proposal (see User talk:Profg), I'd be willing to block for a longish period. How long shall we say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Still no block, though.[105] And to make this perfectly clear, the precise nature of this person's ideology is irrelevant. It's the attempt to canvass for a POV push that's important. Durova^Charge! 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just waiting for a bit of further input. There's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last ANI discussion Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action and don't really care one way or another what anyone does here except to say (1) by linking the podcast here, you've probably substantially increased his listenership, (2) a block would be punitive not preventative (not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether or not there is anything wrong with that, just that it is what it is), (3) if he is blocked, do a checkuser, and (4) if a block is made, make sure that it is for actions, not for bias - there are other Wikipedians that run attack sites sites that criticize Wikipedians or Wikipedia (google "nonbovine" for instance). --B (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about criticising Wikipedia. It's about solliciting meatpuppets. A block isn't any more punitive than any other block that is imposed based on past behaviour. You take past behaviour as a measure of the likelihood that future behaviour will be disruptive, and calculate block length accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to post both relevant podcast links: http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/9A7C2A76-9F89-11DC-880E-000A959E8368.html --Filll (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

• A block won't stop the damage. Wikipedia does not need editors who declare war against NPOV and canvass for meat puppets. This is a cooperative project, not an exercise in unlimited free speech. He must be excluded until he agrees to work cooperatively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't edit the articles in question. I haven't even looked at the articles in question. I don't know the guy on the radio. However, the description in the first paragraph suggests that the article is POV and needs correction. So the assertion that the person is anti-NPOV is an attack. Whether it's an attack that can be justified is a different question. It's possible that the radio guy is looney. The fundamental question would be to put yourself in his shoes and ask "are there sections which are biased"? We should examine the fundamental question about whether this radio announcer has valid ideas that are being reverted. If so, then the talk of banning, blocking, and other steps are wrong. If the radio announcer has wacky ideas, that's a different story. Does the radio announcer's edits have reliable sources and are properly referenced? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• A short sprotect of any article that appears to have been edited vexatiously following the podcast would resolve any problem with undue weight/vandalism. Re Profg, although they may have violated the terms of a parole the effect can be easily mitigated and blocking them from editing Wikipedia is not going to stop them from their off-Wiki activities (and may encourage them). A month block may suffice to persuade the editor we are serious about countering disruption of articles, but provided the carrot of a return to editing should they not canvas further for disruptive editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct that the block may encourage more warring. That is why I have proposed a social construction: a ban. If Profg sees that we are unanimously against his methods, he may stop. If however, he sees support from any faction, he may view this as just another liberal-conservative battle, which is hopefully not the case. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, its certainly not a lib/con consideration; the template on Profg's page mentions a block rather than ban as sanction for parole violation, so I am being consistent with that. If the block is indefinite pending cessation of canvassing for POV pushing, with a month minimum tariff, then I could support. I would comment that the template doesn't directly address canvassing, but if the net result is to violate the terms of the parole by meatpuppetry then I think sanction on violation of parole is justified - it just depends whether we are considering keeping the key or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We don't need to split hairs over what's a ban and what's a block. If a block gets imposed on the basis of admin consensus after a discussion like this, it will by definition be a ban. A temporal one; I too would consider indef overkill in this situation, and possibly counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• We are not limited to the probation remedies. If he has done something else wrong, which appears to be the case, we are free to impose whatever remedies are necessary to protect the project and deter future disruption. That said, if he were to come here now or later and say, "Oops, I didn't realize this was wrong, I will issue a retraction," then the remedy could be lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could I propose an initial block of one month, to be reviewed at the end of tariff for evidence of continued off-Wiki canvassing for POV pushing - which would then attract the indef tariff until such time as they agree to comply with the communities wishes - as a compromise? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree and I would support a ban. This isn't just a case of seeking external input; Profg is explicitly seeking to recruit a large number of supporters of his POV and to use them to impose that POV in violation of NPOV. I'd call that unacceptably disruptive conduct, regardless of the effect it actually has in practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Given that a block or ban might encourage him, can we think of another option? Can we reason him out of this approach? And if that fails, then move to other thing?--Filll (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• How about we ban and block him now, and if he wants to come back, he has to stop actively trying to sabotage the project, and then we can talk. This is a project, not a public service. Editing is a privilege, not a right. You are certainly welcome to reason with him. I think a block by an individual administrator is problematic. We need a statement by the community that this behavior is highly objectionable, and that we will exclude him so long as it continues. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that banning people for telling others to edit and use Wikipedia would be a terribly productive use of anyone's time. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• A block/ban will simply turn him into a martyr, further enhancing his status with his constituency. And it won't help us because he can return as a sockpuppet anyway. Regarding edits by his audience, it's not necessary to respond instantly. The "slow revert" is a wonderful thing. So what if the article is lousy for a few hours, or maybe a day or two, before we roll back -- lots of our articles are lousy for much longer periods than that. They want to provoke a newsworthy reaction and the best thing we can do is not react accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps some administrator can be appointed to have a discussion with him explaining why what he did was out of line with Wikipedia community standards. Pending the results of that discussion, the administrator would report back what he/she thinks is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. If it seems like there was good understanding and remorse (and perhaps even a correction made on the next podcast), take no action. If there is no remorse or no willingness to engage in discussion, take some action. Antelan ^talk 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose the ban but could support it if there is a proper explanation. What is the offense that causes the ban? Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering and neither do I. However, we need Wikiprecision.

What is the behavior causing ban?

1. Is it "mention of Wikipedia to others will cause you to be banned"?

2. Is it "mention of Wikipedia in the radio will cause you to be banned"?

3. Is it "disruptive editing because of diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is causing your ban."?

4. Is it "asserting that there is a bias in Wikipedia causing you to be banned."?

5. Something else?

This could be a clear cut and easy decision. However, it's not adequately explained here. Maybe it's because you know what is going on. Others don't. I haven't read the articles. So if you want a community ban and not just a ban from you and your fellow editor, then you should be more specific. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Off-wiki Canvassing for meat puppets to support a particular point of view is an illegitimate way to deal with a content dispute. A ban of this user would allow us to swiftly block any sock or meat puppet accounts that answer his call to disruptively edit the target articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have never even looked at the articles in question so I am questioning the process more than the edits. In Wikipedia, calling someone a meat or sockpuppet is too convenient an excuse to block someone. Ideas, not number of editors, is of more importance. Does the edits have reliable sources? If so, they are not POV or can be made NPOV. "Others contend that .... < ref >" is the way to do it. The biggest question I have that needs to be answered for me to support a ban would be to show the diffs to demonstrate that they seem like POV and wouldn't likely have any reliable sources. A review of the opposing sides edits that have reliable sources would also be necessary. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. In the time I've been familiar with him, something like a year now, he's been an inveterate POV pusher. This latest demarche of his demonstrates a clear contempt of this community and the project's goals. Don't see a talking to making much of an impression on someone who holds such strong views and is willing to make such public calls to recruit meat puppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support a ban. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Profg hasn't actually edited much for some time. I'd suggest that we run a few checkusers over the next month in case of sockpuppetry vandalism, and watch his account, but if we ban him at this moment, realise the gesture will probably end up being symbolic rather than particularly useful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is senseless. People are not AFD'ed. A one-line "support a ban" or "oppose a ban" type discussion is unhelpful. There were admins willing to unblock him before (I was the one that implemented it.) Is there any admin who would be willing to unblock him this time? I'm guessing the answer is no (as it probably should be), but if any admin would be willing to unblock him, that is what it is. Community bans are when no admin is willing to unblock someone - you can't treat people like articles and vote them in or out of existence based on whoever shows up. And for the record, I would (obviously) not be willing to unblock him this time. Canvassing on-wiki or off-wiki is obviously not an acceptable behavior. The issue before was that nobody could actually provide examples of Profg behaving in any way that would warrant an indefinite ban and no uninvolved user even supported the ban. Now, that's changed and I seriously doubt any admin would unblock him if he is blocked. I agree with Adam that it would be somewhat symbolic since he has not edited (at least not that we know of) in some time. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a symbolic action when it is a symbol that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. --B (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1 Month Block

I have implemented a 1 month block and informed Profg [106] that this can be shortened if the canvassing is stopped, or lengthened if we observe continuing problems. This seems to be the most appropriate remedy at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We are acting like the thugs that killed Wei Wenhua. Even Jimbo Wales is against this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Statements_of_support We are acting like the mob trying to ban User:Profg. All he said was to edit Wikipedia to improve it. He did not say to write POV. His previous behavior is not the issue. Read the complaint at the top. They don't like him promoting Wikipedia. These people seem to only want POV, anti-creationist to edit WP. I am not a fanatic. See my edits. They are very reasonable. They call for fairness (including criticism of the film) and not POV one way or the other.

Other wikipedians do the same thing. IRC is one big canvassing media. So are talk pages and e-mail. As long as we are fair in what we edit, it is ok. So I support unblocking of Profg for his webcast. If he edits POV, then he can be blocked. Let's not do the same thing as the mob did to Wei Wenhua. Fairchoice (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On sprotects of the pages Profg suggests be targeted (per above discussion)

Probably unnecessary at the moment. Evolution has been sprotected for months, if not years (It used to be one of the biggest vandalism targets. A few persistent vandals may mean that it still is...) However, for the unprotected articles he mentions, there's hardly been a flood of new, problematic users. The only edits I can find that have a half-decent chance of coming from this are two edits by new user Sonseeker007 (talk · contribs) to Intelligent design. They were reverted, and that was it. There was also a little anon vandalism of Creationism ([107] - but this is pretty standard "Hi, X!" vandalism and probably unrelated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, his announcement is of what he plans to organize in the future.--Filll (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph, a podcast quote says "If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed". Yet we are trying to ban him. A more productive discussion may be "Let's not slam newbies. Let's get all editors to use reliable sources for every statement, particularly controversial statements." I find it disturbing that we are trying to ban editors. I would find it more comfortable if we are banning editors for failure to use reliable sources and citations. We have to be careful because most articles, even non-controversial ones, are full of uncited statements. If we are banning him because of clearly POV statements and lack of citations (diffs needed) and failure to cooperate in fixing this problem, then that's a different story. If I were to give Easter eggs only to perfect kids, no kids would get Easter eggs. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but think of the reduction in cavities! On the other hand there is not always a benefit in numbers, sometimes WP can do without certain editors. --WebHamster 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True, we don't want certain editors in WP! I don't want anti-Easter Bunny editors but would allow them if the anti-Easter Bunny edits had citation and were written in an encyclopedic tone. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear: this is relating to the above discussion of Profg , not the users cited in the examples. Basically, if he was really that major of a force against Wikipedia, we'd probably have seen a bit more trouble by now on the articles he mentioned by name. I've changed the title of this section appropriately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how blocking him would prevent his solicitation of meat puppets via his blog. DGG (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I too don't see how banning him would prevent meatpuppetry, all he would do is use the incident to say that it proves his point. However, from my experience in other controversial topics, new editors who come in and try to change an article to support their POV almost never become good editors. They either get blocked for disruption, POV pushing, edit warring, incivility/attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. or they give up after a few weeks of not being able to get their way. Mr.Z-man 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, User:Profg was disruptive and unconstructive in the best of times, and was most recently unblocked on fairly strict terms of parole. Now he's soliciting a large group of editors of a particular POV to swarm and "overwhelm" a contentious article? Block the account indefinitely. He's already got his red meat on how he's been censored by the leftist hordes; an indefinite block won't materially change that. If he changes his approach convincingly, or if some admin wants to unblock him, then we can reopen a discussion. If the articles become problems, we'll semi-protect them as needed. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. I propose we do absolutely nothing. If we have a large number of newbie POV editors then we semiprotect, and revert to the last stqable version. But unless he is very influential, I doubt it will amount to anything anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF. I am for reason and civility. As mentioned above, the movie article hasn't been subject to attacks yet censorship exists because it is protected. Fairchoice (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Danny Williams (politician)

There appears to be persistant vandalism with this article. Please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just2day (talk • contribs) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you mentioned is in red link. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please identify the edits which are vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-made toy pictures

Some of the articles on old toys/cartoon/comic book characters lacked pictures, and I had a big collection old toys and TV shows, so I had started to take pictures and post them under their respective articles. I used screen captures, box art and the like. At first I had trouble using proper tags, but eventually that was sorted out. There was a complaint that these images were non-free, and it was suggested to me that pictures I took myself of the toys of characters were a free alternative. I started to take pictures of the toys for the characters and post them as GDFL-self. I recently recieved another notice that the pictures of the toys themselves are not GFDL-self as the toy is considered a work of art, and owned by the creator. There are still articles out there with no or few pictures. If the picture of the toys are also non-free (and no free alternative does exist!) then should I just go back to screen captures and comic art and such, IF I work out a proper non-free image fair use rational? There seems to be no free alternative for some of these articles, and surely at least one non-free image per character IS allowed if you have the proper rational attached to it. I know I can't flood an article with non-free pictures, but some articles lack pictures all together, is that an acceptable reason to add a properly tagged non-free image?

Also, what about characters who changed siginifantly? Would I be allowed to post a picture of each of theirt changes over the years? Thanks for letting me know. Mathewignash (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If an alternative does not exist and these are needed to retain the quality of the article, you can still use them under our fair use rules. Jtrainor (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For instance there is an article on three different fictional characters who share a name - Dirge (Transformers). Can I safely add a non-free picture of each of the three characters (who look vastly different) to the article if I use a proper fair use rational? Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more useful to photograph all three at the same time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The way the article is set up each character has his own section. I could merge pictures of their two modes into one picture, since they are Transformers they all have 2 modes. Like robot and jet. I could make those one picture. Mathewignash (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Though one needs to be aware that while no one (currently) is adding up non-free use on a page, a single shot of 3 separate toys would be considered as 3 uses of non-free fair use (as the photo is a derivative work). But the advice you have currently is otherwise correct, you can probably get more info at WP:NFC and WP:ICHD. --MASEM 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since a toy is a three-dimensional work of art, wouldn't User:Mathewignash be free to release these two-dimensional photographs of these three-dimensional works into the public domain, under GFDL, and/or CC? Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ states, "For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken." Jecowa (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. See the discussion and linked discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Any trademark experts?. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the first discussion you mentioned concerning Image:TARDIS-trans.png, User:WjBscribe said that commons is concerned with copyright, not trademarks. The photograph of a toy from that discussion is now hosted on commons. Jecowa (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the discussion there, it specifically applies to the TARDIS (aka an old British policy box) because they cannot "copyright" that look - that look was in the public domain before the BBC created Doctor Who. It is a highly unique case. --MASEM 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems crazy to me. I know copyright law is byzantine at times all the time, but what if a picture were made, such that a toy were incidental in the shot taken. And then that photo (the one with the incidental toy in it) were released under a CC or GFDL. And then somebody else were to crop the freely licensed picture down the line (to include just the toy). . .does that mean that the cropped, derivative pic would violate copyright, but the original wouldn't? Or can one never release a photo if it contains discernible 3D --> 2D pixels in it somewhere? R. Baley (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the Dirge (Transformers) page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.Mathewignash (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They all look like they're done correctly to me, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Jecowa (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Woggy

Resolved

 – I say thee (and Wuggy) nay! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Woggy (talk · contribs) (currently blocked indefinitely for having an acid tongue and as a V-OA) has just posted a plea to be unblocked on his talk page. I'm not comfortable unblocking someone blocked for personal attacks; does this guy deserve a second chance? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

COULD YOU please list which edits othat were causing him to be blocked?~~?~??~?~? 17

57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more civil, Smith? And please examine his block log (the link is at the top of his contribs page). He's been blocked for three months, and not by me. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Should not that username be indefinitely blocked anyway, due to its possible meanings? Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I should guess that the username patroller was not familiar with UK racist terms - although it is just as possible neither is the account holder. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i think that he should be permanetnly bblocked from editing becuase it i clear from his block log hat he has not ientention of proiidnd useful edits and seems to have createdhisacount solely for vandalcism. not only that i agree with whitstable that his usename is obviously a racialist slur. Smith Jones (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not happening; the user has evaded the block as Wuggy (talk · contribs) (see below). Very bad move if you want an unblock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks from User:MichaelQSchmidt

I suspect this is a sock puppet account of User:L.L.King and he -like L.L.King and all the socks before him- has gone on page long tirades against me and my assault on the integrity of Wikipedia. He left a wall of text over at User talk:Alison about my abuse of protocols and followed that up at User talk:BQZip01 with a tear calling me a liar and a fool. He's left lengthy essays on both WP:IFD and his talk page (since deleted) again calling me abusive and downright evil. I don't think Alison has checked her talk page (she was the blocking admin for L.L.King), so I thought I would bring this request here. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only just getting started here for the day. Initial glance shows that it's a bit more complex than simple sock vandalism, and that there may be BLP issues involved, too. Feel free to weigh in on my talk page, anyone ... - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Would someone mind telling this user not to maintain list of users s/he doesn't like? [108] The user claims it's not insulting, but it's clearly meant to be. Mønobi 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i just warned him for you. Smith Jones (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I told him to remove it and he renamed from "Worst admin ever" to what it is now, then told me he'd added me. I don't mind really with the way it is now, but it was bad before.--Phoenix-wiki 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wuggy (talk · contribs) obvious sock of Woggy (talk · contribs) - in relation to above

Resolved

 – Fuzzy Wuggy had a widdoo accident. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is related to the above post about Woggy (talk · contribs) unblock plea. Just after that was posted, Wuggy (talk · contribs) was created. Their first edit? Admitting to NawlinWiki that they were, in fact, Woggy. The second edit was making more personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, which was a trademark of Woggy. I brought this here because I thought it was way too obvious to file an SSP report. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a block-evading sock; although I will note that he was not using a personal attack on the Talk:LoSBSPE page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, really? I took "Ever heard of proper grammar?" as an attack (though it wasn't to me) and was attempting to remove it when I edit-conflicted with you (while you were removing Wuggy's comments entirely). Good job. NF24^{(radio me!)} 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is incivil, it's not a personal attack. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Resolved" comment supposed to be cute? It's decidedly not. Frongle (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HPJoker

I noticed that he was given rollback, but just a few months ago I found thisWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/HPJoker, which tells me he doesn't deserve the tool. Also all his rollbacks so far is reverting new users edits in the Wikipedia:Sandbox of all pages. Taking here for consensus. Secret ^account 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse the removal of his rollback tools.--Phoenix-wiki 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If he abuses it, remove it. No need for drama.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he is only reverting new users on the sandbox on a costant basis, which is WP:BITE Secret ^account 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why rollback sucks, here we are wasting time - go tell him not to do that. Ask him nicely, don't bring this useless drama here.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had already asked the user to stop doing that and he replied "I know. I'm just bored.", but obviously chose to keep doing it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's continued to abuse the tool, then simply remove it. No fuss no paperwork.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Funky stuff on WP:RSN

Resolved

Hey all. It appears that after this change was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on WP:RSN immmediately disappeared, including new threads. I'm assuming that this was not suppose to happen. I'm also assuming I'm not the only one who noticed, but FYI just in case. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up: Haemo already took care of it. It was some kind of accidental deletion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Red alert, Wikipedia under a very serious threat

Resolved

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

---

For the main dicussion please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=183926253#RED_ALERT
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A message from vandal PWee Hurman as left on User:Goodshoped35110s's talk page:

Hello Everybody, a little message to Goodshoped35110 and who else might read it. . . First off, I would like to say I love your comment(s) about the "automated rifle" when talking about taking me off wikipedia(Herman). And I would like to say that, well, your right, and that you will need that kind of fire power, especially when I finally assemble the project that I am currently working on. I currently have assembled, through an online blog to have "Herman" launch non-stop wiki attacks from multiple places in the United States. I also currently have a member who is undercover, trying to obtain the administrator position to unleash unheard of havoc. The damage that would be dealt would make even the megaliths of war look subordinate in comparison.

The next thing worth mentioning is that you don't have all of our sock puppets listed, but rather are missing many, including the ones in Spanish, Germane, Russian, and like this one, pig Latin. You will never defeat Herman, in fact, the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again. This will be ready and executable approximately in mid February. I need the finishing touches. Get ready for this.

Can You Handle it?

--Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Goodshoped35110s"

This has already been posted on User talk:Jimbo Wales and I have posted it here so the whole community can see it, Jimbo Wales has informed Mike Godwin of this already, however I think the community should be warned and prepared for this. Blueanode (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit in question was five weeks ago. Kusma (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Block, revert, move on. Metros (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, they plan to do this in the future, and the threat seems very possible. Blueanode (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And there's nada we can do about it. Block, revert, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By making a big deal of it we're giving them the attention they want. Have a look at WP:DENY; it's beautiful stuff, and it works. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a big deal, Jimbo Wales has notified Mike Godwin his legal advisor for god sake, see the dicussion on his page, this could cause untold damage... Blueanode (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So what would you suggest we do? Sharpen our keyboards? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The PeeWee guy is full of it. He claimed to have "hundreds of IP addresses" - he didn't. I've checkusered enough of his cases to know - he's just a bluffer - Alison ^❤ 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly convinced Jwales. Blueanode (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You must know that this is exactly what the editor wanted? Move along... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't exactly had enough experience to understand who this editor is and what he wants... Blueanode (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is ridiculous. I've marked it as resolved; it's probably some 8-year-old kid or something who has nothing better to do than to get people all worked up about it. He's most likely bluffing about having some big assault ready, and besides, he has no idea who most of us are, as he has no CheckUser. Revert, block, ignore. End of story. Keilana^talk 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Ongoing harrassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetery by User:Coloane

I'm being harassed by User:Coloane for making an unfavorable review at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macau. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indonesia/archive1. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at WP:Featured article review on February 1st, 2008 ([109]). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: ([110]). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from User:Coloane was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at WP:FAC ([111]). There may also be a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]. Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. User:Coloane was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on Russia ([117]). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: [118]. If you examine the edits made by User:Coloane, User:Fbmmsu and User:Josuechan there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, User:Coloane has previously been blocked for block-evasion ([119]), and User:Coloane and User:Fbmmsu have played tag team in reverting at Programme for International Student Assessment to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (Caniago (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow WP:NPOV and supress the evil WP:COI as much as posible to preserve WP:Notable, respect WP:WEIGHT and WP:AGF. Igor Berger (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to WP:MEAT if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the WP:3RR policy [120]. which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no black and white area here. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am quite lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some difference and you change something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! Coloane (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[121] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[122]. He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge [123] (please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!) and here (I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T) [124]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [125] [126] [127]. Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.[128]--Miyokan (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. You copied and pasted on the FAC page and now you pasted it over here. It is much faster that you typed and pasted compare to the past but not much improvement has been made. Coloane (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I once again question this user's intentions on Wikipedia. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is charming, no?) Bogdan ^що? 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

so? this is my IP from Ottawa, Canada. I don't mind much if you want to get more info from me. I am currently a neurosurgeon working in Ottawa. What else do you want to know? Coloane (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but Coloane does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. Alice^✉ 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I am not interested in you. I wrote you already on your talk page. If you are seeking a boyfriend or husband, please refer to related classified online. You just disturbed me a lot. If you think your English is wonderful (though this is not your native language), congratulations! please go to ask some one if they can offer you a place as an ESL teacher. Good Luck!!! Coloane (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above is a blatant and very public display of highly unacceptable behaviour, and a clear cut example of his tendency to launch personal attacks against others (and I find it difficult to imagine that he is doing so due to his lack of proficiency in the language). That he even chose to do this right here shows his contempt towards wikipedia policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having seen Coloane repeatedly cause disruption on Singapore-related articles, I am not surprised to learn about his conduct at the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In a discussion at Talk:2007 Southeast Asian Games, he made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, claiming that "Singaporeans...[are] basically semi-handicapped". He also edit warred with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport. After both users broke 3RR, he apparently resorted to sock puppetry; the IP should be added to his CheckUser case. Communicating with this user is difficult, as he frequently blanks his talk page. Perhaps a RFC or arbitration case is needed to further investigate his conduct and determine what sanctions, if any, should be imposed on him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, you are still holding the grudge. I nearly forgot this incident which happaned long time ago. I think that I didn't go back to that article for sometime. Actually I did nothing wrong. For what I did is made sure the information up-to-date(i.e. report from 2007). I remember you Huaiwei also got warning of 3RR policy, am I right? of course I can blank or archive all conservation in my talk page, it is my account. For what you talked about sockpuppets is completely groundless. The IP your provided above I guess it is from Malaysia. My IP is from Ottawa, Canada. Anyway, I just don't want to waste my time to talk about this. Regards! Coloane (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Coloane (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse

I came across Cculber007 (talk · contribs) after another user reported him for incivility. I responded with two instances of AGF/NPA-vios, and was greeted today by a rather harsh reply.

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility and legal threats. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• [129]: Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• [130] Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• [131] Creative reuse of a header.
• [132] Ditto.
• [133] (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Wikipedia about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Wikipedia. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Wikipedia is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

He was given "one more chance" for legal threats.

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: [134] [135]. I thought of just keeping this on the respective talk pages and working out a better solution, but after receiving the rather disturbing e-mails in successive fashion and after seeing the prior blocks, I thought this venue would be more appropriate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cculber007 additionally — and anonymously — posted threats and insults on my talk page here, threatening an edit war calling me "Coward dolt" and promising, "I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting [sic] dolt. ... Get lost". I hope he will not be allowed continued this pattern of abuse to multiple editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock assistance

Over about a month's time, there have been a number of disruptive POV edits made to Serb-related articles. All have been made from IP addresses, with the vast majority from either the 195.29.96.x - 195.29.105.x range and 217.68.80.50 (talk · contribs) (the latter account has been blocked). The edits were spread over about thirty pages, with protections up to a week in length having little effect. User:Cheeser1, who initially noticed the edits and has been monitoring it since then, has documented most of the pertinent information at User:Cheeser1/Vandalism, which I will not duplicate here.

As protection has been ineffective and this user shows no sign of stopping, I think it's time to look at a rangeblock. I'd like to solicit others' opinions before doing so, however. Also, would it be wise to request a checkuser to determine any collateral damage such a block would incur? Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that the IPvandal has made it clear that the 192.29.96-105 range and 217.68.80.50 is definitely the same user, and has explicitly made it clear that s/he has no intention of contributing constructively to these articles or any other part of Wikipedia. The user seems to think vandalism is humorous (most easily gleaned from these two page histories). No other contributions seem to have been made from this IP range as far as I can tell (I haven't checked all 2560 of them though). Anything I can do to help, since I've been doing the bulk of the work and have documented this case, just ask. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BernardL

Clear violations of WP:NPA here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Monthly_Review and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#The_Atlantic_Monthly

Jtrainor (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks. They're not even close to them. He's stating policy. You also have not sought to bring up the issue with the user in question, which you should do before bringing something to the noticeboard (although that's something of a moot point here, since nothing occurred). Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that BernardL has modified his remarks substantially (diff) presumably between the time that Jtrainor posted this report and when Tijuana Brass read the comments. Comments like "...your half-baked pseudo-legal finaggling", "Why do you bother us with these obvious irrelevancies?", and "Can your imbecility go much deeper than it already is?" were made after Jtrainor posted a reminder link ([136]) to WP:NPA on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's give BernardL the benefit of the doubt and guess that he made those changes after realizing that he made a mistake. If it happens again, take it up with him first, then escalate it to the etiquette noticeboard if it continues. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda know Bernard from some interactions on the article in question (where I generally agree with him in terms of the debates there) and think the "your imbecility" comment in particular is highly, highly unacceptable. It's good that the comment was apparently refactored by Bernard (I did not check the history but assume this was the case), however a stern admin warning seems warranted. Having said that, the article in question is (and has been for a long time) a heated one in terms of talk page interactions so the comments are not at all beyond the pale in terms of the tone over there (unfortunately). Bernard's comments at the article, as far as I've seen and remember, have generally been well thought out and civil so I would view the "imbecility" comment as cause for a strong slap on the wrist and little more at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence tampering

86.20.179.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has altered my evidence statement at an arbitration case with a misleading edit summary. The IP changed my words to make it appear that I was accusing Odd nature of being a sockpuppet of FeloniousMonk, yet called the edit a grammar fix.[137] I reverted immediately and consider that an especially pernicious attack. Please block, and if a checkuser is available that would be good too. Maybe FeloniousMonk would have some ideas about who did this. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just gave the IP a warning.[138] TableManners^U·T·C 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only edits by this ip were those as notified above. I suggest if this, or another in the same range, return and make similar amendments then we can consider a block. Again, only if these incidents of vandalism are repeated should checkuser be requested. Further, wouldn't checkuser need to have a name for a suspected account - and valid reasons for believing they are socking - to be accepted? You may wish to weigh the consequences of making such a request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TableManners, your "warning," " Please stop introducing jokes into articles" is way off the mark; the person impersonated a trusted member of the community on an arbcom evidence page to attack another, not "introducing jokes into articles." That in itself is a blockable offense. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message at FeloniousMonk's user talk. The odds of this being a new user are really low. I just don't know who the sockmaster would be, but I think we should have a very low tolerance for this particular kind of dirty trick. Suppose someone else had edited that page before I checked my watchlist? This is arbitration evidence; I think a short leash should apply. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova: have you notified the arb clerk on that case? I'd suggest posting this also on the case page it occurred on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one month. "First offense" etc clearly does not apply to an editor impersonating one editor in order to attack, harass, or accuse another on an ArbCom evidence page. Anyone who knows enough to do that knows precisely what they are doing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request input on topic ban

Hello. I'd like to strongly suggest a topic ban for User:Gp75motorsports, restricting him to article space with talk edits only relating to those articles, and a specific restriction on discussing one Pee Wee Herman vandal. He spends the majority of his time in userspace or talk space, rarely actually writing articles, and generally making mountains out of molehills. This type of behavior stretches back to his beginnings on the project. However, despite him having months of experience, this behavior has not waned, rather, it has increased greatly. I do feel that if he were restricted to articlespace, they could channel this energy into improving the encyclopedia.

According to Interiot's counter, Gp75motorsports has made only 109 edits to the mainspace since he joined the project in July. Most of these edits are minor, such as removing links and tagging. Also according to Interiot, he has made 665 edits to usertalk space, which accounts for more than 53% of his edits, in contrast to his mainspace edits, accounting for less than 9% of his edits. Finally, about 10% of his edits are to his userspace. GP75motorsports also frequently threatens blocks in a very argumentative, BITEy, and bossy manner, such as here: [139], also speaking in very combative tones. He has also taunted banned users, running very contrary to WP:FEED. He also propagates instruction creep, as shown by these myriad examples (some admin-only): His WikiProject for the purpose of giving him and his friends power, their meeting room, and their requests page; more are visible here. He has created titles for his friends, proposed it as a WikiProject duplicate of the CVU, tries to deceive people about the nature of his project, canvasses for support in debates, canvasses against deletion of his pet project, gets very standoffish when it is nominated for deletion, canvasses for support in his deletion debate, creates "secret pages", and just generally creates busywork for people. The entire debate may hold interest. If you look at his contribs from the October 15-22 period, you will see a lot of wikilawyering and instruction creep, there are many more diffs, and this behavior has not ceased. He's also been blocked ([140]) and received warnings on his behavior (see [141], and). GP75 also harassed retired user RickK, posting on his talk page his purported new identity, using very inflammatory edit summaries, spreading it around, mounting an apparent investigation, and finally requests checkuser on him, but doesn't drop the issue. He has created other Wikiprojects mired in bureaucracy; 6 of them have been through MfD: AccInsure, ChampionMart, PeeWee Hurman, The Wikipedia User's Alliance, Wikipedia User's Alliance 2, and The Great Wikigame. GP is, along with User:Blow of Light, obsessed with the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, culminating in this thread on Jimbo's talk page regarding a puerile threat from said vandal. Recently, they created a list of possible names he could take, resulting in this MfD. He posted on Blow's talk page regarding this vandal two days ago, stating that the vandal's IP "should be indeffed". He also takes a very militant approach, adding to Pee Wee's encouragement. He worked with Blow on User:Pee wee maury povich as a place to identify Pee Wee sockpuppets, see Special:Prefixindex/User:Pee wee maury povich. Also regarding Pee Wee actions, he asks repeatedly about his activities. Finally, he doesn't understand the purpose of CheckUser despite multiple reminders, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NikhtaSt, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RickK. Finally, he promised once before to stop editing userspace, but obviously has not. His last 500 contribs may be of note. I hope that the community will consider this request. Regards, Keilana^talk 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I would also support a block. Keilana^talk 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about him too, and I've already been working back on mainspace. So, yeah, I don't really want or need to deal with PeeWee anymore, and I don't say why. —BoL 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the alternate account I worked on was all by myself, and it's a doppleganger. If you want to, delete it. In fact, I've already tagged it. —BoL 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this topic restriction for GP, and think that it should serve as a very strong and clear warning to BoL (Blow of Light) that he is headed in the same direction at a slower pace. Some have advocated (see WP:EM) a less restrictive treatment of editors who focus a great deal of attention on their userspace at the expense of other contributions, but at this point their userspace activity has begun to contribute to disruption of the wider community. ^Avruchtalk 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I present my caveats. —BoL 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, your warnings? You present your warnings? Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my warnings, my contribs. You notice I've been working on Mainspace lately. [142] —BoL 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without turning this thread into a grammar debate, but take a look at caveat. "Let him beware" is essentially what it means. Metros (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support any action against this user in the form of topic ban or probation. Metros (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

its sgenerally a clear sine of a single-issue editor (or a vandal) that they spend more of this time warring on the user page rather than actually working on the encycloepdia. i eprsonally think that a restriction is in order, aidn if he tries to violate that by abusing the articles throughe edit warring or rude edit summaries then he should be banned permanently. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully support this topic ban. I'd also completely support a similar ban for User:Blow of Light, mentioned to a lesser extent in Keilana's explanation above, but no less worrying in my eyes. Both of these two have long histories of rather less than exemplary behavior. GlassCobra 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Dude, I'm willing to stop. I aint' working on that anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop then. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support such a topic block on gp75 - suggest we hold him to what he requested (ie. protect stuff, just like he asked). If it's possible to salt userspace (using a prefixindex, perhaps, not sure....), then salting his userpsace may be a good idea, for a while at least. BoL has been contributing a bit lately, but is reminded that he's being watched. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you really want to stop, User:Blow of Light, you shoudl just stop and not protest your punishment. Smith Jones (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(after a bunch of ec's) This says otherwise (admin-only unfortunately). east.718 at 00:49, January 13, 2008

I don't see why we shouldn't ban him (GP) all together. It doesn't seem that he understands what Wikipedia is for, and has generally become a hindrance to the project in several situations. Are his article edits that helpful that we think he should be allowed to only edit them? Blow of Light, I don't know what to say, as I haven't really noticed anything good or bad about his presence. All I do know is that he seems to be fixated on this Peewee Herman nonsense a bit, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to banning GP75, although some others may cherish his {{trivia}} tagging more than we do. Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And is that really what we want him to solely do from now on? It seems like a task that can be done by anyone, not someone who continues to fill his user space with unnecessary content.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As per GlassCobra, I think some sort of final warning is needed for both Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports. Mønobi 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd second the suggestion of a warning, at least in the case of Blow of Light. Blocks are intended to be preventative, either in preventing current and active disruption, or in preventing long-term cumulative disruption. If the user has stopped the behavior (as he/she claims to have done by editing more in the mainspace), and if the user states his/her intent to refrain from the disruptive behavior, then I think that's all we would need. If, after such a warning, the disruption begins again, then a block is absolutely warranted. I haven't looked into the case of GP, and reserve comment pending his response to this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, hi, I just want to check. Is this going to be in ARBCOM or something? —BoL 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Hopefully that can be avoided with a voluntary community supported topic ban. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a topic restriction for Gp and I strongly urge him not to run to Jimbo or Arbcom every time he finds a threat or a vandal, not only does this tend to propagate additional unwanted drama as those unfamiliar with the situation begin to panic and make unwise knee jerk reactions, but also, as no active and experienced editors or administrators are aware of the situation, we're unable to deal with it. Nick (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blow of Light

I figured I'd create a sub-section to separate out discussion for Blow of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since he seems to be getting a decent amount of discussion here too. What are thoughts on actions regarding him? He claims above he's cleaning up, but it's obvious he's still not doing well. Case in point is this response on his talk page. He spent an entire conversation accusing an IP user of having a conflict of interest, telling the user to go read the policy....only to be wrong and admit he, himself, had no clue what the policy meant. What are thoughts we might have on Blow of Light? Metros (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not perfect, but so is no one. I'm trying to improve, but I am having a very hard time. —BoL 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's not hard to drop certain topics. Mønobi 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I do CSD work and improving San Francisco-related articles. —BoL 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a similar restriction to Gp above. Nick (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Just to clarify, I am supporting a similar restriction to the one being proposed for Gp in the section above for Blow of Light. I don't know nor care about PWeeHurman, especially as until now, it was not even part of this conversation Nick (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah isn't it weird how it works like that Nick? You don't bring up PWeeHurman, yet, Blow of Light brings it up. Metros (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As strange as it sounds, I actually support the topic ban on PWeeHurman. The reason why I'm freaking out about this is for a reason I can't explain unless you want me to. —BoL 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. Does it not get through to you to leave the PWeeHurman shit alone? Seriously. I'm sorry if I'm being incivil here, but my god cannot it not get through to you hard enough? Metros (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're being uncivil, and yes, I want to stop, but guess what? It's getting through me all right. Just... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blow of Light (talk • contribs) 02:40 UTC (UTC)

No more PeeWee, BoL.

Look, BoL, I don't want to say this again. All of us do not want to say this again. Stop, and I mean STOP, all mention of PeeWee from this moment forward. —Kurykh 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why there's this. I don't know how words turn into black or red bars. —BoL 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes STOP IT. JUST STOP IT. !!! Smith Jones (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

if you sant something else to do, please visit and improve the article Battle of Mediolanum Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Gp, Just stop, Gp. You know what, I don't ever want to ever mention anything about socks. From now on, I'm just going to try mainspace, like improve San Francisco-related areas. In fact, the reason why I even came back was I wanted a clean start, and apparently, I don't think I'm getting it. —BoL 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you worry about yourself first? Stop worrying about specks in other people's eyes with that plank in yours. —Kurykh 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want pompous proclamations of intended reform. You gave too much of that already. Actual change is what we want, what we demand. —Kurykh 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You got a clean start. Taking and utilizing it appropriately is another story all together. Metros (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

to fulyl take advantage of your clean start, please visit and improve Battle of Mediolanum or Bronwen Mantel as soon as possible. Smith Jones (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's because I got stressed out. Every time I get stressed out, I start getting really cranky and this is what usually happens and that's what got me blocked last time. I am sick and tired of this scrutiny over me, that's why I didn't want to come back, but I realized once I left, vandalism went up. Now I'm back, and it's still the same ol' same ol'. Can't you guys just leave me alone? And I don't mean a block. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man! You mean alllllllll that vandalism we saw after you left was solely because you weren't here to stop the vandals?! Damn. Get this man a barnstar. Seriously, though...we wouldn't be scrutinizing you if you were making good, wise choices here would we? If you were editing appropriately and not obsessing over particular users and code shops, would we be calling your edits into question? Definitely not. So make the necessary changes and you won't have issues. Don't ask us to stop watching your edits. PROVE to use we can stop. Metros (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for Battle of Mediolanum, I've already started. —BoL 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Metros grow up and stop bulying other usrs its a violation of WP: No Personal Attacks and probably WP:Civil. if you have problems with BLowofLgihts' edits you should phrase them in apolite and respectful maner and offer encouragements for him to imrpove to meet your standards. doing otherwise makes it seem like your trying to bully him which is unfair and unhelpful. if you go to the article Battle of Mediolanum (which all of you should) you will see that BLow of Light has started to make construcitve non-PeeWee related edits and that's a trend that we hould be encouraging isntead of criticizing. Smith Jones (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I agree with him. I have created pages that are contributing to the project, both new and old accounts, like Carmen Chu, the Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth Empowerment Project, and Cody's Books. —BoL 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop kicking BoL while he's down. —Kurykh 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm down, but not out. There's something going on, Wen Weihua got jumped, and now Jimbo Wales, and others, including me, have blanked their userpages and replaced it with something. —BoL 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, just edit articles, okay? We don't need up-to-the-minute reports of your reform agenda. —Kurykh 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The? OK, then I guess it's resolved, huh? —BoL 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that provided you don't start going on more sockpuppet hunting, and you edit articles fairly regularly, then we can accept this situation looks like it's resolved. Nick (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Gp75motorsports? —BoL 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, worry about yourself. —Kurykh 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is intolerable, please, do not concern yourself with the affairs of other users when discussion on your behaviour has narrowly avoided veering towards a formal ban. I really don't wish to see you concerning yourself with matters that do not concern you any time in the near future, as it is such behaviour that resulted in this discussion in the first place. Administrators are not unfair, we deal with each and every situation as best we can. I suspect we a similar satisfactory agreement with Gp too, but I'm afraid you're actually getting in the way here now. Move on from here and go edit whatever article you wish to. Nick (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for both users (BoL and Gp75) restricting them to articles, article talk, and user talk, except for each other's talk page. I would also support deletion and/or full protection of most of their userspace. Perhaps a regex could be added to the Titleblacklist to prevent creation of any new pages in their userspace. This behavior has to end. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally. If someone can dig out the link for the last admonishment given to Blow of Light on this noticeboard - from only a handful of weeks ago - for assuming bad faith in relation to this PeeWee vandal, it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just chiming in to add my support to a topic for both of these editors, restricting them to article space, article talk, and user talk. I don't believe gentle advice has worked in either case; if either of these editors is genuinely interested in helping the project, they may so demonstrate by abiding under the terms of the ban. Xoloz (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vivaviagra (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Looks like we have a vandalism only account. That will more than likely need a liberal coating of LART. Their user page and username should give some indication of how much of a boon to Wikipedia they will be. --WebHamster 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. WP:AIV is much faster. east.718 at 01:27, January 13, 2008

Faster than 2 minutes? I'm impressed :P --WebHamster 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

tqbf (talk · contribs)

User:tqbf is Wikistalking and harassing me.

I filed a 3RR [143]

Contacted 3RR admn. [144]

I warned user about harassment.[145]

My talk page[146]

My talk page2[147]

My talk page3[148]

My talk page 4[149]

We are constantly bumping heads on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 talk page. I try to keep to the issues and not address him but I just want to be left alone. Especially on my talk page.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about this, other than that:

• I stand by this edit, and
• I'm really sorry you guys have to take your time with this.

I'm over 3RR on the relevant page, and trust that other editors will revert inappropriate changes until Monday. --- tqbf 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed User:Duchamps comb's 3RR report and found it deficient. I tried to explain to him how to do it properly, but he was not able to. The user then asked me if I felt that this was trolling by others. I told him that I didn't think so, and that his own edit here is uncivil. I tried my best to explain to him that reverting and forcing his views on others is counterproductive, and that he would get much better results from finding good sources and collaborating. He simply removed my message from his talk page. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the relevant details have been provided above. My edit that Crum375 provides above makes my perspective clear (I acknowledge that this complaint would have been more effective on WP:WQA or an administrative board, but I wasn't sure whether my exasperation at attempting to edit this page was shared by others--and my exasperation was great at that particular instant). Often we have clashed because Duchamps_comb writes in a very idiosyncratic English and is resistant to attempts to remove text that (in my opinion and often others') is unsalvageable because of the construction or the sources or the use of quotes. The real problem, however: Duchamps_comb makes plenty of edits and reversions but does not/cannot engage in the necessary backstage talk in an appropriate manner. Even now on Talk:Ron Paul he is currently misrepresenting the views of editors on whether to keep a particular section in the article; whether intentionally or otherwise, I do not know. I don't really have much else to add other than to say that no other editor working on the article, whether pro-Paul or not, behaves in this way. I've never really gotten involved in this part of Wikipedia before, so perhaps this isn't how things work, but it would be nice if an admin without any investment in this debate took an interest in DC and perhaps made an attempt to mentor him. (For instance, if he heard that canvassing is inappropriate from someone other than tqbf or HelloAnnyong, he might be more inclined to listen.)--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Laser (talk · contribs) and Hardcore Hak (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'd like to report misuse of Wikipedia by these two users. They seem to think we're a chat room. I have warned them to stop, but their behavior persists. Diffs:

Blue Laser: [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [;Blue Laser: [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236]

Hardcore Hak: [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244]

JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but it would be rather harsh to expect intervention/"punishment" from administrators. There are many good contributions coming from these two users; that they are too interested in using the talk page is not critical problem. A friendly reminder on the talk will suffice. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually planning to start a discussion with JetLover as to the best way to encourage these two to contribute more to the 'pedia, but it seems I was a little too late in moving on that. I started watching Hardcore Hak after his RfA, so I can attest to the fact that he and User:Blue Laser seem to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. They've both also been warned multiple times no no effect--for example, although a message I left on Hardcore Hak's talk page a little over a month ago was removed without comment (an act that usually indicates understanding of the warning), his behavior continued unabated.

I agree with you that punitive measures don't seem to be in order--they do contribute to some extent, and excessive socializing is not exactly the worst thing in the world--but I'm wondering if there's a more effective way to encourage them to turn their energies to encyclopedia building. From what I know of the tools, there's no way to, say, block them from editing each other's talk page, but maybe something along these lines would be effective? --jonny-mt 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We could warn both parties that their pages will be fully protected for a brief period if their behaviour continues to violate WP:NOT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First off I would like to say I can't edit with people talking to me 24/7. And JetLover you have been all over me ever scince I banned you from The King of the Hill wiki. Oh yeah this is a false claim. Like Wookieepedia of the banning of MoneyMoney and ImperialWalker.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a spillover from a cruftwiki??? LOL. Seriously, the two users should be banned from using user talk pages for a while, and should be restricted to article pages and article talk pages for the sole purpose of improving articles. No need to block, as long as there continue to be good article contributions, but there are other places on the 'net to carry on this silliness. We should not continue it at wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you all get off this fricken subject? jetlaover, hows about you STAY THE CRAP AWAY from my conversations. Also, i do contribute to other things than talk. now all of you, GET OFF THE FRICKEN SUBJECT!!!!!!! :( Blue Laser (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's going to get people on your side... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect war at Gustav Horn, Count of Pori

User:Jonathan and User:213.67.64.22 are editing the pages Gustav Horn af Björneborg and Gustav Horn, Count of Pori, reverting each other, anon doing cut-and-paste move, and sometimes ending up with the two pages just redirecting to each other. There may (or may not) be consensus on the talk page to change the name from Gustav Horn, Count of Pori which I believe it was up until today, to Gustav Horn af Björneborg, but they're not doing it properly and perhaps Jonathan opposes the rename. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind -- please ignore this report. Sorry. I think I misconstrued Jonathan's role in this. Apparently User:213.67.64.22 wants to rename the page and has consensus on talk, and User:Jonathan may have been just trying to fix things, as I was also doing. I'll try to get clarification from Jonathan as to his position about the move, and if he agrees then I'll put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to fix the cut-and-paste move. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

blocking IP?

I noticed that almost all the edits made from the ip 64.24.88.6 are vandalizations, and in some cases also racist comments. check the history of the IP to see. most of these edits were reverted, but still, I think something should be done. thanks Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two edits in the last month - not nearly enough for a block. That IP is registered to PaeTec Communications Inc. so I think it's shared, so a block could cause collateral damage. Hut 8.5 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

REFERRED FOR BLOCKING - IP 209.244.30.109

As the reviewing admin can see from the following evidence, this IP has received the requisite warnings prior to any possible blocks:

1. IP talk page warnings
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Turner&diff=prev&oldid=183970993 latest incident - Will Turner
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_At_World%27s_End&diff=prev&oldid=183970836 latest incident - POTC:AWE

Previous edits can be traced by links from the IP talk page. If an admin could look at this IP for possible block, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Edit Centric (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since your last warning. Next time, please take these reports to WP:AIV. —Kurykh 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kurykh, sorry to trouble you with this one, I'll repost there. Edit Centric (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...my implicit message was that a block isn't needed at this juncture. Block at next offense. —Kurykh 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...I respectfully disagree. If you look again, you'll see that this same IP user comes back every few days, and removes the same content from the same articles. The latest two incidents were performed after the level-4 warning. After reverting these changes, I issued the 4-im. So in essence, the IP has received five warnings for the month so far. However, I do respect your position and opinion, whatever becomes of this one is kosher by me. Edit Centric (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama described as negro?

Resolved

 – Blocked as a vandal—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TheOnlyJason is insistent on using the term negro to describe Barack Obama in the opening 'graph of that article. When warned, user simply replaces it. Additionally, user repeatedly blanks his talk page after warnings (presumably so that editors would not see how many warnings he has had). When final warning is noted on the vandalism page, an admin calls it a content dispute, and dismisses it out of hand (though TheOnlyJason was warned on 3RR).

Will someone explain to me why his edits are not considered vandalism? --Mhking (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They are considered vandalism; he was just blocked for 48 hours. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --Mhking (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two days ago he added an image to the Hal Turner article and also vandalized that article. [245] [246] For those that don't know Hal Turner is a well-known racist radio host here in Northern New Jersey. Also putting down British PM Gordon Brown as "Jewish". [247]--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec...do you see the pattern? Edits to Habbo, Hal Turner, insisting on putting down Obama as a "negro"....It all points in one direction.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Add Habbo Hotel to that list. We've been dealing with hordes of vandals adding in references to "negroes", "AIDS" and "pool's closed" for quite a long time now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did a search, it is a video at a video site. TableManners^C·U·T 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Masive article deletion by Delaware Valley Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

Little help here, please? HalfShadow (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Slakr. PS you shouldn't really remove posts from this page; a bot will archive it later.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Condensed matter nuclear science

At WP:RPP it was suggested[248] that this request be posted here:

Administrator User:JzG ("Guy") redirected[249] and then immediately indefinitely protected Condensed matter nuclear science,[250] while involved in a content dispute[251][252] and an edit war[253][254] which had repeatedly previously, and also has since, resulted in a different admin protecting the article to which Guy redirected.[255][256] This violated two parts of the Wikipedia:Protection policy:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

When asked to recognize this error and unprotect the page, Guy refused in a flippant reply.[257] Because the protection violated two aspects of the policy, the article should be unprotected. MigFP (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I would agree this situation needs eyes of more admins. JzG is clearly involved in editing the Cold Fusion article, and should have avoided protecting the articles in question. I have no idea whether or not such protection was justified, only that he probably should not have done it. Any other opinions? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

THe problem isn't that JZG protected it as much as it's that every time it's unprotected, the FRINGE rises, and there are few admins willing to deal with it, and fewer among those who have any mastery of an area. Thus, we have this vicious cycle wherein an admin fights the cranks and fringe, they wiki-laywer everything that person does, demanding outside admins. Any admin coming in thus becomes 'tainted' against any further actions, calls out for admins who know the subject matter, and they're back to the first admin, who they counter with 'but he's involved already, we want a NEW outside admin'. pretty soon there are two pools of admins. those who won't touch the mess with someoen else's pole, and those who touched it, and are wiki-layer injunctioned from ever touching again. JZG decides to cut the crap, fight's the FRINGE, and time after time, gets brought here for it. Full support for JZG's actions, based on all he does to keep the FRINGE from purporting that 'the man' is keeping down the perfect source of free energy. ThuranX (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I looked closer at the articles in question. Protection WAS probably needed, and you are probably right in your assesment of the situation. If the end result is that the article should have been protected, JzG probably acted correctly. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be an excellent application of IAR by JzG here. henrik•talk 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but personal attacks do not nullify policy, the ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs don't make a right. What JzG did was wrong, in any case. Jayron32 had already determined this based on all of the relevant evidence. (The actions of JzG in relation to policy.) JzG acted incorrectly in respect to wikipedia policy, in that:

• "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
• "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."

Unless you're saying that this was a case of "simple vandalism or libel issues against living people" and "clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation", because those are the only two exceptions to these policies. Kevin Baas^talk 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You propose that we unprotect the article and then instantly protect it again, just so that the last to act on the protection would be someone uninvolved in the article? What would be the point in that? Seems like a needless move to me... As I said above, regardless of whether JzG should have been the one to do the protection, it should have been protected... As for dealing with JzG, what should we do, send him to his room without supper? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Were there ever complaints about the "fringe" on Condensed matter nuclear science before wholesale redirection started in November? (article history) MigFP (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor's userpage with personal details

User:Cap.J.D.I. has a name, age (13), street address (w/o city), and email. My understanding is that we strongly encourage (enforce?) that minors do not divulge their address. MB83 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially with minors.  Done by East718. miranda 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

BigHaz

He violated the blocking policy (he blocked an IP address indefinitely, and the blocking policy clearly states that you cannot do that). He keeps telling a user that they do not understand the policies, but I think he is the one not understanding. Indefinite IP blocks are not allowed. Could you please check this out. 124.180.63.58 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) BigHaz notified. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinate IP blocks are discouraged, but not expressly prevented. There can be cases where such moves are justified. COuld you provide us with the specific IP address so that we all can judge for ourselves the specifics of this situation? Without any evidence to go on, we cannot decide if BigHaz did anything wrong... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

121.219.34.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note also the comment by BigHaz in the block log. James086^{Talk | Email} 06:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the block to 1 year. The IP had less than 50 edits, not enough justification in my mind for a "forever" block, but in deference to BigHaz, and he seems to know more about this case than I, he is probably justified in a long-term block. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I should probably explain what's going on here. The user complaining about me has - under a series of different usernames and IP addresses (yes, I can provide all or most of these if anyone wants) - spent most of the past year wilfully misunderstanding policies and generally proving a disruptive influence. He initially contacted me asking if I could lift a block on a school-based IP which had been done for vandalism. I told him that I wouldn't (I didn't enact the ban and the vandalism was pretty blatant) and, for several months, he argued with me and claimed that I was unreasonable, despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of creating an account and using it.
• During our long interaction, I noticed that he was vandalising a number of articles and at least one AfD. I began by reverting this vandalism and warning him about it, which did not seem to result in a change in his behaviour. Rather, he created accounts specifically to vandalise and move pages, for which I eventually blocked him for a short time. On his return, he began the same behaviours once again, including creating accounts designed to insult me. I was prepared to block him for a longer time than before (I think I gave him a 6-month or 12-month ban, can't remember), but another admin in fact extended that to an indefinite one, something I don't dispute at all.
• The user has, since that time, continued to create accounts and use his (apparently dynamic) IP addresses either to harrass me, vandalise various places (most recently threatening to kill people at a DRV discussion) or both. The reference to my repeatedly telling him that he doesn't understand the policies is because he has shown that he does not believe that the indefinite block applies to him personally, but seems to think that if he creates an account every couple of weeks - and tells me about it, which is baffling - people will eventually give up. Again, all the relevant diffs and so forth can be provided here if need be, but I'm heading off shortly so I can't do it right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the IP address is dynamic, then there is a decent chance that sometime in the future, another person may attempt to use it to edit. Forever is a long time... If this same IP starts the same behavior in 1 year, then it will be a quick block. Indeed, playing whack-a-mole may be pointless. It sucks, it really does, but maybe a rangeblock may be better than the whack-a-mole method. If the user is editing from a truly random set of IPs, then I am not sure that ANY blocks will end up solving this problem at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with that as a solution, as I said on my Talk page earlier today (my time). My theory was that blocking the existing IP until collateral damage came to pass was an equally valid solution, since it still sends the same unequivocal message to the long-term vandal, but a long enough finite block makes just as much sense to me. Bags I not waiting by the rabbit hole in a year if at all possible, though, since I'm sick to death of having to explain to this kid that the rules continue to apply to him and that vandalism is still vandalism, even when separated by a month or so of inactivity. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Prezronpaul2008

Political spam of some kind, thrice. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User has not edited since being warned. Use AIV for problems like this in the future. I see nothing to do here... I gave him another warning, awaiting further action... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yep I should've put this at WP:AIV, sorry and thanks for watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and WP:POINT

• Special:Contributions/Wilhelmina Will
• User talk:Wilhelmina Will#episodes
• User talk:Ned Scott#Good point!
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_South_Park_episodes&action=history

Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) seems to be on a South Part episode redirection spree, in retaliation to TTN's own redirects of episode articles. Say what you will about TTN, but he at least places notices on the talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

She seems to be transwiki'ing to the southparkwiki. A better palce for the articles, and then redirecting. Drop her a note asking for notices, but it's a net plus for the project, esp. as shes' got fairly liberal standards for notability, and is examining each one one at a time. Maybe I'm missing something, but i doubt it.ThuranX (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on his/her talk page. S/he should have used a discussion to gain consensus. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note - I left a 3RR warning earlier today, and then another revert was made. Another editor recently left another 3RR warning, but technically, it's already a 3RR violation. initial redirect revert #1 revert #2 revert #3 AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky

After seeing a posting made by Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this noticeboard a few days ago in which he claims myself and others are part of a "cabal", I responded (full thread) and then asked him to cease with these allegations if he couldn't prove them. In fact, two of the editors he mentions as being part of this "cabal" haven't edited for some time now. Previously, Stone put to sky commented on an AFD that those who wished to see the article now titled Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States deleted were "fascists". [258]...when that issue was brought up with him again (full thread), he reserved the right to continue to label myself and others with this word. "Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you." When asked by User:JungleCat to not use that word to describe those he disagrees with his retort was no more civil.[259]. It's pretty obvious Stone puts to sky feels I am part of a cabal [260] (which I have asked him to prove but won't/can't)[261], that myself and others are fascists [262] and that I am "lying"[263] and that I have "sockpuppeteers" and "kiddie-thugs"[264] I assume to supposedly do my nefarious actions for me, of course. Would a neutral admin please remind Stone put to sky about our policies regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...I [265] and others tried to do so, but it seems to have failed.--MONGO 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This interaction took place on my talk page, and was occasioned by MONGO's appearance and declaration that i was not to make any mention of a publicly available admission published on this site by a former partner of his. Following that, he made a thinly-veiled threat that he would seek administrative intervention should i choose to do so. MONGO's rhetoric and choice of words were unambiguous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; coupled with past disciplinary actions taken against him as well as his active pursuit of me, independent of any pages on which he or i am currently editing, then i must protest that the root problem here are his actions -- not mine.

The exchange took place on my talk page, and would never have happened had it not been initiated by him. None of it has been nor ever will be used in any of the pages where i am editing. MONGO pursued the exchange even though i made it quite clear that i considered his activity to be tantamount to bullying threats. In an extremely surreal move, JungleCat suddenly appeared -- i have had virtually no interaction with this poster ever, so far as i can remember -- and began asserting that MONGO was correct. Why this person appeared i have no idea, but the distinct impression was that there was some sort of set-up or collaboration taking place. Regardless, i politely rejected their interpretation of the word "fascist" and -- again, politely -- referred them to any common dictionary or other reference for proof.

MONGO was quite upset, apparently, that i had referred to admissions made by NuclearUmpf -- a former, long-term poster and editing partner of MONGO's -- that were made here on the Wikipedia website and are freely available to all. Regarding the specific accusations made against MONGO, i would like to point out that it was he who appeared on my talk page and engaged me in this course of conversation. I did not seek him out, nor did i press the issue publicly (i.e. -- on a public page frequented by many, nor in a formal administrative move, nor on a page's talk-page). I find it hard to understand why any objections should arise when mention is made of a public admission by a former, long-term user. NuclearUmpf's revelations outlined a modus operandi that has been openly commented upon and observed by many users from all across the website. I believe that this is usually referred to as "The Elephant in the Room", but in this instance these were published admissions and revelations, not mere accusations made by me, and it seems rather beyond the pale for someone to insist that they be stricken from the public record. My characterization of the members of such cabals as "kiddie thugs" may be mildly distasteful, but it is not inaccurate and was not directed at any particular person or group. A general observation made about a class of people universally rejected by all wikipedia policies and administrators certanly can not be considered a personal insult, can it?

I would further like to point out that we would not be discussing any of this in the public section of the site were it not for MONGO's own pursuit of the matter, as well as the implicit threats and incivility of his entire comportment throughout this entire affair.

Finally, most of the "incivility" that MONGO claims occurred was nothing more than a discussion of whether the word "fascist" is a pejorative epithet or a neutral descriptive. I maintain the latter; MONGO feels it is, however, an insult. Nowhere in that particular discussion did i use invective, and throughout the exchange i re-iterated repeatedly that A) I have friends who self-identify as fascists, B) fascism as a mainstream political movement is still quite alive and kicking, and C) the implication was clearly that, insofar as i have friends who call themselves fascists, i can hardly be accused of considering the word an ipso facto insult. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, many today proudly call themselves Nazi, but to suggest being called a Nazi is therefore not insulting sounds a bit naive to me. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And i agree. But "fascism" does not espouse openly racist beliefs, nor does it promote social darwinism, eugenics, or genocide. Fascism is one aspect of Nazism; but it was also espoused by high-ranking members of the U.S. and British government, powerful businessmen in both of those countries, and of course by the governments of Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek and Franco. Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were close allies of the U.S. for many years, all the way up until their respective deaths. There are fascist groups openly at work in Italy, Germany, France and Britain even today. So while calling someone a "Nazi" is, i admit, an insult, saying that someone is a "fascist" is -- for me, at least -- just a descriptive term.

I'd also add that i have never taunted MONGO -- or anyone else, for that matter -- with this term; i do, however, strongly object to demands that i excise it from my vocabulary. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You will excise it from your vocabulary when you refer to me again. If you don't agree that most would see it as an epithet, then maybe you need some familiarization as can be seen at our own article......Fascist (epithet).--MONGO 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- was that a threat that you just made? Some sort of ultimatum you think you have the power to issue? Obviously, MONGO, you have some personal issues you need to work through, because you most assuredly do not possess the authority to dictate to me how i use language. And, in that vein -- having just pointed out your authoritarian tendencies and the general lack of civility they imply -- i suggest that you check out the entry here . The first paragraph seems particularly apropos. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of the blue, you brought up the issue of this illusionary cabal some days ago by posting here and I responded here and you didn't. I had had zero interaction with you for a long time until I saw this bogus report. I have no idea what compelled you to suddenly make these false acusations. I then asked you on your talkpage to refrain from making these unsubstantiated allegations and have asked you repeatedly to not call me a fascist, yet you persist. You also persist in posting incorrect allusions regarding my involvement in some cabal. I have asked you to furnish proof and you won't or can't. I even suggested you request a checkuser on me and these other editors and you won't do that either.--MONGO 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, walk away per WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to either provide sufficient support for the cabal allegation, or stop this unproductive exchange of, what I remember to be nothing more than, hearsay? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky is referring I believe to this posting made by User:NuclearUmpf (aka User:SevenOfDiamonds shortly before he was banned. It was never proven of course. I guess since Stone put to sky is now in edit conflicts with a User:Raggz, he assumes that this newer editor has some connection with me or others who also disagreed with his contributions in the past. Nevertheless, I certainly don't appreciate being brought up out of the blue based on some unsubstantiated allegation made by an editor in imminent threat of being banned, nor do I appreciate the insult of being called a fascist.--MONGO 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am aware of that statement by Zer0faults (talk · contribs) (yet another aka), however, his reliability around the time of his indef ban appears to be somewhat less than 100%.:) Certainly Stone should be smarter than to use this as evidence. Personally I am not convinced and urge people to ignore that statement by what I consider a disruptive element. Especially since that statement is a decade old. Again I ask Stone to provide more compelling evidence or stop making wild accusations. Second, eventhough he sees things defferently I think using fascist to describe other editors is not a constructive way of communicating. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it odd that i be asked to provide evidence for something that speaks for itself. All i have done -- and i think it not unreasonable nor uncivil -- is point out that a long-term compadre of MONGO's has admitted to behavior that i myself have outlined elsewhere (pointedly without reference, i might add, to any sort of off-site coordination or leadership). In that admission my name was specifically mentioned as one of the objects of this behavior. Other posters and other contributors -- not to mention other websites -- have long insisted that this behavior is rampant across all of Wikipedia. I am not advocating any action specifically based upon these revelations or admissions; all i have done is point out that, in light of these admissions, certain behavior by certain posters on the State Terrorism thread is reasonably suspect.

If evidence is being asked for, then i would suggest somebody just pop in over there and watch the merry-go-round i've been on these last few days with one particular poster there. I have asked -- repeatedly -- to be accorded the simple courtesy of discussing edits before they are posted on the page. Yet for some reason the poster in question cannot figure out that really, that's all i want. I have suffered a lot of ham-fisted wikilawyering and been the object of a lot of accusations, but even up to now the poster insists that there is only one answer to the page's problems: his introduction (part of which is patently untrue, and the other part of which has already been made an explicit foundation of the article), and massive deletions.

In the past this sort of behavior has served as the prelude to an AfD nomination, preceded and/or followed by the appearance of MONGO, Harrison, and a host of other, less well-known posters. In each case repeated attempts to delete large portions of reliably sourced, relevant material are made. NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults/etc was often at the forefront of this activity. Are you suggesting, Nomen, that when a poster who has been the cause of so much destructive activity admits that he was not working alone, explains how it was coordinated and for what reasons, and then points a finger at me -- are you actually suggesting that it is uncivil of me to make mention of that?

Need i add that this behavior -- this JungleCat/MONGO tag-team that suddenly appeared on my talk page -- is circumstantial corroboration? I don't understand what the problem is with pointing out something that all long-term posters here already understand to be true. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds was never a compadre of mine. Your ongoing insinuations that content disputes you are having with Raggz have something to do with myself and or others you have previously been in disputes with are ridiculous. I haven't touched that page in over 6 months. As I have pointed out, that post about some cabal was made by an editor in bad standing in the community and was banned, repeatedly. It was unsubstantiated and your conspiracy theory on this matter is laughable. Surely, you're not so sheltered to assume that only a few people would oppose your content additions? You really think that just myself and other editors are the only ones on earth that would? How preposterous. Cease with your unsubstantiated allegations and wikilawyering about why it is "okay" to call myself and others fascist, please.--MONGO 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we shall agree to disagree about your relationship with Zerofaults. From my position it seemed quite clear that you, he and others were supporting each others' edits and defending each others' deletions, even in the face of vociferous disapproval from the vast majority of regular editors. IIRC, there was often considerable backslapping amongst you all. Would you like me to go find a bit of evidence to support these observations?

For the moment, however, i am content to point out that MONGO is, most assuredly, not "assuming good faith". I do acknowledge that yes, it is quite possible that MONGO and Raggz have no relationship whatsoever; it's easy for me to say that. I have never sought to push this issue and nothing i have said so far has suggested that it's a problem for me. I have not been running around, willy-nilly, tossing out accusations and/or demanding action. The inference that MONGO has drawn is that i am pointing a finger at him and drawing a target. I am not. I am, however, drawing attention to the behavior of Raggz and suggesting that now may be a good time for conscientious Wikipedia administrators to pay attention to what's happening over on the State Terrorism page; and there is a reason for my concern: the admission by NuclearUmpf that i have often been the target of coordinated group activity. I have not demanded that anyone be banned, nor have i demanded any recognition of the truth or falsehood of this accusation. I have, however, pointed out that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence on the "State Terrorism by United States" page and that there is good justification for concern. My only desire is to improve the page, nothing else. Yet out of this simple observation MONGO has -- through clearly aggressive, uncivil behavior -- provoked a confrontation and convinced himself that it is in fact i who am attacking him.

Finally, i'd like to point out that i haven't ever labled MONGO a fascist! Even so i do insist that, were i to do so, it would remain a neutral term, entirely less of an invective than his own usage of words like "liberal", "democrats", "defeatocrats", or whatever ("conspiracy nut", anyone?). MONGO has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for hurling epithets and insults at others, and i doubt a day passes that doesn't see him utilizing this particular skill of his. With the exception of a few, extremely rare instances, i do not. When i have transgressed those boundaries, i have apologized. Thus, i find it ironic that i am suffering the ire of MONGO for the use of a term that was never directed at him personally, and -- moreover -- which i consider to be both neutral and trivial. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Sarsaparilla blatantly violating WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE

Look at her userpage and contributions: Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs)

Here's a recent one. [266] Also, aside from her own edits, it's important to see the final product she signed off on. [267] Also, here's another great page she recently created. [268] No matter what country you live in, there clearly is no genuine political debate over private highways anymore than there is over public toilets. Tossing unnecessary politics in there as a justification to toss in a CATO reference is not acceptable behavior. The term "theistic rationalism" seems to be a POV fork of Objectivism, that is, specifically it's one rogue Objectivist's original research about the religious views of the Founding Fathers of America. Her attempts at regularly attempting to get pages supportive of Libertarianism featured (something I helped her with myself) suggests she's using Wikipedia as propaganda, something I refuse to help her with. I made this charge in the past under a poor assumption of bad faith, then apologized for it. She never commented on my claim, either way, whether, "I assure you, I'm a good editor!" or "You're a jerk for assuming bad faith!" Silence on such things is the sure sign of a troll.

From what I've seen now -- and I think a careful review of her contributions will confirm -- the bad faith allegation is justified. I don't request anything in particular -- just that the admins here give it a look.

As a specific example, see my own talk page:

• And why "POV" instead of "biased"?

Anyone want to tell me the difference, there? Any members of the Libertarian cabal that engage in personal attacks shall be ignored. If you are strongly pro-Libertarian or anti-Libertarian to the point that you think it will affect your better judgment, please do not respond. Zenwhat (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a page on theistic rationalism because I went on Facebook yesterday, saw that an acquaintance of mine was listed as a "theistic rationalist," and I noticed there was no wiki page on it. So, I did some cursory research to find out what it was and created a stub. Please quit calling me "she" by the way; I guess people assume I'm female because my username ends in an "a," so if I ever change my identity I suppose the next one will be "The He-Man of Capitalism" or something. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but I get called a she because of the ending "a" in my username all the time (and I've had this name for about ten years or so). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should change it to Sarsaparille? But "-lle" endings still sound feminine. Sarsaparillo? Then people will think I wandered here from the Spanish Wikipedia, though. I could go the Italian route and change it to Sarsaparilli. What about Sarsaparillu? Sarsaparilly? Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie

Resolved

 – Angelriver given a warning about civility by Phoenix-wiki. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On my own talk page there is a discussion over a very minor section of very minor article which has got completly out of hand. I feel the civility code has been broken, with regards to perspnal comments directed towards my self. Please also see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)# Merging of 24 (TV Series) Characters for further evidence of incivility. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Angelriver to assume good faith (here). Wouldn't worry too much about it though, even though he/she did get a bit incivil.--Phoenix-wiki 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

squabbling elephants

Resolved

 – As said below, no admin action is necessary here. -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 strikes me as an utterly unencyclopedic article, at least till the top elephant has been safely chosen. But for better or worse the article does exist and even a successful AfD would take a few days. Meanwhile, it's causing great excitement (see this edit), but I'm going to bed and therefore can't keep an eye on it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this require administrator action? Take it to AfD if it is truly awful and let the process sort it out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Third party required at Talk:Sabah

Resolved

 – User taken elsewhere for a third opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Othmanskn is making edits that consists of value judgment (violating WP:NPOV), adding his own blog as sources (violating WP:RS) and citing sources that does not back his value judgment. I have tried to explain to him of all the things but he seems to take it personal, even to the extent of accusing me of having nationalistic agenda and vandalism. I seem to be losing patience with him, especially with those personal attack. 3RR may have been broken by both of us too. So, maybe, if somebody talk to him, things will cool down a bit. __earth ^(Talk) 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for RfC, not ANI. --- tqbf 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but I've brought it to WP:3O. __earth ^(Talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spammer - Static IP

Resolved

 – Anon blocked for one week

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

Spam promoting Trading software. L3 warning & reverted. Spammed again. See their talk page. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting distances and weights

Resolved

 – Not a problem after all

Today I noticed that Lightmouse is running an editing program that converts distances and weight measurments to metric. While this is fine for many articles I think that, based on this section [269] of the manuel of style, this a mistake on any articles about US subjects. A look at this editors recent contributions [270] shows the changes being made to a large number of articles about US subjects (note: I understand that the ones on Canadian articles should stay metric). Now, I don't know whether a consensus was reached to change all articles to metric before this editor started making these changes, but, if it was then the manual of style needs to be updated.

My apologies if this is the wrong venue (and please feel free to move it to the correct spot) for posting this, but, I thought that this needed attention as quickly as possible. I have also made a post on the editors page so that they will be aware of this discussion, please let them know where it has been moved if you do change the page that this is posted on. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I see is the {{convert}} template being inserted in article, which leaves the original values and units intact, but adding metric values in parenthesis. I think that is a good thing; nowhere does it say that an article should use only one unit system. — Edokter • Talk • 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh you are correct. I missed the fact that the original units were still in the two articles that I looked at. Many apologies to all for taking up your time and please feel free to mark this as resolved. Thanks for setting me straight Edoktor. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ip ban request for death threat

Resolved

 – Stale complaint. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that you ban 60.48.176.96 for adding "kill him.reward" to the end of the article on Archbishop Jibrail Kassab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archbishop_Jibrail_Kassab&oldid=182750011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtom1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. It happened nearly a week ago so a block would be of little use now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, too late to do any good. For all we know, the person who made that edit is on a different IP now, making such a block both useless and destructive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 12:00, January 13, 2008 EVula (Talk | contribs | block) (480,481 bytes) (→ip ban request for death threat - too late) (undo)

Dood, don't do that again. :I east.718 at 18:44, January 13, 2008

Do you look at the page history before you look at the page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin defyed by user Dahn

In the article Romanians the user Dahn sistematicaly defyes other one opinions and even the administrator AndonicO who wrote in the dublink :

This page is currently protected from editing until January 12, 2008 (UTC) or until disputes have been resolved.

The guy removed the dublink even tho the disputes are not resolved.

Evidence

Here and

Here

The user Dahn together with the biased administrator bogdan are sistematicaly reverting the article , fact which is against the rules of Wikipedia, mainly against this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Distinguish

I demand rough investigation of this case. Adrianzax (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out the protection tag was rightfully removed, as the page is not protected. It probably should be though, as there is an active edit war going on. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've put in a request for protection. (See [271]). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but those guys are acting like this in the past 3 weeks without exception . They are defying everyone and ignoring that rule, I demand actions against this type of behaviour Adrianzax (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "demand" action from unpaid volunteers. Request it instead. I'll take a look Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 1 week due to these actions. The latest dispute is over the wording of something in the infobox. I find it a bit ABF that the creator of this thread demands actions as said above. Edit summaries like this are unacceptable. Rudget. 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting this right? There appears to be an edit war over adding a dab link to romani people and an alterantive spelling of the word Romanian? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Rudget. 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for some time. Probably WP:LAME-able at this point. There have been several users blocked for 3RR and other bullshit on this one, full protections, etc. etc. It has been rather amusing to watch from a distance... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn is an invaluable and highly dedicated, scrupulous editor, with a marked flair for clear and precise prose, something his adversary Adrianzax unfortunately lacks, and the consequent difficulties in getting over to the latter points that require a grasp of English niceties Adrianzax appears to lack, inform, as far as I can see, much of his complaint laid here, and the obstructionism which has troubled the page. When nugatory niggling disrupts commonsense, a quick word should suffice to avert the uncomprehending troublemaker, and free up the page. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Or people could stop removing a harmless DAB link and an alternate spelling couldn't they. This seems so trivial. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrenes at RfA

See this [272] claims to be a bot opposing RfA, possibly anti-semitic too. DuncanHill (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked indefinitely. Rudget. 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't thank me. Thank Keilana. She's always first on the scene! :) Rudget. 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal fighters being accused of vandalism by twinkle

A while ago I reverted somebody who moved Brian Eno to Brian Emo. Today I receioved a template accusing of vandalism. When asking for an explanation the user said it was automatically generated by TWINKLE an automatic system,. Surely any automatic that makes such basic false accusations against good faith users who revert obvious vandalism moves needs disabling until the problem is fixed. Any input would be appreciated but if we scare our vandal fighters away because of badly designed automated processes we are in serious trouble. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Users hold responsibility for all edits they make with scripts - also, automatically warning somebody is only an option and shouldn't be used unless you know what warning it's going to spit out. east.718 at 18:56, January 13, 2008

Whilst the problem certainly needs to be fixed, I don't think it is serious enough to actually disable the script that so many people clearly find useful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Twinkle isn't an automated process. It's a wikitool that helps out with placing templates, reporting pages, vandalism reverting, rollbacks, etc. It appears that this was a simple misunderstanding. You caught the ridiculous page move and reverted it, then some vandal fighter came along and requested a speedy deletion of the nonsense page. You might have gotten templated in the process because of the user clicking on the wrong link in the page history, or because there's a minor error in Twinkle's processing that had it incorrectly identifying the last person to edit the page (you) as the person who created it. You might want to check out the info on Twinkle and drop its creator a note about what happened. If the problem was with Twinkle, he'll probably take a look at it and get it fixed. Gromlakh (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as we aren't chasing good faith users away. Perhaps I should post it at the TWINKLE talk page, I am experienced enough to figure something was wrong but many a new user won't be, its not something I have ever used myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Pless

Two users, Molobo and Space Cadet, who have a history of disruptive POV edits, are removing English names at the article Duchy of Pless and are forcing Polish language names which were not used in English for the Duchy [273]. At first, one user was so insistent on removing "Pless" that he changed "dukes, later princes, of Pless" to "dukes, later princes, of this Duchy", a construction not used in English (dukes of the duchy? princes of the duchy?). I feel that they are trying to force their POV. A recent RM passed to move that article to Pless because an admin determined that evidence supported that title. I ask that an admin inform for the users of NPOV, UE and ask that they utilize the talk page first before making disruptive changes which are not backed up by majority usage. Charles 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)