Purge the cache to refresh this page

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

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that those accounts are socks, but I doubt that Bakasuprman is the sockmaster. File a checkuser request and see what happens. By the way, User:Terminador looks like a sock/SPA as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Bakasuprman (whom I have no reason to believe is a sockmaster) it looks like socks vs. socks. I wonder on how many other articles this is the case. Even this thread was started by a sock. Plainly, our system isn't working.Proabivouac 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A very astute observation. Back then (a year ago) it was BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) vs. Hkelkar (talk · contribs), now its a degenerate arena of sockpuppets/teers/meats/COI editors.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, My area of interest is the contemporary social relations in India and if I run into authors who tend to work on similar articles its not my problem and should not be taken as a SPA.If you are Sir, in doubt please do a checkuser yourself, I am editing from Delhi, India and on a Mahanagar TNL network.Terminador 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why we have armies of meatpuppets attacking each other. The fiasco leading to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2 scared off all the legitimate editors. That is the reason why there are almost no active indian admins or legitimate editors of indian politics articles. As for terminador, his whole contribution history has been limited to stalking me.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Hornplease should be reduced

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

The article where the supposed sock edits occured, Michael E. J. Witzel, is a BLP, and the passage that was removed, [6], while sourced, amounts to innuendo and has no place in an article about a living person. (Note the discussion at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Crimson_articl.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More eyes needed on Michael E. J. Witzel

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

For example, this recent edit by User:Dishivlatavish:

"Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supproting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias."[7]

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

From WP:BLP:

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

Proabivouac 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re Romila Thapar, there are certainly historians whose work is overtly Marxist in character, in India and elsewhere; most of them will not shy away from saying so. However, the sources put forth to support this were partisan, not academic. Superficially, it looks like an attempt to reduce her involvement in the textbook controversy to political hackery. The eminent V. S. Naipaul is quoted as identifying Marxist influences in the way Thapar views history, which, judging only from what I see, looks like a completely valid point. We need more than that, though, to label her a "Marxist historian."

By "ideologue", I did not mean "stupid" or "not worth reading." You may substitute "public intellectual" if you prefer. However, I don't think anyone can read this site or this column and credibly conclude that Jain is speaking as a disinterested reporter of facts. In any event, no matter who writes them or where they appear, op-eds aren't reliable sources for facts generally, and certainly not for the alleged mental states and motivations of those they criticize. The allegation is juvenile and inane on its face. "He's only saying this because he hates Hindus!" That we should state that she "notes" his bias, rather than (baselessly) alleges it, only makes the bias in our treatment of this material that much plainer.Proabivouac 22:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bakaman, surely we can distinguish politicians and activists such as those you've just mentioned from scholars who get drawn into political disputes when activists trespass scholarly turf.Proabivouac 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These pages have seen a lot of BLP violations for quite a long time. I'd request more admins to keep an eye into them. [[Special:Contributions/Bharatveer|One of the editors] keep reverting every other day with no explanations ... often with the "rv to previous version" summary. While that's not technically a violation of 3RR, the continuous unexplained reverts to BLP violation version must be handled soon. --Ragib 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Belonging to Bakasuprman". Is this what BhaiSaab, Terry J Ho, and the folks at PakHub have been telling you?Bakaman 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser case declined

Blnguyen who instituted the controversial and excessive block has not let Hornplease know about the blcok, has refused to engage in a discussion has connived at the BLP violations on the article on Witzel, has acted in tandem with regular BLP violators like Bakasuprman and Bhratveer etc. That is only one side of the matter. What about Hornplease's side? He has been a very valuable contributor who was always willing to go to any length in discussion in dispute resolution. He kept watch on articles prone to BLP violations. From his contributions we can see that he often nominated articles on BLP noticeboard. He was blocked on an unconfirmed checkuser case, which was later declined. This is a serious matter. Blnguyne is an Arbcom member. While FCYTravis's unblock is a brilliant example of the integrity of an admin who won't baulk at running afoul of powerful ones who stoop to abusive blocks to settle political scores, we can't turn a blind eye to devastating effect of this abusive block on a committed user. Hornplease has been here for more than two years. No sensibel member can deny that he has been valuable and responsible contributor. He has been hounded by trolls belonging to a particular faction (how many times Bakasuprman has called him names?) but never took recourse to name calling himself. With such abuse from the powerful people, the only silver line is the umimpaired judgement of people like Proabivouac, Mastcell, Akhilieus, etc. Another disturbing development is the use of invective and insinuations against living people as we discuss this matter. This shouldnt be allowed. Noonoor 09:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kuntan for that stunning conspiracy theory. Hornplease is a saint and Bakaman is a devil worshipping communal sockpuppeting hate-spewing Hindu fanatic.Bakaman 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that the checkuser case was declined, and apparently I was mistaken in thinking that Blnguyen was a checkuser. Therefore, it looks like the block of Hornplease wasn't supported by CU evidence, but based solely on editing patterns. That's not enough justification for the block, which I now think was a complete mistake--the IPs in question belong to Verizon and Harvard, and could have been used by hundreds if not thousands of people.

Let me note further that we've got three accounts (User:Dishivlatavish, User:Stripwaves, and User:Giveover) that have made similar edits to Bakasuprman--should I then conclude that he's using socks, and block him? We have the same level of evidence against Baka that we had against Hornplease. Now, I don't think that Baka is foolish enough to use socks, but I never would have accused Hornplease of using socks either--and now that I see there's no CU evidence, I don't think he did. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone believes the little conspiracy promoted by these islamist trolls, they are welcome to checkuser me. Akhilleus is correct in noting that I do not use sockpuppets to edit war. However, hornplease edits from the same area (uncannily similar IP addresses), university, and interests as witzel and has attacked Hindu users in the same way Witzel has. There is a clear COI and obvious meatpuppetry at the least.Bakaman 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not "playing a game" Jayjg. I'm trying to add reliably sourced information with properly formatted references to an encyclopedia that claims to be open to anyone to edit. When I have tried to address my concerns about what is going on, by for example, contacting Armon (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you have posted things like this: [8]. As an admin, you should be encouraging people to respect the hard work of other good faith editors. And not protecting articles from the inclusion of POVs that differ from your own. You speak as though what I adding is completely out there. It's not. Anyone who actually reads the material deleted can see that. If anyone is playing games here, it's you. Tiamat 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to say that constant and repetitive deletion of content, especially as relates to Arab or Israeli articles, has been engaged in by Armon and Jayjg almost continuously for over a year. It is abuse of fellow editors to destroy the (well sourced and consistent with policy) content they have created. Where I've tried to balance articles skewed heavily to one perspective, I've faced the kind of behaviour described above. In most cases I didn't even have an opinion on the subject at hand! [Armon will most likely challenge my right to comment here]. This is persistent and deliberate POV pushing of the worst kind. Mostlyharmless 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It has been going on for a long time. For a more recent example, see the section farther down called #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. POV-pushing editors are removing categories they don't like concerning Jerusalem-related categories and articles. In spite of absolutely reliably-sourced info in the relevant wikipedia articles. Articles they themselves helped edit! --Timeshifter 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C has a history of partisan involvement in the content disputes over Lyndon LaRouche and related articles.[9][10] I believe that he improperly deleted and delisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking in order to shield these two editors from scrutiny (they are the Wikipedia usernames of Chip Berlet and Dennis King, two somewhat fanatical critics of LaRouche who edit these articles in order to self-cite and generally impose their POV.) I won't re-hash the RFCs here, but they were properly filed and accepted. El C acted improperly in removing them. --Marvin Diode 14:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can't slap that sort of copy and pasted talk page message ([11][12]) and think it counts toward a genuine effort to resolve the dispute; on the contrary, as noted, it looks increasingly as an effort to game the system. El_C 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cberlet filed a request for mediation about this very issue — namely whether it is legitimate to use his own work and that of Dking as a source in LaRouche articles — on July 12. [13] Of the seven editors who were named as parties, only three agreed to mediation, which meant it couldn't go ahead. One of the editors who declined to respond was Marvin Diode, who was the RfCs' second certifier. Clearly, Marvin Diode can't claim he tried and failed to resolve the dispute after effectively sabotaging a formal request for mediation. El C was therefore right to delete the RfCs as uncertified. Perhaps the editors who filed the RfCs will now agree to the mediation instead, assuming they really do want to resolve the issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hmm. It seems that, given the background of the situation, at least the Cberlet RFC should be restored. Mediation is always preferable to disciplinary channels, but the turning-down of a mediation does not seem to be de facto evidence to delete an RfC. .V. _[Talk|Email] 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Justanother's complaint is false and frivolous. In fact User:Tilman had no objections to my edits. Evidence here:[14]. My edits were in response to User:Misou's violation of WP:NPA on Tilman's talk page. Justanother and Wikipediatrix are friends of Misou. They evidently tried to cover for his misdeed. Thus, Justanother's false complaint about me on this page.--Fahrenheit451 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipediatrix, your comment here smacks of a WP:NPA violation. You did not discuss your own numerous violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Fahrenheit451 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop the petty squabbling and try to be nice to each other, or at least civil. There was actually a serious problem back where all this began. I've notified Arbcom, and I think they'll handle it swiftly. There's no need to continue here. Jehochman ^Talk 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been long-term conflict in this category. Despite the fact that Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN, there have been persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation and to present Jerusalem as the undisputed unified capital of Israel rather than a place whose disputed status is widely seen as the most problematic stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East. See [15], [16], [17] --Peter cohen 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tewfik is saying that Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate! See this recent diff [18] where he removed Category:Jerusalem from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. His typical abusive, uncivil edit summary was "stop trying to sneak in a POV that is rejected in the main, reviewed entry; this is in any event factually incorrect."

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

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

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

Jayjg and Tewfik also removed Category:History of Jerusalem from

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

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

Tewfik also removed List of East Jerusalem locations from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime Amoruso continues to remove the relevant categories even as this discussion is going on here. Please see this diff[19] from just a little while ago. Amoruso removed the article Jerusalem from these 2 categories:

Category:Cities in the West Bank

Category:Disputed territories

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

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

The blanking campaign is ongoing. Tewfik has now removed Jerusalem corpus separatum from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [20]. Category blanking can be considered a form of vandalism once it has been pointed out, and then still continues. Please see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.--Timeshifter 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik also recently removed List of East Jerusalem locations from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. Please see this diff [21].

As I said, it is a longterm, ongoing, POV-pushing campaign by many POV-pushing editors that will not be easily resolved by yet another lower-level attempt at dispute resolution. Just look at the section higher up titled #Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts. There have been many, many WP:ANI reports, mediations, etc.. in this topic area. I think we need some kind of ArbCom intervention or article probation or something to get some real progress in this topic area. --Timeshifter 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign continues. Today Tewfik removed Category:Jerusalem Governorate from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [22]. The Jerusalem Governorate is a large area of the West Bank that contains Israeli settlements, East Jerusalem, and many West Bank towns. It is one of the most disputed territories on the planet! --Timeshifter 13:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a terrible case of POV pushing. Jerusalem has a rich and diverse history. Some here, however, want to pretend that Jerusalem was always part of the modern day State of Israel. The reality is, obviously, more complicated. Wikipedia should reflect reality, rather than some editors' POVs. --Meshulam 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia talk page with current discussion about this issue: Talk:Jerusalem.--Timeshifter 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks hower for letting me know! Cheers Professor Rob Right

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

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

Can I also draw your attention to [23] it clearly shows that Rob right is not a helpful user here on wikipedia and is intent on making destructive edits at every given chance. Please will an admin do something about this user quicker? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per this edit summary [24] he will not be stopping anytime soon, the admin on here are useless. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the above [25] and this diff, would anyone oppose a temporary rangeblock on 79.73.n.n? ELIMINATORJR 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

That's a dial-up server - looks like we've booted him off his broadband, at least. The full range is 213.130.140.0 - 213.130.143.255. [26] -- ChrisO 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:DENY, but this may be a long haul. See RR's comments at [27], "The BBC messageboard was great fun though, devoted a good 12 months of my life to that discussion board" ... "I'm off to troll Wikipedia, my new found home!" (dated 25 July 07). Mr Stephen 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More IPs:

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

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

• All covered by the existing rangeblocks. ELIMINATORJR 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08-05: He's back

Seems range block has expired and our friend is at play again on Special:Contributions/79.73.175.41 Pit-yacker 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rangeblocked for another 24h. ELIMINATORJR 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANy thoughts on how this can be handled in light of the multiple sock-blocks for Sam Harris' publicity person/agent/personal stalker/himself? In light of User:SamHarris-com, User:Asst. to S Harris, User:Divadome, and User:71.232.176.63, we're seeing serious issues with the page of a relatively minor celebrity. Divadome has admitted to being the IP, The IP's associated with the -com user, and the assisant, well, speaks for itself. That said, is there any good way to handle this? Block all four, lock it up and let the office sort out the mess? Just keep patrolling it ad infinitum? thoughts? ThuranX 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a check user request pending. See note below on the page. The user is spamming us off wiki too on the unblock-en-l list, on OTRS, privately to board members and press contacts etc. I've blocked several of the accounts, and pending the checkuser results will block more. I've also sent them a notice that they will not be unblocked and to cease the spamming. We'll see if it works. Until then, just revert, block, ignore. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, all of the above usernames are indefinitely blocked, and the IP has been blocked for 1 month (it doesn't appear to be shared) and semi protected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This is escalating. Could someone please help? If you know an admin who speaks Portuguese, please just post on his talk page to take a look at this issue.--Dali-Llama 00:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For those non-Portuguese folk (myself included), freetranslations does a semi-borderline-almost-acceptable job with Portuguese-to-English. I don't know anything about Brazilian law, but I'm very skeptical of Opinoso's claim that João's rearrangement of pictures was motivated by racism. The commentators on the first few pages you referenced seem to do a fair job of cleaning that up, at least neutralizing the issue for the most part. Then again the consensus of a handful of Wikipedia editors may differ from the opinion of a Brazilian law enforcement agent. I don't think there's sufficient information in João's profile for him to be located anyway, given that Wikipedia servers are Florida-based and so Brazilian authorities cannot view his IP (unless I'm missing something). --xDanielx^Talk 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not necessarily whether João's edits were racist or what the law is--far from it. My issue is that Opinoso has escalated an issue from a content dispute, to personal insults, to two separate "vendetta" legal threat. That's not the sort of behavior we should tolerate at Wikipedia. I'm asking for appropriate admin intervention. Whether that's blocking, a written warning (he's already gotten god knows how many from me) or what else, it's not for me to decide. But this clearly is a violation of WP:LEGAL.--Dali-Llama 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinoso's messages looked like legal threats to me, so I sent a message to him. Let's see what he will answer. --Carioca 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merged with #Persistent IP trolling, urgent admin attention needed above. -- ChrisO 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Earlier this week, a laundry list of hotels went up on AFD for discussion and were handled reasonably -- except for the ones in Singapore. A small group of Singapore-based editors, who demand that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable (and who hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources) have bloc voted on the nominations, and at least one of them, User:Hildanknight, who signs his contributions as J.L.W.S. The Special One, accused the nominator of bias/racism, assuming bad faith without a shred of evidence, and demanded Wikidiscipline against him. See, for example, [28]. Editors who behave like pack animals should themselves be subject to Wikidiscipline, especially when they organize and behave so that their favorite subjects would otherwise become exceptions to Wikipedia's general policies. Plaguedbyhordes 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote, any simple votes without reasons are discounted. I would also advise you to use less inflammatory language if you wish to discuss this reasonably. Tim Vickers 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Er

"...every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable..."

doesn't seem to overflow with the spirit of WP:AGF. I feel that you are still harbouring some resentment at their previous actions against you. Anyway, can you provide some diffs where they are making these accusations of racism/bias? LessHeard vanU 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this, but I alerted Hildanknight of this. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, Plaguedbyhordes? Your account was created today and in your first two edits, you posted this complaint to AN/I. The only reasonable explanation is that you are a sockpuppet of Russavia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make sockpuppet accusations without evidence to back them up. Neil ╦ 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to label Plaguedbyhordes as a sockpuppet of Russavia, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why a brand-new account would file an AN/I report against me about this dispute. When I requested help on IRC, TheFearow agreed that Plaguedbyhordes was an obvious sock of Russavia, and suggested I file an AIV report. I did so, but WikiLeon removed the report, suggesting I file a Suspected sock puppets report instead. However, I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser.

Shortly after being involved in a bitter dispute with Huaiwei at Singapore Airlines, Russavia mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Bad timing, or does he have a vendetta against the Little Red Dot? On all the AFDs, I voted "Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias." When Wikipedians AFD articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Singapore-related articles are particularly vulnerable:

Many articles on Singaporean shopping malls, includong Suntec City Mall (which houses the world's largest fountain) were nominated for deletion by Nehwyn.

Xiaxue (a Singaporean blogger who won a Bloggie, was a columnist for several newspapers and magazines, hosts her own TV show and wrote several posts that sparked national controversies) was nominated for deletion by N.

Chen Liping (one of Singapore's top three actresses, who was involved in the Slim 10 controversy) was speedy deleted by Mindmatrix.

Accusing SGpedians of being a "nationalist clique", "[behaving] like pack animals" and "[demanding] that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable" borders on a personal attack. I support the "inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources", and I did not "[accuse] the nominator of racism" (bias, yes, due to his disputes with SGpedians).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address 86.40.142.112 is persistently adding material that is unneccessary to List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and we have removed it and explained to this user that this material does not meet the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and should generally be avoided on the article. The user then accused us of reverting his edits simply because he is an IP user and told us to give a better reason than the MoS. We have reverted his edits but keeps persistently undoing them and readding the content to the article rather than discussing it on the talk page and achieving a consensus on it. I have already warned the user that he may soon be in violation of the 3RR and told him that he can use the talk page to discuss the edits and achieve a consensus, but I'm not sure what else to do. Perhaps I'm getting touchy on this and overreacting but I would like some guidance on dealing with this as the user does not wish to discuss it at all and is simply complaining to us about it. .:Alex:. 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. He unexpectedly had a change of heart. Sorry for wasting your time everyone. .:Alex:. 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting a nonsense edit to the logo in the KTTU article for the umpteenth time, I noticed that the vandal, RadioDisney0246 was new. The previous edits had been made by Jorgito0246, whom I noticed had been permanently blocked. It looks like Jorgito0246 has re-registered as RadioDisney0246 in order to evade the block. Please take the appropriate actions. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock. Blocked. pschemp | talk 05:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address has been adding a fictional building to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, as well as reverting some older good faith edits, including an update to Burj Dubai's height. The edit summary the third time flat out lied about what it was - here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted his edits, so (unless he persists) there's no more to be done. If he does persist please file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, the appropriate forum. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I just figured it wasn't quite so 'obvious', and I didn't want to get into any sort of 3RR stuff. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His representation suggests this page has been "trolled" by various users. Can someone analyze the edit history, to see how this can best be dealt with? I have no time this weekend to do a proper look-over of the article. -- Zanimum 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing thing. There is another entry further up (here) which is related. IrishGuy ^talk 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being dealt with through OTRS. See Checkuser request for more information. I've blocked several of the users, and have sent them a notice that they will not be unblocked through OTRS. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICBW, An Fior Eireannach (talk · contribs) appears to be an account used only for adding spammy links. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked the account as a single-purpose spamming account.--Jersey Devil 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zainchawdry (talk · contribs) - only edit was to change King Edward VI Five Ways to say "(This page has a virus please consult a Wikipedian nerd to help you. This page cannot be edited, so don't try". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor indef blocked. LessHeard vanU 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Sarahyba has been subject to a revert war over whether the subject is Brazilian or Arab-Brazilian. I bumped into this on AIV after an ip was reported for vandalism [29] and concurred that no block was required. A few minutes later, the ip editor, having registered an account, reported the other editor on AIV for vandalism. [30]. At this point, I protected the article for a week to allow the editors to hammer out the sourcing issue for the information. While doing this, I realised that this may be a BLP issue as incorrect information about ethnicity is not acceptable in a living person's biography. I therefore reverted back to the last version that did not contain this information. I fully understand that it is against policy to restore a preferred version when protecting a page but I firmly believe that the circumstances of this case require this. Since the reversion I have had a discussion on my talk page [31] about the reversion that revolves around whether Fashion Model Directory is a reliable source. I think not, especially as the editor refers to it as the IMDB of the fashion industry and I could not find any corroborating sources on a quick google search.

I thought I had better report what I had done for review and I'd appreciate particularly advice whether I interpreted the BLP aspects of this correctly. As I'm about to go to bed, please feel free to revert me if I have this wrong. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a *sane* and safe interpretation of the BLP rules. Whether it's the right one, I'm not yet experienced enough to tell you, but your reasoning is clear and concise, as told. --Thespian 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur--Dali-Llama 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, you did the right thing. When in doubt about BLP matters, err on the side of caution, remove and discuss. Policy on this has been made abundantly clear, and has been endorsed by ArbCom findings. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is some incidents of commie bashing, liberal baiting [over] at Ilychs article. Can admins keep an eye on this Encyclopedia article (here in the UK it is getting late). Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute over this article; 69.183.65.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in vandalism after comment4 -- see, for example, [32] (deliberate insertion of incorrect information prior to comment4) and [33] (after comment4); Volosian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an abusive sockpuppet of 69.183.65.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing some of the same articles, and posting threats on my talk page. The user who is making edits such as [34] on Joseph Stalin, and deliberately inserts misinformation, as seen in the example here [35] is evidently not acting in good faith. John254 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little more than a few bad faith edits, and someone not being polite to you on your talkpage, but some pretty serious vandalism - which is why I bought it here for other admins to keep an eye on. If you want to pursue the sockpuppetry angle then try WP:SSP. In the meantime, I would like some experienced folk cast an eye over things and take the actions they believe appropriate.

nb. For any admin, the version [[36]] by John254 seems pretty clear of vandalism. LessHeard vanU 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is about User:89.43.81.29 blanked a load of cited text from Stalking here [37] I reverted, he made these two curious little posts on my talk [38] and [39] and then reverted my undo of his blanking [40]. I am also uncomfortable with a Romainian IP that addresses me in terms I would associate with the Californian surf culture. I just feel this could be a mischievous soul who warrants a little watching by more eyes than mine...I also don't particularly want to get a 3RR for undoing his blanking. --Zeraeph 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's quite clearly a vandal troll, just keep reverting, warning him, and report to WP:AIV if necessary. 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism, and vandalism includes blanking sourced content and then telling reverters they are "looking for trouble." Someguy1221 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Tavioto (talk · contribs) might be engaged in a low-level campaign to promote "plastic surgery tourism" to Latin America (specifically Columbia). I just deleted Plastic surgery packages under the WP:CSD#G11 criterion upon expiry of a PROD template on the article; at the time of deletion, the article appeared to be subtly related to the editors other activities, but the original version included the base URL that the editor added to other articles - not so subtle after all. My thinking it is worth keeping an eye on this user as there is a possibility that s/he is a sock. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a note you left regarding the prod on his user page, but no evidence that you've tried to discuss the inappropriateness of using Wikipedia as an advertisement platform. Might I suggest you try that before seeking administrative remediation? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Bremskraft of a 3RR violation on Feminists for life here [[41]] at 3:28, 5 August 2007.

At 03:33, 5 August 2007, RebelAcademics was created and made an edit to [[42]] to talk page of Feminists for life. The only other edit this account has yet made has been to Dina Titus, another article heavily edited by Bremskraft. [[43]]

The user also has made many edits under the IP 131.216.41.16 (including reverting the talk page for the IP [44]), however I had assumed that those edits were simply a failure to log in.

I strongly suspect sock puppetry here. Neitherday 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account just appeared in the talk page for Feminists for Life that is less obviously a sock puppet, but still might be (especially considering Bremskraft already making use of the craft on the page): Ladeda76 [45]. They are at least somehow in communication with Bremskraft [46]. Neitherday 05:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just blocked Bremskaft for the 3RR violation. I agree that the accounts are suspicious. The sockpuppeting rules are to prevent abusive use of socks and I'm not quite seeing this here - although if either account were to start heavily editing Brenskaft's articles while they were blocked I'd be concerned. Really, this needs to go to suspected Sockpuppets for an in depth look. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Well. Apparently they all got autoblocked and the explanation on user:Ladeda76 is that they share a house and ip. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User ZayZayEM has insisted on ignoring this comment on the ANI, and insists that he can remove content from an article because there is "no consensus to keep it." He says he gets to ignore all the rules. On the other hand, there is no consensus to remove it, and he continues to do so in violation of WP:BRD.

It was originally removed by EMC and I reverted such a bold change, asking for policy to be cited or consensus to be built. After a discussion, he noted my objection but believed he should still remove it because he disliked the images. I explained that the "policies" he was citing were not actually policies, and that BRD clearly explains that removal of content requires consensus to remove, not just a lack of consensus to keep. Several users became frustrated by the extent of this discussion, myself included, and things died down. Then, a few days later, he removed the gallery again. This is when I called him out on it - there was still no policy, and he had just made alot of people too frustrated to continue discussing it (no doubt with my help, since I could have easily let him violate BRD by reverting my revert, but I chose not to).

I then posted on the ANI, as linked above, and asked someone to comment on his violations of BRD and his misuse of WP:IGNORE in doing so (not to mention some incivility). Indeed, WP:WIARM makes it clear that he was out of line (as does WP:CIVIL). Now this new user, ZayZayEM, insists not only that he can remove the gallery because he doesn't like the images, but because he's going to ignore all rules. He insists that "wikipedia [sic] does not have clear rules" and that "there is no consensus to keep the gallery, there have been several independent editors who have questioned its encyclopedic value. It's time to go." I am unaware of any policies that require everyone who's built an article over the years to jump in and somehow remind us of the consensus that went into building it. Consensus is required for removal of content, but not for leaving the article as-is. I reverted his bold edit, per BRD, and I made it clear that he should not revert my revert, but I imagine he will. Rather than continue to deal with this nonsense on my own (if he reverts my revert now, he'll do it every single time I revert it again), I am requesting some guidance. Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps there are policies that support his position, but he's not giving me any (in fact, he insists that consensus policies simply allow him to remove any content that is ever objected to and removed - which is the opposite of what BRD states, since BRD insists on consensus to remove content, if there is disagreement about whether to keep it).

I'm aware that there is a bit of consensus-stalemate, but I strongly object to the outright removal of perfectly good images, and if that means consensus is not going to be formed anytime in the near future, then that's what it means. It's my understanding that policy allows for this, and that in this no-consensus state, the content in question might sit there for some indefinite amount of time. I've made it very clear several times that I will accept almost any compromise, just not the outright removal of the entire chunk of content, without anything to replace it. Can anyone offer any insight or help into this situation? Thanks. --Cheeser1 04:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like ZayZayEM has made exactly one edit to the article and is participating civilly in talk discussion. I don't see what consensus you're referring to; you're got a content dispute, not a problem worth bringing up here. Dicklyon 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this is the place to come for guidance when there are blatant violations of things like BRD and completely inappropriate misuse of policies like IAR. Could you please point me to where I bring up such problems? --Cheeser1 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm scratching my head: how can you violate WP:BRD when, uh, it's not a rule or guideline of any sort? —Kurykh 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a more detailed explanation of the intention, meaning, and proper application of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's just an explanation of the consensus-building process that makes clear how to proceed when bold edits are reverted. "Violations of BRD" means violations of consensus policy. It is surely "a rule or guideline of [some] sort." --Cheeser1 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite right in your interpretation of policy; primarily that removal of content (that isn't vandalism) requires consensus backed by policy/guidelines. WP:IAR does not apply here and, since ZayZayEm is acting in accordance with WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than a recognised policy, you are correct in retaining the images until it can be successfully argued for their removal. As Dicklyon comments, this is not the appropriate venue for a content dispute. Next time, a request on WP:AN for comment/assistance (with a very brief description) over at the article talkpage may suffice. LessHeard vanU 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking through the article history to find when the gallery was first included, and under what consideration. I can see a diff when it was "re-added" in the middle of July, but I haven't found the original edit. Perhaps Cheeser1 can supply a diff? If and when it can be found there was good grounds/consensus to add it, then I suppose we return to the original question. LessHeard vanU 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just work from where you are toward a better article? It's not like there's no basis for him not liking the gallery of three poor little pictures. Scrap the gallery and add illustrations one by one to the article, and find out which images get support and which don't. Dicklyon 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him repeatedly to explain what it is he doesn't like, or what would be a suitable compromise, and he insists that he will just remove the content outright, without good reason, explanation, or compromise. There isn't one particular image that he dislikes, or any particular reason he dislikes it, as far as I know. He just thinks they are "bad" and wants to remove them. I've asked repeatedly what policy, reason, or whatever motivates this removal, and "they are bad" or "me and this other guy don't like them" (paraphrasing) is the best I can get from him. As for when the gallery was added - I believe it was well over a year ago, long before I came to the article. This is the first time I've seen it objected to. --Cheeser1 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Guy, the onus is only on the editor seeking to add NEW content. Similarly, the onus is on the editor seeking to removed established content. If it's Add side only, Wikipedia would grind to a halt as POV-pushers stub articles and sections again and again, demanding the entire dance of justification for 'adding' the deleted content. As ZaZayEM is seeking to remove content, it's on that editor to justify the change, not everyone else to re-justify the addition. I note in this case the gallery may have been added without much discussion, but if it was accepted, then it's a de facto consensus. I'm not sure how long consensus should be considered to be 'fluid', and at what point new consensus becomes 'established', but to assert that only those seeking to put things in need validate puts POV-pushers at an incredible advantage. (it's not happening at Emo, that I can see, but in general.) ThuranX 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[This] is the first instance I can find of the images in this article - 4th February 2007. There are several attempts to remove these images subsequently, but the consensus appears to be keep as they are returned. It now appears there needs to be a consensus to remove them. LessHeard vanU 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MicroFeet (talk · contribs) is moving a lot of pages so that they contain "AIDS". Looks like an unauthorized vandalism bot. A block is in order until user can explain what they are doing, until then, I am reverting all of his edits. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put forward that, since the user edited for a while and then stopped *2 years ago* before this spree, that the account was hacked. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see other dormant accounts jacked like this. --Thespian 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to comment on what enormous fun that was. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that you have an odd sense of fun, Riana. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Lar! Lost? LessHeard vanU 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no I didn't think so! I thought this was the way to the Albert Dock ?? ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an authorized Vandalbot? Corvus cornix 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One that has authorization to vandalise, of course! Who is buried in Grant's Tomb :) ?? ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khan ace321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding his own opinion to articles like Cricket and Sachin Tendulkar, and is adding detailed information into plot summaries on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I have notified him about our NPOV policy on his talk page, and so have a few other editors, but he won't stop. Can he be blocked, at all? –sebi 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. In all fairness, I don't think what he's writing is beyond redemption: some of it is verifiable (I'm a cricket fan), just not verified. I'd tell him about the verifiability rules as well: if he really does keep going, then I'll block. Right now, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Civil Scholar has been set up specifically to disrupt and vandalise the Order of Saint Lazarus‎ article. Could he/she not be blocked accordingly? David Lauder 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours. Intellectual vandalism, he's just adding POV-nonsense in place of decent stuff and removing a hell of a lot of material. Very, very disruptive. Also, I smell sock. Moreschi ^Talk 08:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Administrators should not force content as superior. This seemingly highly promotional article seems rather pov (where's WWI-WWII, for example?). El_C 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Yes, the article is a touch on the optimistic side - to put it politely - but this fellow was simply removing large chunks of fairly useful history and replacing it with his own rantings. I think that's fairly disruptive by anyone's standards. Moreschi ^Talk 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A touch on the optimistic side is quite the understatement, I think. I have re-added Civil Scholar's WWI-to-WWII period, which otherwise dosen't exist in the article (I'd say that a fairly key period for an entry that devotes 25 percent of its content to the 20th Century), and I removed (or hidden, rather) lengthy, list-like segment. El_C 12:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the neutrality, validity, etc of the World Wars paragraph, it appears to be a more or less verbatim copyright violation from [47]. I've moved it to the article talk page. Might be worth checking the editor's other contribs for similar issues. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have a copyvio on the Talk page, any more than on the article page? Corvus cornix 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors can work on the paragraph so that it no longer violates copyright, then return it to the article. For what it's worth, that particular paragraph appears to be from a dubious self-published source in any case, so it may not have a future after all. MastCell ^Talk 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (nee EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) et al) See this archived ANI snapshot for context. New evidence has come to light that this user is still mailbombing admins. In view of that, absent a satisfactory explanation, I can no longer support any suggestion that the user be given another chance. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much to add, except to second that mailbombing has continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also "what mailbombing?" on my Meta talk ... It comes down to this, really. Do I trust multiple respected admins who I have worked with and who have acted with integrity every time I've worked with them (you and John/Guinnog about this, Dmcdevit about the initial sockery, and a host of others) when they say things about this user, such as the mailbombing is continuing, or this user, who has admitted to sockery and admitted that he mailbombed Ryulong but denys the very latest round. Seems pretty obvious to me. The only question remaining to me was why his current ID isn't yet blocked on Meta... it is now. I'm a softie, I admit, a contrite story and a promise to change ways tends to take me in, and I am always looking for ways to turn contributors round... but not indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's created a handful of sockpuppets on his new IP here at en, with his usual joke edits with one, decent edits on another, and then sleepers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said last time around, as someone else who was taken in by this user, I would definitely now be against any further last chances for him. I applaud Lar for his patience; I'm a softie too, but this is a case of "enough is enough" I think. Perhaps they will come back in a year or two with a more mature approach, but until then I don't think they are cut out to edit here. --John 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[48]-that says it all... Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some bored kids, I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 13:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Fatty4ksu has been reverting a sourced sentence in the article Frank Martin (basketball coach) which referred to the coach's recruiting past, starting by creating a comment page here which stated that he would revert all references. On the article's talk page, he made a mention that he didn't like the source, so I went, found a new, more credible source for the reference, and left a warning on his talk page to stop. I woke up this morning only to find it reverted again and a nice comment left on my talk page. Clearly he's got some ties to Kansas State University (the school where Martin coaches), and it seems pretty clear that he's pushing a pro-KSU POV. --fuzzy510 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff? Ds.mt 16:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're asking administrators to...? --ElKevbo 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he attends that college/school and is editing it then he/she may have a conflict of interest, I suggest taking it to WP:COIN. Ds.mt 16:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he hadn't broken 3RR specifically, I wasn't sure where to take this, so I'll take it to COIN. Thanks! --fuzzy510 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst recent changes patrolling, I noticed JustineLuxtonB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created several new user accounts, as seen here, on the new users log.

Should we assume good faith that this is someone creating doppelganger accounts, or is this a vandal creating sleepers - and if so, should we block the accounts?? I've left a note on their talk page about this issue.

What should be done about it?? --SunStar Net ^talk 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way to tell until they actually start to do something. There's no rule against creating multiple accounts per se, so no action right now. If the accounts are used abusively, then I'd have a low threshold for blocking all of them. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need intervention please. Qaka is latest incarnation of permanently banned sockmaster Instantnood re-igniting the same revert wars he was banned for. SchmuckyTheCat

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the Press TV article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he repeatedly deleted. I requested a 3PO, and discussed the issues with an admin. However, when the admin invited perspicacite to discuss he refused [49]. He responded by wiki-stalking me. The examples of wiki-stalking are described here. [50]The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he has gone back to deleting the funding & management section and deleting the list of shows - see his edits on August 3 [51] and August 5 [52]. Please help. --Vitalmove 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a basic content dispute at this point. Sometimes an uncommented edit just needs an uncommented revert; but since most of your own edits are uncommented, clean up your own act first. Take your dispute to the talk page, work on forming a consensus, and use RfC if needed. Dicklyon 18:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussions in talk, in which he refuses to participate as I cited (and linked to) above. --Vitalmove 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just did it again [53]. He refuses to discuss the changes in talk as I and Cool Hand Luke are doing. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just did it yet again [54]. This is now the fourth time. We are trying to discuss the issues in talk and we are very close to a consensus. We are now debating minor issues. However, Perspicacite short-circuits everything by deleting everyone's changes. Please do something. --Vitalmove 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is now threatening me with a 3RR [55]. He also threatened to "contact other users" which seems to be a threat to gang up on me with friends. Can someone do something about this cyber-bully? --Vitalmove 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another 3RR threat. [56] --Vitalmove 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another 3RR threat. [57] He is gaming wikipedia's rules and cyber-bullying those who disagree with him. How are we supposed discuss and improve articles if one person does nothing but revert edits agreed to by other users, and then threatens to "contact other friends" and create a race to 3RR reporting? Especially when this person has a history of wiki-stalking? As I've painstakingly described above this is classic cyber-bullying. Someone please do something. Cool Hand Luke and I are discussing changes in the discussion and his behavior is disrupting the process. --Vitalmove 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He now reported me for 3RR. [58] Can someone please read the history above and do something? He is gaming the rules. --Vitalmove 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalemove has been warned for personal attacks in the past[59], but violates it, in addition to just now, anyway[60][61] ("I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.") His past insistance that I work for the Israeli government[62] got really tiresome. Perspicacite 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings were by you, and no one insisted that you work for the Israeli government. Stop misrepresenting the edits. You are cyber-bully and I will document your harassment. --Vitalmove 19:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found Perspicacite to have a mildly irrational dislike for PressTV, however - try to keep the discussion dispassionately on content. ... Seabhcan 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[63], [64], [65] - unsourced info should be nuked straightaway - [66], [67], [68]. Blatant stalking as far as I'm concerned. This guy is following Jaranda around purely to revert and harass. I've blocked for 24 hours, please review. See also [69]. Moreschi ^Talk 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[70] says it all. Endorse most strongly and mutter about being beaten to blocking. Nick 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [71] really concerns me. Ksy92003 has a history of ownership exhibited at the baseball WikiProject. I think that he needs to learn that he can not stalk other editor's contributions just to try to keep all the articles the way that he likes them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you're one of the users on my list of users whose edits I monitor constantly. When I look at your contributions and see that you make an edit that I don't agree with, one that I think isn't necessary, then I'm gonna revert it." lol @ how he flat out admitted it. Some people don't understand what wiki-stalking means. --Vitalmove 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He immediately posted an unblock and I've declined. That's an open and shut case and he needs to show that he's considered that if he wants to be unblocked early. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of votes have been added to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_of_Hightower by IPs from Ontario, Canada User:207.112.61.202 & User:74.123.72.87 - both are single purpose accounts, both created today with no other edits to wikipedia. User:207.112.61.202 has attempted to vote twice in this AFD.--Cailil ^talk 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a valid (if minor) instance of IP addresses popping up in defense of an organization that fails notability guidelines. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the duplicate !vote and added SPA tags. ELIMINATORJR 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a sockpuppet report with the evidence, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/999. Possible sockpuppet User:Kephera975 has recently nominated half-a-dozen articles for deleteion.

• Chic Cicero [72]
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati [73]
• Ordo Stella Matutina [74]
• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn [75]
• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. [76]
• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega [77]

And also apparently an unfounded checkuser case against myself without providing any evidence whatsoever: [[78]]

IPSOS (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be pertinent to note that User:IPSOS has made similar allegations in the past against individuals with whom he/she ends up in content disputes. I have no comment on the specifics of this case, but I felt that it's worth noting. Coldmachine^Talk 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no matter (and we should assume) whether or not the AfDs are in good faith, they are not all just disruption, some of these are valid AfDs that deserve discussion/deletion.Merkinsmum 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for what it's worth, while I have my concerns about User:IPSOS, it does seem apparent that these AfDs have been made in bad faith; there is room for article improvement, or merging with existing verified/notable content, and it is likely that User:Kephera975 is disruptive to prove a point. I have looked over the AfDs following the trail from here, and made separate comments. Coldmachine^Talk 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD in the list, Chic Cicero, was nominated by Kephera975, who is now listed as a suspected sock puppet of the banned User:999. If this were confirmed, then there could be an argument for undoing these AfDs, as they would represent the edits of a banned user after his ban. However it's not proved yet. Also, the AfDs seem very plausible, since these articles, while interesting, have weak sources. There is a current AfD running on an article called IPSOS which looks even weaker than the articles listed above. My inclination would be to allow all these AfDs to proceed, and let IPSOS pursue his sockpuppet inquiry as he wishes. If any articles are deleted as a result, they would probably all have to get an 'Overturn and relist' at DRV if Kephera975 is truly a sock puppet of a banned user. EdJohnston 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that several articles are plausible AfD candidates. However, I believe the user is primary after the two strongest articles, Chic Cicero and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. simply because he couldn't get his way at Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. He seems to indicate that he is willing to sacrifice that article if it helps to get rid of the articles about Cicero and his Order. IPSOS (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC

I think all the articles/AfDs should stand or fall on their own merits, this doesn't mean I think this user is necessarily innocent. But a couple of these articles should be deleted IMHO (the minor ones). I suppose if the AfDs are overturned solely due to the users' identity/issues, the articles could be relisted for AfD if someone felt like doing it.Merkinsmum 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Skyway should be in "image space". Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, that's an article consisting of just an info box, using an image. Dicklyon 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it was (it's since been changed); my mistake, sorry. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UkraineToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Initially this user has been spamming Wikipedia with link to his blog at blogspot as anonymous user 217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and was reverted several times by several users (including Template:Wp-diff).

After registering he has continued this spamming at Template:Wp-diff and even added those links to his userpage and talk page. He took personally link spam reverts done by me and content disputes and issued personal attack instead of keeping discussion as can be witnessed at Template:Wp-diff (saying he and his family receive treats from people from Odessa). This user has a clear WP:NPOV violation and bias - as the only article he is contributing is related to blog he has started. Please investigate and take any actions (advises, warnings or blocks) needed. Thanks in advance for support. --TAG 00:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has continued to violate this policy despite numerous warnings. The latest has occurred Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson#Closing case, where he addressed me as "Dude", a term I have previously asked him not to use. Attacks on my sanity have been refractored from User talk:Chrisjnelson, but are still on display at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Mediation. His personal attacks are littered throughout Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, as his claims of article ownership. For specific example of WP:OWN violations, see this and this page. Please get this to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I owned anything, so those accusations are false. I will admit that I have made personal attacks in the past out of frustration, and I'll understand if I'm reprimanded for those. As for "attacks on his sanity", all those comments were completely serious and I sincerely question his mental health. None of those comments were meant as personal attacks. But no matter what happens in all this, I take great comfort in knowing that at least I didn't go to the Administrators' noticeboard and actually whine about someone calling me dude. Hence - I win for life.►Chris Nelson 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Personally, I believe he is completely delusional and bordering on mentally unstable. is engaging in personal attacks. Your goading above doesn't help either. Please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I won't post here anymore or share my sincere concerns about his mental health. And you're right about the goading, but the "dude" this is absolutely laughable. I guess I didn't read WP:DUDE.►Chris Nelson 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashback to ca.1970 when Jim Bouton's Ball Four was published. Sportswriter Dick Young said that Bouton's kind were "social lepers". When confronted by Bouton about that comment, Young said, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" Which became the title of Bouton's next book. Baseball Bugs 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures"? Spare me the absurdity and disconnect from reality of your statement, as I indicated with extreme indignation on your talk page. —Kurykh 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(via edit conflict) I think Michael is being a bit harsh here. The article was nominated at AfD at 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Sr13 deleted the article at 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC), which is a few hours short of the five days (interpreted as 5 x 24 hours) and forgot to close the AfD discussion. Kurykh apparently noticed this and close the discussion as "speedy close". To me, this seems like a series of honest mistakes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jitse hit it on the nail. I apologise for deleting the article without closing the discussion. Thanks for the close, Kurykh. About the AfD itself: There seems to be clear consensus to delete and I don't see why the article is in dispute. Again, if you're blaming me for not closing the discussion, I'm sorry. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's blaming you and me for "vandalism," whatever that means. —Kurykh 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit of a stretch. I do agree that these accusations have been a bit over-exaggerated than what actually happened, IMHO. It's all been sorted out on my talk page. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the thing is, do we delete the article again per CSD G4 and risk another explosion of incivility from Michael Hardy, or do we leave it be and set a precedent of "ignore AfD if you can scream loud enough"? —Kurykh 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reopen the AfD for another day? the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new AFD should be opened sometime soon. Let it run it's course. RobJ1981 03:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. —Kurykh 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]