Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474

QuackGuru and Kelly going at it

History abounds here so I'd like uninvolved admins to step in and separate these two. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I note this. Tiptoety ^talk 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru came along to push Kelly's buttons. He is revert-warring her sandbox, currently at 9RR (not a typo). All his edits are WP:POINT to a user's user space. Quack is there to incite Kelly, nothing more. --mboverload@ 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Quack is way overboard here. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Agree with Mboverload. It's a sandbox. Quackguru is repeatedly removing a link to a wikipedia mirror of a historical version of an existing article, citing BLP. The version is still in the page history, not deleted or oversighted. I'm too involved to block, don't need the drama. Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is User:Kelly/sandbox 2 and [1]. It's over this link. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to editors: Kelly actually wrote the first iteration of that page, and did an AWESOME job at it. It was toned down but her contribution lives on. That webcite link is to show how much she worked on that page and is simply a memento IMO. --mboverload@ 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, lamest edit-war of the month! Quack blocked for 100 hours for sheer nuttiness. Moreschi (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See his block log. Wowzorz! --mboverload@ 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Ronnotel (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had just final-warned QuackGuru, but I fully support this block. Even in a Utopian best-case scenario with regard to QuackGuru's motivation, this was unacceptable edit-warring in another editor's userspace. There is no BLP exemption to 3RR here, and QuackGuru's reverting is poor form on many levels. His block log speaks for itself. Good block. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Chillum 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support block and duration. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, should this guy still have the admin tools based on that block log? Wizardman 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Quack is not a admin. Tiptoety ^talk 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• facepalm* Well, I guess technically that's good @_@. Dunno why i thought he was. Wizardman 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should that guy still have editing privileges based on that block log? Nonetheless, a well-earned vacation may do the self-proclaimed Guru some good. Good block. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on that block log, we should consider a multi month block for bad behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, given Quack's history, I would support a longer block. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He's about two blocks away from needing a second page to list them all. I look at such a lengthy series of blocks and realize how little I've accomplished. :) The odd thing is that QuackGuru was a vigorous defender of User:Pulsifer's BLP-questionable sandbox page trying to link Sarah Palin to an Alaskan secessionist movement. I guess the POV is only supposed to push one way, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards an indef if Quack comes back and starts up any shit, because this is simply unacceptable behavior out of any user. His block log is lengthy, and I hope that it is referenced upon the next block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that half the entries in his log are unblocks and adjustments. (hell one even has the summary "ömglol"). Viridae^Talk 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. The log indeed is not pretty, but just counting the lines isn't as important as reading them - and finding out the reasons for it. I see a block withdrawn by the blocking admin as a mistake, a block on 1 September 2007 (5 lines), a block in December 2007 (2 lines), a block in February 2008 where it proved necessary to disable email (3 lines), a block in March, and the current block. Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows. Reviewing the history, it looks like the December block was for edit warring around the usual Larry Sanger issue. So that makes 4 of the 5 blocks for edit warring, with the 5th for canvassing via email while simultaneously hypocritically complaining about someone else (who had on wiki given notices to editors on both sides of the issue, but QG chose to only mention the notices to one of the two sides in his hypocritical complaint). Additionally, in the 1 September incident he also got his talk page protected for {{unblock}} abuse and had an emailed unblock request declined subsequently.[2]. There was prior discussion of mentoring, should that idea be pursued? GRBerry 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. However, I don't think imposing an indef block is going to necessarily be endorsed by ArbCom, if the action is appealed. A community sanction needs to be attempted first - probation, a revert limitation, or mentorship proposal would probably be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• It's a long block log (and thanks to GRBerry for doing more than just counting the lines), but the block prior to this one was 6 months ago, so a look at the contributions history is needed. If there were six months of productive edits leading up to this block, then that would be a mitigating factor when considering further blocks. If, on the other hand, the summer was mostly spent on vacation, then the blocks would be "close", and that would be of concern. Overall, I agree with GRBerry - "Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows.". Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support 100 hour block, but not anything longer. If that doesn't work, consider indef then, but 100 hours should get the point across. Everyking (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister & Co page deletions

I notice that since the exposure of Poetlister and Cato as the same user, and while further investigation is going on, the user pages of all these have been deleted. The reason given in most cases is G6 ("Technical deletions & non-controversial maintenance"). I'm thinking this is 1/ unhelpful right now, and 2/ quite poor timing, given that these are still being referenced for case purposes. I would like to ask they be undeleted for the time being, at least until the dust settles.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed several: User:Bedivere/huggle.css, User:Bedivere/monobook.js, User talk:Taxwoman/articles, User:Taxwoman/articles, User talk:Newport/Archive1, User:Londoneye/contributions, and User:Londoneye/watch. --NE2 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Maxim is doing some fancy work, it will all be done here shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got them all restored... although I may have gone through more fancywork than I should have (the undeletion script didn't seem to like the bluelinks, but I had a feeling not all of them were fully restored, so I redeleted everything to make sure, but I think in most cases Tiptoety had it right... {{trout}} deliverable to my talkpage if someone fits it necessary, and I also recommend User:AzaToth/twinklebatchundelete.js which makes mass-restores so much more easier.) Maxim (☎) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I actually know one of the people who was affected by this. 63.46.33.196 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if someone could recreate Alwyn Pritchard and webcitation it before redeleting.Proabivouac (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It it possible to webcitation google cache? Because if so, google cache is your friend. Brilliantine (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but the look of the cached article is horribly degraded. scratch that, it looks alright.[3] I was thinking of the mirrored copies.Proabivouac (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I have cached the google cache with Coral CDN in case it goes away and the article stays gone away. Brilliantine (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proab, if you still wish for a copy of the Alwyn Pritchard page (or any other pages), let me know and I can temporarily userfy them for you. A quick note that I deleted the various subpages reasoning that the deal was done and that further evidence gathering was effectively pointless; given PoetlisterTaxwomanYehudiCatoRuncornNewportLondoneyeGuy has left, anything else is just fishing for salacious gossip, and the only person who would benefit from these pages existing -mostly lists of Jewish people or poets, or copies of watchlists (to avoid having to log in to various accounts to see them?) - is the person behind the Horde. I still believe that, but no issues with these being undeleted. Neıl ☄ 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only that we'd linked to the Pritchard article in note four, but the link has been changed to a redirect to some totally uninvolved person.Proabivouac (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate might need to be protected

In the last 5 days, a couple of editors and I have reverted at least half a dozen attempts to inappropriately change the lead image on the Ultimate article. An admin might want to semi protect the article for now if you guys think its a necessary move. Thanks! Noneforall (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, Ultimate is a disambig page with 1 recent incident of vandalism, so no need to protect it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Ultimate (sport)? Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Some recent winner of some flying frisbee event is using the page to brag, in childish fashion, about their victory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One or two reverts on a single day does not merit full protection. I'll semi-protect for a day and a half. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

Resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I'm seeing thoughts running both ways, here. Per Tiptoety, Guido has agreed to no longer mention legal action on-wiki, and that seems to be the main request from the editors here. Is there consensus to unblock? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm always for giving people a chance. Reblocking him if it restarts doesn't cost anything. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be substantial support for unblocking; Guido has been appropriately warned at this point against any future situations. So I've gone ahead with the unblock. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mangojuice. Note that the guideline WP:NLT is currently being discussed. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tim Boetsch

Resolved

 – User indef blocked per WP:NLT. User has contacted Foundation regarding legal action. — Satori Son

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

blocked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just in the process of advising him on why legal threats are not appropriate and what would be the best course of action if his article is vandalized again. Perhaps you could give him some advice on how he might get unblocked? Thanks. — Satori Son 13:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've just AfD'd the article (not in response to this thread; just one of those moments when everyone edits at cross-purposes collaborates at the same time). EyeSerene^talk 13:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kind of crappy timing from a WP:BITE perspective, but I understand your rationale. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Like I say, I didn't get there from this thread (in fact, the thread caught my attention due to the name of the article I'd just been reading). It was a hugely unfortunate coincidence. However, I've now withdrawn the AfD nom, as notability seems to have been established. Hopefully no harm done :P EyeSerene^talk 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocking a new user seems harsh if no-one told them the rules first, especially if they just read something like that about themselves. --Nate1481 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They need to be blocked until their identify can be confirmed, anyway, surely? --Tango (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we block for that while confirmation is pending, but either way Guy has posted a note on their talk with email contact info. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We block them indefinitely until the legal threats are rescinded. Considering that the user has since called the Foundation offices to continue the threats, I feel it well justified. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the policy, and I can understand the reasoning, However a more empathetic comment on the talk page might have helped avoid the phone call. --Nate1481 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was never really objecting to the block, I just wanted to make sure the guy was politely told what was going on and what his options were. Obviously, it's a Foundation issue now and I'm restoring the "resolved" tag. — Satori Son 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a comment here. Some anon added a nasty uncited defamatory (i.e. false) factoid to the article, with the result that the subject was hurt and upset and tried to fix it. I've had those revisions oversighted now. Could I please ask that in future if people see someone who is obviously the article subject, obviously completely new to the project and obviously complaining about a gross violation of policy, that they take the time to remove the threats, explain nicely to the person why what they are doing is wrong, and then if they continue the threats they have at least been warned. we know about WP:NLT, defamed article subjects do not (in fact ,a lot of them know nothing at all about Wikipedia except that it allowed some idiot to write vile things about them). This is the front line of Wikipedia's PR - how we handle bad edits to articles about real people. The user was not the problem, the anon adding uncited defamatory material was the problem, the user was just reacting to it. That's not to condone legal threats, but the NLT policy exists to stop people threatening each other with legal action, not to give us a way to block angry article subjects on their first edit. If I had a dollar for every OTRS complaint that mentioned legal action then I would be rich, but the vast majority go away if not happy then at least mollified. Banninating people for saying "WTF?!?! I'll sue your ass!" when they see crap written about them in article space is not really in the spirit of NLT, I would say. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, I did exactly that. Someone else blocked at the same time I was posting to his talk. And clarification to WP:NLT on situations like this would be welcome. — Satori Son 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. I think it would be wise if the NLT policy could be clarified on these matters. The policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually. Now, some people like to show up as anons and issue legal threats just to cause trouble, and telling the difference between the two can be difficult. So I am not criticizing any particular action here. I just think that policy needs to reflect reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, We have an essay related to this type of scenario, see WP:DOLT. Maybe parts of that can be used to fix/update WP:NLT? Keeper ǀ 76 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism persists[5], I've requested semi-protection as this is on going & these changes may want oversight too. --Nate1481 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. See also the debate at WT:NLT. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Trouble users

Resolved

 – No further action necessary. cauldron 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens with unresolved cases of trouble users? I just read about a user blocked many times but he didn't changed his behaviour. What happens with trouble users? --Nice book I read (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

typically, the blocks get longer. But what is the specific problem you are having? DGG (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe a glance at this user's contributions would be enlightening. I don't see a need for further action at this time. GRBerry 04:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing the baton

Resolved

 – for now. Blocked for 12 hours.

An admin passes the baton

The background

A few days ago, Prom3th3an (talk · contribs) struck part of my comment on a request for arbitration, calling it a "flamatory and WP:BAIT remark". Ryan Postlethwaite reverted, and I left a comment on Prom3th3an's talk page, telling him not to do it again. He then responded, accusing me of "blood lust" and being "on whichunt", and tossed an AGF warning template on my talkpage ({{Uw-agf2}} to be exact). After I responded, Prom3th3an removed my response with an extremely childish edit summary, struck my previous comments (as he did on the arbitration page), and added a talkback notice on my talk page. Of course there was no new message for me on his talk page, and this was just part of his childish game. The remaining discussion can be see on my talk page, here

Today's fun

Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) commented on my talk page, pointing out that Prom3th3an had continued to alter the content of other users' comments, after I gave him a final/last warning. Since the last warning was in response to his editing of my comments, I opted to give him a second "final warning" as a block would have been inappropriate (diff was much earlier in the day; relatively minor; Tango clause). I told him to post here if he truly believed I was acting inappropriately, but he removed that suggestion with yet another childish edit summary (and again struck my previous comment). Much of this comes with the territory, but he's moved on to referring to other editors as a couple and lovers. Anybody with a clue stick handy? Also note he's offering to adopt other users, which I think is very misguided. An independent word of advice on Prom3th3an's talk page would be appreciated, so I'm passing the baton. Cheers, - auburnpilot talk 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've been keeping an outside eye on this. Prom3th3an just doesn't seem to get it, and he's be warned sufficiently now about altering other peoples comments. I think you should stay away from blocking him (simply because from what I know about him, he'll call foul on any block you place on his account). Let me know if you encounter any other talk page changes he makes. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'll keep a watch on his edits, and given his sufficient notices and warnings on this, a block would be in order if this sort of behavior continued on. It's entirely unacceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just beware of the dreaded Whichhunt, my son - The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are above, cheerio   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I believe this would be the nail in his coffin. Thanks for the comments, all. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Outsider's opinon: Time for a civility block, as he seems unlikely to stop the aggressive provoking. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. This needs to stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's conducting an experiment of some sort, to see how long it would take to get blocked. He found out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He has made an unblock request, one claim he made is that WP:TE is an essay, not policy. It's been declined by Kurykh. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh is exactly right that although WP:TE is an essay, it is an essay about the reasons why TE is a form of Disruptive Editing, the prohibition of which IS policy. I thoroughly support his explanation of the decline. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Statement_by_User:Prom3th3an Note what his statement said at the same ArbCom case, which is an awful example of not assuming good faith. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if some further level of dispute resolution will not be required here. Prom3th3an originally began feuding with Deskana, than me when I intervened as an uninvolved admin, and now AuburnPilot. It seems like there is a definite pattern of disruption and incivility developing here. MBisanz ^talk 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an is a train wreck happening before us and its not hard to see what's going to happen shortly without some dramatic u-turn in his approach. Reading this, you have to wonder what went wrong. Moondyne 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How often do we see this happen? The light that burns twice as bright.... CIreland (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll find out soon enough, when his block expires. Although he has promised to be good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont put words it my mouth please.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was executive-summarizing. Your actual words are: "ill give both parties the apology that they are due. I accept the block and that I was out of line, Im not contesting that" and "You have got reason to trust me, because I know that you'll just block me again and for longer if I dont agree to the above." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both those unblock requests were denied, along with the terms of which they were requested.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for suggesting that you might be willing to improve your approach to your activities here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey, and I'm going to say this thread is done, nothing more to do atm. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:John Jacob Wilson Alueminous

Resolved

 – Socks and master blocked. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think here, but I'm assuming that this user is either a sock account, or something more. Either way, per the contributions(and the ones that stand out to me), I believe this should be looked into. Something fishy is going on.

First, this series of edits is the user copy/pasting past warnings and block messages from some anon account to his or her talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The user then creates their talk page with the {{rollbacker}} tag, as seen here.

The user then creates the monobook.js page, a page not usually found within 13 minutes of account creation, with the text importsript:'(vandalizeandscrewupuserpages)', as seen here.

The user's first actual contributions are three oppose votes to RfAs, with the first speaking of incivility, and the last two just the same copy, again speaking of incivility: 1, 2, 3.

This user then made several edits to different articles, all with the edit summery of references, while the edits themselves have nothing to do with references, and are in fact placing <--! --> markup to several different lines, hiding the text. Here are two instances of this: 1, 2.

Since the filing of this note, the user has continued to engage in such activities as listed above. Thank you all for your time in reading through this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

None of these are worthy of blocking though. . . --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are, if you are found to be a sock of some other user, which I'm pretty sure you are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a big "If" --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right much suspicious. And didn't you used to be John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ye, back in the day :) --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at his edits... almost all have been vandalism, incivil, or show a much higher degree of wikiknowledge than the average bear. I suspect it's a sock as well... he's done just enough that we can't call him a "true vandal only account" but just marginally so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing all of this based on the inference that I'm a sock. High level of wikiknowledge, voting at rfa, or removing comments from my talk page is not considered vandalism. Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that a user can only be blocked for vandalism, not so, block evasion or illegal user account is another reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Block Evasion" - How can I evade a block if I haven't been blocked before, and what makes my user account 'illegal' --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A brand-new user jumping right into the things you've jumped into, as if already editing for a year, practically screams "Sock!" A red flag in a stocking shape. The admins here recognize the signs, and they weren't born yesterday. Well, some of them were, but most of them are grissled veterans. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if he's a sock or not? These edits 1 2 3 4, among others, are a variation on page blanking vandalism. Indefinite vandalism-only block and be done with it. --JaGa^talk 06:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly care, to see if there are any other puppets we don't know about that. Sometimes checkusers reveal sockpuppets that you thought weren't sockpuppets.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. He should definitely be investigated. I was under the impression he wouldn't be blocked if he weren't proven to be a sock; seems to me he's done more than enough to earn that block regardless. Sorry if my comment came off wrong. --JaGa^talk 07:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Likely a sockpuppet of Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) whom I blocked yesterday for one week for vandalism and other shenanigans while logged out and using bad hand accounts. Compare edits to User talk:Gogo Dodo by John Jacob Wilson Alueminous and Fatal!ty's sockpuppet Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs). Thatcher 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also common opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy. Thatcher 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • His parting comment, something about "Good luck with Thatcher". And probably not Margaret. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Do his various "votes" tonight need to be weeded out, or does it matter? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I think most if not all of the votes have already been weeded out. The comment RE Thatcher was to do with Daedalus's request on Thatcher's talk. He was clearly keeping an eye out. Which is pretty damning in itself. Brilliantine (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Kudos. Obviously he was playing a game to see how long he could get away with this. Not exactly subtle. If it weren't for the AGF philosophy, he would have been blocked in about 5 minutes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I'll be glad when this is done and over with, but seeing as how the sockmaster was blocked, and a user account was created, I doubt this will, in regards to the idea that his ip may either be dynamic, or he is using multiple access points. I suspect a very long next few months.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Seems I'm right, that's the account's first contribution, by the way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yep, and look at 2 socks already created since then (and blocked): [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party as always, but, given the concerns over socking, did anyone go to WP:RFCU? I can't see an entry there. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is a Checkuser, why start a case there when he can just come along and give a pre-emptive result here? Brilliantine (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My main interest here was what to do about my one week block of Fatal!ty, but since he has continued to make vandal accounts, I'm just going to up it to indefinite. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:67.165.69.84

Resolved

 – IP possibly reassigned. No vandalism within past two weeks. cauldron 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.165.69.84 has made seventeen edits, each and every one adding "Saucy McFoodlefist" in some way or another, mostly to obscure lists and articles and many of which weren't reverted until I just did them. Plainly this address is being used solely for vandalism.  RGTraynor  14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Or it was, on August 14, 15 and 21. Nobody's used this address for 20 days, and the comment you left today refers to an edit made August 14! Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? If it were a vandal acting within the last couple hours, I'd have taken it to AVI.  RGTraynor  15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's every chance it's a dynamic IP and has been assigned to someone else by now. Brilliantine (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My point being that there's absolutely no point in warning someone for vandalism nearly a month after the fact, and that no-one's used the account for almost a month now anyway, so there's really nothing to be done here. Plus, as pointed out above, it's an IP: anyone could be using it. If someone using that IP starts editing problematically again, we warn, then block, as usual. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment

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

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey [11], and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Wikipedia and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice [12] for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

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

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

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

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

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

There's not a whole lot Wikipedia can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat [13] and a veiled threat [14]) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Wikipedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned [15], this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out above, Merkey has claimed impersonation before. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The person I need to talk to is out of town until next week. Let the infinite block stay for now; it will be easy enough to back out later if it is proven that someone impersonated Merkey. If not for Werdna's block, Merkey would still be under 11 more months of block for ban evasion anyway. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

< See also message from Merkey. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on foundation-l too. MER-C 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like nothing more than to leave Merkey alone, and receive the same in return. However, I cannot overlook Merkey (presumably, not conclusively proven yet) calling my employer and attempting to get me fired.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the person with whom I need to speak is out of the office until Monday, the 15th. When he returns, I will ask him for his notes, which included the phone number that the caller provided. I am confident that we can come to a conclusion as to the truth of the matter.

By the way, I saw the edits in early August before they disappeared. After an "I'm not Merkey, he doesn't work here" denial from the IP, a logged-in user posted an edit to the 69.2.248.210 page with the summary of "your company switchboard seems to think otherwise." The IP responded with an edit summary about stalking. And shortly thereafter, the edits disappeared, possibly oversighted. So Merkey does (or did) work there, contrary to the denials that he posted. Someone who can view deleted edits (does this work with oversight?) can verify that I was not that logged-in user.

What's the old legal adage "false in one, false in all"? Pfagerburg (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassment Continues, Evidence that it was Merkey in June, too

Merkey admitted to calling my workplace today, see [16]. I have spoken to the person who took his call. One of the first things Merkey said on the phone was that he had called to complain once before, in June.

As Jimbo said when Merkey's pay-for-BLP allegations surfaced earlier this year, "consider the source." I would add, "consider the trustworthiness of the source."

166.70.238.44 made a series of edits on botany. When accused of being Merkey, he adamantly denied it, despite the tracert logs that people posted. Today, Merkey admitted that it was him, saying "The last time I edited on Wikipedia was botany articles and was blocked." [17]. So his earlier denials, no matter how vehement, were in fact, quite false.

Now, I really hate to back a man into a corner, but I am sick of Merkey harassing my employer.

I have some MP3 files. One is the "Novell's coming after you" message that Merkey left on Al Petrofsky's answering machine (and later authenticated by threatening to sue Al for posting it) a few years ago. The other is the GNAA prank call that Merkey also said (on his now-deleted user talk page) was authentic. On Monday, my HR rep will listen and he will recognize the voice in those MP3 files as the same person who called in June.

Next, we will go to our phone system and get the caller ID logs. Merkey's number will be there, on the 25th of June. How will we know that's his number? He provided a phone number when he called today, and my employer returned his call at that number.

Please stop. Now. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the delay in bringing this up?

I feel like I ought to explain the delay in handling this. The best time to bring this up to Wikipedia would have been right after it happened, back in late June. However, I erroneously believed that I could not do so at the time, since my ArbCom-imposed block still had a month to go. Seeing that Merkey had his block re-set for editing from an IP address, I was not eager to re-set my own block by posting the incident here while still under a block.

Once my block expired, I began looking for the appropriate page to post a question to the CheckUsers and find out how Merkey got CU results. I found the proper page, but it listed an e-mail address (facepalm - so I could have e-mailed them immediately, block or not) and sent them an e-mail. The ombudsman committee replied that they would look into the matter, but it would take a little while. So I waited. A month later, I inquired again, and was told "sorry for the delay, no, nobody CU'ed you." And that was 1-2 days before I started this AN/I. I do wish we could have dealt with this when it was fresh in everyone's minds, but I hope you will understand why the delay. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have done some work on this case to try to get the bottom of the issue, as Mr. Merkey's rant on the FOUNDATION-L attempted to paint this as a he-said, he-said issue. I have spoken (via-email) with the CFO of the place where User:Pfagerburg works. He has confirmed to me that Pfagerburg's statements are correct. I am forwarding the information provided to the Arbitration Committee, so they may judge this evidence in any future requests by JVM to be unblocked. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Firefly322's Perceived Process interference by User:Eldereft

I have tried to seek WP:3 mediation with user User:Hrafn, but in response User:Eldereft claims that tangential comments from other editors preclude it's two party guideline: [18] (Eldereft is not a contributor to WP:3, my request was removed apparently to aid Hrafn, whose activities have not been commented on favorably from two previous WP:3 in which I and he have been involved: Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion and Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion) He has also begun to tag informally approved and review articles in a way that I believe can be fairly categorized as a negative form of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TROLLing to make a WP:POINT. Examples are recent edits with User:Hrafn to [19] and [20]. The Issues in Science and Religion was reviewed positively as a stub in Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion. The List of science and religion scholars was reviewed by [21] User:Rocksanddirt and I have sought Rocksanddirt's counsel before adding this list's link to other article's See also sections. [22]. User:Rocksanddirt responded here [23]. (The point is that these articles have had some review and oversight other than by me.) I would like User:Eldereft's recent tags to be removed since the actions are non-wikipedia hyper-verification standards done in order to make a WP:POINT and ask that he or she stop tagging my articles further. The issues are really with User:Hrafn, but User:Eldereft appears to be intentionally interfering to make a WP:POINT with the WP:3 process. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved: sorted out by a response to your belated post to Eldereft's talk page. Pity you didn't think of doing that before posting here.[24] . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The question of keeping the item up for WP:3 is resolved, but evidently there are still questions of Firefly disputing tags. Hope all is now clarified, bedtime for me. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(interposting) Just to address the comment posted by this IP-address, that seems to suggest that taking core policies like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seriously is bad, in particular my pointing out their two-way street requirements. I take faith in all forms very seriously. That is what motivated me to write the Young radicals article. Here a powerful form of faith was adopted by group of scholars that I feel is a metaphor for what I suspect is the majority of editors here on wikipedia. In fact, I was thinking that wikipedia WP:AGF is of the variety held by the Young radicals. Considering their accomplishements and influence and my respect for them (that's why I bothered to put the stub together), I think these efforts of mine strongly suggests that I am open to faith in all forms. Nevertheless, per wikipedia policy, faith is a two street, not a one way one. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather complex response to rather a simple issue, but I note the clarification. Perhaps you might think about expressing these thoughts, if they are worth expressing, in the benign environment of a userspace essay, rather than when in a dispute, where they take on a personal nature. Very nice stub. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to second anon's conclusion: it is highly objectionable to suggest that non-religious people are incapable of sincerity, which is Wictionary's synonym for good faith. That is a grave insult to all such people. --Hordaland (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If sincereity and faith are synonymous, then the phrase assume good sincerity would carry about the same amount of meaning as assume good faith. That, I suspect, is something no one at all would take seriously. So I think there is an error in your logic here. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. --Hordaland (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Given that Firefly322 has seen fit to draw me more centrally into this rambling complaint, I'd like to clarify a few matters that (s)he has raised:

1. Firefly322 has absolutely no idea what my religious beliefs are. (S)he is merely speculating wildly.
2. The statement Firefly322 made about my religion appears to be claiming a moral/ethical superiority based solely on his/her religion, relative to my own purported beliefs. I do not consider such claims to be conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion, and quite frankly find them to be offensive.
3. As to WP:No personal attacks, Firefly322 has accused me of being a "troll" and repeatedly accused me of being "evil".
4. Far from WP:Civility#Apologizing when (s)he erroneously stated I has introduced new material, and I pointed out that this was actually old material, erroneously deleted, Firefly322 proceeded to complain bitterly.
5. The reason that I did not respond to this olive branch (referenced above) was that I could think of no way to respond that was neither discourteous or dishonest (given my low opinion of the quality of his/her edits) -- so I simply followed the rule of 'if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything.'

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has revealed something about his religious beliefs [25]. Hrafn went through a period where he was in fact WP:TROLLing (Aydin Sayili comment was part of that period), following me onto an obviously unrelated project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song, which is probably the easiest example to understand. A typical example of Hrafn's evil commentary (this here is the second time I've ever used the word on wikipedia) is where he says I violate WP:AGF and then goes on to use thank you feciously, bangs out the word "Bullshit", and tells me Put up or shut up. [26]. Other editors have been subjected to his put up or shut up comment: [27]. And Hrafn has used troll against other editors: [28]. Hrafn has even called other editors work intellecutal masterbations. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Firefly322 has dragged me into WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science and the list prod is being discussed at the appropriate talkpage, can we mark this as closed? My anonymous friend from across the puddle notwithstanding, I am willing for the sake of drama-reduction to ignore the blind assertion that I am philosophically unequipped to assume good faith. Hrafn, you may of course pursue the matter here, but I would prefer that it be done in a new thread if not inconvenient (or possibly an RfC/U, based on the volume of conduct-related comments people have added to the MedCab). - Eldereft (cont.) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how Eldereft can associate with Hfran after exposure of the volume of WP:UNCIVIL comments. Eldereft's comments seem naive in regards to Hrafn. And I do believe that Eldereft has shown a penchant for falling in with the wrong crowd. All the same, close this for now. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do, it is a content matter and should be discussed with the user either on their talk page or in the relevant place.

Please advise this editor to refrain from doing his probably well meant "conversions" which unfortunately destroy content ([29]). Previous reminders ([30]) have been unsuccessful, he leaves it to other to cleanup behind. It appears that he was blocked in the past. -- User:Docu

This is a complex dispute which can be seen mostly at WT:GEO#coord template one year on. My take is that Docu (talk · contribs) has demonstrated incivility and disruptive editing. —EncMstr (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, EncMstr quotes my requests to Pigsonthewing fix his erroneous edits/ his reversions of my repairs as samples. This is really strange. -- User:Docu

Thanks for this edit using {{coord}}. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has recently returned from a one year block as enforced by arbitration here. One of the reasons for this block was his refusal to remove this personal attack from his userpage, as presented here. Upon returning, the user has restored the abusive paragraph to his userpage. Given his history of confrontation, I do not wish to become involved in an edit war by attempting to remove it, so I pass the matter to the administrators for their consideration. 91.104.24.172 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is very disappointing. Bare minutes after User:Docu seeks to involve admins in work Andy Mabbett is doing, this comes up. Qui bono? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not Docu. Feel free to request a checkuser if you wish. I am the same user as above who reported this, however (dynamic IP). At the time I was unaware of Docu's section regarding Pigsonthewing, I assure you this is a coincidence. 91.106.50.21 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And what's your purpose? The controversial piece of text is seen by some as a personal attack, by others as a well referenced summation of Andy's thoughts on Leonig. Andy would not have been able to construct the paragraph has Leonig not tgiven him the ammunition. Leonig's shoulders are clearly broad enough to cope, given the to & fro between the pair over the years. Exactly why do you think that starting this whole anti-Andy cycle over again is for the good of wikipedia? Can't you just leave the poor bloke in peace, and let sleeping dogs lie? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When he leaves Leonig alone. He's already been made aware that continually adding that section of his user page will not be allowed (he's been blocked for it in the past). If he continues to readdit, he will be blocked again. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This being the Leonig who made comments like "you prick", "this prick" and "this" (read that last one yourself, I won't repeat it) towards Andy. Neıl ☄ 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Past history doesn't come into it, we assess edits on their merits. Andy's edits are fine in this instance. Orderinchaos 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Docu carrying over a year-old grudge trying to get Andy blocked again. Neıl ☄ 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I was noting there's no grounds to block him - if ArbCom had have intended to block him indefinitely they would have done so, the fact he's come back after a one-year block suggests he's served his time and should be treated with the good faith any other user is so long as he behaves, which by and large he has been doing. Orderinchaos 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The above IP posts have no relation to the problem I raised. Besides, I have not participated in "Pigsonthewing 1" and "Pigsonthewing 2". -- User:Docu

In addition to the samples above he hasn't fixed yet, his recent edits show similar hasty conversions which leaves out information ([31], [32]). It lacks "display=inline,title". It would be interesting to know why he selected these two articles for manual conversion. Are they done mainly for pages I added or for which a requested help to fix them? It would probably preferable his would would refrain from doing manual conversions on coordinates. I'm glad EncMstr has withdrawn part of the above comment also made on my talk page. -- User:Docu

Docu, if you have a technical issue with Andy's work on geometric coordinates, then the place to discuss it is not on the Administrators' noticeboard. The place to discuss it is on his talk page. I know you have already posted there, but in future you should consider explaining your concern fully, and carefully, as your previous message to Andy was obtuse and did not actually explain what your problem was. I am not surprised Andy was unable to respond appropriately. All your messages are along the lines of "please fix it" or "you broke it again" without explaining what he did wrong. You could also discuss this at WT:GEO. There is nothing here requiring administrative action. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Neıl ☄ 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Docu is using 4 tildes (presumably); another editor and I have both requested him to change his signature because it doesn't provide a link to his user or talk page, and doesn't timestamp his posts (User_talk:Docu#Signature and related discussion on WPTalk:Signatures); he has so far refused. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Pigsonthewing wrote part of {{coord}}'s documentation, he should know how the template work. Anyways, I gave him a detailed explanation on how to fix the coordinates. BTW can we discuss "Pigsonthewing 2" and signatures elsewhere? -- User:Docu

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[33]

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

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[34] and one of the main articles[35][36] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

A relevant question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

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

(end of restored comment)

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

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

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

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

Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only"[37], therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Wikipedia is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Wikipedia is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion"[38] along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you.[39] Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Wikipedia, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Wikipedia is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion"[[40] upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Wikipedia pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Wikipedia. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [41] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[42]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers [43] published on their Facebook page.[44]. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you put it behind you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sposer, I think I must also apologize “for the poor choice of the term”, According to my discussions with Michael Safyan [45] I found that if the term “might give offense…” to at least one editor, then it is wrong to use it. Sorry next time I will take care about every “J”.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions?

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

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

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

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

The crux of the matter and ways to resolutions

Let's see and clear up this mess:

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

On-wiki problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-wiki problems brought here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added "totally disputed tag" from the very beginning

Continued to litter the article with deletion tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll tell you why your userpage is problematic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We're in here to write articles" - that's funny, I thought you don't do that anymore?[46] - where you say, "I've retired from editing wiki" Anyway, if you have proof of WP strong record on dealing with anti-semitism, I'd like to see. Regarding your with-hunter remark, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Also, regarding this comment I made, I'm surprised that you'd bring this up after you and I discussed it at great length and I fully explained why I said that and what I meant. Regarding reputation, I've never fared well among those who wish to ignore certain things. I'm not here to win a popularity contest obviously. If I was to do that, I'd know exactly what to do, but I'm not one to pretend that I don't have a POV on something and I'm not one to ignore problems or point out WP rules every two seconds. I'm just here doing my thing. I believe I have made some decent contributions, which are then batted down by people with the opposite POV. My interest are the I-P conflict and Jewish issues. It is not my fault that I am interested in working on things which have a high propensity toward some degree of controversy. Enough people didn't ignore some of my comments and actions (including CJCurrie and others), so I'm just learning how to kvetch from everyone else. Sorry if that bothers you for some reason. By the way, since you claim to be so keen on ignoring the things that bother people (or at least this is the advice you give) why don't you hone your own advice and ignore me and my complaints and comments and not call attention to them on your own talk page and on this board? Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me, but have I asked you to remove anything? Have I asked you to stop? Nope! I say bring it on! This is fun. If people don't like it, as you said, "ignore it!"--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Two quick comments:

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

More socks discovered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compared with user Nobody of Consequence (talk · contribs) whose account is blocked for two weeks (from my POV for un-faire reason based on Einsteindonut WP:OR and long talks, but without following the complete history of the article), which leads to losing a very remarkable editor from WikipediA an editor without any WP:COI, is one week for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) enough???
Sorry FayssalF, Every one here has the right to express his POV« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut has never been blocked for wp:OR. He is blocked for sockpuppetry.

Sorry for misunderstanding, What I mean is that "Nobody of Consequence" was blocked based on Einsteindonut unverified long writes/talks (hundreds of his line are listed above) and Einsteindonut talks are like WP:OR.« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding user:Nobody of Consequence. Unfair is your baseless POV and you are free to express it though I am sure it will stop very soon (in a few minutes). To know further about that, please meet me on AN where there is a discussion involving this.

And please complete this...Every one here has the right to express his POV... Does it stop there or can we include something like ...as long as they remain CIVIL and calm? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an open sentence anyone is free to append another sentence to it, but yours is good :)« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Fayssal. I was originally against the block on NoC as I had no idea why it had been enacted, but once explained clearly, I agreed with it. PuTTY, I would strongly advise that being right on a particular dispute (re Einsteindonut) and the fact your opponent is a sockpuppeteer does not make you immune to the rules and norms that apply here. Civility and no personal attacks have the status of policy here, and this isn't a game of sides where one wins and the other loses, it's a collaborative and cooperative effort. Orderinchaos 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, to your knowledge, I joined Wikipedia just for fun as I like this site, and I did not come here to play games or to support a case or to join a group of editors or friends, or in order to win or my side win or any of the things I heard here..... what I’m saying is very simple, NoF account is closed for 2 weeks in less than 20min after EsT claims, (adding the tags by NoF was not wrong, check AFD results), and EsT account is closed for 1 week (check his rude and offensive words, socks+.. and COI), so I found that 2 weeks is UNFAIRE compared to the 1 week, and I think this was the reason why NoF(A professional editor) left Wikipedia and requested to vanish, I’m not asking why his account is blocked, I’m asking why this one took 2 weeks Punishment and the other only one week« PuTTY^SchOOL 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I've dealt with more than a few tendentious editors in my time. And yes, decisions can be inconsistent with each other. We have 1,500+ admins (I'm probably way out of date with my figures, it may well be much more now) and they're not always going to agree. Such decisions may not be the final word. If this person came back and started doing the same things as before, it'd be fairly certain he would be blocked for a longer period, perhaps even indefinitely if it was serious enough. The reason is that we could then say "he was blocked for it before, he knows it's unacceptable, it's been discussed by the community, and now he is continuing so clearly the threat of disruption still exists." We don't just go around banning or blocking people as punishment, we think, "this person's actions are disrupting the encyclopaedia, if we take this action, will it help or hinder our efforts to reduce that disruption?" I also don't think pushing this particular line will help your case, and you need to think about it from the point of view that the people you're talking to and dealing with this time may well be dealing with any future case and you want to, as far as possible, not piss them off and keep them onside. I can tell you right now that the biggest killer of AN/I reports, apart from the fact few admins check this place because it's usually full of drama, is when it appears to be a two-way struggle and we can't identify who is behaving worse. That usually results in no action, or action against the wrong party. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite your meaning of pushing my case, I’m not helping my case, I want to know how things are going, but comments like mine and other editors (like me) will force the 1500+ admins to normalize in between them, other than this thanks for the information which is very good.« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the disgraceful and checkuser-proven trolling IP edits. See the section here. Everything is resolved. Brilliantine (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but still 2 to 1 is unfair, check all comments by EsT+Socks+.. then compare with what NoC posted on EsT page. In addition the punishments was before this detailed long investigation, we can trace edits date and time.« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Has User:J Hoffer atually been blocked? I can't see it in the logs. I also note that they haven't been categorised as socks like the other accounts--Peter cohen (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. HalfShadow 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be looking in the wrong way. Turning to the Checkuser board, I'm confised about this user's status.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Einsteindonut has never denied J Hoffer being his sock. Confirmed 100%. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that you did not mean we have to collect socks punishments plus the one week.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishments, nor are they intended to be. They protect the encyclopaedia from damage. Orderinchaos 12:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the amount of pleasure Puttyschool seems to be taking from this is kind of sick. HalfShadow 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Half Shadow, “it is not the amount of pleasure”, GOOD Wekipediana are trying to show all facts and focus on all points and fine details in order to enhance Wikipedia, so when this thread is closed, then it is closed forever not a HALF close!« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's pleasure so much as a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of blocks and how we regard editors, which is fairly common amongst new editors who are still adjusting to our collaborative, task-centred environment (blogs, Facebook and forums work very very differently - I've been mod at a few). I can see what they are trying to achieve, and I can understand the reasons, but I think that the way they are going about it is counterproductive (not helped possibly by a language barrier, which makes them sound more aggressive than they actually are). Furthermore, it risks clouding the air and confusing admins who have just arrived on the scene as to who or what is going on, and reducing the number of those wishing to get involved, therefore decreasing the probability it will be dealt with appropriately. (If anyone is trying to figure it out, looking at Fayssal's comments in this thread is probably the most useful indication.) Orderinchaos 09:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, I think when Fayssal and You explained, a lot of things are changed, but before explanations it was very clear that 2:1 is ???« PuTTY^SchOOL 10:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User page as NPA problem?

Would an uninvolved admin please look at the user page of the blocked editor? As I think fayssal mentioned far up the thread, this user page text appears to violate NPA. If so, since the editor is blocked for a week, could the unacceptable text be removed? Thanks, HG | Talk 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Text deleted. I mentioned earlier in the topic that it seemed to be soapboxing, but nobody else has done anything so I'm being bold. HalfShadow 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue (among others) is being dealt with by the ArbCom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This may not be worth full-scale arbitration. There's really not much happening in article space that affects the encyclopedia. Most of the problems indicate drama to attract attention, on and off wiki. There's apparently been a multi-year flame war on Facebook on this subject, possibly involving some of the same individuals. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go play somewhere else. In other words, don't feed the trolls. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that it actually needs arbitration. I remember when Prester John had similar problems over his anti-Islam stuff and in the end he got blocked indefinitely by an administrator after a 1- and 3-month block failed to modify his behaviour. If someone is causing disruption and keeping their account open is going to continue to cause disruption, and that can be demonstrated to neutral observers, then there's a case for it IMO. Orderinchaos 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Pianista, I can prove you wrong. By78 reverts and accuses the other contributer, just have a look at his contribution list.[47] His recent contributions are attempt to put the negative versions about the Arjun MBT and also made an attempt to deliberately hide certain facts while editing the the Economy of India page. I agree that one is free to edit any page in Wiki but Why should one hide facts and try to put only the sad affairs. It is deliberate attempt believing that it is the right way to tarnish the image of one nation. Now can you disapprove the above and say that these things are not done because of hatred. If not then what else is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chanakyathegreat, please take this discussion to the talk page of the article, reread what's there, and you'll find all your questions have been answered numerous times. You're needlessly cluttering this page up and not accomplishing anything. Oh, and once again, please read WP:VANDALISM again. You continue to misuse it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, it's the other way around. I had answered to all questions in great detail. Please check the Arjun MBT talk page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanak, I'm done with trying to explain things to you and trying to direct you to things you should read. You either refuse to do so or you simply don't understand. The current version of the page is what the consensus (please click on that link and read it for once) was by several editors before they ALL complained about you coming in and whitewashing the article with misinterpreted information and outdated sources. As I've told you before, I DON'T CARE what you all decide (keywords: ALL DECIDE) to do, however you must establish a consensus, which you have repeatedly failed to do. Once everyone (and as it stands for right now, that's just you and By78) agrees on the content, then you can feel free to make changes. However, until then, please stop wasting your time on this board and on my talk page bloviating on this topic. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on wikipedia is widely viewed as not requireing a 100% level of agreement.Geni 13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, my latest edits after that has been reverted by By78 is all from the latest reports. [48] is from July 12 2008. Similarly [ http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326338] is from June 17, 2008 and all links provided is the latest ones. By78 is not ready for consensus. First he had not provided any source to dispute what I have edited. The only thing done is accusation like POV pushing etc etc. I had explained this to you as well in detail. Then why is my version wrong and his version correct? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, I would like to point out to you that consensus is required on something disputable. Here explanation has been provided to By78's about his misconceptions including the Winter/Summer trial mixup. Now the requirement for consensus falls on him. That is after understanding the issue he must not revert my edits or in good conduct revert to the version of my edit. This has not happened. But Jauerback, you are reverting it to the incorrect version by By78. This is the problem. Hopes you understands it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask you this again: Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seth Whales

This user has insisted on duplicating information, and adding information based on less-than-credible sourcing. Most of the sources in question were not an authority, and all of them had been referenced entirely out of context. For example, the same style applied to this comment would suddenly frame me as saying that all of this user's sourcing was questionable. More information lives at Talk:A4232 road. This user seems to be insistent on playing the man rather than the ball, and then has the audacity to make nonsense proposals under the guise of being "willing to compromise", when these "compromises" are one-sided and invite conduct contrary to policy - an equivalent compromise would be "give me $10 and you can have your $5 bill back". I also consider the participation of User:Haydnaston as suspicious - this user comes out of nowhere to make a revert, and promptly disappears again.

• a weasely accusation of vandalism
• attempting to shift blame
• misrepresenting the quality of his sources
• referring to this as "vandalism"
• claiming they are not going to revert (and then doing so)
• because I pointed out that the offer was not a "compromise" by any definition, this apparently makes me "an uncompromising individual"
• proposing a bogus "compromise", and accusing of sockpuppetry

There is no question that any of the edits concerned could be vandalism, so at the very least I suggest that the user's rollback is revoked. As the user has continued to revert even after a block has been made in the matter, I believe further censure is appropriate, in particular since I ceased any activity on the article concerned well before the block, and have once again ceased activity. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The user's confrontational attitude can be nicely summed up by the fact that they have invited a block, and again made a further attack after being warned. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a good idea to issue a 'final' NPA warning when no earlier warnings were given, especially if you can't be sure an admin would agree with you. Both of you need to take this to dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no clear evidence that the user wants to engage in good-faith resolution, can someone as a first step remove the rollback permission, as it has clearly been abused here. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching this debate from the side, and having revert issues on another Article. I feel strongly that it must be made clear that edited wars have become rather a common recurrence with User 217.36.107.9. I am sure that 217.36.107.9 actions are in good faith, but there seems to me to be a lack of sensitivity to other peoples work. More discussion before actions would, I’m sure lead to less conflict. Also the slapping of warnings on users talk pages is not a good recipe for a peaceful editing community. A little more respect and cooperation would go a long way here.

 stavros1  ♣  22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Foul language and verbal abuse

Hi: It would be greatly appreciated if an admin could look into what is taking place at Talk:Goy#Secondary symbolical meanings of goy where anonymous User 85.179.134.205 (talk · contribs) has crossed the bounds of all decency and declares his defiance of WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA; WP:AGF and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND with choice comments like "the usual Wikipedia fuckers" [49] "I've lost all respect for WP:CIVIL because of people like you. Pathetic Wikipedians" [50] "Why don't you CHECK the fucking sources first?" [51]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That user appears to already be under a block.--Tznkai (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It happened almost simultaneously. An admin blocked him for a "short time" for violating WP:3RR (see User talk:85.179.134.205) but the above issues remain and reveal more serious problems. IZAK (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.217*136.17a et al.

User:138.217*136.17a was a sneaky vandalism-only account, now indefblocked. Shortly afterwards, User:138.217*136.17b was created, which I've also blocked. The account operator clearly knows their way around Wikipedia, as can be seen from the editing pattern and intentionally misleading edit summaries in their first edits. Given the consecutive creation of two sequentially-named accounts, and based on past experience, we can probably expect more actions from this vandal in the near future. -- The Anome (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising on meta as well. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: the vandal has created m:User:138.217*136.17b1 on meta. Given that they are a sneaky vandal, we can probably regard their purported IP address as most likely being a lie, but just for interest's sake, IP 138.217.136.17 is owned by Telstra. Perhaps a checkuser might be appropriate? -- The Anome (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It apparently wasn't sneaky enough, since you found it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Apollomix

Resolved

 – indef'd and userpage deleted

Anyone admins up for blocking this user, Apollomix (talk · contribs), no non-vandalism edits to mainspace, attacks on other users, and someone elses userpage copy and pasted onto theirs, including false admin userbox, can't see any net gain from their account but not a regular case so no AIV--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me :) Blocked indef as utterly non-constructive account and per [52] and [53]. Thanks for the heads up. Pedro :  Chat  13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and user page deleted under WP:CSD#G3 as a pack of lies. Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, guess i can mark this resolved, thanks Pedro--Jac16888 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmpafford and anonymous sock attacks

“Phi Kappa Psi” has being repeatedly attacked from various IP numbers, including 65.66.204.17 ([54], [55], [56]). This IP number has a stable association with domain garzo.com. Please note the name of the person to whom that domain is registered; please note the middle initial of that person. The name maps perfectly to “Tmpafford”. User:Tmpafford has made the same unconstructive edit to “Phi Kappa Psi”, backing this simply with a personal attack. (I believe that a checkuser could associate Tmpafford with other anonymous attacks; I am going to request that checkuser.)

Tmpafford has been repeatedly warned about these acts of vandalism. Anon:65.66.204.17 has repeatedly been warned about these acts of vandalism.

I strongly urge that the account Tmpafford be blocked from editing Wikipdia until its owner agrees to stop vandalizing articles and to refrain from any use of anonymous accounts or named sockpuppets. I also urge that the stably assigned IP number 65.66.204.17 be blocked from editing for a long term or until it is no longer assigned to garzo.com. —SlamDiego_←T 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have since filed a request for checkuser. —SlamDiego_←T 09:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the checkuser has (unsurprisingly) confirmed 65.66.204.17 as Tmpafford. —SlamDiego_←T 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:09jcsherrard posted a comment on my talk page that says, hey punk dont be deleting my stuff, you know nothing bout the harly drags so stay out of my shit you stupid nerd, punk fag female thats all u, bitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schuym1&oldid=237703644 Schuym1 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He's done it to a lot. I'd be tempted with blocking him. D.M.N. (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From His User page i hate fags.im homophobic!!!! i am real good friends with User:HairyPerry. Nice.... I'd suspect possible SOCK issues here with HairyPerry but either way with that and the above diff I can't see how this account is helping build a collegial atmosphere never mind an encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that in my previous comments. Any checkusers wishing to do checkuser? D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I issued a 31 hour block for the comment, but indef'ed after viewing his... rather colorful contributions. seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Anyone wish to check his "friend" HairyPerry (talk · contribs)? Some of the info on his userpage looks "revealing". D.M.N. (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet they they are the same. Look at ThinkBlue's talk page --

• 10:14, 11 September 2008 HairyPerry added in a section header
• 10:08, 11 September 2008 09jcsherrard added in a personal attack.

Going through the contribs... seicer | talk | contribs 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since User:09jcsherrard has "i hate fags.im homophobic!!!!" on his user page, whilst User:HairyPerry has a straight but not narrow Userbox, perhaps they are indeed real world friends with differing opinions? ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[57] and [58] on my talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"This user is a high school student." Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is User:HairyPerry still not blocked? Are you waiting for a checkuser? user:Everyme 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't actually been warned about anything, though I'm doing that right now with regards to his last comments to Seicer, above. Unlike his buddy, he has some positive contributions mixed in with occasional vandalism. Whether a CU turns up anything or not, I don't know, but I'll give him some free advice and see how it goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... So, if I wanted someone I did not care for ever so much (can't think of anyone, but it may happen!) blocked I might create a sock, write some abusive stuff to get me indef blocked, and casually mention I am a close friend of my targeted user. All I need hope for is that nobody does a CU, and my throwaway sock and My Mortal Enemy are removed from the site? Cool. BTW, I'm not saying 09jcsherrard is a sock - but they certainly appear to be kamikazeing at HairyPerry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exposed password

See here. Someone needs to block For this reason a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pronto. Kww (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vean aquí. Alguien necesita ser bloqueado. For this reason a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Soon. 190.51.146.45 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the IP, it all seems to be a bunch of nonsense and really weird.... I don't know. Did Jimbo really unblock here? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use it and that is not the password, so is not exposed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.146.45 (talk • contribs) 14:24, September 11, 2008

Blocked. And, uh, thanks for the translation, 190.51? -- Vary | Talk 14:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Several ec's later - PS, re Ottava's comment above comments - I checked before I blocked and it worked. It's been changed since - that's what happens when you share your password, eh? If the account holder is the one who changed it, and they post an unblock request, it may well be granted, but at the time of the block they were intentionally sharing access to the account. And no, Jimbo didn't grant the unblock request you linked to. -- Vary | Talk 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ok19O.51.146.45 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you editing from a new user account that is oddly similar to 190.51.146.45 above? seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note 193.22222O (talk · contribs) Verbal chat 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a line in the username policy prohibiting usernames that resemble IP addresses? It seems it's no longer there. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Vary. I had a large suspicion that Jimbo wouldn't be using "Attention This IP address" as a screen name. Can we have that IPs talk page protected? Or semi-protected? It seems to just fill will problematic material. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kvvvvv (talk · contribs) blocked indef for impersonating the creator of this topic. D.M.N. (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rangeblock applied. Looking for more. Thatcher 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:207.230.203.234

Blocked 10 times, last block was on the 5th of sept but was oddly only for 24 hrs. User has vandalised since. Requesting 1 year block per two blocks ago.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV for future reference. John Reaves 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV is for active vandals (this second) this vandal was active hours ago I thinks. Hence ANI ;) 203.122.240.118 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohmygod1234

• Ohmygod1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to drop this in an admin's lap. Today, I nominated Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) for deletion, as it appears to me the article has been essentially fabricated out of whole cloth. When I went to drop notice/warning on the creator's talk page, I discovered that Ohmygod1234 has been warned numerous times:5 final warnings for disruptive editing, and innumerable lower levels. Image deletion notices for improper licenses. Image deletion notices for copyright violations. Speedy deletion notices for reposting deleted material.

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album, it appears that this same editor also created that article, which was deemed to be a hoax (something that Everyking and I agreed on, an event worth taking note of). Someone should check the history of this article, and correct me if I'm wrong: I believe it was Ohmygod1234, but I can't see the article history to verify it as I write.

How many final warnings does this editor get before someone starts using the block stick to get the point across?Kww (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that Ashlee Simpson's Forthcoming Album was created by Ohmygod1234. No comment on their other contribs yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have serious concerns about this user; it's not clear to me that any of the content this user adds is factual, and certainly a large portion of it is pure fiction. Everyking (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked the editor, at least until they address the numerous concerns expressed by several editors. At the very least, there is a serious misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about. — Coren ^(talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin spillover to Feminists For Life

Could I get some assistance with this editor?
Dstern1 (talk · contribs) is deleting sourced information - that Palin is, or at least was, "pro-contraception" and inserting unsupported content attributed to 2008 Republican platform, which doesn't assert Palin believes or supports everything in the platform - although she certainly might support it in full. I have detailed the issues on the user's talkpage and even pointed them to the Palin talkpage where those much more familiar might be able to assist. Unfortunately they have continued to edit war on this. It might just need another voice involved but any advice or assistance appreciated, I don't want to simply revert back again. -- Banjeboi 12:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like another connection-by-inference, as with her alleged connection with the Alaskan Independence Party, to try to infer that she believes in Alaskan secession. Meanwhile, I wonder what the FFL's position is on capital punishment. Any guesses? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

They are opposed to the death penalty. Deli nk (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm willing to chalk this up to ignorance of policies. I've left the user a detailed note explaining the policies he may be violating and hopefully he'll shape up. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You left your message on Dstern's talk page! I think you missed the point here: this complaint by Benjiboi is completely bogus. Benjiboi is trying to attribute positions to Palin that she doesn not support. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The warnings left for Dstern are indeed accurate on Dstern's page, as he is skating close to the line in all of those areas. GRBerry 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I'm not a specialist in Palin's positions and have only relied on what reliable sources state, per NPOV if we have reliable sources that contradict each other we try to reconcile multiple viewpoints and let the reader decide what to believe. -- Banjeboi 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that it is acceptable that I am responding here. I have given further explanation of my contention on the Feminists for Life talk page. It was never my intention to have a "war" as I have been accused. It is my intention to delete information no longer valid. After I gained further understanding of the rules, I have limited my edits to political positions which I contend that I have provided verification upon.Dstern1 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer

Resolved

Counter Productive / Incivil Remark

Incident A)[59] - Derogatory Remark, Labling someone a trainwreck waiting to happen is a clearcut violation on WP:CIVIL and is certainly counter productive. Its allso borderline on WP:BAIT / WP:TROLL

Poor Judegement / Extention of Block

Incident B) The extention of a civilty block for so called "Abuse" of unblock templates. Reluctanty heeding two admins requests to reduce it back but not after labling me a trainwreck (hence the above). Serious concerns over knowlege of blocking policy because he still thinks the unblock template use was abuse. Can someone have a word to him, I understand he is a relativly new admin.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who use to use multiple unblock templates, I can say that yeah, its rather uncivil to do such (or, at least disruptive). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking more carefully, "trainwreck" is not targeting any individuals. Its targeting a situation. I can parse out the sentence if necessary. Ottava Rima (talk)

wether trainwreck was directed or not is a matter of opinion but its removal would be a easy resolve.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An easy action is not always a desirable action. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) "Trainwreck" refers to the entire situation. When he doesn't assume good faith anymore and admits that he becomes "hostile" and "bitter" towards administrators -- after being blocked, having his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, banned from IRC for a duration for trolling, then the situation is a trainwreck that he helped create. I did extend his block, but after a courteous notice, I refactored it back to three hours -- which is just slightly shorter than the original block, and is a showing that I made a mistake, as has every administrator at one point or another. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. And no, I'm not a "new admin." seicer | talk | contribs 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont mis-constude my words again please. Also you refracted back the Account ban, but there was an extended duration of the auto block for unknown reasons that led to me be blocked logger than intended (perhaps your tinkering). Also a reptuable admin on IRC said you were relativly new   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If i were to say someone was "a hoar in the works" which is clear cut uncivilty, how is the implications of that different to "have fun with the train wreck you are all setting up" which is grey but still in vio of WP:TROLL / WP:CIVIL. Secondly all I want is to make sure that he does Not extend a block again for the reason he did mine, his comment reaks with "im right your wrong, but ill abide this time just so you can have fun with the train wreck you are all setting up". all I want is the remark removed and it made clear that you don't extend blocks for the reason he did mine and to use better judegement in the future   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

that diff doesn't show a personal attack. And your statement of an "incident" here doesn't give anyone context for what the problem is. Protonk (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We are still on this? I thought all the other admins reviewing the situation would've been enough. MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Prom3th3an even parroted back the train wreck comment on Seicer's talk page, stating "If im a train wreck, be careful, you might get hit."[60] Obviously I can't read minds, but does that sound like somebody who was offended by the train wreck comment? Also, Seicer's comment had nothing to do with WP:TROLL. - auburnpilot talk 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A Parady of the crime is not the same as initating it. "A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature " He knew that remark, which is like reading me like a book would get to me, hence why he said it.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just think - if they had unblocked Prom3th3an early, like he asked for, he wouldn't be doing this kind of attacking. Serves the admins right for keeping him blocked the full 24 hours, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

rofl, i mean hmph, this is a serious matter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Move that this entire situation be closed as Lame. Stern look at Promethean for laughing. Are we done now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC) _{If all the worlds a stage, can i operate the trap door?}

• Prom3th3an is pushing his luck here to a remarkable degree. It is time to drop it and move on, or else his behaviour is likely to be considered disruptive. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, I find myself agreeing with this assessment. There is coming a time when community patience will run out. Orderinchaos 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree. Closed as resolved. Moondyne 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats against an admin from User:166.109.0.238

Resolved

 – Nothing more to be done by us. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This: [61] I'm sure George can take care of himself, but maybe another admin will want to issue the next lengthy block against 166.109.0.238. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a couple of weeks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And now an apparent sockpuppet called User:Georgeherbertww. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked that account also. Thanks for letting us know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threat made against User:Georgewilliamherbert

I have recently come across a death threat made by an anonymous user on another user's talkpage which I feel should be brought to your attention. Judging from my brief look at Georgewilliamherbert's contribution's I would guess this is one of the troublesome users with which he has been dealing with recently who obviously didn't take kindly to his actions. It's highly unlikely this threat would ever come to anything, but even so, I felt you guys should be made aware of this. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See the above section, which I've now merged this to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV. Probably needs oversight. D.M.N. (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP resolves back to a school district: it's probably worth an attempt at contact. I doubt they're interested in having threats issued from their system. Acroterion _(talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File a WP:ABUSE report, Ill contact them in the morning. Hopefully it keep me out of trouble ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing something to them right now. I'll wait an hour or so to send it, in case people decide that's a bad idea. Abuse report likely a good idea anyways, though. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol i was in the process of the same thing, use thier help desk link on thier website. Be firm about the seriousness of a deaththreat and provide a link. Do not oversight the network admins will want to see it.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I sent mine too. Nothing else needed, IMO. Oversight seems sorta' like overkill here, as I don't think many people could take that seriously. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure where it came from, go ahead. What's the worst they could do? Use a gigantic paddle on the offender, as 21 states allow in the USA? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Contact made, ive sent the diff. dont oversight for at least a few days   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Most schools these days have responsible computer use policies (my high school did, and my college has about fifty of them). I'm pretty sure making threats doesn't fit within those; usually, violations result in loss of computer rights at the school (as in they'll delete your login so you can't even get on), some form of judicial action (in a middle/high school, this'll probably be telling the parents and/or detention), etc. Most likely the school will do something to put a stop to it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they do. The main point is to be sure you've got the right source. You don't want anyone getting slapped for the wrong reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We have the right source, WHOIS and RDNS support it. More importantly the techs at that school will know what ip range they use and will check before they go through proxy logs to hang the person by thier thumbs :P   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence the expression, "rule of thumb". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply Brett, Thanks for the information. We are a consortium which provides Internet access to schools in the Southern New York area. We have narrowed it down to one school district and have notified the administration about this incident. We take threats like this seriously and will investigate with the information we currently have. Any new information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mike.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's an anonymous user anyway, all we can give them is the diff. A checkuser's not going to come up with anything of use here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

im aware of that, ive given them the url the user would have had to have accessed to make that edit. using proxy logs they should be able to catch em.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. There's a very persistent vandal in the New York City region who's more upset than average that I have IP range blocked them repeatedly... They're not a very good stalker, but they're very persistent, and as you saw can get sort of nasty / threatening... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Calgary Flames

I stepped on AGK's toes here a little bit—while this isn't resolved, it's not AN/I time yet, and if necessary, I will repost a similar message. Maxim (☎) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just what exactly is wrong with Fasach Nua's NFIO tag? It looks absolutely correct to me. Black Kite 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the lack of discussion, the disruption, editing against consensus, attempting to bully process to get his way and WP:POINT violations? Resolute 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:166.70.238.43

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do on this matter, Foundation is aware of it.

I don't know what one word of this means but it looks like trouble so I thought an admin should check it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment Brilliantine (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that WP:OUTING going to be allowed to stay there? Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has responded, so I blanked the page. Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be brought to the attention of WP:OFFICE, and then subsequently be oversighted. Not entirely sure how to undertake the former step though. Orderinchaos 07:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have emailed it. Orderinchaos 08:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Spamming sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Socks ironed and put back in the draw _Gb^T/c 07:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi these accounts keep adding the same spamlink to articles like the Pickens Plan article, and some others. People keep removing it but they just come back and put it in again. The accounts are User:Peakoil30 and User:Peakoil40. I think another sock may be User:Global10133. I was going to file my first checkuser but that page says to come here with obvious disruptive socks. Schweingesicht (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Socks (Peakoil30 and 40) blocked, I've assumed Global10133 is the master account and have warned it accordingly, although it could itself be a sock. Someone had tagged one of the socks as being a suspected sock of Pythagoras, but I see no evidence of that from their contributions. _Gb^T/c 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

again Kirker

He has been banned on my request because of insults on 6 september. Because of that and because of our editorial dispute I have not asked block after he has called me pathetic with small-minded mentality [65], and I have not started new "idiotic" try to block him [66], but I have been happy with administrator 8 september warning ( all discussion in Archive473. This has been OK until yesterday when he has fallen to in my thinking harass account trap and answered: "If I get any more messages like this, I'll turn Kvarner Bay into blood" [67] Similar to demand for new Kirker blocking I am asking block for Rjecka-budala (name translation: Rijeka fool) and I have asked checkuser check of Rjecka-budala account [68]--Rjecina (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious vandal Sock blocked indefinitely. And I don't understand the rest of what you said Rjecina, but I'll look into it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My small problem is with Kirker statement "I'll turn Kvarner Bay into blood" ? If you are thinking that this is OK then OK (I from Rijeka which is on Kvarner bay)--Rjecina (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Just a couple of things, if I may. Firstly, to be clear, Kirker was not "banned". He was blocked for 31 hours for incivility. Regarding the comment about Kvarner Bay, it was obviously intended to be humourous, in response to a series of messages that were in themselves intended to raise a smile. Misplaced humour on both sides, I guess, but there you go. Meanwhile, Rjecina, your ongoing campaign to have Kirker eliminated rather reminds me of a hydra, but as you obviously believe it to be for the good of the encyclopedia, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! A few days ago I received a message that I initially assumed to be Rjecina's work. I see now that such humour is beyond Rjecina, so it must have been a clever parody. Among other things it said: "Today Rijeka river flows uphill becaus of your insults and pupptetry." In my stern response (likewise confined to my own talk page) I mentioned Kvarner Bay only because that is the bay into which the Rijeka once drained (before I reversed its flow). But for the time being the people of Rijeka City should stay in their homes as there is some doubt about whether I am even capable of carrying out my threat. Poor Rjecina!

Thanks for alerting me to this complaint, AlasdairGreen27 - you were right to guess that Rjecina hadn't bothered. But then Rjecina added me to some Wikipedia project today and didn't even consult me about that! Kirker (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh.... I see Rjecina has acknowledged, albeit on someone else's talk page, that the project thing was inappropriate, so I wihtdraw that bit. Kirker (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:206.40.105.3

Resolved

I've just discovered repeated vandalism by user 206.40.105.3, e.g. on [Charles Borromeo], [Saint Nicholas] and [Saint Dominic] but also several others. Unfortunately, only discovered it today whereas it happened Sept 10 and 11. On checking, also discovered that this user has been vandalising for a long time. Please take appropriate action. Thanks. --Oliver Stegen (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked for a week; the IP is likely dynamic or shared, so the owner/user changes too often to do much else. Other than the recent spree, the last we heard from them was one edit in July and one in June, so it's not that much of a long-term problem. Comparatively. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sciencewatcher

User is adding false information relating to ME/CFS (and other disorders) on numerous pages, reverting every correction and removing dispute templates as he goes. The articles involved are:

• ME/CFS nomenclatures‎
• Psychosomatic medicine‎
• Chronic fatigue syndrome management

and probably more. This is all the same pov that he has been pushing for over a year, that ME/CFS is according to him a psychosomatic disorder rather than the neurological disorder as classified by the WHO. Most users that worked on these articles and daily corrected him in the past have given up and left. I have neither the time nor the desire to keep policing these articles, but his edits are hurtful to patients and something needs to be done. Yours sincerely, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

erm, a lot of doctors think it's a psychosomatic disorder- but then you already know that.:) Sticky Parkin 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source, add it somewhere. But let's adhere to WP:UNDUE, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

More WP:MYPOV than a WP:UNDUE issue, I'd say - the idea that this is a psychosomatic disorder is not exactly fringe, as far as I can tell - in fact the main resistance to that seems to come from the activist community rather than medics themselves. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From the main article:

The mechanisms and processes (pathogenesis) of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are gradually being revealed through research, including physiological and epidemiological studies. In a basic overview of CFS for health professionals, the CDC states that "After more than 3,000 research studies, there is now abundant scientific evidence that CFS is a real physiological illness." Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Redux: you want Wikipedia to blaze the trail in informing the medical profession that they are wrong. Sorry, no. Much of the profession considers it psychosomatic, and that is a mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, I think you are talking out of your hat at this point. You are not a medical professional, have presented no citations, and are arguing against the current weight of opinion.

The opinion that it's psychosomatic is now a tiny minority. And you appear to be supporting POV Pushing for this minority view. Representing that opposition to this only comes from 'activist groups' is moderately insulting to people with this condition, such as myself, and the medical community who are attempting to find it's root cause, and hopefully a cure.

I refer you to the current CDC Position, "CFS is not caused by depression, although the two illnesses often coexist, and many patients with CFS have no psychiatric disorders." [69]

But all that aside, this is not the place to discuss a content dispute. This is the place to respond to someone being a disruptive editor and going against productive consensus editing. If you can't calmly investigate the issue on that alone, then please don't get involved as an administrator at all. --Barberio (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it laughable that Guy is directing somebody else towards MPOV over this, given his comments here. Brilliantine (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychosomatic disorders are real and if people think that is a derogatory labelling then it is those that take offence that are mistaken - but this is a separate issue. The issue on these pages seems to be a content disagreement, so dispute resolution should be tried. Verbal chat 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User has refused that by removing all templates. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates aren't the answer. Try engaging on talk pages, getting external input via an RFC, or going to WP:3O or somesuch; assuming you haven't, apologies if you have. Verbal chat 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher does need to start providing sources for his edits. The burden is on the one who wants to include information. Guido, it couldn't hurt for you to argue with sources, say, for the claim that the WHO classifies CFS as only ME. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please get the facts straight. It is Sciencewatcher who wants to include certain 'information'. I have asked for sources on talk pages many times, and so have many others time and time again, but he provides none (he can't, because there aren't any that support his pov).

On a side note: the ICD10 is already in the references, but you have this wrong even more. The WHO does not classify 'CFS as ME'. It classifies ME as a disorder of the brain. CFS can be found in the alphabetic list of terms (i.e., not in the classification proper), where it has the same code as ME. But this has all been explained and shown to user a dozen times already. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Guido simply cannot work with other editors. He has been blocked in the past for exactly this. If you look at my edits you'll see that I try to discuss things with him, but it never gets anywhere. He is just completely unreasonable. Apparently it's okay for him to add an edit saying the WHO classifies CFS as ME, but when I add the info he left out, i.e. that it also classifies it as Neurasthenia (fatigue syndrome) Guido didn't like this, so he said I put "false information" into the article! And in reply to Mangojuice's comment: I do always provide sources for my edits when asked. In the case of the psychosomatic article, however, the sources are in the articles themselves (e.g. CFS/IBS, etc.) and it doesn't make sense to add a whole load more reference bloat - the user can just read the articles for those illnesses. Guido claims that wikipedia isn't a reliable source, which is true, but it misses the point. Anyway, I'm just going to let others look at the edits and I'll be happy with whatever the consensus is. It's hard having a consensus with Guido because he forces his point of view, is unreasonable, and yet claims he is a member of wikipedia's "harmonious editing club"! --Sciencewatcher (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. It does make sense to add "more reference bloat" when justifying the inclusion of information. I will say this, though: Guido, you have to calm down and stop looking at this situation as a war. You may be in the right on some of these edits, or maybe not. But you've started out with a combative attitude that has made building a consensus difficult. Look at your response to me, for instance, when I've been supporting you! As for the ME vs. ME and neurasthenia nomenclature dispute, my point is that a clear inline cite either way would be helpful, and no, I didn't look into it so closely. But Sciencewatcher, this goes for you too. Both of you have been escalating these situations into an edit war. It's particularly unhelpful to remove dispute tags: it's like a slap in the face to those who disagree with you, and a sign that you aren't even willing to discuss the issue. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Mangojuice. I'm not really that agitated, but I am tired and information processing is wobbly at the moment. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The ICD10 classifies Neurasthenia (F48.0) thus [70]:

Excludes:

• asthenia NOS ( R53 )
• burn-out ( Z73.0 )
• malaise and fatigue ( R53 )
• postviral fatigue syndrome ( G93.3 )
• psychasthenia ( F48.8 )

ME is listed under postviral fatigue syndrome, i.e. neurasthenia explicitly excludes ME, as well as all other terms that have the code G93.3. Some of the confusion stems from the fact that neuromyasthenia used to be an alternative term for ME. Almost the same word, but biological rather than psychosomatic. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And many researchers think that ME and neurasthenia are the same thing, although this is better discussed on the talk page. And I'm happy to add individual refs for each illness in the psychosomatic article if that is what the consensus is. Again let's discuss it on the page for the article itself, not here. As I said in the talk page, the reason I removed the pov tag was because it was inappropriate in that case. --Sciencewatcher (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is now a content discussion and belongs on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. I'm going to cut and paste this last bit there and reply there. Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@SW: No, they don't. That's your pov. Stop basing your edits on it. Literature shopping to find that one poor study that in contrast to all the other publications halfway seems to support a statement, is not neutral editing either. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

@Mangojuice: the issue that SW keeps putting the same unsubstantiated, misleading statements everywhere - and continues to do so even while this case is running and the consensus is against him on talk - is not a content issue, but a behavioural issue. This has to stop, we cannot have a normal content dispute resolution this way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and Boodlesthecat edit warring on Controversies of the Polish–Soviet War

Resolved

 – Both parties notified of 1RR restrictions, Tiptoety ^talk 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[71] Bringing this to WP:ANI for more eyes. This 3RR report was closed as stale; however, from some perspectives this appears to be more of a classic two-editor edit war focused on a genuine content dispute. The talk page of the article describes the concerns about the content being added by Piotrus. The history of the article shows that Boodlesthecat requested Piotrus to take this to the talk page of the article. The article is now protected. Question: How best to address a situation where there is a clear edit war, one of the warriors is an administrator who promptly posts a 3RR request even before discussing the concerns raised on the talk page of the article. Ideas anyone? Oh. Please note that Piotrus is also a named party to an RFAR, in which Boodlesthecat has given evidence. Risker (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the user who closed the 3RR report. After reviewing the case I saw a clear content dispute between two users who have a very clear history of bad interactions with one another. While Boodlesthecat did in fact violate 3RR, that does not make Piotrus exempt from WP:EDITWAR (which is clearly what he was involved in). Personally, I would hope that common sense would have kicked in on Piotrus part seeing as he is an experienced editor and a admin, whom is currently going through a RfAr, but that was not the case. I am thinking that some form of topic ban is in order (those two staying away from one another, 1RR, or something) until ArbCom makes their ruling. Also, if I would have got to the report earlier (before the report was stale) I would have blocked both parties. Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And so have I (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Special_case:_Boodlesthecat). As the evidence shows, discussion with Boodes (who never admits he is wrong) goes nowhere (and anyway, his discussion style includes sending others @ "you are a dick" or accusing them of antisemitism). There is a reason why a mediator from our case has resigned and is now supporting me at ArbCom. Past evidence shows Boody will not shy from edit warring, and will revert war till he is blocked (see his block log) or till enough different editors revert him that the article gets protected and/or he gives up and moves to another article. Alas, if he can break the 3RR with impunity, why should we bother reverting him at all? I am considering ignoring his edits - if I revert him, I only fall into WP:EDITWAR, apparently. If the community has suggestions what can be done before ArbCom reaches its decision, it would be appreciated. Somewhat frustrated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI isn't the right place to be judging Arbcom evidence. We lack the deliberation and process of an RFAR. If the situation is so bad, maybe someone ought to propose a temporary injunction at the RFAR, pending a final decision. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposition. Some form of 1RR on affected articles (topics?) may be a solution here, but how to phrase it properly? Any suggestions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempt whenever possible to stay uninvolved in these sorts of things. I'm sure a clerk could give you some past examples. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While the RfAr is somewhat relevant, I would like to note that it is not the reason this thread was started. The issue here is more specific and could be easily resolved by simply staying away from each other, but neither seem to want to do that. Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Piotrus would like you to overlook the fact that it takes two to tango. If there is an edit war, there are at least two warriors. While pointing to Boodlethecat's block history, Piotrus neglects to mention the admonitions he has received that 3RR is not an entitlement. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly agree, and I think that Piotrus fails to see that it takes two to edit war. Either way, the reason for this thread was to get some form of resolution to this issue, not simply sit around and throw rocks at Piotrus. I am more than willing to write up a proposal, but I would like to hear from others before I do as to if they even feel that a topic ban would be appropriate here. Tiptoety ^talk 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'd be happy to support some form of 1RR. For instance, I could promise not to revert Boody more then once per article per day (1RR), if he adheres to the same standard. If one of us breaks our promise, they are blocked. Simple - and should stop edit warriors (whomever they may be... :).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 1RR restrictions

The real solution here is for the two of them to stay away from each other, but seeing two of them edit the same articles and often cross paths, I think a all out ban from interacting with one another is a bit harsh and is more up ArbCom's ally. So here is what I propose: 1RR restrictions on both Piotrus and Boodlesthecat when reverting one another (generally speaking). This includes such reverts as: 1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him. Either editor found in violation of the restriction will be subject to a block. (I would also like to note that Piotrus as already agreed to 1RR restrictions) Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that--what I ideally would like to see is an actual adult solution where I can discuss my concerns with articles that concern Polish Jewry--(and there have been some serious concerns) without coming under a full fledged assault by Piotrus and his team of edit warriors working in concert, inevitably leading to Piotrus filing the inevitable 3RR (instead of ignoring my constant pleas to discuss things like adults on the talk page). It's boring & juvenile (and this abuse of admin authority is precisely what is being scrutinized at arb right now). I have fullest confidence in arguing my points in an open forum without the hostility I am inevitably subject to.

But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik is indeed sometimes bizarrely vilifed (kinda silly, since Malik hardly ever reverts.) It's actually typically Piotrus and his team bum rushing me; some of Piotrus' team members even see me as a sort of all powerful dark force seeking their destruction such as those spoken about in the Protocols of the Editors of Zion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A charming accusation ("Bum rushing"), however I beleive 1RR on both editors should be sufficent at this time. Also about being the "dark force", I was under the impression that was me :P Prom3th3an (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you're currently doing your best to secure that title. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know and im doing a good job hey? I should get a barnstar, someone make me a barnstar :P Prom3th3an (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about this discussion. First, because I’m Polish like Piotrus I’m already a tag-team member, a guilty party if you will, and I haven’t even done anything. Articles on Polish-Jewish history are routinely defaced with polonophobic propaganda, and than locked for weeks at a time by non-Polish admins. Not a single Polish editor voiced his opinion here so far. That’s because some of us are simply afraid of being called anti-Semites who do nothing but rant. What I would like to see is some kind of system of coping with constant intimidation we are being subjected to recently. I do not understand why am I supposed to be restricted from editing because of other users incivility therefore I do not accept your proposal based on guilt by association. Please, think up something different. --Poeticbent talk 06:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that the majority of this discussion is not appropriate. This thread was not started to simply stand around and say shitty things about Piotrus, say that he is operating some kind of cabal or dark force, and inserting propaganda. Seeing as all of that is considered a personal attack, anyone who continues to do so will be blocked. The hope in starting this thread was to get some form of resolution between the two parties (so Poeticbent, the 1RR does not affect you) and seeing as both parties have agreed to do so, I am going to go ahead and put the restrictions in place and close this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's see if this will work. The less edit warring, the better for the project. I only wish we could do something about the immense amount of bad faith expressed above... but I guess that's something for ArbCom to work on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, it will be nice to get some remedial relief, and seems a viable first step towards addressing the issue of tag team edit warring, which is being addressed on Arbcom. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Evilimaws - blocked sockpuppeteer needs attention

User:Evilimaws (recently blocked sockpuppet of User:Swamilive) is leaving me personal messages on their talk page about recent account creation sprees. There was a recent influx of disruptive sockpuppets from this user. It would be nice if an admin could protect their talk page and double check that account creation is disabled on their recently blocked accounts and IPs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Redvers protected the user's talkpage, and the messages addressed to you have been cleared. Jamie^☆S93 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Redvers & Ultraexactzz. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)

203.200.40.194 (talk · contribs) has been making mischievous edits in the article inspite of being warned. Please take action.Kumarrao (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse the question, as I do not want to offend anyone, but are these edits more than mischievous? I see one or two edits every few days, relating to caste; either adding or removing an individual, or changing the caste name (and therefore the caste). Is this particularly offensive to either the individuals or caste sensibilities? If not, I suggest the appropriate response is as before - revert and otherwise ignore. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stymied by large article history delete

I've been going through and cleaning a trail of edit summary vandalism. When I requested deletion of California, I see:

This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions.

Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia.

So, what do I do? —EncMstr (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe only developers have the means to delete pages with that many revisions. Alternatively, if the edit summaries cause serious concern (i.e. outing an editor), I prescribe a shot of revision hiding. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 07:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is the best bet here. I think stewards have the bigdelete permission, but they are probably not too keen to start cleaning articles here. If I remember correctly, there is also an open bugzilla enhancement request, which would allow admins to delete single revisions without doing the whole delete/undelete-routine. I cannot give you the bugzilla number for that, though, as I have never been able to find anything there :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that most of the time, if the vandalism is not worth bugging oversight then it's not worth killing the database by performing a big delete/restore anyway :). I couldn't find the revisions so I guess oversight acted upon it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages to remove edit summary vandalism should not be done without gaining community consensus. Such mass deletions affect all of us, including potential new editors who try to edit for the first time and are met with the server lock message. Most of these summaries aren't even worth the trouble. It's in the history, not on the page. If it doesn't qualify for oversight, locking the server down to remove it only serves the vandal in extending the negative impact their edits have had on the project. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I cannot say I have ever heard that before ... --Kralizec! (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The 5000 revisions limit has been enforced to prevent admins from deleting the sandbox again :p (last time, the db was locked for an hour as a result) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, when I was still learning about such things, I removed a vandalism revision from axe that someone was asking people on /b/ to save. That worked pretty well, since the page has less than 1000 revisions. Then the same thing happened to Antarctica, (which has/had more than 4000 revisions). Like a blind fool I deleted it. That locked the servers for 7 minutes. And, of course, afterwards I had to restore it, which locked the servers for another four or five minutes. I think that's why the devs don't want us deleting big page - n00b admins do stupid things. (As do experienced ones, but that is beside the point ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SUPERPOWER the Movie

Could someone saneful have a look at the edit history on this article? The content (a press release) is taken from http://superpowerthemovie.com/, which quite clearly isn't using a license we can import from (it's got a no-modification-without-permission clause). Apparently the author of the site is willing to work with us on this, but that doesn't change the present state of the copyright status. I've tagged it as a blatant ad anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• As it happens, user:SuperpowerTheMovie appears to be Christy Johnson or a representative of such, and this no-modification-without-permission license applies there too. If the user needs schooled on our licensing rules, it should ideally happen from a position where we are not technically violating any copyrights at that point in time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Christy Johnson be prodded or AFDed as non-notable? Oh, and check the article. She also put that "no changes allowed" clause at the end of it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Is it likely that someone good at directly contacting users to work with them on these things would be able to help out if this went on the copyvio board? Seems a bit of a shame to lose an editor who is acting in good faith even if the edits themselves aren't acceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, check this diff [72] She put a phone number in an edit summary. Kosher? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

People in the real world use phone numbers to communicate. I don't see it as anything other than failure to adapt to the norms of the medium. Indeed, providing contact information is a positive thing when there's an obvious communication issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting she be sanctioned for posting the phone number, just wondered if it should be there or oversighted somehow, but it looks like it's the number of a business, not someone's personal number. Also, I left a message on her talk page trying to explain what the problems are. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight isn't for all phone numbers. Leaving the business number of the copyright holder to an image in lieu of other contact details seems perfectly cromulent to me, if not a norm for the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, now that I know it's a business number. Quite cromulent indeed. But it seemed a trifle brillig before I realized that and I thought the slithy toves should have a look at it just to verify. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an update, the site now has a boilerplate GFDL-with-attribution license in the footer, so I suppose it's now acceptable. I suppose we can wait and see whether either of the deleted articles return in some form. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Christy Johnson is back and AFDed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Debate disguised as a Question

Please will someone else look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Follow-up question?

I don't know the intent of the OP but I think it is the start of a debate, not a question. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Uhm, what administrator action are you asking for here? Black Kite 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asking that someone else take a look at the situation I linked to and support or differ from my opinion. I did receive some feedback. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it was not really an administrator issue, but I just don't get why so many people are so quick to delete questions on the reference desk. People have questions, why not let people answer them? --Tex (talk) Vote Bishzilla for Arbcom!! 00:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it as an attempt to start a political debate on the Reference Desk page, not as a real question. Another editor concurred. Maybe I goofed. Other feedback would be appreciated. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Alexf mass-deleting dates

I know there is still an ongoing discussion concerning the MOS decision to stop linking dates, but is there a decision that currently linked dates should be delinked? See Alexf (talk · contribs), who is mass-removing links to dates. This isn't an appropriate activity, as far as I can see. Corvus cornix_talk 01:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I get your point. I stopped as soon as Corvus informed me in my page about this notice. Let's discuss then. -- Alexf⁴² 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon editor adding spam

Resolved

An anon seems to be editing solely for the purposes of adding spam to Wikipedia articles about coffee. Details are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.86.174.25

The web site the spammer promotes is:

http://cerinicoffee.com/Espresso_machine_service.asp

All edits from this IP number have been to add this link to coffee articles, and the user has been warned a number of times. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Such reports should be made to WP:AIV. However, the editor has stopped and is probably heeding the warnings. —EncMstr (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

A poll (that multiple editors have already stated does not have options available that encapsulate their actual views to begin with) has started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date format resolution attempt. This poll (initially launched in terms of "voting"; I have adjusted the language) was already further undermined by (since-reverted) inclusion of a "the vote so far" summary embedded in the middle of the poll (a strong biasing tactic). Now, one participant invested in this debate has launched a second, "run-off" poll to "vote" (that editor's words, not mine) on which of two options from the original poll to choose between, before the first poll has concluded (it's only been running for a few hours), and despite both criticism of the original poll and criticism of the use of outright voting as a substitute for consensus-building. I have tried to get the point across both at that page and the talk page of the user in question, Greg L, who reverted removal of the pre-emptive second poll). I believe the second poll to be genuinely disruptive and a massive PoV-pushing exercise. Disclaimer: I have added a !vote to the poll, but I do not have a particularly vested interest in the outcome of it, which is actually so far going pretty much the way I would like, and is a tempest in a teapot anyway. This ANI report is about an editing behavior issue, not a topical viewpoint. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Greg L added a second, redundant heading to the talk page in an attempt to direct more editors to his railroading second poll. I think this constitutes evidence of WP:DE (and WP:CANVAS, in that there is no consensus for a second poll at all, and registered opposition to the idea already). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:NPA violation [73] (accused me of vandalism). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to the interpersonal bits, that kinda-RFC seems needlessly complicated. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been raised as well, but isn't why I'm here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: [74] More canvassing for disputed second poll, including declaration of what the two "run-off" winners are, despite no consensus that poll is closed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to bring the hammer down, Rubber Duck. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• To the admins. Tony asked me to post a poll (which I did) and then he put this notice regarding that poll on the Village pump so many editors could participate. The position of SMcCandlish is clear with his 4-0-0-0 vote. He participated in a poll, and then he declared that he thinks all polls to be evil. Clearly, a lot of editors want to participate in this because very many have participated in it and also engaged in well behaved debate and discussion. SMcCandlish is out of step with the rest of us. We’re trying to see if we can develop a consensus here and his obstructionist moves are getting in the way of that objective. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. Just because someone participates in a poll doesn't require them to like it. I vote, I am not therefore required to like the US system of elections. My suggestion is that you guys carve out a new talk page section and discuss changes to this like they did over at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. There we had a few editors adding and removing proposals and we spent some time to hash it out before moving on. Nothing is really going to permanently damage this discussion, so I would cool down on the crisis mode. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Why the crisis? I am astonished SMcCandlish’s effort to ratchet up the tenor here; everything had been going very smoothly on WT:MOSNUM and all the editors (with one notable exception) have been very civil and constructive. Note the total lack of rancor here at the vote comments. May I suggest we let Tony, who sort of serves as a moderator of sorts on MOSNUM, weigh in over there after he wakes up? Australian time you see. I don’t perceive an imperative to move the polls off of Talk:MOSNUM since discussing dates is just about the only thing that is done over there as of late; that’s what the venue is for after all. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed (in response to Protonk). Wanting to participate in a poll is not sign at all on other editors' part that they want someone to control the poll in a highly manipulative way. In response to Greg L: You're the one in WP:PANIC mode, closing polls prematurely, announcing "run-off votes" before the original has closed, declaring poll results after only a matter of a few hours, reflexively reverting well-explained opposition to these moves, and launching into blatant personal attacks (accusations of "vandalism" and "censorship"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Also, I did not declare polls to be evil; please do not mischaracterize what I wrote. I said that they are rarely actually helpful. If you want to call me "obstructionist" with regard to not letting a single party railroad a consensus discussion, then fine. I'm certainly not obstructionist with regard to actually coming to a genuine consensus on the issue, a process this poll is not helping with by polarizing the debate and forcing editors to literally vote (Greg L's wording) on options they don't actually even agree with. That the debate has been civil is not a point in favor of Greg L's view (nor against it); it is simply normal - Wikipedians are supposed to be civil. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:3RR reached (not yet breached): *[75] reverted (in different wording) [76]. (which was a revert on my part)

• [77] reverted [78] (which was a revert on my part)
• [79] reverted [80] and a previous version (addition by someone else).
• Technically there actually was a fourth one, but it was a housekeeping removal of some junk code that was accidentally re-inserted, so I don't count that one, nor stuff in the nature of an alteration rather than reversion. Warning in order? I think all of the above clearly establishes as pattern of WP:OWN over this "vote", as well as all the other problems already raised. The fact that someone "asked him" to start a poll doesn't mean it gets to go his personal way by fiat. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, my comment was an admonishment to both editors. Stop reverting over the format and nature of the poll. Figure out between the two of you what you can agree on at the talk page. Slow down. If the whole thing weren't so durn complicated, I would make a direct suggestion, but as it stands all I can do is make general suggestions. If you both keep up this reverting and escalating business (and greg, it's you too), neither will be happy with the results. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I won't revert anything further there. That's why I came here - I find revert wars to be completely pointless. The damage has already been done. What could have been a possibly informative poll has turned into an invalid farce, and I don't think that can be undone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to update WP:LAME. That is by far, the most asinine poll/vote/not vote/thread I've ever seen. Keeper ǀ 76 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I think that posting here was one of the more creative (albeit possibly inappropriate) ways to drum up interest in a discussion, than I've seen lately : ) - jc37 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone needs to read Arrow's impossibility theorem. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. WP:Canvas “is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” I have done none of that. And the only disruptive editor over on WT:MOSNUM were caused by SMcCandlish. Everything was peaceable and without rancor until SMcCandlish charged into the middle of the event, claimed that all polls are evil, and deleted an entire poll. I ask that SMcCandlish be required to post evidence of my canvasing, and (when he is unable to demonstrate as much), that he be sanctioned for coming here to sling bucket-fulls of muck on the wall in hopes that something would stick. I ask that he be sanctioned for bringing false charges. Greg L (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Two personal attacks don't make a civil comment. You weren't canvassing, per se, but neither is candish railing on about the evils of voting or 'charging in', or doing things with buckets and muck. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Greg L: Again, please stop falsifying my statements. I did not "delete an entire poll", I deleted your attempt to create an empty new poll that undermined the first one's (already questionable) results. The discussion was actually quite lively; your implication that all was quiet on the front is false (as already noted, the fact that no one has been flaming and attacking - other than you - is neither here nor there). As for canvassing, read it more closely. It is not limited to posting individual notes on individual's talk pages. Your two attempts in a row to direct all editorial attention at that page to your pre-emptive second poll when the legitimacy of that poll itself and even its existence on the page are the subject of editorial dispute is very clearly canvassing. I close by noting that I've not asked for any sanctions against you at all, other than being warned to chill out (which Protonk has done, and I don't mind being warned myself in the process), because I've been assuming good faith even if complaining of misguided action. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The record is clear as to what happened. I don’t need to characterize or mischaracterize anything you did or didn’t do. I’ll let the admins deal with you. And no, everything I did was entirely out in the open right on the talk page of MOSNUM. Your charges are without foundation and everything you wrote above was nothing but salacious false fabrications. Did you see anyone else on WT:MOSNUM complaining about my job of moderating the voting? I count just one editor: YOU. And why would that be the case? Your “4-0-0-0” vote betrays your extreme bias. You should be sanctioned for what you’ve done. Goodbye. I’m too pissed off with this stunt of yours at the moment to further deal with you here. Greg L (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mischaracterization: Protonk noted that you were mischaracterizing me even before I did. Admins: I haven't done anything worthy of admin attention. In the open: Of course it was in the open; everything, including your revertwarring, is in the open on a Wiki. That doesn't make everything that happens on a Wiki a good idea. Fabrications: I've linked to diffs. You can't really fabricate anything on a wiki. Complaints: Yes, there are others. Several respondents to the poll noted that its options were too limited, and below on this page another echoes my concerns about your closing it prematurely and selecting two options from it for a "run-off", while both there and here editors have commented that it is too complicated (and "lame" according to one). Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Flagging inappropriate behavior does not require a vote, and a lack of 100 people flagging it as inappropriate doesn't make it appropriate. Extreme bias: I think this really, really gets to the core of the matter: You are clearly not interested in valid poll results, but in getting your way and mischaracterizing others as extremists if you set up a (skewed) 4-option poll and then actually publicly castigate people for selecting one of the options! And (not that it's important) I clearly explained my rationale. I have no particular bias at all; I see A and B as identical, C as a minor variant of it, and D as irrelevant, and explained clearly that whatever the outcome, WP:MOSNUM and WP:ENGVAR should not conflict with each other. I'd say that's a completely rational and calm position. Sanctioned: For what? I've used WP:ANI for what it is for: flagging revertwarring, personal attacks and other disruptive editing. You on the other hand, with this post above, have just now personally attacked me for the fourth time in fewer hours. Pissed off: WP:TEA, WP:MASTADON. If you have become too emotionally involved in an editing dispute and can't control your temper with regard to it, then it is time to back off. I don't really have anything else to say on these matters and will return to WP:MOSNUM with a proposal for non-voting discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of people would see me as anything but a moderator at MOSNUM; rather, a partisan activist. However, on this matter, the reason I havn't indicated my preferences on the table (better word than vote) is that I can't decide between two of the options. I regard both Greg L and SMcCandlish as allies (not on all issues, but certainly in general); this puts me in a difficult situation. All I really wanted in suggesting the tabular idea was to bring us closer to a decision on this important matter. I haven't ventured onto MOSNUM talk yet, but will later today. Tony (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I have tried to make clear, this is a procedural matter, not one about which option in the poll is "better". We cannot launch polls, characterized as outright votes, and then manipulate them the entire time they a running until until we personally like the results, and then exclude the ones we don't like. And, yes, I am most often in agreement with Greg L, but the over-control of this poll has really been a nasty surprise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As a keenly interested participant, I'd like to say that I think that good will is running pretty high on this. It's more of a misunderstanding than anything else. To begin with, it's just a poll, and while it will aid in consensus-building over what has been a spirited discussion, it's not going to have any binding result. Tony and Greg have done well to get a poll going in such an excellent format, where results and trends are immediately clear. I've advised all participants in the previous discussion, and one or two other places, such as VPP about the poll, and I think it needs time, maybe a week from first being put up, for everyone to have an input. While a run-off is a good idea, I'd like votes in the original poll to trickle out before starting a new one. I also think that wording of the two options could be tweaked a bit to tersen them up a bit. One of the two run-off options contains a bit more electioneering than is strictly necessary, and the other has grown more verbose than needful. If Greg could perhaps be persuaded to withdraw the run-off for a few days, at least until editors have stopped voting in the original poll? --Pete (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"While a run-off is a good idea, I'd like votes in the original poll to trickle out before starting a new one...until editors have stopped voting in the original poll." Yes, indeed. That's what brought me here, Greg L's pre-emptive closing of the poll after only hours and launching a new poll with his chosen two options, and blanket reverting opposition to this inexplicable move, twice in a row. I've never claimed that there was no good-will toward the original poll, only that several have expressed concerns about its neutrality. If someone else wants to deal with this, that's up to them. I've already stated above that I'm not going to revert these moves again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those pages suffer from WP:TLDR; there's some relationship between verbosity and editors attracted to MoS (Tony seems to be an exception). I don't have time to read all of that, so I won't enter the "vote". Seriously, everyone who participates in MoS discussions needs to work on keeping commentary in digestibly sized chunks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• There. I listened to my “Relax” playlist on iTunes last night and slept on it. And now I know exactly what pissed me off about the knee-jerk reaction of SMcCandlish in coming to ANI to post a complaint. One word: censorship. Anytime someone posts a contentious guideline to WP:MOSNUM that is contrary to the consensus view and/or wasn’t properly discussed, such text can be reverted by another editor. But Talk:MOSNUM is an entirely different venue: it is a special forum where editors discuss, debate, and share thoughts.

  If SMcCandlish thinks all polls are evil, he can say so—and he did. If he thinks the first poll was called too early, he should state as much… there on Talk:MOSNUM. Notwithstanding the ridiculous picture SMcCandlish would like to paint of the nature of the goings-on over on Talk:MOSNUM, no single editor can hijack Talk:MOSNUM and make it go—for very long anyway—in a direction that the main body of editors doesn’t want it to go. Talk:MOSNUM has plenty of experienced editors with fine-tuned brain filters for inappropriate procedures and B.S. Everything was quite peaceable over there last night. As anyone can see, the current run-off poll (which I restored after SMcCandlish deleted it and he then came here to make a federal case out of it) is receiving plenty of participation and many editors are showing how they feel on the options and are sharing thoughts and engaging in civilized debate.

  And since I “closed” the earlier poll, more editors have voted and have updated and maintained my summary statistics on the voting—none of which has changed the outcome as to which two options were the leading candidates. If anything, the additional voting has further gone against his views. I was too distracted by this ANI to really focus on what really ticked me off about SMcCandlish’s move: in a forum for discussion and debate and the sharing of ideas (not MOSNUM itself where it is appropriate to delete improperly posted text), he so objected to what was being done, he elected not to make a case and rally other editors to his way of thinking. Instead, he simply deleted an entire swath of Talk:MOSNUM, declaring that he didn’t like it so damned much, that he was going to decide for everyone else what was permissible for them to participate in and when they may do so.

  To SMcCandlish: If you have something to say, say it. If you think all polling is evil, say it. If you want to participate in a vote and then say all polling is evil, do so (you did). If you think the poll was improperly called, state as much and rally others to declare it foul and boycott it. If you want to start your own poll, do so. If I write something that you think is wrong, point out the shortcomings of my argument. But get this much clear: in a freewheeling discussion and debate forum where editors are being civil and aren’t engaging in personal attacks, the proper response to bad speech is better speech. Don’t ever again act as a unilateral censor in a debate and discussion forum and presume to decide for others what issues they may participate in and discuss with others. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the topic

Someone should mention that the two creators of this poll have simultaneously created an RfC to continue their pursuit of Tony1 here. As you can see here the users wish to move on to the next forum when consensus does not support them. These two are becoming very disruptive very quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a sign of the complexity here that these are different editors, who disagree with Tony over a different issue. They are concerned with the linking and autoformatting of dates; SMcCandlish is talking about which format (September 11, 2008 or 11 September 2008) dates are in, without autoformatting, and whether linked or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It deals with linking. There is no difference between linking dates for autoformatting or for wikilinks, and they are united in being delinked. The one appears to be a subset of the other. You can see from this comment "Sapphic. Yes, your vote statement (“Autoformatting makes this entire poll irrelevant”) is true" (Greg L (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)) as evidence of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not irrelevant, no; two arguments on the same page at the same time are unlikely to be absolutely unrelated to each other. But Sapphic is (as Greg says) neutral on this issue, which is about the format of dates in edit space, whether linked or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima: Really, you’ve got all your facts thoroughly screwed up. There is only one creator of the poll (me). And I have nothing whatsoever to do with any RfCs against Tony; he and I see eye-to-eye on many (not all) issues regarding dates. And as PMAnderson has correctly pointed out, the editors who have done the RfC against Tony (I just now discovered it), have a problem with how Tony is championing the deprecation of autoformatting of dates (the special tools that make *pretty* dates for we editors but often mucks things up for 99.9% of our readership). The polling issue has nothing whatsoever to do with autoformatting; it has everything to do with how editors should go about determining which format of date editors should use when writing out fixed-text dates in articles. And the above ANI really doesn’t have anything to do with that; it has everything to do with someone trying to act like someone died and made him God, with the powers to decide for others what debate and thought is permissible to be discussed in a talk forum. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Greg, when I put the "this poll" I ment to put a link up there and direct it to the second poll. I just noticed the error and put it in its place. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ahh… I see. That makes sense now. Like Gilda Radner used to say: *never mind*.  Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hope everything makes sense now. I was going to leave it in its own note, but I didn't want the above to be seen as a continuation per se, but a spin off from the topic (i.e. the MoS Date Page). The one user in that RfC that established it mentioned going to AN/I. Since this was here, I wanted to give the slight heads up so that this doesn't degenerate out of control as it possibly could. I want to make it clear to everyone again that I'm not commenting on Greg's posts, or any of the above comment, but only introducing a similar topic from the same area that might need eyes on. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Phew. We have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1, and an RfC on the mos page. Clearly there are some pretty long term problems here.. Wizardman 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some RfCs have merit. Some don’t. The devil is in the details. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. Who knows who's on first anymore, or what the issues are. And as if we need more evidence of the excessive verbosity of the proponents, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L we find consistent inability of editors to stay within the instructions of RfC regarding not editing other editors' sections. Several did exactly that, rendering yet another page undecipherable. The intent of RfC is to keep arguments within sections so that others can sort: can anyone sort that mess ? We need a community sanction that anyone participating at MoS needs to limit all posts to x number of words; that would solve a lot of the problems (and Tony1 could keep doing what he's always done, since he doesn't suffer from this excess verbosity). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• And how does your 125-word rant help to sort out whether this ANI is warranted? Or whether there is a problem with the above-mentioned RfC against Tony? We’re wasting our time here. The ANI by SMcCandlish isn’t getting much sympathy from moderate-minded editors and clearly shouldn’t have been filed. Greg L (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps my goals are different than your goals; I want MoS to be a workable set of pages, and everyone already knows the quality of Tony's work, so that RfC doesn't matter. In the meantime, I'll call attention to the verbosity that prevents any improvement from occurring in MoS discussions. I sometimes wonder if it's a deliberate strategy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Barton Foley notability tags

Could someone please take a look at the large number of notability tags being placed by this editor, including to major novels by science fiction writer William Gibson, and to films which seen clearly notable? I can't tell if this is just a massive one-man cleanup effort or if there's something WP:POINTy about it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the editor made his first edit on 25 August 2008. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A random sampling of the user's contributions to film-related articles reveals the addition of prod tags to many that aren't notable, so we're OK on that score. But there does seem to be little or no checking for notability on his part before he adds the tags. Just because an article doesn't currently cite reliable secondary sources, that doesn't necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. It may just lack a citation that can easily be found with a twenty-second Google search (indeed, this has been the case for a couple of inappropriately tagged articles). So I guess his use of the tag isn't wholly appropriate in this case, without those cursory checks for notability. I left a note on his talk page to this effect after a concern was raised at WP:FILM, and before it was raised here; I suggest waiting for a response to my and other editors' concerns before further action is taken. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I do want to point out that the editor created The Forlorn Hope, an article about a science fiction novel by David Drake, and another editor tagged it with a notability tag. The tagging editor chided Barton Foley, and Foley answered:

Given the standing of David Drake in the science fiction community and his well regarded body of work, sumaries on his individual books, particularly those that have been re-issued due to their popularity should meet the notability threashold, despite the guidelines of notability. There exists many books on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for notability, but are still granted entries due to their otehr notable qualities, outside the realm of movie adpatations and awards. (Emphasis added)

It was only after this that Barton Foley went on a tear tagging for notability. I'm afraid that seems pretty WP:POINTy to me. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my response was as written above. In retrospect, my point about David Drake may be correct, but it does not automatically grant notability to his novels. Without providing the needed notability, the deletion of and redirection, I believe, was/is correct. If I disagree, it is my responsibility as the author of the article to provide the needed information. Further direction by User:Goochelaar and User:Collectonian as to notability, as well as the talk and discussion for both Douglas Hill and the David Weber novel Off Armageddon Reef I believe has given me some direction. The movies being tagged are in alphabetical order of the list of horror films of 2000. If one follows that list, there are several that I did not tag, as they met the notability guidelines. I also tried not to tag those films that were from a foreign market, such as Thai or South Korean films. However, the ones that were tagged are not notable per the guidelines. Originally, I was going to redirect these items back to the list, but after wandering and observing other editors actions, the prod tag seemed to be the most appropriate action. As I am not the author of these articles, I do not think it is my responsibility to Google or otherwise provide the notability credits to meet the guidelines. If the author(s) of the article believe the tag is incorrect, if my understanding of the procedure is correct, can remove the tag and state why I am wrong to apply the tag to the article. If I disagree, then I can AFD the article. Unless my understanding is incorrect as to this process, I do not think I did anything wrong. Also, unless I misunderstand again, the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists, not how it might exist or might prove its notability in the future or might exist in a Google search. Now, if the admins decide I did or was misguided, I will take any advice they have to offer on future edits.

I would state that I plan on moving to the Chick Lit book list next with my notability (and other) tags in tow. And as per User:Steve T • C I will provide more then a single word justification for my tags.Barton Foley (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the more I think about it, let us say I was trying to make a WP:POINT. Why would I do so in the horror film list of the 2000s in a group of articles written by people who would have no idea of the WP:POINT I was trying to make? If I was trying to make a WP:POINT, I wouldn't expend energy on people who would have no clue of my purpose, I would track the contributions of the editor whom I was trying to make a WP:POINT to and tag his/her articles with notability tags and prods. That would be making a point. Tagging Anaconda 2 as not notable is not, IMHO. Barton Foley (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

True, if the purpose of the POINTy behavior was to get to the editor who tagged you. On the other hand, people have been known to do stuff in order to make a general POINT to the commnity, and it's not unknown for people to do pointy things because they're pissed off and want to strike back.

I'm not accusing you of any of that, but I do think that your attitude that it's not your responsibility to do a quick check for evidence of real-world notability is mistaken. We're all here, presumably, to help the encyclopedia. If that's the case, than your failure to check for evidence of notability outside the existing article could wind up with some notable books or movies being deleted, and that doesn't really help the project in any way. If you're putting a notability tag on something, it should be because you are truly convinced that it's not notable, not simply because the editor(s) who wrote the article didn't do a good job of it.

I would suggest that it is prudent, and responsible, to do some due diligence and, at the very least, perform a Google search to see what you come up with before tagging an article. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, in the sense that that is what the PROD policy says. You're wrong in that mass PRODing articles without even a tiny bit of good faith research (a simple Rotten Tomatoes search for films, for example) is disruptive and disruption is very much not allowed. Also, it took me less than 10 seconds to determine that Anaconda 2 does meet our notability guideline [81]. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your switch to posting the boilerplate messages on your next round of Horror films is NOT any better and at the speed you are putting them up, its obvious you aren't actually checking anything.[82][83][84][85][86]. You are just copy/pasting from article to article, even demanding prod tags on articles that have already been prodded (and therefore can not be prodded again). It also shows that you continue to completely ignore the actual notability policies in place, particular for films which is at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Many of the films you tagged with your message or prodded meet the film notability guidelines.

At this point, I think an admin needs to revert all of these prods and boilerplate messages as an attempt at a pointy disruption, and perhaps a short term block until this editor fully understands what he is doing wrong and why, and really stops rather than make false noises about "understanding." From his own talk page message, he thinks "Wiki...started to look like a series of intellectual fiefdoms run by the topics fanboys/girls, whose only yardstick for notability was the work in question simply existed" and is now on a "mission" to remove all of them from the encyclopedia, despite it being obvious that he isn't really checking any of these.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to be an admin to remove a PROD, and besides, most of this latest batch look okay to me. The assertion that a cursory search turns up no reviews of note seems to be accurate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To remove the prods, no, someone can just rollback all those, but the boilerplate messages on articles his prods have already been removed from, yes, and it would be better if an admin removes them. And since he has declared he is going on a massive PROD spree to make a point about his ideas of notability and is basically announcing his intentions to be disruptive, I think something should be done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see your point. Attaching notability tags does not seem disruptive to me. I added the "boilerplate" (and quite frankly, the ones with that language added really do not meet any of the 10-12 items listed) to only those articles that survived the first round of prod rollbacks. It was pointed out to me that just saying "notability" is not enough information for the admins and others to determine whether it is or not. Now, I have *not* placed *any* new prod tags after being taken to task. I did place one AfD, but other then that, not a single new prod tag has been placed by me. My only contributions today are either the "boilerplate" to those prod tags that survived the rollbacks from yesterday or adding notability tags to those that had prod tags removed *if* after reading all the above I still honestly thought it was not a notable film. And I have not stated I am going on a prod spree, or on a mission to remove articles. If I honestly believe that an entry is not notable based upon the guidelines, then I can place a notability tag and notify the author. The author can then state their reasons why I am wrong. Then other editors and admins can make a determination which one of us makes the better case. Barton Foley (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just pinged Collectonian (talk · contribs)contributions, and suddenly it is clear why she is so angry with me. I said I wasn't going anywhere near the anime articles. I have already been to Chick Lit about two weeks ago and tagged some books with notability, no one seems to have said "boo" about that. Those folks who disagreed with my prods or notability tags pointed why they thought I was wrong, made the corrections and went on. Notice, I did not go back and replace the tags or add "boilerplate." And in fact, some of them other editors agreed with my prods. However, none of them accused me of disruption and asked I be blocked.Barton Foley (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is that not every article on Wikipedia is watchlisted by extremely active editors, and if you tag one of the for notability, and no one responds in time, the article could be deleted, all because you didn't take a moment to check its real-world notability (as opposed to its article-text notability). We're supposed to be here to make an encyclopedia, and having articles about notable things be removed from the encyclopedia because of an unwillingness to take a reasonable step is counter to what is supposed to be our cooperative and collegial way of operating. This is not a competition between you and article editors to see who will prevail, your goal should not be to tag as many articles as possible, it should be to help the project by culling out truly non-notable articles, which is why its partly your responsibility to make sure that those you tag really are non-notable. Any other course of behavior could easily be seen as willfully disruptive, I would think. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Ed, an article is never going to be deleted purely because it has a notability tag on it. It's still going to have to go through process, whether that's PROD or AfD. Black Kite 23:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but Barton keeps talking about the responsibility of "the editors of the article", as if every article has people ready to jump to fix and/or advocate for the articles they work on. That's certainly the case for some articles, but many, especially stubs or starter articles, don't necessarily have that degree of monitoring, and could easily pass through the process. Since the tagger starts the whole thing going, tagging should be done with care and responsibly, and not in a rushed and slapdash manner. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am not sure what is going to make people happy here. I followed your advice, for example All the Boys Love Mandy Lane as I was going down the list. Notable did not touch. Aquanoids. Google search, RT search, links followed from IMDB. I truly believe that film is not notable. It does not meet the criteria. Tagged. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon? Notable after following the links and a Google search. So, really, what more can I do? One tag per day? I am following the advice given, stating the reason I believe it is not notable, I am doing the searches to double check before I tag, following IMDB tags, checking for actual reviews. SO really. What else am I missing? Barton Foley (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're doing fine. You're looking at each article on a case-by-case basis, making a good faith effort to check for references and acting appropriately. As long as you're not acting indiscriminately (which, to be fair, is how it seems you started), I don't think there's much to find fault with here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, your comment about anime articles didn't bother me that much, though I found it rather snobbish and elitist and made me suspect you are attacking this articles not because they fail notability guidelines but because you think they are "beneath" other films. Trust me, you'd have gotten no where trying to claim those are unnotable as they all meet relevant guidelines. I'm annoyed at your false claims of "research" showing the films fail the notability guidelines. You prodded Anaconda 2 and stuck that boilerplate notice on it, despite the article already having at least FOUR reliable, third-party sources and a simple web search showing an obvious wealth of sources. You did the same to the third movie in the series, despite it being a major film series with a fourth film in production. Your AfDed article has already had an insane number of reliable sources showing that it is a well discussed made for DVD film. You are not actually checking anything, and seem to just be indiscriminately attacking almost every made-for-DVD film. I'd like to see some limit placed where Barton can NOT prod or AfD any article without leaving a notability tag for at least a month on the article and his actually writing individual messages on the talk page showing that he has really searched to ensure it fails the film notability guidelines, not just copy/pasting a false message on every page.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Look at that! My tag resulted in editors providing multiple sources, cleaning up the article and otherwise improving it. Looks as if rather than wrecking the entire basis for the project my tag resulted in a positive contribution and improvement to the project. Imagine that. At this point, I do not believe there is anything else I can say, it appears that no matter what someone is going to annoyed with *any* action I take or do not take. So, Admins, do what you do. Barton Foley (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No... at least in the case of Believers (film) and its AfD. There, it wasn't your tag... but your speedy move to AFD within mere hours of an editor beginning to improve the article based upon the tag you yourself just placed. Wasn't that the desired result or expectation form the tag? Improvement? After myself spending some 3 minutes finding a few dozen sources, I did add the perhaps more correct tags of rescue and cleanup. But why act like we're in some sort of hurry? We have all the time we need to do it right... as long as it is not removed before it can be gotten to. And as for that long "list of possible sins" you added to the talk page (and at the AfD).....? Why not a clean note saying something like "Why doesn't somebody source this thing already?" Why not tag for sources and cites? Why not tag for cleanup? It pretty much stands to reason that if these other tags are used, notability is usually a wonderful by-product. Your incredible list makes it almost seem like the job of improvement is destined to fail... and many newcomers would not even try. Why chase away any possible help? Indeed, when I first saw it myself, I almost decided that it was pointless to continue trying. If getting an article improved was your entire (secret) agenda... then shame, shame, shame. You could do a whole lot better by spending that time encouraging improvement than frightening it away. If someone does begin to improve an article, and it is immediately rushed to AfD in spite of efforts to improve... and by that same editor who asked for improvements... what kind of message does that send? Don't you think there could be a more productive way to enlist improvements? Of course... this is just one newbie's opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding the Lindsay Lohan article into the LGBT project

Resolved

 – No action:content dispute--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems two users are attempting to add this article into the LGBT article due to the suspicion that she may be marrying another woman. So far this has only been reported in tabloid press and in Newsday her representative was quoted denying the claim. I have repeated reverted the addition of the project tag due to WP:BLP but the other user keeps reverting back. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these are just rumors and have been denied by Linday's official rep's. Unless the fact is verified, the article shouldn't be added to the LGBT project. --Superflewis (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of those other users. The project inclusion has been there for a while. The issue isn't whether reliable sources have said Lohan is gay ... they haven't, and neither the article nor the talk page makes that claim. Reliable news sources have discussed her relationship with Ronson, and the discussion of that relationship with Ronson has generated discussion about modern tolerance of homosexual and bisexual celebrities. There isn't a BLP issue here.Kww (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see why this would be an AN/I or BLP issue - is being associated of interest to LGBT supposed to be defamatory? Other sources include the San Francisco Chronicle,[87] the Telegraph,[88] ABC News,[89] and probably hundreds more. Wikidemon (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are behind the veil, BLP violations exist in the article. This is just standard wikipedian in fighting, and should be settled by talking it through. Also, 3RR counts on talk pages too kids. Play nice.--Tznkai (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Along with Kww, I am the other of those other users. The question to be asked when adding the LGBT project template is not "Is Lindasy Lohan gay?" but "Is the Lindsay Lohan media story that she's engaged to another woman of relevance to the LGBT WikiProject?". To which of course the answer is yes. Tagging someone under our remit is not a violation of BLP. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Once more, WP:LGBT is associated with imposing its views upon an article simply by placing its Wikiproject template on the talk page. Either I'm just becoming aware of the frequency of these disputes, or they are rising in number. Either way, it's really draining to have to explain in multiple articles that members of WP:LGBT are just as interested in accuracy of detail than any other Wikipedian. Regardless is Lohan is or isn't gay, her article needs to reflect what has been published by reliable sources; that is the reason why that template is there. We do rumor control just like anyone else who watches the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that gay people "impose" their views just by having them is always a little suspect. If LGBT designates something a subject of interest that isn't a disparagement is it? Wikidemon (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understood my comment to mean that others are assuming we're imposing our hope or view that Lohan is gay simply by placing the Wikiproject template on the talk page. That is not what it means, nor is it why it's there. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because a BLP has the LGBT project tag on does not mean that the person in question is gay. Such blinkered thinking/assumptions are unfortunate. The rumours around Lohan mean that if anything it is more important that the LGBT project is involved to help ensure that only accurately and reliably sourced info is included, because the project has more experience at dealing with scandal-led reporting of certain newspages/papers. This really shouldn't be an issue for ANI. --Ged UK (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Given how widely Lohan is being discussed in GLBT media, inclusion in the WikiProject seems reasonable. Being listed by the project just means a person is of interest to people interested in this subject; Fred Phelps is also listed under this WikiProject, and I'm 85% sure that he isn't gay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There has been substantial newscoverage of the relationship including lots of sources that certainly pass WP:RS (a few of them are quoted above in Wikidemon's post, but there are lots more[90]) and the relationship has been routinely characterized as romantic by these sources. In view of this I don't see a problem with adding the LGBT project template to the page. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if mere rumors were spread by questionable sources such as Perez Hilton or TMZ, the fact that WP:LGBT must get other editors to agree and confirm that an article is within its scope is bizarre and unnecessary. Why are its own members not the best judges to make that determination? I must confess that I find this a source of continuing frustration. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of a moot point in this particular case, but I feel that any edit to a particular article or a wikiproject template edit to a talk page of a particular article is ultimately subject to consensus of the editors interested in that article and that the article's talk page is the correct place for working out such consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Moni and Ged UK (among others). A WikiProject, any Wikiproject, should not have to "explain itself", should not be subjected to repeated accusations of disparagement, and should not have to justify its taggings, for a talkpage of an article of itnerest. This debate is old, and it is not 1957. Keeper ǀ 76 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice no one seems worried about whether we might be implying that Lohan is transsexual. Why is that? I think it's because it is obviously ridiculous to make that conclusion, simply based on the presence of a Wikiproject tag on a Talk page. I think the same argument applies equally well to the letters L, G and B. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant point.Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen her in Herbie the Love Bug ... she couldn't even act in that, let alone "act" as someone of another gender. (Please note, I'm using "act" in a loose sense to make a point and not saying transgenders are in any way "acting" or in an insulting manner towards LGBT persons)BMW(drive) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She has not denied her relationship in recent months as far as I know, indeed her lady friend has been asked to comment for articles which have been on the BBC site, for instance when Lohan's father was being outspoken. Sticky Parkin 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it makes no odds whether she denies it, if WP:RS say it. Sticky Parkin 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Take it onto the article talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of the LGBT project template on this article is not at all an issue worthy of AN/I. (It's obviously unproblematic, given the widespread discussion of Lohan's relationship with Ronson in reliable sources.) There's no BLP issue here. If parties have been edit warring, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:AN3 are thataway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who do not see a BLP issue regarding inclusion in LGBT project as long as that is not a springboard for then adding statements in the Lohan article about the Lohan-Ronson relationship that have not been solidly confirmed by Lohan or Ronson. Whatever is going on between Lohan and Ronson has certainly stirred up an interest in LGBT issues. Ward3001 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:12.210.198.245

This ip is spending a lot of time talking to the community that she appears to believe is listening. She wants us all to know that she and the other people in her apartment complex have been much maligned and harmed by hackers, who have made it appear that they are sockpuppets, when they're just a group of people who all use the same ip, have virtually identical names, and work together to edit the same subjects as a team. She has faith that our investigation will clear the good names of herself and her neighbors. Um... does anybody here care at all? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I care....oh, no, wait. Sorry, I thought you said something else. _Gb^T/c 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a look. That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I give it an "A" for tenacity, but an "F" for plausibility, and a "D" for coherency. All in all, I suggest keeping them blocked, at least until they think up a better story. --barneca (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This sockfarm has been doing similar stuff (placing {{helpme}} requests, making new sockpuppets to post on admin's talk pages etc), always with ridiculous reasoning. Been going on for a month or so. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Undercovergals. I'd just ignore it until they start making sense. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that might mean ignoring it for a good, long time. Fortunately, I have a book to read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

By citing WP:BITE in their own defence, that person (or group) has just become the first example for my new essay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what was wrong with their edits, were they using accounts to edit war, were they vandalizing, were they deceptively seeking to increase the appearance of support for certain positions etc. The answer to all of those questions seems to be no. Most of their edits seem to be immediately after each other. They just seem to be a bit clueless, a bit strange, and a bit unhelpful as far as accurate article writing goes. Perhaps they're quite young, or one kid with a lot of imaginary friends. I think it's more an issue of competence than anything nefarious. 86.44.27.188 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to multiple account abuse, User:Undercovergals was blocked for making legal threats, according to the block log. I don't know what else, but the contribs are a matter of public record. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not very up on policy, so abuse how? And yes, the block came and the editor said s/he was going to sue for being blocked or some such silliness. 86.44.16.146 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a new variation on "exhausting the communities patience" called "boring the community to tears." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just not keen on concentrating on post-block wig-outs rather than the block that precipitates them, generally. 86.44.16.146 (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tanoli.afghanistan duck test sock of User:Pakhtun Tanoli ?

Sanity check: Duck test on Tanoli.afghanistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as sockpuppet of Pakhtun Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ( Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli )? I intend to indef Tanoli.afghanistan but wanted someone else's eyes on it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Anthonygar

This one is perplexing to me slightly simply because I do not remember the exact details, but I do remember that I nominated Skins (compression)‎ for deletion. This report/request is mainly about this article, which is a blatant advertisement. What concerns me is that I had previously nominated this article for speedy deletion, and an actual user had created it(at least that's what I think I remember.

The page was soon deleted as a blatant advertisement.

Today, the user Anthonygar creates his account at 00:13, then, re-creates the page Skins (compression). I suspect some form of sockpuppetry, but because I cannot access the histories of deleted material, I cannot provide you diffs, or really confirm or deny anything I just said. Hopefully the admins reviewing this notice shall be able to do that. I hope this was worth peoples' time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at both articles, and they're sufficiently different enough to make me think this was just a coincidence. The first article, by User:De Mattia, was moderately well written for not having any actual content, and the second one by User:Anthonygar was just a long advertising/endorsement rant. Don't think there's anything to worry about. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin censoring news of possible Wikiquote deletion

• Meta is discussing the deletion of Wikiquote, so I left a note with a link to this debate at the Pump.
• The post was censored a few hours later by self-proclaimed "rouge admin" User:Mr.Z-man. The deletion was made under a false pretense since a single post on the Pump is hardly "canvassing", and the post could have been amended if needed instead of suppressing the information entirely.

How an admin is allowed to act like that (and augment the apparence that something's fishy) I'll never understand. 62.147.37.92 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(You mean "rogue", not "rouge". "Rouge" is a color and a cosmetic. Saw the same error twice on Slashdot this morning.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is supposed to be rouge (it's an old joke). -- Donald Albury 15:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the English language Wikipedia? Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to all wikimedia users, particularly users of english projects - english wikipedia just happens to be one of the largest projects. --Random832 (contribs) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote is pretty much worthless. It doesn't have the kind of rigor demanded in wikipedia, so it's all OR; and it's generally run in a sloppy way - you might see the same quote several times within a given subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe the problem is that it's worthless, but that it is a liability. There are entire farms of egregious copyright violations in there, and no requirement for any sort of actual, you know, quotability of the material. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread was basically telling people to go and oppose the thread on meta. I have no problem with linking to the discussion, but please write such messages neutrally (as I said in the edit summary, if you had bothered to read it before reverting me and coming here). "There is a discussion on meta about disbanding Wikiquote" (with a link) would suffice. And then using words like "censored" while at the same time inviting me to amend it to make it neutral? And thanks for informing me of this discussion. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, leaving a biased message is considered canvassing (campaigning, to be precise). Mr.Z-man 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heat we took the last time we sent a notice about a Meta discussion, I'm not sure canvassing in the WP projects about this is a great idea (and that the people at Meta will thank you for it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• My personal scorefile gives -5 for censorship and -7 for suppression, less than -10 and you're in the "Nutters: Ignorable" category. Just for info, you understand. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Heh. Good analysis as always Guy. That said, I like Wikiquote. That's where I started (pre-en-wiki), and where I frequently refer. I don't edit there though. If there's a way to salvage it, I'm game. Keeper ǀ 76 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The concept of wikiquote is not bad. It's just that there's no oversight. It should be like the wikipedia article about city nicknames. Someone's oversighting that one, and anything with no citation gets zapped. If there were some discipline in wikiquote, it could be worth saving. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about broken diff in original post which has since been repaired

This is kinda off-topic, but am I the only one getting a really, really weird diff when clicking on the link above? One side of the diff shows an edit from Talk:List of German proverbs, the other the actual revert, and the title says "Talk:List of German proverbs, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)" o.O --Conti|✉ 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Same here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like two characters were truncated from the original diff given ("79" should follow at the end). Here's what it should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=237518501&oldid=237507479 -- interesting -- I didn't know you could even "diff" between two separate pages. Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, that explains it. So you can basically diff any page with any page? That's weird. --Conti|✉ 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I never knew that... perhaps it's new? --Tango (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Nope, been around for ages. Quite helpful for comparing pages when someone's recreated something they shouldn't have. Orderinchaos 08:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

user: Anpersonalaccount

I have recently been troubled and have had my edits undone by a user who neither had the source he produced, nor had read it, nor was able to explain what a source on literature was doing in surgery related articles.

My various encounters with the user, and his incivility, are given in the list below:

• Why are you begging him to remove the sentence?
• the very Indian article
• You are clearly begging on him
• What a prick, don't act mature when you have neither the guts nor inteligent to speak up.
• I did it because you're annoying
• I did it because you're annoying, that's why not because I wanna cover up my ass. There is nothing to hide.
• Oh and next time, I hope that you won't bother to tell me that your boss had fired you because you engaged an editing war with some new user over the Wikipedia.
• Strikes out a text by me.

All my work has been stalled thanks to his blatant edit warring. While notifying an admin who had dealt with him before I wrote: Would a fully sourced rewrite of these two articles using proper sources take care of the present situation so no outside intervention is necessary? The editor is new after all, and bound to make a few mistakes initially. Should I try and attempt a sourced rewrite (the article can benefit from some improvement) first and see if the pattern persists ?.

I rewrote the article using sources from Cambridge University Press, National Informatics Centre (Government of India), Encyclopedia Britannica, and Oxford University Press in a hope that a fully sourced explanation of the facts would help in this case but he reverted and said: Doesn't matter, it doesn't change a thing, I provide another scholar source. He's simply lying. He has reverted four times to the exact same content the he has been pushing all along. No new sources, scholars or text. He neither has the source, nor has he read it, and neither does his source deal in any manner with surgery—on which he likes to edit and push POV.

Kindly take appropriate action. The editor has a history of disruption. I have tried to talk to him on user talk:Nishkid64 and talk:Sushruta but to no avail. Gross incivility and falsifying sources discourage editors who bother to look for respectable sources.

JSR (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks. JSR (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost AfD

Resolved

 – Closed as keep per major re-write since deletes cast. Caulde 09:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashanthi, from 6th September, is still open because it wasn't submitted properly and Mathbot obviously lost track of it. The AFDList page for 6th September has been archived from WP:AFD, so could someone close it, please? I can't because I contributed to the debate. Thanks, Black Kite 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Um, I see that it's been re-listed on the September 12 page. It's still been open for 11 days, though. Black Kite 09:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversions by user JBSupreme

I understand that unsourced material can be removed, but that does not mean that it necessarily should be. User:JBsupreme consistently takes long, in-depth article and reduces them to sentences because they are not sourced. In this case, a list of rappers of southern origin does not need to be sourced. A person is from where they are from, that is all. The same goes for much of the rest of the article's removed information. What he had done recently to Southern hip hop is my most recent example. He removed 20 thousand bytes of relevant, factually correct information. I know many of you will say that it is unsourced, but it is practically unnecessary. Do I really need to source the sentence which says that Miami bass music genre is from Miami? He is purposefully ruining articles so that they are later deleted. He has done this with 5 Elementz, Detroit hip hop and other articles, slowly, covertly chipping away sentences until all that remains is a worthless sentence, as in Southern hip hop. He must be stopped. I reported this under edit warring but I believe it is more likely vandalism.Cosprings (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and you are forum shopping it, without even notifying User:JBsupreme. I see zero talk page edits of your last 50 edits, which gives me the impression you aren't trying very hard to resolve this matter with him. I suggest you try that first.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that of course and there is just no convincing him in the error of his ways. Someone reverted the southern hip hop article yet again, and he has yet again removed 20k bytes of information. Cosprings (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to inform me, I see the forum shopping that Cosprings is doing. He is welcome to provide reliable sources for the information he keeps trying to reintroduce. I have zero objection to that. JBsupreme (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

a list of rappers of southern origin does not need to be sourced - um, no, everything should be sourced, and if someone requests a source and none is provided, removal of the unsourced material is not correct, it's required. Corvus cornix_talk 19:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Not everything has to be sourced. We have fact tags, we don't delete non-contentious material just because it doesn't have a source, and we don't require a source for common knowledge. And while Cosprings should have gone to JB's talk page first, any look at the page and its history reveals that JB does not respond to such inquiries. He merely reverts them or ignores them and blanks them later. He also reverts warnings and ignores them, all while counseling other editors not to remove warnings from their talk pages, reverting and edit warring with them on their own talk pages. His edits over the past few weeks show him repeatedly removing biographical sections, discographies, birth dates and locations. This is not information that should be removed per BLP. Fact tags. His edit summary usage is atrocious as well. These are all things I warned him about on his talk page earlier today. It was one of, I believe, three five warnings on his talk page today, at least two three from admins. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another admin warning was just placed on his talk page. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put a fact tag on something. I look for evidence and find none. How long does the fact tag stay there till I finally am allowed to remove the contested information? If somebody claims that some rapper is "of southern origin", it's up to them to prove it. Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that JBsupreme does decent work in the mainspace, if overzealous. He certainly needs to read AfD guidelines more closely; he's been notified several times of malformatted entries or insufficient research before initiation. However, I would like to strongly endorse Jennavecia's statement about JBsupreme's rather hypocritical habit of blanking any and all negative messages from his talk page, while reverting any removal of messages from others' talk pages. As Jennavecia mentioned, several admins have left him messages today, myself included. JBsupreme needs to be strongly cautioned that his continued hostility towards other users is not fostering the atmosphere that Wikipedia thrives on and will not be tolerated. GlassCobra 05:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Cosprings is overzealous in growing articles and needs to learn to cite better (an endangered WikiDragon perhaps?), however, he is not forum shopping. He posted to 3RR by mistake, unaware that this was the right place to post. I noticed his report there and had a look at Southern hip hop. The page was poorly cited, but didn't deserve to be repeatedly blanked. I unblanked it and left a message asking for discussion before further blankings. Unfortunatly JBsupreme does not like to engage in article discussions. He seems to boldly remove unreferenced statements without tagging, waiting and discussing. This is not polite, and does not help improve wikipedia. lk (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Egregious violation of WP:AGF

Resolved

 – No admin action required or possible. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda just made an egregious violation of WP:AGF [91] by construing something completely offensive and untrue. It's an obvious violation of WP:5 and I believe his recent edits to Relationship between religion and science don't improve wikipedia in part because of the violation and in part that logically they don't make sense. For his or her next actions seem done to provoke an edit war. His or her removal of material that was never questioned by any other editor before. In fact another editor put it in its prominent location. what can be done about this? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Please follow the dispute resolution processes rather than telling tales here when you are in a content dispute. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious anything, obvious content dispute. Pete.Hurd (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How is someone assuming that I somehow meant screw you not an egregious violation of WP:5? If you said that in a workplace you could easily loose your job. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" did you not understand? Content disputes go to dispute resolution. Admins are not your mummy and will not give another user a telling off for you when you are having a content dispute with them. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone assuming something bad about another editor is not a content dispute. Wikipedia should not allow obvious unWP:CIVIL and non-WP:AGF actions/comments to go unchecked, especially ones that can easily accumulate and help to cultivate a hostile work environment. ЯEDVERS as someone who states that they are gay on their talk page, I would think that you may know something about a hostile work environment. Wikipedia has WP:5 and includes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, there's nothing about don't ask don't tell, because this isn't the U.S. military. It's supposed to be welcoming to gays, straights, religious and non-religious persons alike. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, not really... it's a bit rude, I would venture, but in my job (which is working in a hardware store) anyone who said that to me would be proffered a box of screws. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. Would you like an example of an egregious violation of WP:AGF? Here's one for you. Your AN/I thread on Hrafn succeeded in driving him into retirement when all your previous harassment of him had failed to do so. Having discovered the magical power of AN/I, you're eager to try it out against a new opponent. Hesperian 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Me harrassing Hrafn? Check the diffs. With all due respect, think you've got it backwards. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that all the response I get? Aren't you going to take me to AN/I or RFC or ArbCom or something? Or do you prefer to save your frivolous complaints for people who scrutinize your contributions? Hesperian 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Redvers, your response to the original poster falls woefully short of the behaviour expected from an openly gay Wikipedian. To act in such a willfully individualistic manner is doubly cruel when dealing with someone who clearly has issues when other editors comment on the contributor and not the content. Have you no decency? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I wasn't nearly bitchy enough. I'll have to try harder, I really will. It's just that sometimes I run out of bile and find myself reduced to just "plain speaking". It's a failing of mine. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Um, what? Why should an openly gay Wikipedian behave differently from any other Wikipedian? I'm not an openly gay Wikipedian, and I can say without reseveration that Firefly's repeated running to ANI should be stopped. Can we get a page ban for Firefly? Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SheffieldSteel is being sarcastic - check where their expected wikilink actually links. No comment on your pageban proposal as I may or may not be involved in some sort of dispute with Firefly322 at the moment. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pageban per friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles! Right now! Bishonen | talk 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC).