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

Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29 [1] (with comment There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion).
Is he playing dumb?
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages [2] on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. Kubura (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ThuranX (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC

Please, ThuranX, if you're not an admin, nor an involved person in this case, don't interfere.
How can you give right to someone who deletes external links? Are you suggesting the support to trolling behaviour: ignoring of references, section blanking, deleting of references (sources with content that POV-izer don't want to see) that are opponents' arguments that you cannot beat? Where would Wikipedia end then? If you can't tell the difference between the scientific article and the book, please, don't mess into encyclopedic stuff. If you don't know the purpose of external links, don't mess. Read wiki-manuals. Don't burden WP:ANI with unnecessarily taken disk space. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? "don't interfere"> Anyone can post here. Any editor can look into any section here, and offer an opinion. Often, that can help admins see their interpretation is supported, or disputed by others, making them give more reasoned explanations of their actions, or rework their actions to a more supported solution. It's a major check/balance on the AN/I. I've read the 'wiki-manuals'. Since all you've said is basic trolling, and no explanation for the change in citation, then move on. The edit was questionable, and I stand by that. ThuranX (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX, deleted lines in the article were edited by me, but in that moment I didn't put a reference there, I've done it later, see history. Also deleted references were not connected to deleted text, but to other parts of the article which were not removed by this vandal user. I have rewritten this part of text according to the source, and now it's there: both text and reference - official scientific research and restored other deleted references. An user reported by Kubura is definitely a vandal - in this case removing 5,6 references! For other actions of this anon see previous report by Kubura. Blanking is his/her favourite hoby. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lines removed by the IP didn't belong, as they were clear WP:SYNTH violations. Your rewrite is fully sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP made a good call. His actions elsewhere were not dicussed or brought up till now, and remain irrelevant to the eidt in question, which I would have done myself, were I monitoring such pages, which I don't. ThuranX (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 121.45.181.31 has deleted whole section of external links, that gave info about these things. That's blanking.
ThuranX, if you have something to say about this, go to the talkpage, don't burden this page with the things that were supposed to be done on the talkpage. That IP user didn't give explanation. Don't disturb admins' procedure.
If he dislike one section of the text, he could have deleted only that part, but no, he deleted unwanted references, because they were proving him wrong. Finally, "uncited" part was later cited and referenced. Why are you stubbornly defending a troll, ThuranX? Kubura (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of 'trolling', it's what you're now doing. Let me say this one last time, then I'll just move for a block against you. The edit the IP made was a good one. The ELs he removed were redundant, and the text he removed was uncited SYNTH and OR. That somethign supposedly similar, in your opinion, was later added in a 'cited and referenced' form is irrelevant. What was removed should have been removed. Stop owning the article, and accept that the excuse laden section that was removed was bad, even awful writing, constituting the writer's own Original Research into why things just didn't count anayways so ignore them, and it was rightly removed. I don't know why you can't see that, other than you wrote it, but it was bad article writing, and the IP was right to remove it. ThuranX (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK people calm down please, no need to argue about such unimportant details. Thuranx please try to understand, maybe you're right - my first edit with no reference was a kind of original research, my intention was to cover it by a source but I simply forgot it - my guilt. However, reported user actually has very short history of undoubtful anti-Croatian contributions, short but very known to Kubura, me and several other users and administrators involved, possibly a sock or meatpuppet of a banned user (an Italian fascism/irredentism extremist) who made a lot of mess in numerous Dalmatia and Croatia related articles during last a year and half. He was always followed by bunch of anons and damage done is so huge that we need 1 year more to repair it this way, since we must constantly clean it, almost every day there is some anon vandalism around in mentioned articles, although "the brain" was banned. Maybe that's why some nervousness is present here. Kubura was just trying to get some help from admins, that's all. Once again, calm down please and happy New Year to both of you. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IN order to get the result you speak of, you'd need to provide evidence of ongoing troubles and harrassments. That has not been done here. As Iv'e said, ad nauseum, all that was brought here was one edit, which was perfectly valid and improved the project. That's it. that's all that was put up for review. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just finished a block and piled straigh in with this: [3]. As far as I'm concerned this is deliberately pressing the self-destruct button, I have blocked for a month because it's clear that everyone who's ever come across this user has to watch his behaviour whenever he is unblocked at present. I'm not opposed to shortening (if someone wants to take on the job of helping him not to disrupt, push POV, harass other users and in sundry other ways be a dick) or lengthening to indef if people think we should wash our hands of him. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one in a long line of reasons that I believe we would be better off without this particular user. The user has uploaded some suspicious images in the past, fought to keep them from being deleted by making many contradictory claims (including having taken pictures before he was born) and attacking those involved in the deletion discussion and now re-uploads them on the sly despite being warned not to. This most recent action is more harassment of the editor who originally discovered the copyright infringements. Since the user does not seem to care about violating copyright, its unlikely that his presence will do anything but hurt the project. Shell ^babelfish 13:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged in a discussion on his talk page - it is not going well. He seems to feel that his harrassment of Will Beback and re-uploading the image which has already been deleted something like 8 times are ok. The edits to the archived RFCU page might just be a mistake, but the others seem implausible to have any non-disruptive interpretation, and he is sticking with his story that he hasn't done anything wrong.

More uninvolved editors taking a look at the situation and commenting on his talk page may help clarify in his mind that he really does have a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion provided and unblock request declined. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sfacets indefinitely blocked

Following the discussion on Sfacets' talk page, I have concluded that he is too disruptive and not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia under our community policies and guidelines. Pursuant to that, and given that he believes his disruptive actions were perfectly ok, I believe there's nothing we can do to reform him and that an indefinite block is in order. He has a long problem history, and is entirely unrepentant.

I have unblocked him and reblocked him indefinitely, both to clear the JzG block (legit appearance of conflict of interest question over RFC filed against JzG, though I don't believe it has underlying merit) and to impose the appropriate indef block.

As with any block of mine, especially indefinite ones of longstanding users, I invite other admins to review in detail and if you disagree feel free to undo it. I believe that this is going to be a community ban, and that he is not reformable, but I leave it up to the rest of the administrator communities' judgement whether I have acted appropriately here, etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When someone's block log is so long that you have to scroll down to read the whole thing, you get the impression that they may not fully embrace Wikipedia's norms. Support indef. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef. His behavior was why I chose not to reduce a previous block I had extended. --Coredesat 09:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't disagree. Ah well. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block. At some point it's no longer effective to try and reform a user, and we just need to block them and move on, rather than continuing to waste time which could be better spent elsewhere. --Elonka 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the block. I've watchlisted and engaged with articles where Sfacets has been active. That user has been a POV pusher from his earliest to his latest edits. He's repeatedly overstepped the line, and this is just the last of many blocks. I can attest to his disruptive behavior and recalcitrant nature. I don't think that further engagement will reform him, and I think that it's reasonable to say "enough is enough." ·:· Will Beback ·:·

This userbox was featured until recently on Noor Aalam (talk · contribs)'s user page. I removed it because Wikipedia is not a battleground and WP:UP prohibits userpage content that is likely to give widespread offense, as enforced in various recent arbitration committee rulings. Noor Aalam disagrees and considers the box not to be offensive (see the discussion at User talk:Noor Aalam#Offensive userbox removed). Before I apply any sanctions to prevent the repeated readdition of this box, I would appreciate input by other administrators and experienced users about the appropriateness of this userbox. I'll be offline for nine hours or so following this post. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That userbox is too inappropriate, offensive, and controversial. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox advocates "armed resistance", which in itself seems too provocative for Wikipedia. Linking the term to an organization which is deemed terrorist seems to imply the user advocates terrorism. I support the removal of the userbox. Jeffpw (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i stated on the tk pg, i am willing to change it to "This user supports Hezbollah" and remove the rest. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that userbox is a perenial problem. That version is toned down - agression used to wikilink to massacres - but still in my opinion, divisive and soapboxing. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the box to

Noor Aalam (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no desire to restart The Userbox Wars — but how is this any worse than at least 50% of the entries here, all of which are on a relatively prominent gallery, and about which nobody seems to have objected? Or this fine piece of T1 material, which is transcluded on over 50 user pages? — iridescent 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I don't see any userboxes there linking to terrorist organizations. That makes a difference to me. Also, it seems prudent to confine the discussion to this one box, instead of widening it to an elaborate debate of boxes in general. Jeffpw (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I've nominated the Dead Marxists userbox for deletion. How are some of these allowed. "This user believes Vince Foster did not commit suicide, but was instead murdered to prevent him revealing information about Whitewater." What is the point of this? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six countries view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which means that the majority of the world doesnt. Bias should be avoided. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: How does having this userbox on your user page promote building the encyclopedia? If we can't come up with a good answer to that (and not just in reference to this particular userbox - I'm not trying to target Noor Aalam personally), then that's a pretty good indication that we've got something superfluous on our hands. I'm not interested in wandering into userbox wars either, but if having one causes disruption for more than a few editors, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are coming across several userbox issues lately, and this makes me wonder, should we actually try to establish a guideline for the userboxes themselves? I know WP:USER covers it nicely, but maybe a very direct set of content instructions can prove useful for new users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another userbox on Noor Aalam's page that should be assessed as well—the one that advocates the vandalism of the George W. Bush page. Disagreeing (even vociferously) with a politician is fine, but advocating the vandalism of a wikipedia page is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Also an unacceptable userbox. I have removed both. Regarding the Hezbollah box, we have been through this a number of times before. See the next subsection. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any userbox advocating vandalism is wrong, and should be removed. Supporting Hezbollah is another matter. Some people say they support Israel (which was responsible for many civilian deaths during the Israel-Lebanon conflict), so why is it incorrect to support Hezbollah?Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins, please realize: a userbox saying "I support armed aggression against Israel", is no different than one saying "I support XyZ Holy city being bombed". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox says "resistance," not "aggression," so your comparison is totally irrelevant. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) See below; it has been deleted three times as divisive and inflammatory. There is nothing that the wikipedia project gains from that userbox, and a lot that it loses. Wikipedia is not myspace. By all means, anyone may have userboxes supporting any cause, party, ideal, charity, mass murderer, or local bakery that they please, but not on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is simple nonsense, Avraham. CSD T1 applies only to pages in Template: space, per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. I realize that you are outraged by the claim that Hezbollah (in addition to whatever else it may do) resists Israeli aggression, but your outrage does not hold sway over the Wikipedia. I and other editors I know regularly come upon outrageous statements in userspace and talk space, but we do not seek to censor and/or block those who make them.

As I'm sure you know, there are about a gazillion userboxes which support political parties, political positions, ideals, charities, and perhaps even local bakeries. If you feel this is a problem, fine, but don't address it by removing content which you personally disagree with in the guise of enforcing WP:SOAPBOX. <eleland/talkedits> 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, the fact that the template was substituted, instead of transcluded, just means that it was missed when the template was deleted. That userbox was deemed inappropriate for wikipedia -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar user boxes, from which "there is nothing that the wikipedia project gains". Example would be a userbox supporting Likud,[4] a party which doesn't want the Palestinians to have their own state,[5] thereby denying them the right to self-determination.Bless sins (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a Template: page was speedily deleted does not, and cannot, mean that similar content was thus forbidden from userpages. A policy which would forbid the simple statement "This user supports Hezbollah resistance against Israeli aggression" from userpages would require a lot more discussion than a unilateral procedural deletion under CSD T1. <eleland/talkedits> 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so nitpicky with the rules and recall that they serve a purpose. Circumventing that purpose with a subst does not negate the fact that the material (clearly) can be reasonably considered to be offensive or inflammatory. The userpage policy prohibits such content on userpages, and it doesn't matter that he went the extra six characters and two clicks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Noor's userpage, I would have to add the "This user wishes to test the limits of userboxes" userbox. The first version above IMO is clearly unacceptable, the second somewhat less bad, but still showing blanket support for an organization which advocates unacceptable use of violence to achieve political ends. How about a userbox with the Hezbollah symbol and a message supporting peace? That would put it on a par with that horrible box suggesting DVD's shouldn't have region codes, a clear attempt to destroy the Western economic order. Unless the laws of the server location clearly state that any mention of Hezbollah is prohibited, the userbox in question is just political advocacy like many others, providing it disavows the advocacy of violence. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I was attempting to "destroy the Western economic order". Should i remove that as well? Noor Aalam (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

advocates unacceptable use of violence to achieve political ends - as opposed to the organizations that advocate acceptable use of violence to achieve political ends? —Random832 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, all political advocacy userboxes are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. The only use they have is giving a clue about which editors are here to soapbox. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See {{User Hezbollah}}

This is just a substituted version of a template that was deemed inflammatory and deleted three separate times as a WP:CSD#T1. The fact that this user substituted it is irrelevant. I have deleted it from his page. -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The substituted userbox was also found on User:Yahussain (Supplied by User:Embargo here) and User:Aisha uk. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further action

Thanks to all of you for your comments. Consensus appears to be that userboxes expressing support for Hezbollah are divisive and inflammatory, especially substituted copies of the multiply-deleted {{User Hezbollah}}. I will remove such boxes from userspace and enforce the removal with protections and/or blocks if required. Sandstein (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about boxes such as these?[6] You are forgetting that divisiveness can be caused not just by Arab groups, but Israeli ones as well.Bless sins (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a template in user space, you are free to open a deletion discussion about it. In my opinion, all political or ideological userboxes should be deprecated, but our current consensus only supports the removal of those that are considered too inflammatory. This includes support for Hezbollah, which is widely recognised as a terrorist group, but not for Likud, which is a mainstream political party. (It may be worth noting that I am Swiss, do not adhere to any religion and do not consider myself to have any personal stake whatsoever in the Arab-Israeli conflict.) Sandstein (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is also a mainstream political party. It is part of a coalition that holds 35/128 seats in the Lebanese parliament.Bless sins (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah is a terrorist group which intentionally kills civilians to further its own goals. The Likud may be evil capitalists and anti-concessions, but I don't believe they have a militia which goes around murdering people. However, if you see a userbox supporting Kach, then by all means please bring it here for deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need a paramilitary group. They have the Israeli Army. I think all non-encyclopedic userboxes should be deleted whenever they cause disruption, per WP:NOT. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive block

User:Noor Aalam was just blocked for 24 hours. The block was regarding his edit to User:Avraham's page.[7] Edit another user's page (without their permission) is inappropriate. However, User:Noor Alam did not place anything offensive. The edit was basically a removal of userboxes. Nevertheless, User:Noor Alam realized his mistake and immediately self-reverted within one minute.[8] I don't see how any harm has possibly been caused.

I know that editing a userpage without permission is inappropriate. However, a 24 hour block (usually given in cases of editwarring and 3rr) is too excessive. Please also consider the fact that the user immediately self-reverted their edits.Bless sins (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are more trouble then they are worth. They really are. Why do we have them at all? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly (regarding the advocacy userboxes at least). --Folantin (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny this came up because I recently found this [9] the users main goal on here seems to collecting user boxes, barnstars and playing some kind of find a hidden page game. While I don't think there is anything that can or should be done about it, I think it's a small sign of things heading in the wrong direction. Ridernyc (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His page is kind of cool 'tho, IMHO. Looks like he has been around for awhile, also - best not to template the regulars, as you did on his talkpage. ^Avruchtalk 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello. I am one of the users who had the first userbox ("supports armed resistance"). I had never actually placed political opinions on my userpage, unless you count "supports the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," until I noticed that other users were being threatened by administrators for placing the Hezbollah userbox.

This enforcement of political correctness is worse than the problem it attempts to solve, and is inherently impossible to enforce in an unbiased manner. Opinion polls have shown that internationally, George W. Bush and the United States are regarded as at least as threatening to the world as Hassan Nasrallah or Hezbollah. Even in my own country of Canada, hardly an outpost of ignorance and extremism, Bush and Nasrallah are regarded as roughly equivalent threats. However, due to Wikipedia's systemic political and cultural biases, only support for the latter will ever be targeted as "likely to give widespread offense."

Furthermore, the process by which this decision has been made is in no way suitable for determining Wikipedia consensus. Previously the template version of this userbox was deleted under a criterion which only applies to userboxes in the template namespace, and which is related to the Userbox migration effort, which intends that "All controversial and divisive userboxes, including those currently in Wikipedia:Userboxes will be migrated out of template space into userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject." Note migrated, not deleted. Editors are now citing these procedural deletions as proof positive of a consensus against including statements of support for Hezbollah resistance. Whether or not such a consensus exists has not been determined, and the previous procedural deletions have, in themselves, no value in determining what consensus, if any, there is. Nonetheless, some administrators believe they are justified in removing the userbox, and in threatening and blocking those who restore it.

As a result, I am placing the userbox shown here on my user page. I trust that a civil and honest expression of dissatisfaction with a decision made by administrators cannot reasonably be taken as some form of disruption, and will not lead to threats being directed against my continued participation in this project. <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that these edits are a violation of WP:POINT. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that supporting violent resistance to anything is completely inappropriate for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so users who express support for, say, the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, on the basis that it is armed self-defense, will be censured? <eleland/talkedits> 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Incerdently could you can it with that PC rubbish about "armed resistance"? Either call for genocide or stop messing around.Geni 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH. Who said anything about genocide?! I support Hezbollah in its defense of Lebanese territory. Genocide, terrorism, or even attacks on military targets outside South Lebanon have nothing to do with it. <eleland/talkedits> 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please that silly PC line about legit targets and all that? If britian had thought like that it would probably have lost the Second Boer War. If you are not prepared to advocate genocide it is probably best you go back to your hippy friends and talk about peace. Psudo hawkishness is mearly anoying.Geni 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Avi's objection to anything violent. So if some is proud to be part of the Israeli army (which has killed many innocent civilians), they should be censured. Should this apply to all armies, as military men (soldiers etc.) are trained to be violent.Bless sins (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins, I hope you're not siding with this user because you have the same relgiion as theirs. Do you agree that its not ok to have this userbox? "This user supports armed resistance against Israeli aggression." This line is identical to "This user supports bombing of such and such cities", which I'm sure you would not agree with. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless BlessSins has experienced a de-epiphany and converted to atheism, that is not the case. <eleland/talkedits> 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no, "supports armed resistance" means "supports armed resistance," not "supports every action carried out under the banner of armed resistance," rendering your second point equally moot. <eleland/talkedits> 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, this is a pointy userbox (which you posted above). Please remove it and stop the drama. We are not here to show our support of armed resistance against each other's countries or regions. We are here to edit the website and contribute to it. Per WP:UP#NOT, which says:

"If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.

"If you do not cooperate, inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)."

"if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."

"Other non-encyclopedic related material"

"Extensive use of polemical statements"

So anything disruptive is not allowed on the userpage and this is being disruptive, not to mention, pointy. Please remove the box. See the bold above. The community is asking you to remove the box. The box can only be on your userpage with the community's consent. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression by other parties. The day that becomes "disruptive to the community," "non-encyclopedic," or "extensively polemical" is the day he walks from this encyclopedia. <eleland/talkedits> 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The forefathers of this editor resisted armed aggression in August 1914 and Sept 1939. I'm rather proud of it, and I've noticed many others proud of their willingness to do the same. Where's the UserBox with which I can advertise my support for such conduct? PR^talk 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good well, we dont need editors who dont care about showing support for violence against countries of other editors. Thats just being insensitive (to say the least). I dont think the website will miss them. We need people who are here to build articles in a positive cooperative atmosphere. If you want to support violent resistance against some countries and want to rally for it, this is not the website for it, obviously. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not remove this box, but I don't object if other admins want to. Yes, this is obviously a silly userbox, but we prohibit disruption, not silliness. As noted below, this general kind of "I hate someone!" userbox may at least be useful in quickly identifying problematic editors. Sandstein (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic purpose

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these sorts of userboxes do serve an encyclopedic purpose. Whether it's this one, or the Dead Marxist userbox, or the Hillary-Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster userbox, they identify editors whose dedication to a deeply controversial cause is so deep that they are extremely unlikely to be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally, collaboratively, and civilly in the long run, and are much more likely here to be part of a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia. It can take weeks or months to identify such editors (to say nothing of how long it takes to handle them). These userboxes do it instantly. That's a service to the encyclopedia, no? MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sadly to say, you actually have a point. -- Avi (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eleland put this userbox on his/her userpage. Yet he/she has been a valuable contributor. This is probably true for users who put userboxes supporting Likud.Bless sins (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reply from Number57 above: "The Likud may be evil capitalists and anti-concessions, but I don't believe they have a militia which goes around murdering people. However, if you see a userbox supporting Kach, then by all means please bring it here for deletion." --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an advantage to indicate any "political" partisanship you may be guilty of. The thing that's really objectionable is people flaunting a particular (usually distant) ethnicity and then seeking to cause revulsion in others (eg by denial of widely attested atrocities). That seems calculated to incite hatred of the grouping you link yourself to - in the full knowledge and expectation that your supposed fellows could (and perhaps already do?) suffer violence for your brazen attitudes. PR^talk 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the irony which you're pointing out, but it misses the point... if someone can't edit neutrally or provide acceptable citations for controversial claims, it's not likely that it'll take weeks or months to notice. For that matter, what an editor believes is irrelevant, so long as their edits meet WP criteria. I can believe that the sun orbits the earth, but that doesn't matter so long as my edits to Sun check out with guidelines like WP:V and WP:FRINGE. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand, and mostly agree with MastCell's assessment that users who use these sort of userboxes essentially paint the POV bullseye on their own backs, I recognize that WP Policy and Guidelines say that when a UB hits the tipping point of irritating others, it needs to be re-evaluated. The problem is that this isn't Fatah or Hamas he's supporting, but a terrorist group, plain and simple, who play to the crowds by giving away food and such to finance their bombings. If this were a Fatah or Hamas Userbox, I'd be supporting him. It's not, it's like putting an 'I heart Al Qaeda' userbox on your page. People have found it offensive, and as such, it needs to go. ThuranX (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why is okay for users to display support to some political parties but not others? Under the Republican Party control of the White House, people have been locked in cages without any evidence of guilt, People have been captured and tortured, and then released without any regret. They are responsible for starting the war in Iraq, which has resulted in many people having been killed and others have become refugees. In Israel Likud and Kadima are responsible for killing many Palestinians and Lebanese, they dropped over a million cluster bombs before the end of the war, yet admins seem to have no problem with people displaying their userboxes. These groups dont need militias when they have the best armies in the world to follow their orders.

I would like to display this userbox on my userpage. It doesnt advocate violence, and is no different than having the userbox of the parties mentioned above. If this is not acceptable I will put the userbox that eeland created above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The merits and demerits of other nations, parties and groups do not matter here, and this is not a political discussion forum. Whether you like it or not, Hezbollah are considered a terrorist group by much of the world. Such boxes are divisive and inflammatory and help nothing in building this encyclopedia. Do not add "I support Hezbollah" boxes and/or flags in any flavour to your user page, please, or they will be removed and your user page protected. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem to be suffering from a lack of worldwide view. Hezbollah is a Lebanese political party with a militant wing that confines itself to defending Lebanon from Israeli attacks to the most of world. To six countries in this world, it is listed as a terrorist group based on their misconception that is responsible for attack in South America carried out by an unaffiliated group. Tiamut 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy towards userboxes must be consistent. We shouldn't censor certain political userboxes but allow other political userboxes. Also please see the userbox below. It is used by some Georgian wikipedians in their user space and the wording comes straight out of the Georigan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I'll leave it up to the community whether user space should be a mouthpiece of the Georgian ministry of foreign affairs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user opposes aggressive separatism in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and supports the unity of the Georgian state.

Kill all userboxes that have something to do with politics. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that time of year again? Oh golly, I'll get out my uniform from the 'wars and we'll have a good scrap like in the old times. I can't wait for the "you deleted my userbox" "this userbox is evil, kill it" wikidrama to erupt once more. CharonX/talk 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above userbox seems to be advocating peace over terroristic withdrawl from a nation. How is peace controversial? ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it uses revanchist agitprop that seeks to reverse military losses that occurred a decade and a half ago. See here:

Georgians and Abkhaz (as well as Armenians, Ossetians, and others) eventually understood that talking to Westerners (that is, representatives of the Ultimate Power) about ancient history is a waste of time. Clever consultants emerged who taught them politically correct language that was more likely to win over these strange people. Georgians learned to speak about aggressive separatism that is threatening international stability.

I believe it was most likely added in good faith that perhaps those users heard their government use these words and repeated them in their user space. It is propaganda nonetheless. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the extent of propaganda pushing on Wikipedia with reference to the frozen conflict zone, it would be a net improvement. I see nothing wrong with the Georgian user box, at least they make they views clear whereas others obfuscate POV pushing under the guise of professed defense of the elusive NPOV. —PētersV (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian "userbox" that irritates Pocopocopocopoco is not a userbox at all. It is a code. I was just wondering what this user thinks about the Russian irredentist userboxes which directly reflects "peaceful" political propaganda of the Putinite administration.--Kober^Talk 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH

SIGH Haven't we been here before like, a million times. Userboxes, root of all evil, yadda yadda yadda... So far I felt MfD could deal with problematic boxes quite well (or they can get hit be G10), but if you want to reopen that can of worms a third time... count me out. CharonX/talk 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one polemical (pro-Hezbollah) userbox is to be axed, then the ALL have to as well. Toss the pro-Israel, toss the Vince Foster murder conspiracies, and the entire lot. Individual MfDs is an absurd waste of time as it will just attract the pro and anti crowds surrounding whatever topic the box is covering. This needs to be done in one fell swoop.
Or hell, here's an easy solution; just replace them all with the one I have on my page, and all will be well. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the userbox here is not transcluded from a template page, to which deletion processes can be applied (and have been, see {{User Hezbollah}}), but consists of code directly embedded into the user page that needs to be removed by hand. Sandstein (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know

I'm not really a part of this, but... What if the userbox in question was just changed so that, to read the text, it had to be highlighted? Then a passerby won't read it and be offended(so easily).--Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creation of this page, supporters of the article have repeatedly removed every disputed tag placed on it, in spite of the fact that a substantial minority has questioned whether the article meets encyclopedic standards.

• 9:36, 25 December: User:Horlo creates the page.[10]
• 16:27, 25 December: User:Irpen tags the page with POV and OR templates.[11]
• 8:05, 27 December: User:Horlo removes the tags with the edit summary removed tags - no reason given for their being here.[12]
• 6:57, 28 December: Irpen tries to rewrite the intro to conform to NPOV.[13]
• 7:01: Horlo reverts Irpen with the comment Irpen, this is not a soap box. This is an article about Holodomor denial. The lead paragraph must explain that.[14]
• 7:04: Irpen reverts to his version with the summary I clearly explained at talk.[15]
• 7:28:Horlo reverts Irpen again, with the summary Please do not make any changes without a discussion on the talk page, not just a statement on the talk page.[16]
• 7:39: Irpen adds a totallydisputed tag with the summary: totallydisputed per persistent insertion of factually false info.[17]
• 8:50: Horlo removes the tag with the summary: Removed numbers and tag.[18] (Note that at this stage, Irpen seems to have gone on wikibreak, along with a number of other editors who were expressing concerns over the page).
• 4:39 30 December: Having arrived at the page from DYK, and noting several POV problems that will take time to fix, I add a POV tag to the Duranty section,[19], and add a comment to the talk page to explain some of my reasons for doing so.[20]
• 5:00: Having read through the article more carefully and seen what I regard as major problems, I move the tag to the top of the article,[21] and leave another note on the talk page explaining my reasons.[22]
• 18:03: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[23]
• 18:07 I restore the tag with the comment Please don't remove disputed templates when there is obviously a dispute going on.
• 18:46: User:Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[24]
• 19:18: I restore the tag, with the comment Please do not remove disputed templates when there is clearly a dispute. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.[25]
• 18:20, 31 December: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[26]
• 6:58: Frustrated at the tag-team tag removal and the stonewalling on the talk page, I add an AFD template in hopes of at least getting more eyes on the page. (This is the first AFD I have initiated in almost two years at the project BTW).[27]
• 14:40, 2 January: Having realized that I am in fact not alone in my concerns about the page and that many other editors have expressed the same or similar concerns, and also having realized what a singularly inappropriate forum AFD is to try and promote debate about content, I withdraw the AFD and restore the totallydisputed tag instead.[28]
• 21:23: User:Vecrumba removes the tag, with the summary withdraw your AFD and instead immediately tag the article? after your ethnic insult, this is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, tag removed.[29] (I must add that this is prototypical of the kind of response my attempts to get a discussion on content going at the article's talk page have been met with).
• 6:53, 3 January: I restore the tag, with the summary: Replace tag. Multiple editors have expressed the view that this article has serious issues.[30]
• 7:32: User:Termer removes the tag with the summary: the tag "Totallydisputed" not justified for well referenced article, please do not misuse tagging.[31]
• 12:27: I restore the tag with the comment: Well referenced when you don't even have a reference for the article's major premise? I don't think so. Please stop removing tags when you know perfectly well there is a dispute here.[32]
• 13:46: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[33]
• 23:55: I restore the tag with the comment: For the last time, please stop removing the tag. If it's done again I will have no choice but to take the matter up with AN/I.
• 00:03, 4 January: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[34]

To summarize the situation, a total of about 18 editors have commented on this article at the talk page or at the AFD. Of those, six, or roughly one third of editors including me, have expressed serious reservations about the page's title and/or premise and/or content.

• User:Irpen opened the talk page discussion with the comment The article is a soapbox and should be deleted. I would welcome serious contributors to help in covering this topic on wikipedia but that kind of soapboxing is totally out of question...[35]
• User:Hillock65 concurs with the comment I have to agree. The title itself is an attempt to mimic the Holocaust denial, which is troubling. There is no basis for that. All of that can be mentioned at the Holodomor article, it doesn't warrant a separate article. If there is a vote, I support redirect to the main article.[36]
• Kuban Cossack made a number of comments, including There is argument over keeping the article...knee-deep in nonsense...This article needs a lot of work![37][38]
• User:Molobo (a user who appears to support the article) poses one of the same questions I have: Isn't Holodomor denial also a term for denying that it was a genocide?[39]
• User:Jo0doe accuses the article's supporters of tr[ying] to exploit WP as a soapbox".[40]
• In addtion, at the AFD, User: Lankiveil recommended a rename (now my own preferred option) commenting that the name was inherently POV and that the article Definitely has the look of a POV fork.[41]
• User:Bogdan, at the AFD, also expressed the view, which I thoroughly endorse, that the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term)...it should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government).[42]

My point in posting this is not to try and demonstrate that "I am right" in my concerns. It's simply to show that there is substantial dissent about the suitability of this page's title and content, surely more than enough to justify a POV tag.

I regard the removal of a POV tag to be a highly questionable action at any time, but to repeatedly remove a tag when there are clearly major concerns from multiple editors is I believe completely unjustified. POV tags are often the only method that users in the minority have for expressing their concerns about a page and for encouraging debate about content at the talk page.

The users who support this particular page have shown almost no interest in discussion of the article content or in resolving disputes, instead contenting themselves with an endless stream of bad faith accusations or at best red herring obfuscations. If the POV tag is removed, what incentive will they have for entering into debate at all? They will just ignore any concerns raised and ensure by sheer weight of numbers that they get their way on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break

Response by User:Vecrumba -- I came to this late and have been met only with comments about Eastern European editor "axe-grinding". Gatoclass fails to mention that his AfD nomination went nowhere (all keep with one rename as I recall), and once he withdrew his AfD since it was obviously failing he then immediately retagged the article. Most recently, I invited Gatoclass to apologize for his uncivil and insulting comments, he asked when we would get back to discussing the article, I asked for specifics, and his response was to open the above, choosing not to respond to my request for his specific top three problems so the discussion could move forward. Gatoclass' blanket assumption of bad faith on the part of Eastern European editors and, for example, myself insisting I am participating only to shed light on the past being proof of his charges of Eastern European axe-grinding ("hoist(ed) by my own petard") is unfortunate at best. Then there is Gatoclass' statement he owes no apology (re: axe-grinding et al.) for "stating the obvious." One only has to read the current Holodomor denial article talk page. I'm sorry, but if Gatoclass is looking to identify recalcitrant parties, he only need look as far as himself. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this incident report wasn't made "in response" to your supposed generous offer, you made that post while I was busy preparing the above post, and I didn't see it until I had posted here.

But in response to your purported offer to bury the hatchet, I invite users to take a closer look at the post of PetersV to which he refers, and ask themselves just how conciliatory it actually is:

...(Totallydisputed) tagging does not connote assumption of good faith on your part, I expect the tag to stay off. Let's deal with any specific factual problems first. If you apologize for your uncivil conduct and are prepared to abide by the consensus of editors once factual errors are corrected, we can make progress. If you think the editorial community here is a axe-grinding cabal out to get any opposition (you), I'm just as happy to go to arbitration enforcement over your conduct. Everyone here has better ways to spend their time than indulge spleen venting.[43]

Note that after his threat to take it to arbitration, to which I reminded him that all users conduct is put under the spotlight in an arbcom case,[44] he responded thus:

I'm sorry, but I am also tired of "reminders" about what ArbCom is going to do to me. I have asked you to deal with any issues of fact specifically one by one and you have obviously made up your mind already. I suppose this means you're not apologizing either. This would appear to conclude our dialog here. [45]

Note how his threat to take me to arbcom is parlayed into my alleged threat to take him there. I'm afraid this is a classic example of PetersV's modus operandi, which is to say his apparent inability to take responsibility for his own attitude and conduct. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Oh please. You threaten AN/I and indicate the conduct of *all* (your asterisks) editors will be under scrutiny should things go to Arbcom. I react to your threat saying I tire of those tactics and say fine, take this wherever you want to go with it officially, and that's now me attacking you? You can't see past your bad-faith blinders. I'm sorry that you've had editorial battles that have caused you to carry a bucket of tar and bag of feathers wherever you go to apply to axe-grinding (your perception, your words, sorry you'll keep seeing them) editors. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where have I even dealt with you that you, Gatoclass, know anything about my "modus operandi"? I've managed to reach consensus on content with paid (and now banned) propaganda pushers. Perhaps the lack of consensus here isn't all my doing. I have no conduct to be ashamed of or any responsibility to shirk for any actions I've taken. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone assume as much bad faith on the part of other editors as you. —PētersV (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on conciliation, yes, I do expect a {{totallydisputed}} tag to not be used as a tool of intimidation while editors work toward a consensus. 10, 100, 1,000 {{fact}} tags? Have at it! After an editor denigrates their editorial opposition, I would expect an act of conciliation on their part. No, just more diatribe here on how I've unfairly set upon Gatoclass in keeping with my M.O.. —PētersV (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did tell Gatoclass I expected him to assume good faith and not re-tag the article and instead come up with specific items. His response was to post the above instead. His characterization of my removing his immediate tagging upon abject failure of his AfD as "prototypical" of editorial behavior he has encountered is little more than acting as sheriff, judge, and jury. From my perspective, his immediate lumping me into his cabal of prototypical Eaastern European axe-grinders is proof that Gatoclass is all about preconceived stereotypes, in fact, seeking battle (when did you last read of an editor invoking petard hoisting?) against an editorial enemy he has already convicted--and not about reaching consensus on content. —PētersV (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A typical content dispute... I personally believe that User:Gatoclass is fighting against a consensus of several good users who worked hard to create and improve this interesting article.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the links above, the talk page, and so on. Horlo's intro para, the first one, is bbetter than Irpen's. Irpen's second para ought to be incorporated into the lead as it now stands, which is solid and neutral. The talk page is Gatoclass VS a stack of editors who have provided sources, and tried to engage him. maybe I'm missing something ,but it reads to me like

• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'
• "well, here's these books, these speeches, and this stuff that supports us"
• 'no no, get me the sources I want'
• "Like what?"
• 'Well, like those books and sppeches and stuff, but saying hwat I want them to say'
• "Which is?"
• 'What I believed at the very beginning, stop challenging my preconcieved notions and agree with them.'
• "what can we do to change your mind?"
• 'get me sources, cause i don't like or believe this'

GOSUB line 20.

This is a content dispute that one person refuses to let go of, despite sources and consensus. Why? Don't know. b ut the race-baiting might be a clue. Gatoclass needs to find other articles to work on. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1932-33 the Ukrainian ethnographic territory was divided up primarilly between Poland and the USSR. The Holodomor is the term that Ukrainian people use for the Great Famine of 1932-33 which took place on the Soviet side of Ukrainian Ethnic territory. Many Ukrainians who lived on the Soviet side of Ukrainian ethnographic territory died. Some say up to a quarter of the population. It was initially denied by Soviet authorities. Various journalist also made reports denying the Famine. Visiting dignitaries also made reports denying it. In 1983 the Ukrainian community in the diaspora made a concerted effort to bring public attention on this act. As a result the first secretary of the Communist Party in Ukraine acknowleged that the Famine happened in 1987. In circa 1991 the term Holodomor was introduced by a Ukrainian writer from Ukraine to specifically describe the great Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine. In 2006 the Ukrainian parliament passed a law stating that the Holodomor was an act of Genocide and made it a criminal offence to publically deny its existence. many countries have also joined in labeling it an act of Genocide

The Holodomor and aspects related to it have been the subject of heated debate since 1932-33. During the course of history numerous people have denied that it took place. This article gives a concise list and references to the people, companies and organizations that made statements of denial of the Famine. Despite the Holodomor having been acknowleged by the Ukrainian government and many other governments, Books and materials written specifically to deny the existence of the Holodomor have continued to be published by organizations (up until 2002) and despite some being withdrawn from sale are available to download without explanation that they were withdrawn from sale or to the inaccuracies within them. These writings continue to be quoted in various disgusion groups. Early scholarship on this topic has been quite poor, with examples of incorrectly labeled photographs and poor access to source materials which initially hampered the subject and which continues to cause problems. There exist a small group of editors who are vehemently opposed to this topic for reasons that are not clearly explained, who continually obstruct the work of the editors of this article by the continuous placement of various labels, discussions not related to the topic and general rudeness. Bandurist (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 5 or 6 days now, Gatoclass has done nothing but attack the recently started article on Holodomor denial, which by the way was proposed for a DYK, before this relentless campaign against the article, and its editors was started by Gatoclass. (See here for more comments about the DYK nomination.) After all sorts of claims about the article, including that clearly sourced statements by Walter Duranty were only "alleged", and that using "denial" to refer to what Duranty, Fischer, and others did with respect to the Holodomor was "odious", Gatoclass took the article to AfD, where his nomination was soundly rejected by a vast majority (I'd say, near-unanimity). In the process, Gatoclass harassed many of the editors expressing opinions contrary to his, implying that their opposition to deletion was based on their supposed ethnic origin, stating:[46]

"Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

I personally was outraged by this. Several other editors expressed their dismay: [47],[48]. Gatoclass never apologized for these remarks, but only continued his campaign of tagging and random accusations, despite repeated attempts to come to an understanding, clear the air, and move to a more productive, dignified discussion -- most recently by PētersV. How much longer do we have to put up with this kind of attitude? Turgidson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turgidson purports to be "outraged" by the fact that an editor should suggest that someone's national or political loyalties might possibly influence their political viewpoint. That he should seek to twist such a banal and everyday observation into some kind of insult only demonstrates how desperate he is to find a weapon with which to attack me. For the record, I did not volunteer this comment - I am not normally in the habit of commenting on users at all, as it obviously isn't conducive to a co-operative atmosphere. The comment was made in response to Turgidson's own question regarding what I thought might be motivating my opponents, in which case I gave him a frank reply. (If someone solicits my opinion about an aspect of their behaviour and I oblige, am I to blame if they don't like the answer?). But if I'd realized then what a meal he would try to make of this passing comment, I might nevertheless have been more cautious in my response.

I can't help but wonder now whether his question was merely a means of setting me up in order to denounce me for my "prejudice". Either that, or he must be about the only editor left on Wikipedia who is yet to acknowledge the problems that nationalist POVs present to this project. And I suppose I may have been put somewhat offguard by my participation at the Arab-Israeli pages, where editors are openly referred to as "nationalists" and even "ultranationalists" with barely a murmur of protest. If I'd realized what a bunch of shrinking violets our East European editors were by comparison, I'm sure I would have been more circumspect. Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Gatoclass. You obviously have not stopped to consider that Baltic/Eastern European editors are well aware of what misperceptions still linger after 50 years behind the Iron Curtain. That means said editors make absolutely sure they have reputable sources before even starting on an edit because they know they will be challenged by those who hold onto misconceptions. You, however, see heritage merely as an affliction which apparently is so well-known to induce bias that to make note of it is "banal." And then "wonder" (accuse) whether Turgidson, among the most reputable editors I know, made you a victim of a setup? You need to work on adjuting your perspective of the Gatoclass-centric universe. Any other conspiracies you'd like to propose? —PētersV (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of my opponents have described this as a "content dispute" and I quite agree. That's why I tagged the article. These users are trying to present this article to the readership as issue-free when multiple users have raised serious questions about this article.

WP:NPOVD states the following:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed...the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Just because the other editors who made the same complaints about the article as I did currently appear to be taking a Wikibreak, does not mean that "disputes have indeed been resolved" - clearly, they haven't. I am simply asking for some support from the community for what I regard as a fundamental policy - the right to tag an article which is in dispute. If there is no community support for even such a basic principle as this, what is to prevent a majority of likeminded users from totally controlling an article by sheer weight of numbers?

One more point - as usual there have been multiple attacks on my character in the responses above, falsely accusing me of "bad faith" (when a look at the talk page will reveal that it is I who have been subjected to a relentless stream of bad faith accusations), of "general rudeness" (when I have bent over backwards to remain civil), of having some sort of vendetta against East Europeans (I haven't made a substantial edit to a page involving Eastern Europe for eighteen months - take a look at my adversaries' contributions by way of comparison), and even, ludicrously, of "race-baiting" (Eastern Europeans are a race?). I'm afraid this has been the general tenor of "debate" on the article talk page from the outset. So when reading about my alleged breaches of good conduct, please take note of these ad hominem attacks and ask yourself which party is bent on personalizing this dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like already pointed out to you several times, Gatoclass. Please feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. Misuse of tagging such as adding "totallydisputed" to the well referenced article is not going to be tolerated. Thanks for your understanding.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break

RE: Gatoclass And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on."

Whoa, even if it was the case, which is not, everybody who has bothered to check out the userpages who have voted at the AFD can see that the alleged "East European origin" is a speculation at best and in fact there were editors involved who have clearly identified themselves as not of East European descent. But the point would be arguments like this shouldn't be used really on WP to support your opinions as far as I'm concerned. Regarding grind against their former Soviet overlords, that must be a joke since Soviet Union collapsed about 20 years ago if I'm not mistaken.--Termer (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Termer, you guys just keep beating me over the head with the same comment I made several days ago after solicitation of my opinion by one of your own number. Don't forget to alternate it now and again with the "Hoist by your own petard" comment or people might get bored.

Update: User:TableManners restores the tag,[49], User:Biophys deletes it.[50]. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:TableManners has not participated in article discussion, did not post a notice of their tag insertion, and so far have not responded to what, specifically, needs to be corrected. Total and complete contribution = reinsert tag with a "please" don't remove comment. Exactly how is this a constructive step toward consensus-building? Tagging with no further input? Whether or not it was what the editor intended, for all functional purposes, that's no better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —PētersV (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Crotalus horridus retags and adds WP:OR tag instead of responding to where I indicated his conclusions were mistaken (for example, apparently one can't call Duranty a "Holodomor denier" even if he's a "famine denier" before the word Holodomor was widely adopted to refer to the famine). More tagging and pushing editorial viewpoints by editors who have apparently said all they have to say. Don't agree with them? Here come two tags. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Consensus has been reached on a rename which User:Crotalus horridus et al. agree contributes to less room for misinterpretation which spilled over into and prompted his WP:OR concerns. —PētersV (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gatoclass. And sure, unless I have missed something and you have apologized for supporting your opinions with commenting the possible ethnic background of your opponents instead of the content or referring to any published sources, always ready to help to remind you your mistake. that keeps at last you from repeating it I hope.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. How about my suggestion feel free to follow WP:NPOV by adding any alternative takes in to the article according to any published sources of your liking. you keep ignoring for some reason?--Termer (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to apologize for giving an opinion that I was asked to contribute. An opinion moreover that ought to be self-evident to anyone with a lick of sense. And I am certainly not going to apologize to people who in my opinion have been roughly an order of magnitude more uncivil than me.

I'm not asking for an apology and I don't need one, but if you want an apology from me, you folks will first have to apologize for the way you have pilloried me these last few days for happening to hold a contrary opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep ignoring my request for any alternative published sources that would be in conflict with the denial of the famine called holodomor [51] [52] [53]; to back your opinions or the tagging, please let me remind you that the rules are simple. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. therefore feel free to ignore the request for alternative published sources and tag the article, until no source is provided to back up the opinionated tag, it's going to be removed by any editor. Thanks--Termer (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add a comment about that. My response as always is that this is not in my opinion a dispute that can be resolved with the addition of a few extra sources. It's a dispute about (a) the name, about whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic, and (b) if it is encyclopedic, where are the scholarly sources to validate that, and (c) if (a) and (b) are satisfied, is the current content truly reflective of the article name and if not, should we be adopting a different name that reflects the article content, or should we keep the name and dump the content? So you see it's not something that can be fixed just by adding more info to the article, it's a structural problem that really needs some planning on the talk page first IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that you bring up issues over here that have been addressed on the talk page several times. whether or not "Holodomor denial" is an encyclopedic topic is pretty straight forward in case you have looked up one of the primary sources, it's an encyclopedia. But just in case, I'll just cite it once more: the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power.... So in case you have any alternative encyclopedic perspectives on the subject, please do not hesitate to provide some published sources to back up your opinions. thanks!--Termer (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in reading over the debates and discussion, I see two separate issues: first, one of content; second, one of procedure. If I may, I would like to deal with them in order.

First, the issue of content. Very early in the existence of the article, a POV tag was added, with no appropriate discussion on the talk page. Therefore, I removed the tag. User:Irpen added another tag, stating that there were some questionable numbers in the lead. [54]. I removed the numbers, re-wrote the lead, and removed the tag. [55] There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time. Every effort has been made to cite only verifiable - and non-offensive - sources, including changing citations, such as here: [56].

The second issue is one of procedure. An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page or any attempt to improve the article. As discussed above, issues are dealt with in good faith. User:Gatoclass's issues are repeatedly addressed, for example here: [57] and here: [58] and here: [59].

One editor does not agree with a consensus. An AfD is initiated. This is understandable, especially considering user:Gatoclass's closing comments: it was an attempt to bring more people to the discussion, and that is a good thing. Unfortunately, even though that AfD seems to have ended on a positive note, a POV tag was added to the article immediately after the AfD was closed. This seems to have become personal to user:Gatoclass, and that is a bad thing. To me, this AnI appears to be arena-hunting.

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". User:Gatoclass has no idea where I am from. I understand that such things may be written with no subliminal intent, but they do highlight the difficulties in writing articles about Eastern Europe, and possible biases towards the articles and editors.

Hopefully, now, a larger number of editors has been reached. Again, thank you to user:Gatoclass for bringing wider attention to this topic, and I look forward to any help in developing this article, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What really offends me is dismissive statements such as "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords".

Good, thank you for reminding readers of my sole purported transgression once again, it's only two minutes ago since Termer reposted it and they may have forgotten already.

There has been no issue with user:Irpen since that time.

Irpen has been on Wikibreak since 28 December, along IIRC with some of the other editors who expressed objections.

An editor appears and applies tags without any discussion on the talk page

I have commented exhaustively on the talk page about my concerns. It is just extraordinary for you guys to keep making this absurd claim that I have not tried to initiate "discussion on the talk page". Unfortunately though, I have had next to no response to my requests for a genuine good faith discussion. Except, that is, for a barrage of bad faith assumptions and trumped up charges in regards to my character.

In any case, I don't think this is the place to discuss the parameters of the content dispute itself. I opened this discussion solely to try and establish the principle that a minority of good faith users in good standing has the right to expect that they can tag a page with a dispute template without having that template continually removed when it's clear that consensus is yet to be achieved. That's all, it's nothing complicated really. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "the minority" has the right to have their POV attached to any article as long as it's based on a published source. Since you have failed to provide any...I hope that I don't need to keep repeating it. Good night from LA--Termer (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Termer, it's not me who has failed to provide a scholarly source, it's you who has failed - to provide a scholarly source which proves that the very topic of your article, holodomor denial, is a precise concept that really has some recognition and a discernible meaning beyond the assumption you have made about what it must mean because you think it's self-evident. Or which proves that it isn't just a political slogan used to promote a particular version of history, ie that the holodomor was a genocide. And so on.

I don't have to provide a source Termer. The onus is on you to provide a scholarly source to prove that your topic is genuinely encyclopedic in some way and not just another political epithet designed to attack someone. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you don't have to provide a source? Then you shouldn't be surprised that your opinions are going to be ignored as you have ignored the sources provided in the article. --Termer (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit some confusion. Gatoclass is maintaining that Stalin suppressing news of the famine, denying the famine where the outside world was concerned, how that campaign was conducted, who assisted (Duranty), what the impact is on current perspectives is not a topic worth encyclopedic attention?
  As I just mentioned on the article talk page, it's silly for editors to contend Duranty hasn't been called a "Holodomor denier"--Holodomor has not been in popular use for that long. There are plenty of sources that discuss suppreession and denial. We can call it "Suppression of news of the Ukrainian famine and denial of its existence". Gatoclass doesn't like the topic, the title, or anything about it. Perhaps it's not the most constructive place to be contributing.
  I haven't "threatened" Gatoclass over anything, in fact it takes little effort to read the talk page to see where I suggest not invoking the "Digwuren" ruling, to give Gatoclass an opportunity to be more constructive. As for Gatoclass' calumnies over threats and personal attacks, no one has threatened or attacked him. I'm sorry for whatever editorial battles he has had elsewhere, but frankly I don't care. I have never dealt with Gatoclass before and I expect better than jumping to petard hoisting conclusions proving conspiracy and axe-grinding theories that exist only in his brain.
  I have no problem with negotiating through content disputes and have reach compromises with editors whom I agree not one whit, as long as we stick to sources. Therefore this is not a "content dispute". Gatoclass has attacked me but has not negotiated with me over one shred of content. (Except to note my alternate title using "suppression" not "denial" was "accusatory".) This is an editor, Gatoclass, deciding to conduct his activities along battle lines that are only in his mind and, in keeping with that plan, attacks reputable editors as adversaries instead of resources with whom he should be working to build consensus. —PētersV (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) <- sometime earlier, accidentally deleted signature[reply]

Exit death spiral?

To Gatoclass: if you can admit that your (to you "banal", to your targets, "offensive") stereotyping of editors was a mistake, perhaps we might resume more constructive uses of our time and get back to article specifics on the talk page. A friendly word of advice--don't think that those who tag or otherwise disapprove of articles in the Baltic/Eastern European space are acting 100% in the defense of "NPOV" and not their own POV. I can't speak for the other editors, but since you appear to have come in on something that started before you and have not dealt with a number of the editors here before and have obviously acted based on misperceptions--I certainly haven't dealt with you before this, a small act of contrition on your part might allow us all to put this to bed and move on. —PētersV (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning whether or not your opinion was solicited, that it stereotyped editors was a problem, not that you don't apologize for your opinion (whether or not it was solicited is immaterial). You're entitled to whatever opinion you like, but the rules are different if it's regarding editors with whom you are attempting to engage in discourse. —PētersV (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't apologize for something I haven't done. I never accused anyone, specifically or even generally, of "axe grinding" in relation to this page. I merely noted - in response to the question put to me - that one could hardly fail to observe that editors from former Eastern bloc had potential "axes to grind" in relation to the USSR. Which is to say, I don't know whether or to what extent this apparent COI might be effecting someone's judgement, but that the potential is there for it to do so. Would anyone seriously want to dispute such a self-evident statement?

So hopefully now that I have offered this clarification, we can move on. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been the appropriate response instead of your whole sorry petard I condemn myself with my own words affair, which I and I suspect others took as you confirming your low opinion of Eastern European editors. And now you're off demanding apologies genuinely feeling you owe none of your own. Your lack of sensitivity on the topic of Eastern European and focusing on items more of style than substance to me indicates you might want to do some serious reading first (real books written by acknowledged experts, not Wikipedia) before you're ready to contribute in this arena. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Taking your above response at face value, I should let you know that there has been a history of heavy pro-Soviet axe-grinding going on in Wikipedia which you are likely not aware of. For this reason, the Eastern European editor community that have survived and not given up in simple disgust, some of whom you've dealt with here, go out of their way to always insure that they have reputable sources. (Some opposition editors have contended they need no sources to back their obvious position.) Your response and combative followup with its assumptions of bad faith, wondering whether you were being set up, etc. were naive at best and, IMHO, merit an apology. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break

So whats wrong with these now democratic nations telling their stories on WP, according to the published sources of their imprisonment by the totalitarian regime that was no different from Nazi Germany? Again, in case you do have any alternative POV-s you might support, like the conservative-communist-stalinist revisionism would fit well the pattern of ideas you have been representing, why don't you just add the POV to the article? Or doesn't the "denial of the Holodomor denial", the stalinist-soviet sympathizer ideology allow any room for alternative viewpoints like it was common practice also for the totalitarian regime, suppress the liberal and free thought and ideas? I'm not getting it, what exactly do you think you're going to accomplish here? Even though the article is currently about the denial of the famine, not about the denial of the famine as a genocide, sooner or later there are going to be more and more countries added to these 15 who have recognized holodomor as a genocide. The soviet union is in the histories garbage bin and there are free nations emerged who are free to express their POV on WP like any other party, including the conservative-communists who might hold, in your words "axe-grinding" against Easter Europe because they helped to end the prison state -communist-Soviet-empire. The WP:NPOV requires, in case there are conflicting perspectives, each should be presented fairly. So why do you hesitate adding the POV you support to the article instead keep trying to put the subject away by any means possible including listing it for deletion and bringing it here at the notice board?--Termer (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at LEAST we've got Gatoclass' objection down. He doesn't believe there IS such a thign as the PHRASE 'holomodor denial'. are there any sources out there which use it? Link them here, and we can bring them to the article, and then we can address Gatoclass' bigoted 'you're all a cabal' racist attitudes. ThuranX (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been addressed several times including at this notice board [60] One of the primary sources in the article, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity has the following take on the subject the famine is called holodomor ...Denial of the famine declined after the Communist Party lost power... So incase the article needs to be renamed exactly according to the encyclopedia Denial of the famine called Holodomor , that would be fine by me in case Holodomor denial by itself would be too Easter European POV-ish. just that also the suggestion to rename according to the encyclopedia has been ignored and rejected--Termer (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, we don't need a ridiculously cumbersome title like that, one which plays foolish grammar games to appease Gatoclass' POV issues. Now we can get onto his bigoted statements. ThuranX (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to being referred to as a "bigot". You would be well advised to withdraw that fatuous remark. Editors have been banned from wikipedia for such breaches of WP:CIV. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell nobody has called you Gatoclass a "bigot" here. However I have to admit that I agree with ThuranX regarding your opinions and statements that you haven't even bothered to back up with any references or sources have been bigoted indeed.--Termer (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, you have not yet apologized for your skewed (kinder--one which you have not earned--version of bigoted) view of Eastern European editors, nor for acting on the basis of your gross assumptions of bad faith of that entire group of editors. Yet you get on your high horse and notify Termer you expect an apology. Sorry, your behavior here continues to be one of your demonstrated self-perceived superiority over editors of Eastern European heritage, your demand for an apology clearly indicating that you don't treat editors of Eastern European heritage with the same level of respect with which you expect them to treat you. You are clearly clueless as to how egregious your behavior has been. Despite your return to the article's talk page, perhaps you're not ready to exit the death spiral after all. Termer is a motivated, reputable editor, but someone who will not stand for insults. You might want to consider the basis in your behavior for Termer's words above and alter your conduct instead of continuing to escalate along the same line of self-righteous assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors and now accusations of incivility. —PētersV (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all it's worth, here is the latest sourced added to the article: Lubomyr Luciuk, Searching for place: Ukrainian displaced persons, Canada, and the migration of memory, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, p. 413. ISBN 0802042457. Here is a quote from the book: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism: the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard." And this is just one of the many examples in the article, but it sort of gives the gist of it. I mean, when you have a guy publishing a book with a title like this, and various other authors quoting him approvingly (including at least one academic, and a bunch of guys at the Stalin Society), well, that pretty much establishes that the phenomenon of denying the Holodomor is still alive and kicking (of course, it was very significant and widespread in the 1930s). This, plus all the (denial-of-famine-related) Pulitzer Prize controversy around Duranty and the NYT, and the current intense debate (and legislative action) in Ukraine establishes the notability of the subject, and the validity of the title (in whatever variation it will settle on), pretty much beyond a doubt, I submit. Turgidson (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article per article talk to Denial of the Holodomor to make it easier to tell apart from "Holodomor denial" used to refer to denial of the Holodomor as genocide. —PētersV (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to commend the users who have built up this first rate article from nothing, in the face of abuse and insinutaion, mockery and obfuscation. That you have conducted yourself so well in the face of this onslaught despite the fact the enslish is not your first language it to be commended highly. Lobojo (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please keep an eye on User:Raggz? For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Wikipedia's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

For example, he's just added a brazen lie [61] into an article about the Iraq war. In response to a Human Rights Watch claim that the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion was "not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention", Raggz states that "the International Criminal Court refuted this claim after an extensive investigation". However, the source he cites (PDF) makes absolutely no mention of the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. In fact, the International Criminal Court has never examined this, as it's clearly outside the court's jurisdiction. This is just one example of how Raggz systematically invents stuff and distorts his sources to advance his POV. I've included a few more examples in the collapsible box below. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first began editing WP, controversial topics unfortunately drew my attention because they so clearly violated the WP NPOV and OR policies. The ICC articles drew my interest early, they might have been my first editing projects. I did sometimes and still do violate WP policies, but by error and not intent. When this was correctly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I apologized and changed. When this was incorrectly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I did not apologize and persisted. Sometimes I later discovered that he was correct, sometimes not. Sideshow Bob Roberts is not easy to work with, particularly when his pov-based agenda is denied expression. He knows international law and WP policy better than I do and does not collaberate or help, but uses this as an advantage to advance his pov. I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him. I suggest reading my comment to Sideshow Bob Roberts on his page last week. More than anything else it will explain my collaberative attitude with Sideshow Bob Roberts.

He cites errors of six months or more back, but not my many useful edits. I could debate his collapsable box material, but why? I should be judged by how I edit now. As for the "brazen lie", he could have simply added his concerns to TALK, and if he was correct (as he too often is) I would have changed it if necessary. I don't know how to source his abusive posts and am not inclined to play his game anyway.

On page 7 (footnotes) of the source cited is the information referenced in regard to Human Rights Watch. On page 3? it states that 250+ claims of human rights violations were recieved and no evidence was found to support these. The ICC does have jurisdiction over ICC members in Iraq, and did investigate the human rights issues with this jurisdiction. It is all in the citation. The US and the UK have conducted joint operations, and if widespread violations of human rights were ocurring, the UK would be involved with these and these would be in the report. You may judge if the inclusion of the UN and ICC sections involve "brazen lies".

I stand by my edits generally. I also stand by my unintended errors, and also my corrections and retractions that were sometimes necessary. Sideshow Bob Roberts is a pov warrior, but a smart one that plays within the rules. As I get experience, as I become a better editor, my participation with controversial articles threatens the few pov warriors camped in a few controversial articles. I knew that editing controversial articles where the pov warriors are camped out would eventually require your review. Human rights and the United States is a better and far more recent editing project, I suggest visiting it to get a sense of my style, strengths, and weaknesses as an editor.

Sideshow Bob Roberts is incorrect to say "adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything "critical of the United States government". I make errors, and admit to these when corrected. I systematically edit OR and NPOV, sometimes aggressively. The articles that I edit are usually heavily in violation of NPOV guidelines, so I often delete material "critical of the United States government", but only when it is OR or in violation of NPOV. I recently deleted dozens of citations where the citation did not support the text. Most material "critical of the United States government" is of course retained if it meets WP guidelines (in my opinion). A review of the articles I edit will prove this, they are filled with such material "critical of the United States government". The United States government has much that should properly be criticised, but this should be accurate, referenced, and need sustain the NPOV policy. I delete or edit that which is (in my opinion) innaccurate, unreferenced, and does not sustain the NPOV policy. Raggz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick points:

1. Raggz has repeatedly made false claims about me. His assertion that I'm "on a POV campaign" is flatly untrue, and I encourage other editors to examine my edit history for any evidence of POV-pushing. I've addressed this claim before [62] but he ignored my response and continues to make this claim.

If anyone wants to understand how Sideshow Bob Roberts advances his pov, read International Criminal Court from around 6/1/2007 and read it now. On the plus side, it is a better article in general readability. On the negative side, it has carefully suppressed every criticism of the ICC present on 7/1/07. This pattern and his obvious expertise has caused me to wonder if he works for the ICC, but I am not yet convinced that he does. I cannot know his motivation, but his agenda is clear, to suppress all criticisms of the ICC, and he is quite effective at this task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I made a specific accusation that Raggz told a "brazen lie" today. He responded, as usual, by citing a source that has nothing to do with his claim.

3. It's true that I'm mostly citing examples from a few months ago, but a glance at his recent contributions reveals that his behaviour hasn't changed. Of course any admin action should be based on his current behaviour, not past mistakes.

4. "I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him." - I have no idea what this means.

5. With respect to his most recent message on my talk page, Raggz pretends he wants to collaborate with other users but he conistently ignores editors who disagree with him. On countless occasions, I've written lengthy posts explaining to Raggz how one of his theories is wrong and asking him to cite a source for his claim, only for him to completely ignore me and continue making the false claim. There's just no point trying to engage him in a rational discussion. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From International Criminal Court This is a typical example of me making an error and admitting to this. I suggest visiting Talk, and note the lack of collaberative effort by Sideshow Bob Roberts. He claims that I am incapable of engaging in a "rational discussion". Judge below if this is actually true. Raggz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example: Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139; Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here). Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine. Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "

=================================

"Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" [from usertalk: Sideshow Bob Roberts].

_{[The following comment was moved up by Sideshow Bob Roberts]}

Would it help you both to ask for outside assistance, i.e. mediation or RFC? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see what that could possibly achieve. I have no doubt that Raggz would just ignore the outcome, just as he ignores our core policies, ignores user warnings ([63] [64] [65]), ignores consensus, and ignores detailed explanations of how his claims are incorrect. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do this until an administrator intervenes. If he's allowed to continue inserting blatantly false claims into articles, our core policies are pretty meaningless. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would participate. I would like to become a better editor. There is no doubt that I have a great deal to learn. Some of the errors claimed were in fact real errors. Sideshow Bob Roberts goes through hundreds looking for these, and all too often, they exist.

It would help both of us. There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts but I have not reported him because I believe that banning him would deny WP a talented and insightful editor who has a strong educational background, who holds everyone to peer-reviewed citations, and has a net beneficial impact upon the articles we have collaberated on. If he could learn how to collaberate, he would likely move to the top rank of WP editors, rather than the C- level he presently earns.

If you read what he says (above), it seems unlikely that he will listen to my suggestions about becoming a better editor. He is not here to become a better editor nor to collaborate, he is here to get me expelled. If he really is not a particularly skilled pov warrior, he will accept. I expect that he will decline the offer to become a better and more collaborative editor, because he really is a pov warrior. I hope that I am in error. So Sideshow Bob Roberts, are you an editor or a clandestine pov warrior? Here is your chance to prove me wrong... no pov warrior would ever accept.Raggz (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=== "Bald Faced Lie" ===

Here is the alleged "Bald Faced Lie": "The Prosecutor denied the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied those made by Human Rights Watch.[100]"

Here is the alleged source: "Similarly, following its investigation into events prior to June 2003, Human Rights Watch reported that forces had “engaged in a number of practices that may have violated international humanitarian law” but “evidence did not emerge suggesting that coalition forces committed war crimes.”: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/ihlqna. htm ; the statement was in relation to the HRW report “Off Target”

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/ (Page 7 footnotes)

Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring.

His claim that I've suppressed every criticism of the ICC is ridiculous. In fact, most of the criticisms in the article were originally added by me.[66] I did remove the criticism section [67] (which I had originally added) but all the substantial criticisms of the court remain.

You are a good editor and produce quality work. Among your weakness is your strong habit of claiming to know what the "substantial criticisms" are and what they are not. The WP policy does not permit you to be The Editor but one of several editors on these decisions. When a point is offered, a reliable source is cited, collaboration is required to remove it. Your edits have improved the article's readability, but deleting all significant criticisms - especially those by the ICC President himself, have diminished the substance and credibility. The criticism section (which you added) was a mess, and required collaborative effort to improve. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raggz suggests visiting Talk:International Criminal Court to see my "lack of collaberative effort". Please do. You will note that I have an excellent relationship with all the other editors and I always seek (and achieve) consensus before making any potentially controversial changes to the article. I think it's safe to say that Raggz is the only person who thinks I have problems collaborating.

I agree with you on this point, that you do well with editors who agree with you. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Raggz first started editing, my messages to him were polite, patient and detailed. (See the early discussions on his talk page [68] and this archived discussion page). It was only when he pointedly ignored my lengthy comments, persisted in restoring his false claims without addressing my concerns, and started distorting my words and making false claims about me that I became reluctant to engage with him.

You did try Sideshow Bob Roberts, you tried briefly. I was new, had a great deal to learn and your best efforts collapsed very quickly and you then launched into personal attacks. No one at WP may distort your words. Not every editor must always address your concerns, especially when you offer them in a fit of pique. You are not a patient person, and having a new editor editing "your article" was a challenge that you were not up to. You do view articles as "your articles" and you resent other messing around with them (editing them). You are easily frustrated, and soon stop communicating on TALK, for the reasons that you have outlined (above). Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his "brazen lie" about the ICC and Human Rights Watch, Raggz says I should have raised my concern on the talk page and he would have changed it if necessary. This is simply not true. Past experience shows that Raggz generally ignores concerns that are raised on discussion pages. On the rare occasions when he has admitted that he was wrong, he has never removed any of his false claims.

(Also, note that when I accused Raggz of lying, I was clearly referring to this edit. As usual, his response has nothing to do with this claim.)

I'm disappointed that no admin has commented on this thread yet. If my request for help was inappropriate, can someone please explain why, either here or on my talk page? It's pretty clear to me that Raggz has been systematically violating our core policies to advance a political position. Contrary to his belief, I'm not here to get him "expelled": I just want him to start respecting our core content policies, and I believe administrator intervention is the only way to do this. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Raggz's contributions today. Not only has he deleted large chunks of sourced material as "OR" (like this), but he's adding more false claims.

If you want to revert Battlestar Galactica to crimes against humanity - feel free. I will accept this. Just read TALK (below)

Battlestar Galactica

Wow, I came to this page wondering, "were crimes against humanity ever mentioned in a random episode of Battlestar Galactica?"...and, to my shock, the answer is yes!

Seriously, as great as Wikipedia is, things like this sort of reduce its credibility. Thunderbunny 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Raggz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, he says the International Court of Justice "is directed by the Security Council" [69] and he claims that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations".[70] This is all complete nonsense and, when challenged, he will never cite a source that agrees with any of this. Nor will he remove it, or allow other editors to do so.

If you want me to cite the UN Charter provisions, fine. Why ask me to do this here? If you go to TALK and request this, I will add these. All organs of the UN are directed by the Security Council. If you want to edit this article, why not edit it there and not here? Your comments are to be expected given that you only follow my footsteps and did not carefully read TALK. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he has twice claimed that Henry Kissinger has been accused of war crimes "by one commentator", which is pretty damn misleading.[71] [72] (See the Henry Kissinger article for an idea of how many "commentators" have accused him of war crimes.)

Why not contribute at TALK then? Henry Kissinger is only "accused of war crimes "by one commentator" by the Article. The reliable citation does not say "many" but one, so I edited the text to match the cite. Just add the Kissinger cites you know about in. It is my personal opinion (read talk) that if this Nobel Laureate is an alleged war criminal, the Article should specify what court is investigating him or has convicted him. If none have done so for allegations made thirty plus years ago and they were never substantiated, relevance is an issue for the allegation supported only by a cite to Christopher Hitchens. After 30 years, this is very old news and irrelevant. This is my opinion, why not contribute yours on the proper page? The Article suggested that Kissinger's recent academic papers were written with the intent to evade war crimes charges somehow, and for this reason were not credible. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go to Henry Kissinger, fine, go there. Don't tell me to. You are capable of editing in your edits and I won't edit the way you want anyway. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits were less disruptive than usual, but they reflect a pattern of deleting stuff he doesn't like for spurious reasons and inserting ridiculous claims that he just makes up as he goes along. Surely this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I edited today as best as I can. I've not changed just because you are still unhappy. QUESTION: Do all organs of the UN (including the ICJ) interpret the UN Charter as the UN Security Council directs? If not, post your source and PROVE me wrong. Don't just make allegations, so just PROVE it. I NEVER delete anything because I don't like it (although I WISH I could sometimes). I made the "ridiculous claim" that the UN Security Council directs all of the organs of the UN. So, disprove my "ridiculous claim", do it now. Here is the chance to prove your point. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raggz, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claim, it's your responsibility to cite a source that supports your claim or withdraw it.

You will never find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that the ICJ "is directed by the Security Council" because your claim is blatantly untrue. It's just something you made up. Nor will you find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations" because this claim is blatantly untrue.

You will never find a reliable, published source that agrees with your claim that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal, because it's a load of nonsense you made up and inserted into various articles. When asked to cite a source, you refused. When other editors tried to remove the claim, you repeatedly restored it.

I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you to cite a source for one of your crazy claims. In every single case, you've either ignored my pleas or demanded that I cite a source to prove you wrong.

I have no idea what Battlestar Galactica has to do with any of this. Are you trying to suggest that, because you deleted one piece of obvious rubbish, all your other deletions are okay? I'm not saying you've never made any positive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least half the claims you make here are untrue.

Can I pleeeease get at least one administrator to comment on whether or not it's acceptable for an editor to keep adding false claims like this? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ICJ was created by the UNSC under Article Article 29: "The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions." If you review the United Nations Charter, you will note that it does not mention the ICJ. The ICJ is clearly an organ of the Security Council. When Nicaragua prevailed against the US in the ICJ, the US appealed to the UNSC which declined to hear the appeal. The appeal voided the ICJ judgement. You are on record as opposing all primary sources, such as my quoting of the UN Charter directly. Here is your opportunity to renew your complaint.

WP says in International Court of Justice "Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket." If I edit this language in, would it work better for you?

Today I aggressively edited Human rights and the United States, and I suggest that review of todays edits would be the perfect example of how my edits enrage you. For weeks we have been debating the theory that the US has committed a single example of a human rights violation in the past decade. It is possible that such have occured (certainly Abu Girab was, but there were also convictions), but the article lacks any reliable source that establishes that any have occured. I'm adhering to the WP policy for an opening summary that it need summarize the body of the article, and that there be consensus for the body. I may be in error, your perspective would be useful.

I invite you to join this debate, you may know of a reliable source that will establish that a human rights violation has been commited, and if you can, I will welcome your addition. Rather than sulk here, why not just improve this article that could use your expertise, which exceeds my own? Abu Girab would be a good starting point. This is an example of a documented human rights violation that is not yet in the Article. We have an abundance of speculative allegations and a total lack of objective documented examples (like Abu Girab). Can you help? Without your help there is a risk that my edits might violate WP NPOV, with your help this risk is reduced to zero. Raggz (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Discussion - UN CHARTER
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS FUNCTIONS and POWERS Article 24 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. Article 25 The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. Article 29 The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. Article 34 The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 36 The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court. Article 37 Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

"Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring."

Sideshow Bob Roberts, you too are human and you make mistakes like all of us do. On almost every day I interact with editors who commit "many examples of reportable misconduct". I don't report them because they are people trying to make the Article better, as editors we need to tolerate those with different views, and TRY to work with them (and because the Administrators already have a LOT to do). Don't take offense, your errors are less serious than are many I regularly encounter. You are a covert POV Warrior, but because you generally play by the rules (when challenged) I have never reported you. Look at the positive here, after challenge on key issues the International Criminal Court article is GREATLY better due to our interaction. Look at what is was last May, and now? So we bumped into each other a dozen time during the process, it worked to make the article better. Raggz (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Examples of User:Raggz's disregard for Wikipedia's core content policies: 1. He has made dozens of false claims about the International Criminal Court, without ever citing sources that agree with him. For example: "there are no appeals"[73][74] "there are no nations who oppose the ICC"[75] Human Rights Watch "tacitly admits" that the Rome Statute violates Americans' basic constitutional rights[76] "No constitutional authority rests with any organ of the US Government to enter into a treaty that would permit any judge to try any American, Americans may not be tried, except before juries"[77] "There is no doubt that these measures [bilateral immunity agreements] are fully legal" [78] "Many ICC advocates expect the ICC to soon exercise "universal jurisdiction"" [79] "The three political appointees acting as judges have no checks or balances upon them beyond their own interpretation of law" [80] The ICC Prosecutor appears to be pursuing a political agenda in Iraq [81] The ICC Prosecutor "exceeded his authority" in Iraq [82] 2. He has falsely claimed in various articles that the ICC Prosecutor has stated that all war crimes committed during the invasion of Iraq were "properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments". [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. He also claimed that "The report of the ICC Prosecutor that there were no known crimes related to the Iraq war to prosecute disapointed the radical left". [90], [91] 3. He has repeatedly claimed in various articles, without ever citing a source that agrees with him, that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal (for example, [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]) It has been repeatedly explained to Raggz that this is false, that it's original research, and that there's a consensus against making this claim. He has ignored these detailed explanations, and he has attempted to use his theory to silence all debate about the legality of the invasion: he has claimed on the talk page that Wikipedia's discussion about the legality of the war "only requires one paragraph"[102] and he has repeatedly removed the statement that "A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" [103] [104] [105]. At one point in the discussion, he falsely claimed that "we have consensus that the legality of the war is a long-settled issue" [106]. When it was pointed out that there was a consensus against including his claim and that Raggz was the only person who disagreed with this, he claimed a "consensus of one" [107] [108], cited WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY as an excuse to ignore the consensus [109] [110] and carried on inserting his false claim into various articles. 4. He has repeatedly claimed that United Nations personnel were accused of war crimes (or other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC) and that the ICC prosecutor was ignoring this. [111], [112], [113], [114], [115] 5. He systematically deletes material critical of the United States government, often for patently false reasons. A few examples: He removed a link to this New York Times article about a State Department memo, calling it an "unreliable citation". He deleted a well-sourced opinion by Benjamin B. Ferencz (a highly respected Nuremberg prosecutor) that President Bush should be prosecuted for waging an aggressive war, with the edit summary "OR deletes, fact updates, cites". He deleted the claim that "Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war", saying it was "not supported by the citation". (Read the source here.) (- Maybe you should just have said 'A former CIA official'? That article only mentions one, Tyler Drumheller.--Lopakhin (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply] He deleted the claim that some of America's traditional allies opposed the invasion of Iraq and wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, calling this "unsupported extraneous material". He removed all mention of countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq: when he was done, the section called "Countries supporting and opposing the invasion" only discussed countries that supported the invasion. He deleted a paragraph consisting almost entirely of direct quotes from a single source, calling it "original research". He deleted well-sourced statements by Human Rights Watch and US Ambassador David Scheffer on the grounds that, since he disagreed with them, they were not reliable sources "for lack of fact checking".[116] He repeatedly deleted Ambassador Scheffer's quote, falsely claiming that "the citation is used out of context and introductory sentence is partially incorrect factually".[117] (Read the source here and decide whether the quote was taken out of context.) 6. When he does cite sources, he frequently misrepresents them. For example, he has repeatedly claimed that "Judge Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court states that "balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" remains an ongoing challenge." [118], [119], [120]. According to Raggz's source, this is what Kirsch actually said: "One of the significant areas of activity has been balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" (PDF).
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

I would like an administrator's advice on how to deal with Ghanadar galpa on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) talk page. I have tried to point out problems with the sources he is using to support his anti-CPM POV, which he regards as the "truth". However, his behaviour is quite aggressive, confrontational and uncompromising. He has now accused me of being a part of "a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia."[121] It is difficult to know what to do in such a situation. If he thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is hired by the CPM, then I don't think it bodes well for any meaningful mediation. I am unclear what the "referral for comment" procedure entails. Is this in addition or complementary to discussing it on this noticeboard? Is this noticeboard the first place to raise these issues?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might also want to look at the well-sourced [[122]] section that Conjoiner and his drive-by revert buddy Soman are desperately trying to remove

• [123]: mass blanking as a "minor change"
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]

and then using numerous interesting epithets[127], right before making disparaging remarks] about peer-reviewed sources and trying to discredit them, even after their peer-reviewed status has been independently attested by the British Journal of Sociology.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I would like to make two points; [128] has a edit summary which reads 'rv, minor changes'. This should be understood as revert + minor changes. 2) regarding [129], the anon user has already been reported in a separate ANI. --Soman (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

I haven't been 'using numerous interesting epithets', I agreed with the anon user on the rejection of the way the 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' subsection was presented. The epithet raising was done by the anon user, this accusation is merely guilt by association. --Soman (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 'disparaging remarks' in [130]? Regarding the accusation of 'drive-by reverts', I began arguing at the talk page in early December for the removal of the controversies chapter. --Soman (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report that I have been, what I perceive to be, the subject of long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia by self described WP:ROUGE admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise (also known as FPS). I had joined in June 19. Immediately, banned user user:NokhchiBorz had accuse me of being a sock of user:Buffadren to which FPS had said

Hi, yes, it might well be the guy is a new Buffadren/Mauco sock. I don't yet see enough evidence to go on for a block, but we'll keep an eye open.

At this point I had been posting for maybe 3 days the number of posts you could count on your fingers and already he was monitoring me and assuming bad faith in believing that I may be a "Buffadren/Mauco sock"!

I had tried to calm him down my posting to his talk page and introducing myself but no response from him.

A few weeks later, a sock of banned user and arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte vandalized my user space. FPS blocked him but did not revert the sock puppet tags that the vandal had put on my user page. Perhaps believing that they belonged.

A few weeks later still. An IP sock of arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte had started up a Request for Checkuser on me. FPS then helped this banned sockpuppetier complete the checkuser request. He also blamed me for sparking an edit war which I absolutely did not do.

At this point I had tried to reason with FPS numerous times to no avail so I decided to wait and let the dust settle and hope that he would chill and I went forward with adding content to the project. Most recently, I tried to make a peace offering and a request to put all of this behind us which FPS rejected in what I perceive as a terse response.

Part of the reason I bring this up is that everytime I have a minor dispute with another editor, that editor brings up the fact that an admin believes me to be a sockpuppet of William Mauco.

I demand that Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly state what he needs from me to end what I considered is this long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia. Under no circumstances will I give up my privacy. Once this is met, I demand that he apologize. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of user:Britlawyer

When FPS had helped banned user user:Bonaparte file a checkuser against me. I had noticed another user user:Britlawyer which FPS had checkusered against user:William Mauco and had turned out unrelated and from different continents. Future Perfect had banned this user regardless of the checkuser results saying that he is a likely sock of William Mauco. I believe further scrutiny is required to look at his actions then and his continuing actions. This raised concerns by admin user:John_Kenney (read here). FPS responded to John_Kenney in that link:

This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all.

It looks like he is putting more faith in his sleuthing abilities than the checkuser. I for one can say that if his conduct towards me is any indication, his sleuthing skills need improvement. I recommend that this block as well as his actions be given more scrutiny.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that the account creation and edit patterns just scream sockpuppet, and that a checkuser cannot be used as "proof of innocence" (editing from a proxy is trivial enough). I can't tell whether FPS is correct, but he certainly seems to have been reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly so but did it warrant a block? I have posted a request on John Kenney's page and I await what he has to say about this. I also think that some of the principles from this arbcom descision might also apply here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, my reason for posting this block is that we know that false positives do occur and since FPS is wrong about me he could also be wrong about others. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time assuming good faith from anybody who comes here demanding anything. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please with sugar on top, could everyone not get caught up on semantics and WP:AGF and also Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith on my part and address my concerns. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked in May. Am I missing something here? --B (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in may. I posted it here in order to have a look at possible incorrect long term admin behaviour and possible overzealousness. Which I believe I have also been subjected to. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of admin FPS, he was one of the people who asked my ban during Transnistria arbitration (proposal rejected by arbcom), but I consider legitimate the checkuser he asked regarding possible conection between User:Pocopocopocopoco and topic-banned user User:William Mauco. Generally speaking, is nothing wrong to ask a checkuser if there are suspicions. Mauco was proved as an malicious sockpuppeteer and the checkuser didn't gave relevant answers regarding User:Pocopocopocopoco (the answer was "stale" - is bad that after the arbitration case the checkuser data regarding William Mauco were not kept). I wonder why this sudden demand of an apology for a checkuser asked long time ago and which had no relevant answers (that mean nobody can tell that the suspicions were wrong). To be mentioned that yesterday a ban evasion by User:Buffadren (banned in the same Transnistria arbitration like Mauco) was discovered, and FPS blocked the IP used for ban evasion, I wonder if it was not this fact who suddenly made Poco angry.--MariusM (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care not about Buffadren or Markus Street or whatever other socks that person has used. If it was proven that he was an astroturfer then he deserves to be banned. I am not angry, just determine to put an end to this issue of FPS's suspicions against me. The reason I bring this up now is, as I stated, whenever I get into a minor dispute with another editor, FPS's beliefs that I may be Mauco are trotted out by that editor and I want this to end. This has been occuring on an ongoing basis and has occurred recently (diffs can be supplied if requested). The other reason that I bring this here is that I was not able to resolve this by communicated with FPS on his talk page recently. I clearly stated that I would try to address his concerns if he would communicate these concerns. He did not present me with any way to get to a resolution on this issue with him. I have no problem with the fact that he ran a checkuser but I have a problem with the entire pattern of suspicion that hasn't even been put to rest even now and I have a problem with the fact that he seems to be basing all of this from the allegations of banned users (NokhchiBorz and Bonaparte). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was ages ago - I barely remember it. I remember that at the time I thought it was questionable to block a user when the check user suggested that they were not a sock puppet - and perhaps Future Perfect acted hastily. But I would imagine it's quite likely that s/he was right nonetheless. I'm not even sure what to say about this - there does seem to be a fair amount of Transnistrian sockpuppetry going on, but the Romanian side is hardly much better. It's all a fetid fever swamp, really. john k (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if  Confirmed socks are very likely to be blocked regardless of behaviour, that doesn't mean that  Unrelated socks can't be blocked based on their behaviour. Sockpuppet is unfortunately not Magic Pixie Dust. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the indefinite block should come after incorrect or abusive behaviour no? John might not remember now, but in the link I posted John said that Britlawyer was broadly "civil and polite" and "highlighted legitmate sources". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was my impression at the time that Britlawyer was not behaving in unacceptable ways, aside from the question of whether or not he was a sock puppet. This is worth clarifying. The black was entirely based on the supposition that Britlawyer was a sock puppet, not based on other disruptive behavior. That said, the non Checkuser evidence that Britlawyer was a sock seemed fairly strong to me at the time after Future Perfect explained it to me, which is why I didn't pursue it further. john k (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasbfr, that statement is incorrect. Confirmed sockpuppets might not be blocked if there is a logical explanation (family members, roommates, coworkers) and unrelated users might still be sockpuppets even without technical evidence if the contributions make it obvious. Even in a simple case like only editing from work with one account and home with the other would make technical evidence improbable, but a case could be proven with contributions. I have no earthly idea if this person was socking or not, but "unrelated" doesn't necessarily mean "proven false". --B (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there was no possible legit explanation for a  Confirmed (I saw one two days ago), just that most confirmed users are illegitimates socks. Checkusers are wary of that kind of possibilities. Anyway we are looking at the other case here :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of copying below the principles from the unrelated but somewhat similar arbcom case (linked above) that I also believe apply here:

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).

5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.

The questions that I now have are:

1) Why did FPS WP:BITE and assume bad faith and believe that I might be a sock after I had hardly made any edits and had only been a user for 3 days?

2) Why does FPS pay so much heed to the allegiations that banned users have against me?

3) Why can he not admit that he was wrong, apologize, and end all of this? Does he believe that I have made 7 months of contribution in a multitude of topics just to pull the wool over his eyes that I am a sockpuppet of one of the transnitrian astroturfers?

4) Why has he not responded to this section in WP:ANI about his conduct?

5) Why has he not responded to my query about his recall criteria? I still don't think it will be necessary but how can one claim to be an admin open to recall and yet not have a recall criteria?

6) As per the above arbcom principle #3, did Future Perfect at Sunrise bring the matter of Britlawyer to an Arbitration Committee before applying the indefinite block? He obviously didn't justify his actions in public.

7) As per the above arbom principle 8.1, was there no other means of dealing with the possible sockpuppetery of Britlawyer other than an indefinite block? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nihonjoe created the article Youmex, a now defunct anime and music production company. Another editor tagged it for CSD.[131]. Even though he was the creator of the article, Nihonjoe removed the CSD tag rather than letting another admin decide it. The editor who tagged it sent it to AfD instead. In the AfD discussion, Nihonjoe has shown some borderline uncivil behavior in his interactions with other editors. While the AfD is going towards a keep consensus, the sources themselves were questioned by the original nominator as well as other editors in the AfD. To address the issue, I checked all of the sources and found most were just the word Youmex appearing on a store page or as part of the catalog number, clearly not reliable sources. I cleaned up the article to fit what was verifiable through reliable sources, and added another reliable source for some additional titles. Nihonjoe reverted the redo, proclaiming his version had correct sources.[132] I reverted, because what was removed was unreferenced and said so in my edit summary. Nihonjoe removed again, with the edit summary of "What the hell are you talking about? You REMOVED several references, please stop doing that, I'm working on the article right now, and your reverting is making that difficult"[133]. I undid, again, and tagged his user page for adding unsourced material and to ask him to work from the revised version rather than an old version. He removed the warning with the edit summary of "You're full of it, as I said, and I'[m working on the article right now." and reverted again[134]. I reverted again (unintentionally as vandalism) as he continued to refuse to source the original research and personal views that he was adding back, or to explain how his "sources" were reliable.[135]. In response, he protected the article[136] with the note "To stop the stupid reverting by Collectonian [edit=sysop:move=sysop])."

He also created a redirect for Futureland (record label) to go to Youmex. I CSDed it as an improbable typo (and his providing no reliable source that Futureland was, in fact, a part of Youmex. He removed the CSD even though he was the one who created the article, claiming that anyone can remove a CSD even the creator, even though the CSD notice specifically says otherwise.

To me, an admin who runs around un-CSDing his own articles and protecting as article he created so only he and other admins can edit it (even if he has, currently, kept it at the cleaned up version), is abusing his power. His attitudes with other editors in this case and seeming ownership issues with some articles is also appalling for someone with administrative powers. Collectonian (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your consern, and I am experiensing a similar situation with an admin in my category of expertise. But User:Nihonjoe has done a lot of work for the cumminity, why not give him a bit of latitude and see how things go? Igor Berger (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His long experience and seemingly over all good edits are the main reason I brought here instead of RfC. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, anyone (including the creator of an article, whether or not they are an admin) can remove a legitimately invalid CSD notice (thought it's not recommended, but WP:IAR applies here, I think). If it is removed, then there's obviously a dispute over it and it should be taken to (in this case) TfD. Until Collectonian came along, all the concerns raised in the AfD discussion had been addressed (including my concerns that someone would AfD an article less than 24 hours after it was created when it was obvious someone was working on expanding it).

Collectonian then proceded to remove all of the references for various items in the article without any legitimate reasoning, and without regard for the subject of the article being a very difficult one for which to find online resources. The only legitimate concern was a little bias I had included in the article based on my personal experience and knowledge of the company. After it was pointed out, I specifically reworded the article to remove that bias, but Collectonian abused Twinkle to revert my edit without any reason (nothing in the edit summary at all, other than the fact he'd used Twinkle to do it and that he considered my edit to be vandalism). Collectonian claims that the information in the article which he removed was unreferenced, though that is clearly untrue.

I then protected the article (specifically at the version I did not want, and to prevent Collectonian from abusing Twinkle further) so that no one would edit it further as it was obvious that Collectonian was going to revert anyone else who edited the article to something other than what he wanted.

The messages I removed from my talk page were rude and uncalled for (especially since they were obviously intended for people brand new at editing—Collectonian himself has only really been editing for the last 4-5 months despite having an account open since 2004).

As for the Futureland redirect, it's a legitimate disambiguated redirect which is being used by several related articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of references that didn't actually support anything in the article. You can't just throw in some links and try to call them references if they don't support anything. Anyone can remove a PROD, not a CSD. The removed information was not referenced. Most of the lists of titles you gave were not even mentioned in any of those references, and several of the "references" did nothing more than have the word youmex in a catalog number or somewhere on the page. Your references were invalid hence their removal.Collectonian (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references you removed were either referencing a specific item or contained lists of Youmex titles. None of the lists contained all of the titles, but together they listed all or most of them. As I've pointed out over and over, the company has been defunct for almost ten years (an eternity on the web), and finding online references is difficult. It is very likely that one or more of the magazines I have has an article about Youmex, but I haven't yet catalogued all of them yet (it takes a lot of time to catalogue an entire magazine, let alone hundreds of them). All of the sources you removed were legitimate. Nothing I did was abusive (concerned, yes, and perhaps a little heated, but not abusive). You complete ignoring of legitimate sources, and use of Twinkle to enforce your opinion is abusive, however. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All references don't have to be online. I added sources from one of several english language anime encyclopedias, and I suspect some of the other ones may also provide much better information as they do span multiple years. You did abuse your powers by removing a CSD from both an article you created and a redirect you created. A CSD is not a PROD and even if you felt it was not valid, as the article creator, you should never have removed them, but left it to an administrator who was not personally involved to make the decision. Regular editors who remove a CSD from their own articles are warned quick fast and in a hurry. Do you feel that because you are an admin you are somehow immune from the rules or being warned? Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, anyone can remove a CSD tag, and it is really improper for you to have been using Twinkle to edit war with an administrator who was in the process of writing an article. There was no reason to revert when content was being added that had references. The last version seemed to have several sources, but you tacked on that the edits were vandalism. I'm not sure if this is something you have to work on, or something that needs to be removed from the Twinkle script, but I can see no improper activities by Nihonjoe here, other than protecting a page he was working on.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion pretty expressly prohibits an article's creator from removing its CSD tag. Of course, IAR wouldn't let that translate into preventing the removal of plainly invalid CSD tags, or are you explicitly disagreeing with written policy, in general? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then the CSD template needs to be rewritten because it says very explicitly that the article creator should NOT remove a CSD, but put a {{hangon}} tag with an explanation of why they feel the article should not be deleted instead. Collectonian (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after reading that, it looks like I was mistaken in that one instance. However, it appears that I'm not the only one to be mistaken in this regard as Ryūlóng also wasn't aware of that. Regardless, it was an abusive use of the CSD system to nominate the redirect (and the article itself), and at least those who abusively used CSD are now actually discussing the issue rather than incorrectly nominating something for speedy deletion which obviously doesn't qualify. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing your opponent of "abusive" use of the CSD system won't help your case - it's not abusive as long as it was made in good faith and based on a defensible interpretation of policy. And then there's still the protection issue, which is a very blatant case of misuse of admin tools indeed. I mean, come on, you surely can't plead ignorance about that one, can you? Protecting a page you are in an edit-war over is an absolute no-no, most basic of all admin behaviour rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, he at least remembered to protect the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But what's the point in such a protection then? If you've got an edit war between just two people, there's an easier way to ensure that the article stays on your opponent's ("wrong") version: just stop reverting yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that the article is listed for AfD, and unless the article is improved, it will be deleted. Collectonian did nothing but destroy the work that had gone into sourcing the information found there (calling ALL references other than his own unreliable). Exactly how is that good faith, and exactly how does that help improve the article? As I indicated (several times now, including when I originally did it), I specifically protected the version of the page I did not want so I couldn't be accused of using my twiddled bit for my own purposes. I haven't tried to hide the fact that I protected it, and I didn't violate the spirit of the rule (which is in place to prevent what I specifically did not do). I also haven't edited the page since protecting it, either. There is no misuse here on my part, blatant or otherwise. A misunderstanding on my part of the policy, but I already admitted to that.

As for Collectonian marking the Futureland (record label) for deletion, that was absolutely an abuse of the CSD system. The only reason he marked it for deletion was because I created it. Period. It was an invalid tag as it was a legitimate redirect (which was in use by several articles). He claims that I have no proof that Futureland was a label belonging to Youmex, and that's why he marked it for deletion. I have a pile of CDs here that would like to argue that with him, and there are plenty of CD catalogs out there which would argue that with him, too. As I've told him multiple times, finding online resources discussing Youmex/Futureland as a business is very difficult due to the company about ten years ago becoming defunct due to being reabsorbed into its parent company. I have printed resources that may have such information, but it takes quite a while to go through more than 100 thick magazines and 50 or so large books. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a first: a thread with a title involving "admin abuse" where there's actually a case to answer. Wow! I'm not going to comment on the admin issues, looks like some errors of judgement rather than malice. However: Joe, you know that new articles get patrolled and are under extra scrutiny. You know we need sources. You know that a deletion nomination isn't a personal issue and that you should remain calm. Most worrying to me is this continued mention of "online resources". Who gives a flying f*ck about online resources? We need references, not excuses. If the company's old, dig out your magazines and then write the article. At least get a few decent refs together first to establish notability. The world wasn't invented the day the web was switched on, nor is there any rush to document this company that probably isn't very notable anyway... --kingboyk (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the article means that no one can improve it, which seems silly since it's at afd and it's likely that people would want to improve it. Since the protection was illegitimate (Nihonjoe used page protection to prevent his opponent from editing it), shouldn't it be reversed? Seraphim ^Whipp 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking at the article history, I'm not exactly sure what grounds Collectonian has behind this complaint. First after Nihonjoe created the article, Superm401 (talk · contribs) tags the article as {{db-spam}}.[137] However, anyone who actually looks at the article at that point can tell that it wasn't blatant advertisement and that the {{db-spam}} was inappropriately applied and Nihonjo's removal stated that fact.[138] Superm401, then sent to article to AfD.[139] Ok, no real problem so far.

Nihonjo continues to expand the article and add sources[140] until Collectonian (talk · contribs) comes in and undoes most of the work and removes nearly all of the sources Nihonjo added.[141] At this point is when the edit war started between the two different versions with Collectonian eventually calling Nihonjoe's reverts "vandalism".[142][143] After Collctonian's last revert, Nihojoe locks the article to keep the edit war going further,[144] only to see this complaint here.

I also note that neither party attempted to discuss the dispute with each other on a talk page. Particularly, Collectonian didn't attempt to explain why he felt the sources that Nihonjoe was using weren't reliable. --Farix (Talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The questioning of the sources occurred in the AfD (in short, they didn't support what he said they did), and unlike Nihonjo, I've already taken my punishment for my inappropriate labeling of his bad edits as vandalism like a good girl and lost my Twinkle. He, however, abused his admin powers on this and other articles by removing a CSD from his own articles, then protecting an article he was personally involved in. Because he has admin powers, he just bypassed all the usually methods any other editor would have been expected to follow, which is an abuse of those powers to me. Whether his actions were right or wrong, he still decided to do them himself instead of letting an editor not personally involved in the article deal with the CSDs and evaluate the need for page protection. I've lost Twinkle access for 72 hours even though our minor edit war resulted in not a single warning left on my page, yet his misuse of his powers when he obviously had a COI in the situation seems to be considered just fine. Collectonian (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this incident. However, I have noticed many times were Nihonjoe has been a poor admin/editor, particularly when it comes to references written in Japanese. Thats one outsiders point of view. 220.253.5.116 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

I don't think this debate is achieving much, and as pointed out above the page being protected prevents it from being improved. What do folks think about unprotecting it? --kingboyk (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotect. The protection is preventing this article from being improved by impartial editors. The dispute should be discussed on the article's talk page, with neither party editing this article further until they can come to a compromise. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly unprotected the article, since it's at AfD. There's a chance folks there can improve it to such a level as to prevent deletion, and I wish to support that opportunity. - Philippe | Talk 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Polysynaptic (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a string of inappropriate point-of-view edits, including erasing well-sourced references to Persian culture from articles related to Turkic topics, and conflating the distinct notions of "Turkish people" with "Turkic peoples". His responses to criticism do not suggest he is amenable to reason. It will require a substantial effort to repair the damage he is doing; it is doubtful that even a single dedicated editor could keep up. As evidence that this user is out of control: he has now nominated the well-sourced article Persianate society for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persianate society. He has also created an alternative article (Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni) to the well-sourced article Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī. This is highly disruptive editing, damaging to the project, and I hope something can be done about this. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive349#Informed of possible sockpuppet, but I feel the issue should be dealt with in any case, sockpuppetry or not.)  --Lambiam 12:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AFD, but I need someone else to look into the user's actions. --Coredesat 15:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like another installment of the endless saga of our old friends User:Tajik (ip 82.*) and his nemesis de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke (ip. 85.*), each with a new sock daily. Just block everybody in sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clueless question - if Westthrakientürke engages in disruptive sockpuppetry, why is the account he claims belongs to him on this Wikipedia, Moorudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not blocked? Sandstein (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think he has ever been investigated overly much here. He's just forever engaged in a series of vicious disputes with his favourite enemy, mostly editing through IPs. But one IP from his known range (85.176.73.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) was blocked immediately before Polysynaptic was created, so the suspicion of abusive sockpuppetry this time is pretty strong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless User:Polysynaptic is lying about his identity, he is a student from Turkey studying in Ankara, whereas Westthrakientürke is from Greece, and 85.178.*.* has the northern German HanseNet as IP. Polysynaptic is Muslim and opposed to Turkish secularism (see his article Criticism of kemalism), something not found with Westthrakientürke or 85.178.*.*'s edits. Poly's command of English is also definitely inferior to that of 85.178.*.*. In spite of the temporal coincidence, I think these are different individuals.  --Lambiam 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, not quite. Westthrakientürke may have a background from Greece (West Thracia), as his name implies, but he is known to be in Germany, and that German HanseNet IP range is definitely his (self-confirmed on de here: [145]). (There has been another, much more disruptive, Turkish user whose IP range also typically starts with 85.*, but is located in Ankara.) - I'll accept your judgment though if you say you find WTT's editing profile to be different from Polysynaptic's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke ≠ 85.178.*.*, but only that this German constellation is likely not the same individual as User:Polysynaptic. This seems unrelated to 85.100.*.* and friends, who are more focussed on Cyprus issues.  --Lambiam 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: See edit. "Sounds like B** is stretching to write a novel and not edit a encyclopedic entry. Matt Sanchez (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

This user has gotten repeated "final" warnings for incivility and abuse, and even appears to be freely violating COI by editing an article about themselves *extensively*; see here. This was just brought up earlier this week, and the user was blocked for attacks and incivility. Would someone be willing to give him another final warning?

Previous ANI thread from January 2 is here, where it was disclosed this user has also harassed and made disparaging comments and tone towards homosexual editors working on pages related to him, which seems to be a violation of discrimination policies and concerns. Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RFC on user is here. Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the WP:AIV report on this user pending the outcome of the discussion here. Caknuck (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See 5 sections above where there is already a discussion going on about this user. -- ALLSTARecho 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thread here on Matt Sanchez, same problems. That is three threads initiated by three people in almost zero time. Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Both users have been indefinitely blocked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An arb case is about to be opened on this at WP:RFAR — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continues ad hominem incivilities despite two warnings.

• First warning: [146]
• Second warning: [147]
• Continuation: [148][149]

Disruptive editing (repeated blanking of a section) on Dana Ullman. [150] Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While calling another editor a troll is almost never appropriate, I don't believe the behavior has escalated to a level that requires administrator attention. I have left a note on the IP's talk page regarding the most recent instance.

As far as the underlying content dispute which has everyone so worked up, please see the various options available at WP:Dispute resolution. — Satori Son 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully this will be sufficient. I'm not involved in any content dispute though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the very heated discussions at Talk:Homeopathy, that is exactly what you are heavily involved in. Seriously, please consider WP:DR if it continues. — Satori Son 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the alleged content dispute, let me know. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to an edit conflict on this talk page, in which User:Pmanderson was also incivil in discussions with User:Turgidson, he keeps to be disruptive and adding "alternate names" to Romania article. However, after he was reverted two times here and here because his claims were unsourced, he added a source which doesn't necessary have anything to do with alternate names of Romania/Romanian. I think such attitudes are clearly disruptive and should be properly treated. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did those sources use the name Rumania or Roumania? Really though, until I was told that it "is" Romania, I personally spelt it Roumania. The Catholic Encyclopedia uses Rumania and frankly, I think people are a little too eager to make incident reports when someone disagrees with them or they disagree with someone else. When faced with people reverting these very common alternative names, I wouldn't be surprised with anyone having a less than favourable reaction. It seems to be a case of picking on someone and trust me, Pmanderson and I have had a lot of differences. He's a good editor though. Charles 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The sources are here: two recently published books (one from Oxford) which use Rumania and Roumania in their titles, and the reasonably well-known poem by Dorothy Parker. This appears to be vengeance for my supporting the move at Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive to the form actually used in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Eurocopter tigre, in past dealings with User:Pmanderson I have found him to be incredibly rude, insulting, and disruptive in many different edits to many different articles... and he has also been blocked at times for his disruptive behaviour (whether 3RR or otherwise) but this seems to surface from time to time and now continues unchecked. Rarelibra (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a reference to this dispute, and to the time we were both blocked because Rarelibra insisted on removing the name Scutari from Lake Scutari; see its talkpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a problem with PMA here from any of your diffs, but an edit summary such as you made: "any such additions will be considered vandalism and reported accordingly" is not acceptable during a content dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake we are talking about the oficial name of the country. I'm sure that nobody will agree if I'll post "Ingland" as an alternate name for "England", just because I found this error in a book. Also, see PMA's incivility here and here. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And, while at it, can anyone explain why is it "imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage", as Pmanderson puts it? What exactly does it mean to be a "foreigner" here at WP? Not a citizen of which country? Pardon me if I sound thin-skinned, but I find such speech highly disturbing, and not in sync with WP policies. I made that clear to Pmanderson here, but no real apology has been offered, just more of the same. Turgidson (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be about alternate spellings of the name and their use on Wikipedia, not the official name, so far as I can see. Who disputes the official name of the country? To Turgidson, I would assume he means that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage. This seems reasonable at first glance, although perhaps not well-applied in your case as your English seems excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I insist on this point, but "foreigner", or "alien" (de:Ausländer, or l'Étranger, if you wish) means precisely "a person who is not a native or naturalized citizen of the land where they are found"—this has nothing to do with whether English is one's native language or not. (If we are to talk about the English language, let's be precise about it, shall we?) So I repeat my question: what is alleged or implied by this statement of Pmanderson, that I am a "foreigner"—in which land? US? UK? Canada? Ireland? Australia? NZ? And, if so, does it make me a second-class citizen here at WP? I thought English Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, with more-or-less equal rights, and that one is judged by the quality of one's edits (including, yes! one's command of the English language), and by the quality of one's demeanor, not by whether one is, or is not, a "foreigner" (again, with respect to which country?) Thank you for considering this point. I am very much interested in hearing your opinion on this, since it goes to the heart of how I view the Wiki. -- Turgidson (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see I'm not getting any answer to my question. Be that as it may, I would still dispute the planted assumption "that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage". Is there a reliable source stating that, or is this merely a nativist assumption? I've seen plenty of native speakers (including editors here at WP) who have a poor command of the English language, especially when it comes to grammar and spelling, and also some non-native speakers with a perfect command of the many nuances, alternate meanings, etymology, etc, not to say grammar and spelling. So I'd say that kind of dismissive attitude towards editors who may not be natives of an English-speaking country is misplaced (to use the mildest word I can use in this context), and not conducive to a good working atmosphere here at WP. -- Turgidson (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence talks... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what is it saying? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reaction by a handful of editors with an emotional commitment to the use of official names, as with this uncivil comment by Turgidson to Narson; they do not recognize, or do not accept, that our policy is to use what English usually does; it should not, I suppose, surprise me that they find mention of the other names actually used for Romania equally unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Lovett's Meat Puppets (talk · contribs) - blanking the Jon Awbrey articles per the request at WR. Corvus cornix_talk 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to request checkuser to identify any other socks in the same drawer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to do that? I have no idea what other users may be the same people. Their edits are specific enough to make it obvious. Corvus cornix_talk 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because checkuser can identify sleeper accounts that the banned/blocked user might use when the accounts they are currently using are exposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits are specific enough to make it obvious on WikiPedia, but if you would do some forensic analysis of their behavior correlating to their activities off WikiPedia, you may find an interesting connection that may shed light on an issue at hand. But do not get involved in such actions unless it is absolutely necessary. And if you do, you may want to ask assistance of an experienced Wikipedia SA. Igor Berger (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor, the last time I requested CheckUser on an Awbrey sock, it turned up a number of sleepers that had not yet been blocked. Awbrey has to use sleepers to overcome the autoconfirm limit as these articles are semiprotected. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my user contribs. I think you all will be pleasantly surprised :) Raul654 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• here
• here

This whole circle of events related to Matt Sanchez is getting out of hand. Lawrence Cohen 05:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord has been blocked for 48 hours and a user subpage that contained another homophobic attack has been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked for 48 hours. Way over the line of unacceptability.--Doc^g 05:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Law Lord is a 2-3 day old account. Does anyone know if he was blocked under the old one? and if so, the info was not transferred. R. Baley (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord is a 1 year old account. It's 2008 now, silly :P—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn year change. . .what was wrong with 2007? Sorry 'bout that, I saw the link to the "compromised account" and jumped the gun. R. Baley (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked Allstarecho for 24 hours for this response [151].--Doc^g 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way! seriously? R. Baley (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related to all this. Lawrence Cohen 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same insult going both ways, does it matter who is first? Probably should block them for the same duration. ^Avruchtalk 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good blocks, both, although I think they should both be extended to a week. Allstarecho's block should certainly be extended. --Coredesat 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you to do that, it others agree. Certainly both users are moving towards banning. Now to bed.--Doc^g 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given my previous involvement in a related dispute, I shouldn't do the extension. --Coredesat 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the blocks - both of them. I do not endorse extending Allstarecho's block. I think they're fine as they are. - Philippe | Talk 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this userbox. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes/Anarcho-primitivism1

What I need to do? I have listed it in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the question is. Do you need help from an administrator (as in, does something need deleting, restoring, blocking) or is this a general userbox help question? -- Ned Scott 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution=stop making userboxes and start editing the encyclopedia. John Reaves 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, John, what made you so cranky that you snapped at a good contributor like this. Though, seeing like this user has only 2000+ Articlespace edits (and a good deal more on Talk/WP/Userspace) he better start editing the encyclopedia... CharonX/talk 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use this userbox. I want to know is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your userbox would create a problem. If it's been listed, you and others can start using it. The identifier appears legit, showing you as a member of a clearly defined class, it's not defamatory or uncivil, and others who share your beliefs may also want to use it. Looks like a thumbs up for the content. As to the technical merits (e.g. was it designed correctly, does it transclude correctly, etc.), I'm passing no judgment there as designing userboxes is outside my realm of knowledge. Gromlakh (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just wanted to know this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall categories for Wikipedians by political affiliation being deleted, but I'm not sure about the userboxes themselves. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are categories which have political userboxes, seen here. Second, the userbox in question is listed on the page. Third, I think we can close this thread now. miranda 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though seeing as how anarcho-primitivism rejects all forms of technology as a destructive and corrupting influence on human nature, I'm not sure how many will show up on Wikipedia and utilize the userbox. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior makes no sense to me. Can someone double check this please? Is delete the default regardless of fair use justification? Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion? Why? Is it acceptable to robotically dismantle wikipedia? WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, did you try his talk page first? John Reaves 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears (from just looking at a couple) that images are being tagged that have no copyright status or fair use rationale. And yes, this is wikipedia policy. Images without a clear copyright tag or use as fair use without a fair use rationale are likely to be deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it you have a problem with? Since you didn't mention this to me and only linked to my contributions, its a bit difficult to see what you might be concerned with. Shell ^babelfish 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion. It is fair use to use the cover of a book on an article about that book. Images that say exactly that are being marked for deletion. Images with a fair use rationale are being marked for deletion. It appears that tags are being placed without actually reading the data about the image. In short it appears to be robot-like tagging. Or maybe someone has a vastly different idea of "fair use". I'm aware that the legal definition and the Wikipedia fair use criteria differ, but last I heard, book covers were allowed on articles about that book. Has this changed, or are these tags being placed inappropriately? One or the other is true. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the image you were referring to [152]. It appears you also blindly reverted my tags without fixing the problem. You may wish to review WP:NFCC which discusses fair use rationales in detail. Per my understanding saying "Fair use is claimed for this low res image of the book cover for use in illustrating the article about the book at Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom." isn't sufficient as a fair use rationale. Specifically there is no mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used). Shell ^babelfish 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question to the admins here is "Is it appropriate to demand mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used) in all cases?" I can't see it. It is a minimal size image of a cover that has no obvious commercial use other than illustrating the novel. What sort of discussion could I possibly provide on using say the top half or the bottom half of the image. This strikes me as absurd. This appears to me to simply be deleting images to make wikipedia worse. Wholesale deletion if people who loaded up book cover images years ago and are gone now don't magically show up and jump through absurd hoops. I see a lack of thought and effort and mere robotic labeling in preparation for robotic deletion. I object to this thoughtless trashing of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They still are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to positively contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.

Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.

I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.

I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.

(Note that I did ask User:Daniel who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)

So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?

If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".

So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - jc37 12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try WP:SSP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).

If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. Natalie (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a hotbed of nationalist edit-warring for years. There was a recent Arbcom case, but it resulted only in the ban of one editor and no sanctions on anybody else. I and a few other admins have instituted an experimential type of article probation with a zero-tolerance rule against edit warring. All to no avail.

Currently, the main problem is that the article keeps getting edited by people who, while not permanently revert-warring, are still clearly tendentious, insistent on making frequent high-volume edits trying to maximize the representation of their nation's point of view, and, at the same time, write abominably poor English. The whole article as well as the talk page have become utterly unreadably as a result.

I've pleaded with them asking them to recognise the limitations of their language skills and refrain from making further text additions until the mess has been cleared up, but to no avail. The moment one editor stops messing with it, another starts.

Can we block people for writing bad English? The whole situation is unbearable, and I'm losing my patience with these people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Can we block people for writing bad English?" I think we should if they're clearly making bad faith edits and are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, our problem is half the world's trolls speak English and WP:EN is a great place for POV-pushers of various factions and differing languages to meet for an "away match". We shouldn't be making life easy for non-anglophone disruptive users to come here too. I doubt the Icelandic WP has to put up with the levels of hassle we have to. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith. Their tendentiousness is also not dramatically above that of your average "nationally-focussed" editor. It's the combination of that tendentiousness with the poor English that makes it so bad. -- Actually, one of the recent main culprits, Opp2 (talk · contribs), has now stated he will give it a rest (good for him!), but could somebody look at Whatdamn (talk · contribs) and tell me if he is a certain sock? He is, but I can't quite work out whose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith". Sure, but judging purely by the effect they have on encyclopaedic content it's difficult to tell the difference between sincere but tendentious and ill-informed editors and bona fide bad faith trolls. Liancourt Rocks has a notorious reputation as one of the "nationalist hot spots". I've never examined it in much detail and I can't make head or tail of some of those comments either, probably because I don't know the linguistic substrates (Korean and Japanese). I think there is an ArbCom ruling on avoiding the use of foreign languages in talk page disputes which might be relevant. IIRC it was on one of the East European arbs. --Folantin (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of linguistic pedantry: bona fide means... "good faith". So I'm not entierly certain you meant "bona fide bad faith".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what it originally meant, but many people use it to mean "the real thing" or something along those lines (e.g., "That guy's a bona fide cowboy.") Meanings change, and all that. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! (Looks round for the entrance out of here...). --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seriously tired of the grief that this article causes. I have deleted it. We are simply better off without it. The amount of time and effort it sucks up from productive users trying to mediate simply isn't worth it. No doubt someone will reverse me but, seriously, there has to be a mechanism to control articles like this that cause so much disproportionate trouble. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that once you start editing a Wikipedia that is not in your native language, then whether or not you are editing in good faith is moot if your writing quality is so poor that it degrades the article. If editors are being contacted specifically about their writing quality, and continue to make edits that create in a net degradation of the article, then they are effectively vandalizing the encyclopedia... I would have no issue with a short block for an editor who has been fully warned. That said, it is still important that we first reach out to such editors and offer to help them integrate information in order to differentiate poor writers from poor writers who are also tendentious. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's rouge, Spartaz! I'm tempted to recreate it with "Liancourt Rocks are just some boring rocks between Japan and Korea. Get over it". I suspect someone will try to haul you over the coals for "violating policy" but I wonder why we never seem to enforce our policy on WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way, perhaps, that a page could be fully protected so that only admins could edit it? Could that be a way forward with an article about a notable geographic feature that is frequently reported in news services worldwide, and which attracts controversy from a number of countries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Whoa, turning Liancourt Rocks into a rougelink? That's radical... :-)

I share your feelings. Although, of course, we should have an article on that topic. I was considering forcibly stubbing it down and having it rewritten from scratch. But who is to do it? Sigh. (And it just so happens that I've for a long time maintained another article on a disputed little islet, demonstrating that it is possible...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's gone blue again. Can't wait to see what's happened to it... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect to Dokdo. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it was a red link, heh. I know I'm not an admin or anything, but if it came down to it, I'd support Fut.Perf.'s thought of a full rewrite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liancourt Rocks (section 2)

• How many versions of this article exist? I came across Dokdo while reviewing the deletion history of Liancourt. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whatdamn has just recreated the page and redirected it to "Dokdo" (Korean POV and violation of WP:COMMONNAME). This must be actionable. --Folantin (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • {EC}Its just been recreated. I'm going to spend a few more rouge points and delete the redirecrt and the pov fork and protect them while we discuss this. DuncanHill's suggestion has a lot of merit Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, talk of cheekiness. Well, by doing that lightning-quick copy-and-paste move, Whatdamn has certainly demonstrated he's not a new user but some kind of sock. Indef-blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a pretty reliable rumour that there are noticeboards out there encouraging Korean and Japanese nationalists to come and edit this particular article. So I think it's perfectly fair we take measures to protect the encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. BTW, would anyone object if I tried my hand at a neutral stub replacement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't object to that. --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support in creating a neutral stub replacement. In the mean time, what should be done with Dokdo?Hiberniantears (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't people just learn to get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Dokdo can be redirected to liancort rocks and full protected. Agree with fut perf rewriting this in neutral and then full protection thereafter. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(3 edit conflicts) A neutral, fully-protected stub would a) make sure we at least have something about these notable stones, and b) keep POV pushing (to some extent at least) off the mainspace. Go for it, I say! DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, give me half an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the above discussion yet. But I don't understand why the Liancourt rocks page has no content. I thought an editor who copied and pasted contents from the old article of Dokdo (now redirect page). And why is the edit history of Liancourt rocks deleted? -Appletrees (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? ^Avruchtalk 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was upset at the whole contents being deleted, so I wrote too quickly. --Appletrees (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above discussion, I still think this is pathetic. Replacing the article with that sentence was downright childish and you have brought the administrators to the same level as the edit warmongers. A large systematic attack on the article as you've mentioned could very well warrant full protection, but not this, this is vandalism. Wha is what I want to know. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the article quickly The administrator who protected the Liancourt rocks should've restored the page to the prior version after a banned user reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no content on either the redirect page, Dokdo, and Liancourt rocks. --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit too dramatic, actually. From cursory observation, I notice that intro has not come under dispute, or changed much for that matter, in a while. So why send readers away to answers.com (as much as I'm a fan!). And no, it isn't just some rocks, I reckon it is homework for thousands of Japanese and Korean students. So, I'm restoring the intro, which should not have a bearing in figuring out the rest. Good luck. El_C 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect is working on a stub, and if the stub is of quality then I think protecting it somewhat permanently from editing would be a fine idea. In the mean time, a protected article with little or no information is preferable to the constant edit-warring that this article is subject to. How many ArbCom cases, AN/I reports etc. need to happen before we decide that this piece of content isn't worth the trouble? ^Avruchtalk 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd probably be best to restore the entire history as well though, to give an idea of why the article is a neutral stub. BLACKKITE 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at few version and the lead remains pretty much the same throughout and has no citation requests, so, at least we can provide the very basic inforamtion of what, when, whom, etc. El_C 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thinm Fut perf os doing a quick stubification/rewrite and material can be restored from them on in. Obviously we will have to restore the history for gfdl reasons once this is complete but at the moment shall we leave fut perf to work on this in peace? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how having the undisputed intro is preventing to work in peace. El_C 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the references on the existing stub. Let's see how FP's version looks. BLACKKITE 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the talk page, I fail to understand the reason behind deletion, if the purpose is to blank (which I question, too). One can blank and protect and the effect is the same. Why was the page deleted if all it's revision are to be restored intact? The only difference between that and blanking is... what, the drain on our resources as thousands of revisions are restored? Paint me confused. El_C 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry El C, I see this has already been undeleted but the (admittedly out of process) deletion of the article seems to have helped towards creating some progress. Sorry for the confusion here. I was expecting to be immediately reverted but instead we did something constructive instead. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and in honour of this experiment of yours I shall dedicate this new entry in the Dictionary of Silly Wikipedia Jargon to you: "to rougelink (v., tr.): rougely turning sth. into a redlink temporarily to force a way out of an edit-warring impasse.". -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All credit to you for making something useful from it! Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the stub is to be protected (which I presume it is, or else this is all pointless) there is no harm in restoring the history, I'd guess. BLACKKITE 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the revisions we're trying to hide, which is why I'm confused. Oh well. No big deal. El_C 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history of the Liancourt Rocks article. Writing a new version of the article and then protecting it is not a terrible idea, but there seems to be no useful purpose (or permissible reason) for deleting the history. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the very least the history could be useful in providing diffs. in assessing the behaviour of warring editors in future Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe best to protect the redirects at Takeshima and Tokto too if this has not been done already. --Folantin (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an innocent bystander who saw a mention of this edit war on the Help Desk page, I must say I think that the new, neutral, stub-like article is far better than the 100k monster that's there in the history from only hours before. The old version is too long-winded to read and a POV-pushing nightmare, "Pro-Korea" and "Pro-Japan" sections in the external links, etc. Kudos to the admins for providing a neutral article so quickly that's about as long as anyone who doesn't really care about these rather dull rocks would want to read. ^_^ • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I could agree with deleting the actual rocks deleting the article has significant baby bathwater issues.Geni 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A motion to expand the remedies available from the prior arbitration case has been made at WP:RfAR#Liancourt Rocks article probation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I motion we leave the article fully protected forever and never let anyone edit it ever again unless something drastic happens (such as erosion or a Japanese invasion/liberation (which term depends, of course, on your POV). It's a small outcropping of rocks, and the article as it stands covers everything that could and should be said about them. The old version ([153]) was raddled with nationalist rubbish. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Discussion - Historically inaccurate
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Actually even the new revised section on Liancourt Rocks is historically inaccurate. It reads: "Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate.." In actuality Japan's military occupied the Korean peninsula on February 8th 1904. After landing in Incheon to attack the Russians the Japanese troops marched into Seoul. A few weeks after the Japanese coerced and intididated the Koreans, the Japan~Korean Protocol was signed on February 23, 1904. This "legally allowed Japan to militarily "occupy" Korea. Check article 4 of the text below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Signed_Between_Japan_and_Korea_of_1904 After that Japan's troops approprited all Korean land (especially coastal areas) deemed of strategic~military importance. Thus although Korea wasn't on the books as a true protectorate, she were definitely "occupied" and in many aspects already a protectorate by February 23, 1904. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima.html Hope this helpsClownface (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Please make lengthy comments regarding the article's content on Talk:Liancourt Rocks, not here. Neıl ☎ 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his pointing out is not that lengthy. The editors are invited to discuss the matter here. I prefer seeing comment regarding correcting information rather than the below scornful and unhelpful sarcasm.--Appletrees (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose any factual corrections on the article talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if I got things wrong, I know absolutely nothing about either Korea or Japan, other than what I could gather from the existing material. Any admin can fulfil requests for uncontroversial edits or merge uncontroversial material back in from the old versions. The article should be allowed to grow back to a natural size under some cautious scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give them guns and let them kill each other over it. After all, they really are just a couple of rocks out in the ocean... what purpose or value would it really be? Set up a McDonald's there - and everyone will be happy, I say. Rarelibra (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (sponsored by sarcasm)[reply]

A suggestion

Even though the article has some incorrect information as an editor pointed out, I also prefer the current version than the past controversial editions including all mumble jumble. I think protecting the article from editing for good is a good idea because the nature of the article tends to be a consistent hot zone of editing warring. Regardless of the conflicts here, the actual situation is still same but readers can get a wrong information from the past badly written article. If someone wants to expand or add new information, first go to the talk page and then get a consensus at a discussion and administrators only add confirmed information to the article under the protection.

For example of User:Opp2, his adding has not got any consensus, but he just added very controversial paragraphs to the article. It is only advantageous for the party to which Opp2 belongs. Due to the new rouge rule, the other party can only revert the edit once per day, but Opp2 adds and adds more unconfirmed information. I also think the article needs more surveillance from administrator who can read Japanese and Korean because of the basic information regarding the history are Japanese or Korean sources. How do you guys think? --Appletrees (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like seek advice on administrators regarding two checkuser cases. This is the first case which I filled against a vandal sock puppet which was also confirmed. The master puppet was blocked for 7 days as a result and all other accounts blocked permanently. After returning from the block, User:Smsarmad filled a checkuser against me here. In his case he claims that the anon IPs 66.206.x.x, 203.135.46.x and 202.83.161.x belong to me, while I would like to state that these IPs belong to our college. Since the IPs are shared by every student, that would limit the checkuser's capabilities to accurately identify sock puppets. What I am trying to say is that, since we both use Wikipedia from the University, (and a lot of other students) checkuser would identify all of them as one user. Thats why I request to handle this case out of checkuser.

I would also like to state (in all good faith) that Smsarmad has a history of vandalism, trolling, sock puppetry, and harassment. While I have thankfully been a clean contributer to Wikipedia, as can be seen from my contributions and projects I am working on. So please help me on this one and tell me what to do. Thanks. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser will be able to tell specifically what usernames are used from that IP (they will know ALL of them). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is, they both go to the same school and work from the same pool of IPs. But even then, checkuser can tell browser information, OS information, and I would go out on a limb and assume that you have some kind of unique ID cookie that they can read too that uniquely identifies your computer even when you log out. If the checkuser has said they are both socking and vandalizing while logged out, I'd bet there's a pretty good chance of it. --B (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about that checkuser can even identify PCs. But then again the PCs are in Labs which are used by everyone. I am sure, checkuser would find a lot of other users using the same PCs. Would that imply that all are sock puppets? UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys only edit from communal PCs or do you have your own machine in your residence hall room? --B (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the case filed by Smsarmad is based on assumptions without any actual proof. While he was proved to be a SP with reference to diffs, which linked to vandalism by his primary account. I have been an editor here for almost an year now, and have mostly been active in Dragonball related topics. I have even set up the Portal:Dragon Ball. Why would I need to attack a user? I am still willing to WP:AGF with his future contribs to wikipedia, and I am also open to a dispute resolution if he has any. I would welcome any administrator or other user to clerk the process, as I believe that all disputes should be settled in a civil manner. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well User:UzEE is trying to falsify the facts! Its true that we study at the same institute but when this vandalism was done at these user pages(User:UzEE, Sarmad) our university was closed for about a week long holidays. And User:UzEE was at his home at that time. Sarmad (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off a three and half day block for edit warring, Jaakobou is back in action, mass blanking some 17,000 bytes of material of sourced and attributed to reliable, scholarly sources at the article Palestinian Fedayeen (here and here). Note that while he claims he has raised specific concerns on the talk page, he has not, beyond questioning the validity of one source cited in the introduction. This behaviour is a pattern for Jaakobou, who blanked 6,000 bytes of material at Second Intifada while taking issue with the wording of only one sentence in the introduction. Despite attempts to reason with him, (at the talk page here and here and at his talk page here), he has persisted in this blanking.

This kind of editing creates a corrosive atmosphere. The edits I made at Palestinian Fedayeen represent two days of research and writing, citing over 16 different published works from political scientists, historians and Middle East analysts. The article prior to my edits was a complete shambles, relying largely on sources such as the Jewish Virtual Library, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Anti-Defamation League (i.e. highly POV sources with no scholarly expertise on the subject of Palestinian fedayeen). It is extremely disturbing that an editor with a track record like Jaakobou's can come by and repeatedly delete this material, using only the most cursory of attempts to engage in talk. I request that an administrator review the situation and that Jaakobou be sanctioned for this pattern of disruptive editing and/or be assigned a mentor. Tiamut 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me to be a content dispute. Have you requested mediation or tried other forms of dispute resolution? Gromlakh (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a limit to "the appears to be a content dispute" standard answer, which this case appears to cross. If the user starts reverting as soon as they return from a block, and if their objection (concretely) is limited to a single sentence but they are removing whole other sections, then we have a problem. Adding "good faith" to revert edit summaries is not enough. Perhaps 1rr is the answer here. This user clearly is not discussing in the comparative depth that the scope of his reverts demand. El_C 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TE is definitely an issue with Jaakobou - multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others ^{[154][155][156] [157][158] [159][160]}, accusing others of censorship ^{[161][162][163][164][165][166]} and violations of WP:UNDUE (constant reinsertion of a massive criticism section at Gideon Levy). I would suggest a Middle East politics topic ban. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)There's more than just content dispute here, as Laakobou is engaging on one of the most aggravating and frustrating behaviors possible on Wikipedia - The 'I dont' have that book right here in front of me right now, therefore I dispute your entire edits until you give me this thing I'm too lazy or unmotivated to go and get for myself' tactic of content dispute. It's a pathetic dismissal of AGF right off the bat, and I have NO tolerance for it.

As for the actual changes in content, it's a hell of a lot more referenced than before, and presents a narrower focus to the article. Jaakobou's comments on the talk page mostly amount to 'i hate the subject matter, therefore i must harry the messengers'. His behavior is not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. I'd support yet ANOTHER long block on Jaakobou. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - Thanks to El C and ThuranX for those comments, here was my own) I have not tried mediation or dispute resolution because in my opinion, this is not a content dispute. This is about disruptive editing by an editor who blanks sourced and cited material he does not like without any specific commentary that might lead to consensus changes and this is something he has done repeatedly in the past. I would be happy to engage in a discussion over how to change the wording of what I added to improve WP:NPOV or flow or readability, but that is not what is happening on the talk page. Jaakobou is claiming that my edits are POV without citing specific examples that might help me to comprehend what it is that I should focus on changing. Instead, he just mass deletes everything I worked very hard to add. As I said, he has done this before at Second Intifada (a page now protected) and in order to avoid the same fate at this article, I would like someone to take some action. I do not like sterile edit wars but when I am faced with mass blanking with no policy-based rationales, and little in the way of specificity, what choices are left? That is why I came to WP:ANI. This seems to me a pattern in Jaakobou's editing, one that has warded away many good faith editors from other articles. (See his talk page for example, the section of Saeb Erekat. I am not alone in this opinion of his editing style.) Tiamut 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to everything that has been said above, I would just add that Jaakobou use sources which are highly controversial; e.g. on Palestinian Fedayeen he use PalestineFacts ( IMO PalestineFacts makes, say Jewish Virtual Library or the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs look like pure NPOV). Also; Jaakobou has been around a while now, and I cannot detect any great change in his editing style. I suspect yet another ban will not change his style. Therefore, Number 57´s view above, that is: a Middle East politics topic ban, sounds very sensible to me. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are very serious conduct issues at stake here. User:Jaakobou came straight back from his 3.5 day block to plunge into revert-warring again. His 2nd edit was a revert at Saeb Erekat, where he has single-handedly, edit-warred against the consensus of 8 other editors - this is the entire 16 month existence, every topic and every contributor at this TalkPage! This is on top of the 4 articles that were listed at the ANI leading to his block, and there are many others again. Blocking or topic-banning an editor is intended to be preventative - action in this case would be a service to the project, protecting a great swathe of articles from his pervasive, un-encyclopedic and anti-scholarly influence. PR^talk 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A widely cast topic ban or fully community ban is in order. After reviewing some of his actions in this matter, he reverted and came to my talk page stating that my edits would be reverted because they fail to match his standards. My edits consisted of reverting to a FAR more sourced version, and then removing some cumbersome wording. He can't be pleased, short of having his way, whether or not they are actually valid. ThuranX (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(r to Huldra)

On the subject of sources, I would add that he favours using the activist website zionism-israel.org as a source as well, because "from my personal experience, that website has a better reputation for accuracy and fact checking than the BBC, Guardian, and other sources that we allow". This is sadly typical of Jaakobou's edits; he seems to rely almost exclusively on his personal opinion for determining what belongs in an article or what does not, with no apparent effort to consider policies and guidelines. <eleland/talkedits> 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my fair deal of aggravation with User:Jaakobou in the past and present. I posted here a while back (here) regarding his WP:POINTiness and WP:TE. Every time I've used the argument, in nomenclature debates, that "Article XY, which is the main article on that sub-topic, uses/doesn't use the term Z, therefore, we should/shouldn't use it here", User:Jaakobou would edit the article XY and remove/add the term in question, wait a few days, and declare victory.

Attempts at WP:DR were all useless. User:Jaakobou rants on for days on end and then just disappears, showing up later only to block compromises worked out by other editors, over disputes that he himself started. It appears that for User:Jaakobou, WP:DR is only a tool to block a discussion over longer periods of time. For examples of his recent "work", check out Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Gilad Shalit.

As mentioned before, this AN/I has a distinct "been there, done that" flavour to it. For some reason or another, it seems that most admins are reluctant to touch issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be nice to finally see some action here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 07:54

This user appears to be acting in good faith (following an IRC discussion with the user), but I feel that this is no more than a content dispute. I would also like to point out that from reading this thread from scratch, people do seem to be getting a little heated over this, so I would ask everyone to take a deep breath. If Jaakobou could say clearly why they believe that their prefered revision is better, and I believe that Tiamut has already done so, then I believe that reaching consensus on this will be easier, and hopefully, we won't need to upset anyone any more. I would also like to add (to also act as a reminder) that everybody has a right to their opinion, but that also we are aiming for a reliable, well sourced, unbiased encyclopedia. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stwalkerster, I appreciate your trying to help and having talked to User:Jaakobou directly. The problem is, though, that it is not a content dispute, but rather hundreds of content disputes, all going in the same direction, namely pushing a radical anti-Palestinian POV. User:Jaakobou has a long record of disrupting articles under the pretence that a source or statement is biased or POVed, inserting POVed material himself and edit-warring until either all parties lose interest or until any serious mediation (i.e. RfCs) goes against his wishes, upon which he just disappears. In my experience, there has nevern been any consensus on any issue with User:Jaakobou. The cases in which consensus was eventually reached were only possible once User:Jaakobou lost interest and left. When he leaves, it is usually only a matter of days before he jumps on a new topic or article to push the same views and arguments there.

Again, the bottom line, it is no a content dispute, but a continuous flood of never-ending content disputes.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 12:44

(EC)Agree with Pedro. In shirt, Stwalkerster, you got played. Jaakobou isn't acting in Good Faith. He's here at AN/I so often he's got frequent flyer miles and his own chair. And it's always the same thing - promoting his POV against all consensus using hostility nad WP:TE to try to get his way. He'll ramp all opposition up tillthey violate WP:CIVIL, or it gets sent to one of our processes (DR, RfC, whatever), whereupon he'll split, leaving everyone else to 'fix' the mess, wasting lots of their time. then he jumps to a new article, and starts again. He's a persistent Tendentious Editor, and he needs a community ban. ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes him different from the majority of his critics how? Let's not forget to look at both sides of this dispute and realize that it is part of a larger problem of POV-warring on Palestine/Israel conflict articles. (Which, I'll admit, I'm not exactly unfamiliar with....) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster - many people will have undoubtedly assumed that Jaakobou is here in good faith - a close look at his actual editing would quickly persuade you otherwise. This TalkPage, starting at this section is one place to start. Whatever the rights and wrongs of our treatment of this main-stream Israeli journalist, it must be clear that Jaakobou's antics are not going to improve this article, they can only harm it.

As you can see in that example, on top of the bullying, Jaakobou operates in a totally un-encyclopedic fashion to use/abuse sources. Not only does this damage articles, it has a profoundly discouraging effect on real scholars attempting to edit. In at least three cases I can think of, Jaakobou appears to have driven such people away in double frustration, both as regards the material itself and the absurdly tendentious way it is defended. A ripple effect of bad vibes is spreading about the whole project amongst all who value accuracy. PR^talk 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has, to some extent, observed some of the events on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, I have to echo Kyaa's sentiment. Jaakobou is no doubt being disruptive, but he is, unsurprisingly, not the only one stoking the flames in this contentious subject. What I think is necessary here is a request for arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some the complainants here are engaging in an astonishing display of WP:KETTLE, and they are easily as extreme, if not more so, in their POV pushing than Jaakobou. The only real difference I can see is that there are more of them, than him, which makes it much easier to game the system here. An arbcom might be a good idea, but it also needs to include the people he's been fighting with, or it will be a wasted effort. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block log tells the story - numerous blocks for edit-warring, tendentious editing, etc. The kicker is that many of the blocks were lifted after an apparent promise to reform... followed shortly thereafter by more of the same behavior, another block, rinse and repeat. I suppose yet another RfArb on the matter would be appropriate, but it would be nice if the community could decide that editors of this stripe are a net negative to the project, regardless of their political allegiances etc. I'm all for 2nd chances, and even 3rd and 4th chances, but in this case the block log is testament to a very refractory level of recidivism. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it tell a different story than this block log? As Armon wrote, it takes an astonishing amount of Chutzpah for someone like PR, currently under mentorship for disruptive editing and abuse of sources to pile on the way he/she does here. AN/I is not the place to continue content disputes. If you think you have a case, by all means take it to ArbCom, and be reminded that ArbCom will look at the behaviour of all those involved in this. Those of you in glass houses should think long and hard about it. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted for review: I've tagged and blocked The Noosphere (talk · contribs) as a sock of banned Cognition (talk · contribs). The accounts edit the same articles, have the same userboxes, edit from the same POV, and both accounts can be seen to be editing from the same geographic area. Noosphere has been editing disruptively in pushing his POV, as did Cognition. I haven't been involved in any of those disputes, though I was involved in disputes with Cognition prior to his banning in May 2006. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have serious concerns, why not log a Checkuser? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some context see Raul's talk page. I don't think that checkuser would work given the stale nature of Cognitions account. Am I correct in that assumption? Woody (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your assumption is correct. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but since current account has been blocked and there seems to be considerable evidence of sockpuppetry (past or otherwise) it may still be wise to log a checkuser on The Noosphere (talk · contribs) to ensure no additional accounts are being used. But your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition last edited (under that account) in May 2006, so checkuser wouldn't be helpful. Several editors working with The Noosphere have already identified him as a probable sock of an unknown master. Since I was familiar with Cognition it was obvious to me who the puppet master is. I agree that an RfCU to check for other socks is a good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no socks detectable from that account -- I ran checkuser on it 2 days ago and turned up nothing. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I encountered The Noosphere a few days ago on the Robert Mugabe article. I was surprised to see a new contributor turn up and be immediately so familiar with Wikipedia policies and start pushing opinions on a lot of different articles. I checked a few article histories but couldn't come to any conclusions about who he might be a sock puppet of though. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick out one area of similarity, both accounts added "drug-free" and "Platonist" userboxes [167][168] (which Cognition created) and both had photos of Martin Luther King on their user pages. There are other signs as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of blaboring the obvious, compare the meanings of the terms "cognition" and "noosphere." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, before Cognition created that username he probably edited as The Power of Reason, The Power of Human Reason, and El Poder de la Razón. There seems to be a theme. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed my mistake below, someone might want to check the other slightly similar account. R. Baley (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the coincidence of names, user:Noosphere appears to be entirely unrelated to this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's best if I make one more edit then. . .R. Baley (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

I (edited to add R. Baley (talk) ) was working on this to bring to ANI, so I'll just post here, since the problem is already in the process of being resolved.

• {{userlinks|Noosphere}} (oops, no need to link. R. Baley (talk)) The Noosphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account created: "05:57, 1 January 2008 The Noosphere (Talk | contribs) New user account" link
  
• On "day 2" of his wiki-experience, he/she pipes links in an edit summary diff in a wiki-move that removes criticism from Rafael_Correa and forks it over to a seperate and newly created page.
  
• Jan 5, Merlinme asks politely "who are you?" diff. Noosphere replies with evasive non-answer, "Your allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirt of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious. . ." and later deletes the question again from his talk page (on Jan 6, removal of 2nd ? from Mme)
  

• This user does seem to show a remarkable knowledge of WP policies/procedures for a newbie and is editing with fervor and frequency that are unusual for a new editor. I'd find it hard to believe that he is in fact a new user. It's worth noting in your example above that he was asked more than "who are you?" He was directly accused of having a previous account and he provided a Clinton-esque denial. Oren0 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings left at Noosphere's talk page:

on Jan 1 by TES

on Jan 2 by WB

on Jan 4 by RA

on Jan 5 by RA

on Jan 6 by R6

on Jan 6 by WMC

That was as far as I got. . . R. Baley (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 more instances today the same as before. Also uses dynamic IP's -
87.102.87.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Previous no action report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive348#Static_IP_vandalism -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, IP user 209.244.30.109 has been removing content without justification at the following article diffs:

1. Bootstrap Bill Turner 5 January

   POTC: AWE 6 January

   POTC:AWE 5 January

   POTC:AWE EARLY 5 January

   Will Turner 5 January

As these removals are not commented, and continue to occur, this constitutes disruptive editing, and needs to be addressed. This is a pre-block advisory, action is not being requested at this time, unless it is deemed by admin(s) to be required, per the record of edits. Thank you again for your time an attention to this incident report. Edit Centric (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at his edits - on "Will Turner" he's editing out what looks like POV (removing

POV is in keeping with our policies, in "Pirates of the Caribbea: At World's End" He's editing out a referenced to a forum, again, in keeping with policy regarding references. I don't see that this is vandalism. I don't think a block or a ban would be appropriate here, but that's just my .02 cents. :) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) and 99.237.253.131 (talk · contribs), presumably the same person, continue to remove well-referenced information from the article Adam Yahiye Gadahn‎, replacing it with his/her/their own views (e.g. "I am a user from Pakistan. and never heard about Adam Pearlman in Pakistan nor Al-Qaeda"). Part of the edits constitutes a content dispute, part of it constitutes blatant vandalism (such as the accusation that Gadahn has molested goats. Please help monitor this article. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could an uninvolved admin either protect the article or block the IP? Semi-protection won't work, because the account Thileepanmathivanan was created more than 4 days ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks unacceptable to me. I reverted and am posting here for further guidance. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using that template in hidden text isn't great. I've asked the user to explain. You might have tried that, rather than jumping here. A little less dramatic?--Doc^g 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. Oh, and Doc, trying that rather than jumping here would have required Squeak to act in good faith and maybe even admit to following my edits around. The former he has demonstrated a refusal to do, the latter he has absolutely proven he is doing. (We won't even get into his article ownership issues... I learned of those the hard way and eventually left it alone; maybe I should have come here instead, but it wasn't worth it.) Thanks, Doc, for asking and I would appreciate any suggestion/template you may have. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Asking the user to explain and/or discuss is always a good idea, but I don't think removing the templates was necessarily wrong. When people post inappropriate things in their user space, it's not always necessary to ask them before removing, regardless of whether the content in their user space is good faith or not. Some examples I can think of are main space categories (which often show up in user space sandboxes, and occasionally on user pages) and fair use images, which regularly show up on user pages. With this particular content, I don't think it would have been necessary to immediately remove it (as it is for fair use image, for example), but at the same time I don't necessarily think it was inappropriate to just remove it. However, opening a discussion on the user talk page would be a good idea, or perhaps asking someone else to open that discussion given the directed nature of the content. Natalie (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VigilancePrime, it seems from your comments that you've had conflict with SqueakBox before, but I guess I'd suggest that referring to other user's as vandals when they have not been vandalizing is maybe not the best way to handle problems. There are a variety of dispute resolution processes that you might find helpful. Natalie (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with on talk page. I have accepted VigilancePrime's explanation. Assuming good faith there is no intention to attack here, just using a template (in hidden text) for convenience. Case closed.--Doc^g 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all (except Squeak) for your help (Squeak didn't help, only hinder). I appreciate the assistance and new knowledge (another template). Any other thoughts can be made on my User Page; I always appreciate new and improved templates, methods, and information! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not resolved at all. He now had my name on his user page with an accusation of stalking against me[169]. His user page is nott here for him to launch personal attacks against me. I notice he has made the same bad faith stalking accusation against me here, of course I was not stalking his edits, I have his talk page on my watchlist. And Doc, when people use theior user page to launch bad faith attacks on other users, this is the place top bring that, it is not dramataic at all. And this can be easily resolved by Vigilance not naming me on his talk page01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox[reply]

Stalking and Harrassment

Can someone please stop SqueakBox from constantly changing my userpage? There is nothing attacking (and I even make comments that explicitly state no attack, IAW Doc's recommendation). I am tired of having to keep reverting my own User page back to normal. It's bad faith on his part. Why would he have my Userpage watchlisted anyway? Why come here instead of working with me? Why expect me to work with him here even (which I am trying to do regardless) when he has deo=monstrated a vehement refusal to work with me on actual articles? Should I template him for these abusive actions? All I want is to be able to continue contributing to Wikipedia without having to look over my shoulder for Squeak's constant intrusion and personal vendetta. Any help would be appreciated. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (Sorry it had to come bother you all, but I'm not the one who escalated it, by any means.)[reply]

Having a list of admins and other editors under the section "What were they thinking?" and so closely positioned to an essay on Admin Abuse is rather inflamatory, if not an attack, hidden or not. Why have it unless you feel the need to track their contributions? Pairadox (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP, I strongly suggest you not put lists of people who "POV push" or "stalk" or whatever on your user page. It's just polite not to. It's bad form. It's a really bad idea. It accomplishes nothing except to draw negative attention to you. In almost 4 years on the project I've seen this again and again, and it always ends badly: see Number 48. I'm just making a suggestion here; consider it a peace offering, and an act of good will, and please remove the names. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is going to be rfc'd if he doesn't remove his obnoxious persoanl attacks by the morning as if no admin hasd tyher courage to block this case will go to arbcom. Nobody should have to put up with these kind of idiotic persoinal attacks. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Legitimate concerns, admins; allow me to allay them.
  • Firstly, please look into VP:AA before jumping to conclusions about it. It is a page, an essay, that seeks to critique three things: BAD Admin judgements, GREAT Admin judgements, and the Abuses suffered BY Admins (like when sockpuppets start harrassing you). It survived an MfD through unanimous comments to keep (and it was also renamed/redirected).
  • Sometimes I may look at a particular user's edit history, especially when a contention is on an article I unwatchlisted (I try to keep my list short) and occasional checkbacks. At the time, though, I'm only working on coming up with a format that may or may not work and may or may not ever "go live".
  • If this user were not watching every move on my User page, nobody would see this so-called list to begin with; that's why it's commented-out, so it isn't visible (and that it is non-functional thus far).
  • Finally, I have been directly called a "lout", had a request to page-protect my own user page (something I should have requested!), and continued reverts to my userpage that make no apparent change but remove self-notes. I am just sick and tired of this constant assault on me, my userpage, and my edits.
  • Additionally, above, this same user is apparently threatening you admins. I've worked with all you and incorporated many suggestions (Doc's reccomendation to add a preface comment, Kesac's template change).
• I don't know what else could be needed to prove my Good Faith. This is becoming about principle more than anything else, with me fighting to remain collaborative and free to edit and Squeak fighting to exert control and power over not only me and my userpage, but the admins who have been helping as well. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The vandal template is only for vandals so using it means that you are labelling the user as a vandal. For non admins try {{userlinks}} and for admins try {{admin}}. The options you get are more useful for checking activity anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did (changing templates) when that issue was brought up to me. The most visious and blatant personal attacks and harrassment came after I made those changes. All seems quiet for now... VigilancePrime (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VigilancePrime Stalking and harassment? What is that? Igor Berger (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally attacking another user[170]. Warning is probably warranted. VartanM (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So warn him. OK, I've done it for you.--Doc^g 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm another Armenian user, if I warn him, it will only flame the situation. VartanM (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. In the future, Vartan, you might want to mention that right away. Otherwise it seems kind of odd why you don't warn the user yourself. Natalie (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Natalie, I'll keep that in mind. VartanM (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot which used to update the TfD page is no longer working. For some reason, Zorglbot no longer updates the TfD page like it used to. Could someone who owns a bot that is authorized to do this sort of thing please fix this? Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting. This still needs to be fixed. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schutz has said that it will be back up by Monday at the latest - just hang in there! east.718 at 00:59, January 7, 2008

Ok, cool. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I previously reported this user on 26 November for his POV edits to American Apparel and Dov Charney (CEO of AA) after identifying himself as the "web communications coordinator" for American Apparel. User was warned against making any edits (POV or otherwise) to American Apparel or Dov Charney and the case was marked as resolved. This account has recently began making further POV edits to that article to promote his company's stance on immigration. This indicates that this account will continue to be used for POV edits to American Apparel, is a single purpose account and a gross violation of WP:COI and should therefore be blocked. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Disinterested third-party observation) All I can see from the diff is that the user changed the source citation from an outside to an inside source of the same jpg image. Hardly a POV edit. Edit Centric (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was added to promote American Apparel's position on immigration. Considering this account's past edits to Dov Charney and American Apparel, it is not hard to understand why they would that. As an account belonging to somebody who is paid to promote American Apparel on the internet, it would be difficult to argue that it will be used to anything other than that purpose. Their continued edits to American Apparel even after being warned reduces their credibility in this regard even further. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, but the two images are the same -- User:Leftcoastbreakdown replaced the link to the version of the image on the American Apparel site with an identical Wikipedia-uploaded version of the ad. That was his or her only edit to American Apparel since being warned about conflict of interest on 26 November. A singular edit, not "continued edits". You, uh, reverted that essentially null edit, replacing the image uploaded by Leftcoastbreakdown with the original identical copy. What was the point of that reversion? Where is the POV pushing by Lcb? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It demonstrates that this account will defy WP:COI rules and the requests of other editors to continue making edits to an article which he is paid money to insert a bias into. The fact that he uploaded that image isn't the most egregious violation being discussed here, but instead it only serves to demonstrate this user will not follow protocol on this issue. This is also a single purpose account and has only made edits to articles which he is paid to contribute to. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since 26 November, when he was warned, what violations of COI has he committed? There was already a link to the ad in the article, going to the company's website. He uploaded the image, and replaced the link to the company's site with a link to the uploaded identical image. He essentially made a null edit. Where is the COI violation? What bias has he introduced to the article since he was warned about conflict of interest on 26 November? Since you mentioned "egregious violation" -- what other violations has he committed since he was warned? Yeah, he appears to be a single-purpose account -- but since he was warned, what has he done wrong? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He is being paid to promote his company on Wikipedia. His continued edits to the article demonstrate that he will continue to do so. Please read WP:COI for more information on what a conflict of interest is. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did, and I have. Please don't assume that those who disagree with you are ignorant.
  Let's take a key sentence from the introduction : "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." How does replacing an external with an internal link promote AA's interests? If he had added the link, I can see that, but he didn't. Looking at the rest of the guideline, I don't see the pattern of violations (or any violations) of COI since 26 November. Possibly a case could be made that he has committed a small technical violation -- but if so, I think that it (in the words of the banner at the top of WP:COI), "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."
  Any further edits that he makes, especially those against WP:COI, I'll be with you asking for correction. But, in my judgment, he hasn't broken the rules since the 26 November warning. I'm not an admin, and it's going to be administrators's judgments that count here, of course, but I don't think that now is the time for the hammer to fall. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And for now, since I really didn't want to visit the argument clinic tonight, unless an authoritative voice chimes into this discussion, I think I'm done here -- the back and forth argument is generating more heat than light, at least on my side of the screen. I am curious about the outcome of this, and will watch closely, though. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, considering that he's already admitted to being paid for his edits to that article, I don't know if there is any way it couldn't be seen as a conflict of interest. Instead of focusing on this most recent edit, it might be helpful to you to take in the broader perspective and consider that this man is being paid to edit this Wikipedia article to insert a bias and has demonstrated that he will continue to do so. I can keep repeating myself about this or we can all finally agree that this represents an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears (at least to the naked eye) that the reference to the image was added previously to this, as a source citation, by an unregistered IP editor. (See diff here.) After this, the editor in question uploaded the image to Wiki. I've compared the two, no difference. It's the same image. As far as I can tell, all that User:Leftcoastbreakdown did was to change the reference tag to point to the internal copy of the image. This, in and of its self, does not constitute a POV edit, this would instead be a WP:V and WP:RS issue, based on the location of the image, maybe. But definitely not a POV edit. Edit Centric (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you read the topic first before you spend any more time belaboring the issue over the image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm supposing that the issue of the image is being belabored here because it's the only thing the account has done since being warned about COI. I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but where's the additional violation? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing a violation of WP:COI in these edits. I have no doubt such an account could, and apparently, already has violated COI, but given that post-warning, there's nothing but this tiny set of edits, I think the warnings worked. This falls under the common sense clause of COI. Leave it be. This is not a problem to me. Your arguments here seem to border on something more than a simple concern, like you're out to get the editor. I think this is done, as multiple editors don't see it the way you do. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). One thing we should resolve is a difference between me and Cumulus Clouds regarding what Leftcoastbreakdown is free to do. If you look at Talk:American Apparel and User talk:Leftcoastbreakdown you'll see Cumulus Clouds claiming that Leftcoastbreakdown should have been blocked in the first place in November, should be blocked now for having tried to replace one link with a different link to an identical image, and in any event should be prohibited from any further editing of the American Apparel-related articles because they cannot be trusted. I note that AA was warned a single time over the incidents in November, immediately stopped and has not engaged in any further improper edits since the warning, and per WP:COI is free to make edits that do not raise POV concerns. I think we're giving Leftcoastbreakdown mixed signals and that my position is the accurate reflection of the COI guideline. Whatever their past sins editors, even single purpose editors hired as communications directors, are free to continue editing as long as they follow COI. COI does not prohibit conflicts of interest; rather, it informs people what they may do if there is a conflict. Wikidemo (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, Leftcoastbreakdown's actions in this particular case are a non-issue. If this changes in the future, we'll take appropriate action, but for now it's fine. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help please. I have been trying (see edit summary on article) to make a 3rd nomination for deletion on this article based on WP:N and WP:MEMORIAL, but I do not know how and don't want to make more of a mess.

Thanks, Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider using some wikitools, such as Twinkle, to help you out with the AfD nominations. Twinkle can automate the process and add all the appropriate notices to the relevant pages and users. I know there are other wikitools out there, like AutoWikiBrowser, but I don't use those some I'm not sure what functionality they have. If you're contributing a lot, you might want to peruse through the tools pages and see if you find something you like. Gromlakh (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be engaging in an edit war with myself over his user talk page. He has reverted my additions to his talk page and has deleted everyone else's comments on his talk page by blanking the page. It seems to me that this user is offended by items on his talk page, that or he has something to hide. Milonica (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users are given some latitude in managing their talk pages. Note also that the act of blanking a message (such as a warning) is construed as acknowledging that they have read it. I see you've restored blanked content and have told the user not to blank their talk page. Please refrain from doing those things again. (I do think that habitual blanking is a little bit rude, but that's irrelevant here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milonica - Per Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines, users are generally allowed to remove content from their own talk pages, contrary to popular belief;

On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment.

Again, this may come across as uncivil, but it's not against the "rules". Edit Centric (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict with User:Edit Centric)Yes, I left a message regarding this on Milonica's talk page. While it is not a policy I personally agree with in every respect, users are allowed to blank their talk pages. I don't agree with it as it means that old warnings are often missed - in Lilgunner94's case, he was given a warning for an unacceptable edit summary, even though the user had a history of attacks in the past. Regardless, blanking user talk pages (or even removing certain comments) is allowed, so I tend towards reverting it when I see a user revert a blanking. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that now, after reading the talk page guidelines. The only reason I brought this issue up was that I noticed a current issue on his talk page that had been deleted and it looked suspicious to me, thats all. Thanks for the info. This case can be considered closed. Milonica (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A group of since-confirmed "clean-up" sockpuppets brought up a discussion on TfD on December 25 about deleting the intrastate templates used in articles relating to affiliates of the now-defunct UPN and WB networks. Even if the deletion was suspicious, the vote went to deleting all the templates since they were hardly being used in any articles now and cleanup would have ensued eventually, since The CW network took over many of those station affiliations and CW state templates were added to every CW affiliate station article after its September 2006 launch.

However a side effect of the deletion going through was that unknowingly, all of the WB and UPN intrastate templates were redirected by the cleanup sockpuppets to those of the CW intrastate templates, which weren't under any discussion at all. Because they were RD'ed, most of the intrastate CW templates were then deleted accidently, leaving only ten remaining according to Category:Intrastate CW Templates. I do not contest the WB/UPN deletions (I voted yes within the discussion), but would like the other 40 or so CW templates restored as soon as possible. WP:TVS, of which I'm a member of is concerned about it, and I mean no harm in bringing this up; I suspect the deleting admin at the end of discussion didn't even know about the redirects to CW templates, but since this affects at least around 150 pages, needs to be rectified. Thank you. Nate · (chatter) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for checkuser case against User:UzEE was confirmed and now it needs the attention of Administrator. Sarmad (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, You asked, and were told what would happen. Be patient, please. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! i just thought to bring it at the noticeboard so Administrators can have a look at it! Sarmad (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: any administrator may tag and block (or not block) based on checkuser findings. Clerks often do it since they keep an eye on the page, but there is no process stating that clerks must be the ones doing it. We are only here to close and archive cases (and in doubt it happens that we close a case and let the requester find an admin more familiar with the case to act upon it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MathStatWoman sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins Kelly Martin & Fred Bauder, see summary of behaviour here), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is now at AfD. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template Feb 07).

The most recent R. S. Wenocur article was created by User:Alfred Legrand. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by Alfred Legrand include Marion Cohen (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and Mark Pinsky.

A confirmed MathStatWoman (by Fred Bauder here) sock is User:Philly Student, and MathStatWoman has edited Philadelphia related articles such as the Philly suburb article Ardmore, Pennsylvania, example (problematic) edits: [174], [175]. Alfred Legrand's also displays an interest in Philadelphia topics, making some problematic edits: (e.g. [176] & [177]).

MathStatsWoman complained that Utz chips ought to be deleted [178], Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it ([179]). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as Sweet Muenster Cheese, the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail and Whole stuffed camel. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini [180], the harvest moon beer coctail [181]. In a similar edit User:Samuel Kotz attributes a recipie for Sweet Muenster cheese (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur [182].

Not only is User:Alfred Legrand a transparent User:MathStatWoman sockpuppet, but quite aside from the sockpuppetry, these edits are disruptive to the project. Off to file at SSP now. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These personal attacks [183] [184] and this suggestion for deletion of the BLP David Eppstein [185] (a WP admin involved in wikiproject mathematics) are reminiscent of User:MathStatWoman. In addition donations of $34-89 to MSRI at the Fibonacci level (the "Archimedes Society" of MSRI), mentioned in the BLP of R. S. Wenocur, are not made public. This unsourced private detail in the BLP of Wenocur plus a copy of Wenocur's CV in Alfred Legrand's user space (User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur) suggests that it could be one of her close associates, possibly even Wenocur herself, making these edits. Mathsci (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RDSW (Roberta S. Wenocur) has made a statement here [186]. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Luke0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User Luke0101 is creating difficulties on at least two pages. Luke0101 appears to be editing without communicating. I am not certain why, but I suggest that you review this pattern. Raggz (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To save time, it would be helpful if you could say what pages, and what the difficulties are. --Elonka 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues seems resolved, thank you. Raggz (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I think I wrote all the changes I made on the discussion page, not the talk page. (I was under the impression that the talk page and the discussion page was the same. My sincere apologies. --Luke (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

• User:TTN is still or again indiscriminately replacing hundreds of pages about episodes of fiction serials by redirects to their parent pages. Some have called this "soft-deleting". This has caused many user complaints in User talk:TTN (also see its archive pages). I feel that:
  • He should be warned to stop this practice. If he wants to "soft-delete" all the episode pages about serial or show X, there should be an AfD discussion for each serial or show X involved.
  • Someone or a bot should revert all his edits which are the last edit to a page and are replacing a text page by a redirect. Then we and he can start again, AfD-discussing for each serial or show.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His behavior has been to ArbCom and they did not sanction him. Every time I have taken the time to politely request an AfD, I have been obliged. What administrative action do you require? RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is a normal editorial decision that doesn't require any more previous discussion than any other content edit. He is making mass edits because there is a mass of trash to clean up. How else would you do it? And why waste more time on the junk? Show me one page, just one, that TTN has redirected in this latest spat of his that even remotely resembles a legitimate encyclopedia page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was instructed to seek consensus via discussion before pulling this crap. If he's failing that, he's not meeting the expectations of his arbcom case, as amazingly weak as the decision was. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone Anthony's revert spree (great, more crap on my watchlist). Talk first next time. --Jack Merridew 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone consider doing the same for similar reversions of TTN by Mvuijlst (talk · contribs) on Gilmore Girls articles? / edg ☺ ☭ 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Anthony Appleyard is attempting to discredit TTN by making sweeping generalisations; I would like to see evidence that his edits are in breach of any guidelines before this complaint is brought here. If these episodes have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, then I would suggest TNT's edits are bold.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I am not trying to discredit anyone. For an example of the user complaints about this "soft deleting", see User talk:TTN#a happy little note from a frustrated editor. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that this further highlights the need for a fandom/pop culture Wiki, where secondary sources and notability aren't required. People wouldn't fight so hard over these articles if a good alternative was available. *** Crotalus *** 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it highlights the need to block people who pull crap like this without discussion. But that's just me. R. Baley (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, indeed. It highlights the need to block people who reinstate crap like this, which is a violation of our non-free content policies and potentially violates copyright. Which is exactly what I intend to do from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. While there is obviously some dispute with certain articles, why on earth people would want to re-instate articles which quite obviously violate WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:N and always will, is beyond me. BLACKKITE 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see any problem with TTN's particular edits here. Unlike some pages, articles like the Shorty McShorts' Shorts episodes are never going to have enough to be standalone articles, and redirecting is the correct move here. I really don't see why this is controversial at all; if it was another editor than TTN doing it would there be the same problem? BLACKKITE 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone goes for another headhunt on TTN, perhaps they should look at the articles he is redirecting and see how they stand up to Wikipedia's existing policies. A took a snapshot of some of the articles and all of them fail WP:NOT#PLOT because they are just merely plot summaries. They also fail WP:SOURCES as not a single one of them contains a single independent reliable third-party source. As such, there is no way they can pass WP:NOTE or any of the other notability criteria. So rather then waist time and sending the articles to WP:AfD, he is redirecting/merging them into the appropriate list which stands a much better chance at establishing notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sorta would help to know if TTN's present behavior is objectionable or not. I agree that the ultimate result (merge individual eps to episode list) is appropriate for those that do not demonstrate notability, but as I'm trying to wrap up a rewrite of WP:FICT, TTN's name comes up nearly once a day, and so we're trying to make sure that there is an acceptable route of actions to dealing with non-notable articles.

I pulled out one at random from TTN's latest edits: A Family Matter (a Gilmore Girls episode). A user (not TTN) added the {{plot}} tag in September, a random IP added {{notability}} in late November. Outside of the bot edits for these tags, there were two changes made since and both only adding info to the plot. So TTN goes ahead and redirects the article without any additional discussion, neither on the article page or the main Gilmore Girls talk page. A month seems like a reasonable time to wait for notability to be demonstrated, but there's also the lack of notification (as best I can tell) that TTN was going to mass-run through all articles. My only argument against TTN's actions here is that he is not discussing them first with appropriate talk pages even though they were "notified" by the tags that cleanup was needed. --MASEM 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion should occur and consensus should be found as the arbcom bearing TTN's name urged. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the actions are controversial, I agree. Deleting (or redirecting in this case) articles which patently fail multiple Wikipedia policies is not controversial, however much heat and light it may generate. If these articles went to AfD they would be deleted. Having said that, it might be the best option in order that re-creations of similar articles fell under CSD criterion G4, whereas at the moment CSD is not available for use (and rightly, I think).BLACKKITE 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I use merge tags with series with more than thirteen episodes, those with high "traffic", or those that actually require info to be merged. In the case of the Gilmore Girls, only the pilot has more than fifty edits (and it still has less than one hundred), and it has been around since '05. There is no reason for discussion in that case. The only thing a discussion would lead to is the one user gaining the ability to wikilawyer by claiming that there is no consensus found in the local discussion. TTN (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discussions on episode article Talk pages tend to rally editors whose interest in logging their fandom tends to exceed their concern for policy. Recently such articles, which by WP:EPISODE should have Merge discussions, have been discussed as Articles for deletion. Is something broken here? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics only, I think. Merging and redirecting these episodes to the list article is above called "soft-deleting" (I don't like the phrase, but I see why it's used) as the actual redirects themselves will probably never be searched for. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why the pages themselves couldn't go to AfD as many are obviously unencyclopedic without hope of rescue; it's just that redirecting is less of a waste of everyone's time and effort. BLACKKITE 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that if you bring these types up for discussion, you are going to get the rallying cry. At the same time, when it is done "without warning" (e.g. the case of "A Family Matter"), WP:FICT gets hit with requests to drop that guideline (despite the fact that it's built on PLOT and NOTE), and what is partially behind the fact that it's been unstable for about 6 months now. Again, I agree with the general outcome of TTN's edits that the bulk of these articles are non-notable and should not have been created until notability is established, but if you look through WP:FICT's talk page and archives, you'll see that there's a lot of people that want to almost stop TTN from doing what he does, which is making trying to rewrite this more difficult. The best I've been able to add is that at best, merging or transwiking the info to an appropriate wiki is a better solution than AfD, but even these merge actions are being seen as aggressive. --MASEM 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only by a vocal minority. TTN is doing some very useful work - these articles are all garbage. I have not yet seen him redirect a decent referenced episode article. And I have not once seen him refuse to civilly and politely accept any requests from dissenting editors for an article to go to AFD for further discussion. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who happily revert back to recreate articles that fail a laundry list of policies because "TTN did it" is the behavioural issue here, not TTN's actions. Neıl ☎ 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from insulting other peoples' work. If you cannot avoid this, please instead avoid the topic. This is an obviously inflammatory matter where a number of people feel that they're not being trated fairly, and you're not helping. --Kizor 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people that create plot-summary-only articles and revert legitimate redirects aren't helping either, and they are a far worse problem than TTN.Kww (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that's relevant to civility. --Kizor 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely echo Neil's comment above; this is cruft and TTN's efforts are not problematic. As this AN/I discussion is showing (as those before this one), there is general community consensus that our policies, principles and guidelines be enforced. Reference to the arbcom decision in the case where the content is in clear violation of those principles is cross-eyed wikilawyering. Eusebeus (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the mass-redirect (or soft delete if you will) of the Gilmore Girls episodes. I have no strongly held opinions whatsoever about those articles. I do doubt the way this was done, certainly in the light of the recent Arbitration Committee decision that urged for a degree of cooperation and consensus. I just checked in the mirror, and nope: neither wailing nor gnashing of teeth. No happily reverting either: regretfully reverting, twice even, because I think it's the right thing to do. As it's been said elsewhere: there's no hurry. Why not leave things up, and trust the community to come up with a good solution? Sweeping those episode articles under the rug does nobody a favour and only polarises the issue. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (and that's a big if) there was any possibility that these articles could become encyclopedic at any point, I would agree with you. But (in these cases at least) there is not. They fail practically every article-related policy that Wikipedia has, as pointed out above. It doesn't matter what the community "consensus" is here - it will never trump policy. I'm sure there are episode articles for other series that are, or may at some point, become good articles - in those cases discussion is the correct way forward. BLACKKITE 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the earlier discussions, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#A_big_campaign_against_articles_about_fictional_events and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TTN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for a clarification on the above, please see User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Caution. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris funk bass (talk · contribs) created Chris Frangou, John Smith Quintet and Global Frontier, all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Frangou. A series of new editors; Pe34-sick (talk · contribs), 777metalaussie (talk · contribs) and 116.240.180.179 (talk · contribs) are all showing up in support of the articles on the talk page. They have steered away from the AfD discussion at this stage, but I suspect they will find it soon. Assistance in keeping an eye on them would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add Hellowe (talk · contribs) to the list! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am drafting an FAQ here and would appreciate any input or constructive edits the editors here could give on/to it. The page is currently semi-protected; I do not trust anons to edit it given the topic matter and their use of it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this semi-protection is justified under the protection policy. 72.193.221.88 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages can be semi-protected on request, 72. As an administrator, I can simply cut out the middleman and semi-protect it myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the neutrality of this article, see the history and read the talk page. It is full of peacock terms. I repeatedly tried to add the necessary tags. The article was locked for a month without any result. See also [191] and [192]. Thanks.Aparhizi (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piercetheorganist made a minor change to the Soloflex article and gave the following edit summary: [193]. This is Piercetheorganist's only edit on the article in the past 500 edits, and seems to be an out of the blue thing. As I'm posting this here because a quick glance at the user's talk page shows at least two prior blocks for incivility as well as numerous warnings. MrVibrating (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unacceptable (though perhaps he was just having a bad day) and I've left a warning. BLACKKITE 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like User:Piercetheorganist is the bad hand of User:Republican given that both pages redirect to Republican's. --WebHamster 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a little confused about what that meant. Does that mean that Piercetheorganist is a sockpuppet? MrVibrating (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eek - I'd left him a message and not even noticed that. I see that Ioeth is dealing with it now , though. BLACKKITE 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at another use of vulgar language in edit summaries by User:Piercetheorganist on Demarcation point. Here is the reference - 08:41, 7 January 2008 Piercetheorganist (Talk | contribs) (4,179 bytes) (A f&cking grammar fix, you f&cking idiot morons. Why the f&ck don't you know the f&cking difference betweent these f&cking SIMPLE words, you f&cking screw-ups?!!!!!!) I can't understand why he would become so angry over such a trivial matter. Thanks63.239.69.1 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made before BlackKite's warning, so additional action isn't necessary. However, if this happens again, I would suggest a longer term block (i.e. 1 week), as this is a recurring problem for this user. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that the user has been warned multiple times, and blocked twice for the exact same kind of issues I don't think a further warning will prevent future disruption. After looking through his contribution history, I think stronger measures are warranted right now rather than waiting for the next instance of incivility - I've instituted a one week block. If the user makes a commitment to improve his civility, I'd be happy for him to be unblocked earlier though. henrik•talk 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for increasing incivility and would like review from other admins. Here's my blocking reason to him:

You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your increasing incivility. Posts such as this where you suggest someone "gets a life" and other posts like this and this are completely inappropriate. In the past weeks you've been getting more and more testy and have showed no signs of stopping. You need to take some time to step away and calm down. Metros (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been ongoing behavior with him in the last weeks where he has, basically, stalked other users, instigated revert wars, and been somewhat unwilling to discuss with any civility. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Metros (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes for interesting reading. Neutralhomer seems to have been baiting JPG-GR nearly continually (JPG-GR has pretty much refused to reply, simply archiving all NeutralHomer's incessant provocative comments). Particularly trite considering NH had a banner on his talk page up until 4 days ago ([194]) stating posts from JPG-GR would be immediately deleted. 48 hours is entirely appropriate. Neıl ☎ 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support your decision and the duration here as well, Metros. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, support block. Given his previous history, a week off may not have been inappropriate either. henrik•talk 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biggilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this legal threat, "In accordance with the law I am making you aware of my intentions to persue legal action ..." to User:Xyzzyplugh and this to Admin User:Vsmith. I've blocked the account, however it appears this WP:SPA account was spamming related adsense sites (Adsense pub-4547357587573977)

• frankingmachines.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• howtobuydiamonds.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• vids-uk.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are theses sites genuine spam, and if so, have they been added to WP:SBL? Is there any other action that needs to be taken regarding this matter? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biggilo also fails to understand that Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, not in Britain, and in the US, libel law does not function in the same way. Over here, the onus is on the accuser to prove libel, not on the defendant to prove that it was not. Horologium (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious they are all related (adsense confirmed) and promotional additions. In light of the threats, should we BL them? I see no reason wikipedia needs them, nor ever would. Doubt we need them reapearing under another username or anon IP..IMHO.--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BL'd all three, doubt anyone will dissagree, but if so, say so..;)--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jasdhf1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klijh1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jasdhf1981 has just opened a sockpuppet case on RobJ1981, see here. However, this is the users first edit, see their contributions. Another editor, Klijh1986 notified RobJ1981 on his talkpage, see Klijh1986's contributions. He's also left a post on WT:AN about this. As RobJ1981 has been a good-faith user on Wikipedia since June 2006, I'm almost certain their is some sockpuppetry going on here involving Jasdhf1981 and Klijh1986. Could an admin look at this situation, and possibly block the offending users. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire SSP case was reposted to RobJ1981's talk page, in lieu of a briefer notice. In that context, I think both Jasdhf1981 and Klijh1986 are the same user. The SSP case indicates that the reporting user is a regular contributor who wishes to avoid stalking and harassment from socks and proxys, which would seem to confirm that both accounts are indeed socks - whether they would be permitted socks or not is unclear, and may be based on the merits of the case (i.e. whether it is spurious or not). I haven't checked all (or even many) of the diffs, but the AfD case appears to be circumstantial, in that Eyrian nominated Nanotechnology in fiction for deletion in July 2007, and RobJ1981 re-nominated it in November. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, RobJ's made a comment at the SSP page which you may which to see. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some of the diffs do seem less than convincing, and I agree that the admitted sockpuppetmaster and desysopped admin Eyrian has the least to do with this business, but the general concentration on the wrestling seems to match the previous sockpuppet pattern. I can see why someone who think he's going against JB196 might want to use a different account, and that he said so straight-out is a sign of good faith. . But as UltraExact says, it will need a detailed look at the evidence, which I am not able to do this week. DGG (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin this by saying I am not looking for a pound of flesh. I'm trying to help the administrator in question. I'm trying to head this off before it happens.

Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a newly minted administrator, has been involved in a content dispute on Minor Harry Potter characters. He has contributed in part to edit warring on that article over the removal/re-insertion of fair use images onto that article. This post here is NOT about that dispute, how rational it is, or anything of the kind, but rather Faithlessthewonderboy's threatened actions in the matter. In [195], he threatens to block an editor (me) with whom he is in dispute ("I will block you for incivility"). Whether the rationale for the block is valid or not (if you want to assume it is for the sake of this discussion, fine, it matters not), threatening to use his blocking powers is a breach of his responsibility as an administrator. Previously, administrators have been de-adminned by ArbCom for such actions.

Also, I requested and received page protection of the article (again, for the sake of discussion as it's irrelevant, let's assume it was in incredibly poor taste as Faithlessthewonderboy suggests). Subsequent to that, Faithlessthewonderboy indicated he was going to use his administrator powers to revert the article to his preferred version [196] "Therefore, I will revert to the previous version". Once again, this is the sort of action that administrators have been de-adminned for before.

Faithlessthewonderboy has been directly involved in this dispute and to use his powers in this way is exceptionally bad and likely to lead to his de-adminning if he takes such action. Please, would some experienced administrator give him some sort of wave-off before he abuses his powers in this way? If he wants to recommend I be blocked, or wants to request another administrator to revert, fine...but using his powers in this way is not what he should be doing. As an inexperienced administrator, I don't think he fully understands the ramifications of using his powers in thisd way. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think both of you need to have a nice cup of tea and sit down. I see there's a discussion going on the talk page; let's all use that and figure out what's going on.

You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version. That's clearly an abuse of the admin tools (squarely addressed in the protection policy) and he should know better. I'm not going to put a note on his talk page about it because I see he was already referred here, but the edit war needs to stop from both sides. Reach consensus first on the talk page; once that's done, the page can be changed (if need be) to reflect that consensus. Getting hot about it and reverting to your preferred version (even if you're correct, and even if Hammersoft was NOT correct in reverting then requesting page protection) is not the way to approach things during an edit war. Gromlakh (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is incredibly unfortunate. I encourage everyone to read the contents of Talk:Minor Harry Potter characters. The conversation was perfectly amicable at first by all parties (Hammersoft included), until out of the blue he threatens to have those who he disagreed with blocked. I repeatedly tried to diffuse the situation, but received only more threats from Hammersoft. I cautioned him repeatedly that our disagreement aside, his uncivil attitude was completely unacceptable, and would likely lead to a block if he persisted. For this caution, I was scoffed at and Hammersoft "dared" me to block him. As I said on said talk page, I was hesitant to take any action against him (even if it was justified), as I was involved in a content dispute with him at the time. I believe the discussion on the talk page more than speaks for itself. While I maintain that I am completely in the right here, I will for the time being recuse myself from editing that article, pending the result of this discussion. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to have people say I was right or wrong. This section was entirely to get an experienced administrator to head you off at the pass before you did something you could be de-adminned over. It was meant in good faith, was meant to help you in every respect. Every single editor on Wikipedia can assume I was absolutely in the wrong if they'd like. It has nothing to do with this attempt to save you from serious problems. If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong. But again, this has nothing to do with attempting to wave you off before you did something that would have caused you serious harm. Since that wave off has been achieved, this succeeded and I am happy for it. I wouldn't want you to lose your admin powers over this. That would be silly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Administrators are still free to act as ordinary editors. They are allowed to revert the same as anybody else, and they can request a block if another editor is acting disruptively on an article they are involved with. Before requesting a block, they can warn the other editor that a block may result if bad behavior continues (though it helps to clarify that they will not place the block themselves). I do not see any diffs here that show abuse of administrative powers, and I do not see any need for administrative action at this time. I hope both parties will take the above advice and head to dispute resolution and work out their differences in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochman's analysis of the situation and advice on how to proceed. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not with an admin being involved in a content dispute, it's about threatening to use his admin powers to continue the revert war after the page had been protected. That's a clear violation of the protection policy had he done it. Fortunately, it appears that he did not do it, so there was no violation. It still should not have been threatened. Gromlakh (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multi-ec) The content dispute here involves images. If the page remains protected for a week with all the images orphaned, they get tagged and deleted, which would rather favour one side of this dispute. There was no allegation of actual admin abuse. Hammersoft's userbox is arguably divisive, though, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our mission and noting same within the context of fair use is divisive? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've not tagged the orphaned images. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though, five of the eight images removed from the page lack sufficient fair use rationales. Six of them are currently orphaned. Two of them are used improperly. 1: (Image:Viktor krum hpgf.jpg on Stanislav Ianevski (living person,replaceable) and on a gallery at Bulgarians#Bulgarians._Faces_through_history). 2: Image:Maxime.jpg on Frances de la Tour (living person, replaceable). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new userbox is more divisive. Regarding the former userbox, "I support X" is not the same as what you had, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My new userbox is exactly what I've been recommending on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and what many people have been advocating. I hope you're not suggesting that appeasing the huge masses of people who feel fair use should be used liberally is somehow divisive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm can easily be divisive given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sarcasm. It's how I feel. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faithlessthewonderboy should not threaten to use admin powers in a dispute he's involved in. That's all I have to say, it'd be fine if he was uninvolved though, now let's forget it and move on--Phoenix-wiki 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 3) Hang on. It seems that Faithlessthewonderboy may have reverted a protected page to his preferred version. Is that what happened? If so, you need to use {{editprotected}} in the future, and make sure not to use any sort of sysop tools nor threaten to do so, if you are involved in a content dispute. The diffs provided do not establish what exactly happened, so I am reading between the lines. If anyone can clarify, that will help. In any case, one mistake does not require any action other than acknowledgement and an understanding how to proceed in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing actually happened, other than threats to use his admin powers in the way I said above (and cited). The only action I was looking for was to wave Faithlessthewonderboy off from performing an action he could lose his admin status over. That's been done, thankfully, and Faithlessthewonderboy heeded the advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, which is why I hope he sees this thread and remembers not to use his powers in a dispute he's involved in, akknowledgement is all that's needed here, so I'll be bold and mark this as resolved.--Phoenix-wiki 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, the first 3 images I checked have been tagged as orphaned, and so are up for deletion in 7 days [197] [198] [199]. But I guess anything goes in a "war". R. Baley (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not tag them. I've never worked or even spoken with Addhoc. It was his doing on his own. He's never edited the article they were removed from, nor commented on the talk page of that article. His action was entirely separate from anyone else's. A little good faith please? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that Faithlessthewonderboy did not threat, he gave a warning after Hammersoft himself threated with blocks for users that were in disagreement with him. We asked Hammersoft not to re-introduce his edits until we reached consensus in the Talk page of the Minor HP characters article. Everything is in the Talk page, take a look at that before accusing Faithless of taking any action. He was asked not to revert the protected article to a previous version, and he has not do so. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faithlessthewonderboy did make statements (perhaps you like that wording better) of intent to use his powers on me and on the article, when he has been directly involved in a dispute with me and on the article. That's what I was hoping to avoid. You should be happy that I brought this problem here for an experienced administrator to head him off. I could have chosen to step back and let him use his powers in that way and then *really* nail him to the wall with abuse of his administrator powers and quite probably have his admin status forcibly removed. I'm not sure what it is you're expecting of me, but what I did was for his benefit, not against. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after your threats about blocks and warnings and stuff, I do not know what to expect. But I will AGF. --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a copyvio from this page per WP:CP, and User:BladeRN keeps on reinserting it, this last time past a last warning (he used his IP). People, please watchlist this page and I would request that someone would block BladeRN for 24 hours for reinserting a copyvio past a warning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio claim was overly vague to begin with. So vague that it didn't cite specific source of the alleged copyright violation. So it's reasonable for BladeRN to question the claim and reverted the article. You also didn't help by blanking almost the entire article, regardless of whether it contained material that was a copyvio or material that was clearly not a copyvio. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the spam, but there hadn't been a proper Look At This post on AN or ANI. It was on VPP and the CENT template, however, and spawned out of a thread on AN last week. Please review and help out at:

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Posting here, as it would obviously require some administrative support, as it involves protected pages. Basic initial idea work is now done, and the (surprisingly basic) technical Mediawiki work as well. Please review it, and weigh in on Talk there, so we can see if the idea has proper legs. Thanks! :) Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90.203.45.168 shows strong indication of anti-Cardiff point of view and reflects it in his/her edits to Cardiff (such as removal of information in the Media section which he/she ironically summarises the edit as POV), Cardiff Central railway station where he/she removed yet more information and also in Swansea railway station. User was warned by me but removed the message from his/her user page before making the above edits. Would like administration intervention please. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes a difference, when you have to accuse everyone else of "anti-Cardiff POV", you need to stop and consider whether it's actually you engaging in "pro-Cardiff POV". 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related: WP:AN/I#User:Welshleprechaun. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today Spunga was deleted as a result of an AfD. In has subsequently been recreated in identical form and the {{db-repost}} has been repeatedly removed by what appear to be single-purpose accounts. As the CSD tag will not stay on the article for longer than 5 seconds please could someone delete the article and if possible salt it too as I think it is going to be some time before these people get bored of the game. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to mention this myself. An alternative to salting would be a fully-protected redirect to Squeegee#Squeegee for floor, as the word is genuine. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - there was some consensus for a redirect in the AfD. nancy ^(talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's there at the moment - let's see how long it holds. :) Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi'd it after looking at the deletion log. If semi won't work, I'll call Fort Knox for the gold padlock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is consistently trying to own articles relating to the Cardiff area, editing articles to conform to their own POV, and accusing anyone that disagrees of editing with an "anti-Cardiff POV". They then have the audacity to warn other users for vandalism when an article is edited in a way that they do not agree with [200]-[201] AIV when trying to insert their POV failed. A browse through the edit history of Cardiff will demonstrate this nicely. Evidence of branding good edits as vandalism: wording change, restoring own POV, introducing an inaccuracy, branding the edit that removed it "unnecessary", fabricated a claim as to population rank. Evidence of POV editing: [202] [203] [204] [205] (note use of "belittlement") [206] [207] (inflating the position of the city) [208] [209] [210] (an audacious attempt to change the MoS) [211] [212] (yet more insistence on adding Cardiff everywhere) [213]. Evidence of inaccuracies: [214] [215] [216]

In all, the user has been warned for seeming ownership, fabrication, attacking users, and POV editing. Despite all of this, the user continues to behave disruptively, placing bogus warnings on other users' talk pages, and then chastising said users for removing them, claiming that "you shall not remove vandalism warnings", when it is clearly established that users and anons are entitled to do just that (removing comments from user talk IIRC is generally regarded as a sign that said user has read those comments). This user clearly shows no sign of changing their behaviour, and no intention of adhering to our policies and guidelines. I ask that something be done. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related: WP:AN/I#Anti-Cardiff edits. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• TheOnlyJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent vandal. Final warning given. User talk page blanking obscures previous warnings. Latest example [217] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you'll want WP:AIV for this. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They refuse to act if it's not occuring within minutes of the time of reporting. Please can admins on AIV and ANI reach a consensus on this and publish it in the instructions for using both boards. Thanks. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was 5 days ago. If he does it again, you can warn him one more time, or report him. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just report it on the AIV page the next time it happens, and tell the admins who review it that there has already been a final warning issued and to review the history of the Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piquant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just about every edit involves adding a link to an article in the International Socialism journal. I don't know if this contravenes anything, but it looks like undue politicisation of articles to me. User talk page blanked, obscures one warning. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image commented out, there's really no reason why it should be here too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple question but really needs to be addressed. It has been brought up once before and edits to improve the situation continue to be reverted as vandalism or other somewhat misleading edit summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yeanold_Viskersenn&diff=prev&oldid=180732796

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yeanold_Viskersenn&diff=next&oldid=181596688

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Yeanold Viskersenn Does the following use of an image of one user be allowed to be used on another users personal page with the following caption.

The image and caption to the right is copied from User:Yeanold Viskersenn

The caption is a valid quote from Stan Shebs as found on Viskersenn's talk page. But its use as a caption just seems wrong to me. Is my thinking wrong? Or is this considered accpetable within Wikipedia? Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered nominating the page at MfD?--Addhoc (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a disinterested third party, it's clear that something should be done. The image is also used by User:Yeanold Viskersenn here. I'll Mfd the page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yeanold Viskersenn, so this section could probably be marked resolved. Addhoc (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfC has been closed, image removed from user page per WP:DICK. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smart Viral recently reverted my addition to an article with the summary "Reverted 1 edit by Arrow740 identified as vandalism to last revision by Cuchullain." My edit was obviously not vandalism. He did this same thing a few days ago and was warned about it by two other editors. This is simple disruption. Can something be done? Arrow740 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i press "Rollback (Vandal)" instead of "Rollback". Smart_Viral ^(talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, Arrow740, please bring this up on User tallk first. Smart_Viral, thanks for apologizing and be more careful in the future. Let's all go edit the encyclopedia now... — Scientizzle 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this bad faith DRV discussion before it goes on too far? This is the second request by the user in the last 5 days...I'm not aware of what the IP did, but this is obviously related to it..--Smashville^BONK! 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IgorBlucher‎ appears to be a single purpose account that only desires to attack Gavin Newsom‎. As per the article talk page, he continued to assert that Newsom couldn't be Catholic anymore because...well, because Igor doesn't think he should be. When pressed, he provided "sources" that in no way stated what he claimed they did. He asked for more input. More input was provided...and every single other editor who contributed claimed that he was wrong. He is edit warring and ignoring every other editor. I am tired of trying to deal with him. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to make valid contributions to the Gavin Newsom article in good faith. There is evident controversy concerning the issue of Newsom's religious standing, with valid sources discussing his excommunication and separation from the Church. These contributions are being deleted without cause. Further, no consensus has been reached, contrary to any such claims. I would like to make additional contributions but am spending my time on with this matter. I also find at least one of these "editors" on the article talk page to be suspicious and uncivil. I need help dealing with this problem. Thank you in advance. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any incivility on the Talk page. You make claims that IrishGuy is being uncivil on the page, but I don't see it. What I do see is your unsubstantiated POV. (I'm non-Catholic and don't care one way or the other, so I don't have an axe to grind on this issue) Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as noted on the article talk page the only "source" you have is an article from October 2005 which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. The other "sources" don't even remotely state what you claim they do...and others have pointed this out on the talk page and when reverting you. Yet you continue to act as thought there is "controversy" about this person when there clearly isn't. If you cannot come up with something better than a two year old article it is obviously a non-issue. Which editor do you find "suspicious"? You keep making this claim but you don't elaborate. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact)." Repeatedly deleting my valid contributions and commanding others' behaviour is most certainly uncivil. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Gavin Newsom before this exchange, but a reading shows your contributions are being deleted because they obviously don't belong in the article. Thus, it's not uncivil to delete them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the man either. I caught the edit summary of you can't marry, divorce and remarry; excommunicate in the recent changes and looked into the edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a new sub-section, under "Controversies," on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. IgorBlucher (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no controversy. There are years old articles that clearly led to nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asgardian (edit | [[Talk:User:Asgardian|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Made 2 reverts in less than a week [218], [219], (with the original edit that was a revert of over a weeks time [220]). This is violation of the user restriction agreement RfA:Asgardian-Tenebrae. This may or may not be a moot point as the use is currently blocked due to the agreement for similar edits on another page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]