Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive350

Edit war over multiple articles

Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) are edit warring over a large number of articles, reverting each other and calling each other vandals. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a case of them falling out somewhere and taking it personally. They should be told not to approach each other if they can't act maturly.--Phoenix-wiki 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

@OSLI73 is the one who starts edit wars and other examples of vandalism:

@OSLI73 Block log:

• 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
• 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
• 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
• 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
• 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
• 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
• 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Sometimes he is signed in, sometimes he is not, but he vandalised the articles all the time. Do smth! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I have not called Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) a "vandal". I have, however, reverted his deletion of tags and clearly WP:POV and WP:OR edits which he is not willing to discuss or seek mediation for. I realize it's inappropriate and I'll stop immediately. It's just so very frustrating dealing with these types of editors...Osli73 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that I will stop it, but @OSLI73 obviously won't. The others called him a vandal as you can see from his block log: * 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole).--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Grandy Grandy for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR rule on the Bosnian Genocide page. I did not know that this discussion was taking place at the same time or I would have mentioned it here sooner --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is OK you blocked Grandy Grandy (but according to the rules you had to warn him befor the third revert which you didn't). The real problem is you didn't block Osli who also violated the 3RR, which is very strange and unfair as you two share the same POV regarding Bosnian Genocide article. Osli also broke 3RR in Bosnian Genocide, he wasn't just signed-in for the first time. Someone should do an IP check: [1] to see if Grandy Grandy accusation is correct, I am sure it is. It is an IP from Sweden, and Osli is from Sweden too with the same interest regarding the articles. So in my humble opinion Phillip's action was biased and unfair. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See what I wrote under User talk:Grandy Grandy#Bosnian Genocide 3RR (Revision as of 00:33, 5 January 2008) the mention of this section was not placed on his on his page until 05:48, 5 January 2008 so when I put the block in place I was not aware of this conversation. But as I made clear on the talk page not only did I block Grandy Grandy so that there would be no accusation of bias I protected the Bosnian Genocide page for 24 hours with the "wrong version". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is usually protected with the current version (The last version was by Grandy Grandy), so you haven't done anything special. But, I would ask someone to do an IP check 83.250.232.71, and compares it with Osli's IPs as I am sure it is his address. Osli was earlier blocked for sockpuppeteering, so his word is just not enough. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This whole thing is a mess, it has led to a lot of damage to the Wikipedia. I first noticed that Osli and Dragon were edit-warring over links to the article Bosnian Mujahideen, which is something of a POV fork from The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. Then it spilled over to 7th Muslim Brigade which is a POV fork of the POV fork, not to mention the creation of Serb propaganda which is a POV fork of a whole lot of articles, and basically a dumping ground for accusations against Serbs and Serbia.

Maybe we should just community topic-ban all three. <eleland/talkedits> 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to the case and summarize this:

Philip Baird Shearer, Osli, The Dragon of Bosnia, Grandy and sometimes Live Forever and Dchall1 are involved in the discussion about Bosnian Genocide.

• Philip Baird Shearer and Osli support one version, the rest of disputants (among them Grandy) the other version.
• Osli and Grandy started an edit war.
• Philip Baird Shearer as an admin involved in the discussion didn't warn Grandy/Osli for a breach in the 3RR policy.
• Osli and Grandy decided to stop it here.
• Philip Baird Shearer blocked his and Osli's opponent Grandy after they stopped edit warring.
• Philip Baird Shearer didn't block Osli.
• Philip Baird Shearer claims he was not aware of their conversation here.
• The Dragon of Bosnia claims Philip's action was biased.
• Eleland suddenly showed up and decided to defend Serbia and Serbs from accusations against Serbs and Serbia.

People let's get real. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Abmin abuse Pats1

I hope I am going in the right direction now, I was in error a coupple of times and then cut and pasted here. I was informed by an upper-Admin (I htink) that I may have reported somehting in the wrong area. The note from (talk) was cut and pasted with the rest. . . .

Here is my concern is a user: Pats1 twice threatend me with being banned without explanation. I may have been at the prompting of a user: chrisjnelson. I detected a possible familiarity with them. There was, I thought, a legitmate mistagging of trivia. There where three users who looked like they had a kind of history of being unkind. I had asked for a dispute resolution the best I knew how . . . After that occurred Pats1 came in and said I was doingsomething that was wrong --- he put in in his warning . . . and I thought it was mistaken. When I saw the second one I saw he was deadly serious. I then researched how he was supposed to handle things and what the rules were, especially with the power to block and in my view, I think he was in the wrong. I don't think I deserved that kind of meaness and what I think may have been a possible abuse of his Admin power. All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have not been perfect before, butonce I learned there are rules, I became confident this kindof abuse wouldn't occur.

Maybe I was wrong to assume that. It seems Pats1 had only been a Admin for a couple of months and maybe that kind of "bullying" has worked with others, but I like to edit and I think I have some things to offer and would not want to be banned inappropriately. It is scary to think that a person who may have had a connection to chrisjnelson would just jump and threaten a ban with hardly the time to investigate. It really seemed like an abuse of his "banning power". That is my view.

After all, this was a dispute. One that had occured a couple? of days ago and it was discussed. Then there was an attempt to bring in the "bigger guns" and all along, I was simply disputing the tivia tag. It is my view that Tivia is discouraged, but if you read the objectors chrisjnelson and others. . . it was the content the objected to, not the style. In the Tivia instructions there is a section "What this guidline is not". It is that I think is right.Nonetheless. when I was warned it was not for 3 RR as Pats1 NOW claims in my talk page. It was for essentially deleting portions of an article, which was never true. I removed a trivia tag I thought was in error. I also looked at the track record of chris and the others and in that Ted Ginn, Jr. article he even was pretty non-wiki friendly to another poster about things. So, I was dubios of those who objected to the content. It was almost like trying to misread to Trivia guidelines. But, I cannot be sure.

I didn't like being treated badly, espaiclly when I was following rules the best I could and since there is a record of what was done I think you can see that Pats1 overstepped his authority when he didn't give the correct reason for a potential band, made it seem to me it was to be punitive for perhaps defying him. He wouldn't communicate, well, until he knew I was serious about going "over his head", as it were. Only then did he try to explain and that was about as insulting as anything else.

So, I was hoping for an explanation and an apology but it has gone too far. I don't feel safe in editing with a person whose actions are so drastic and terse. I just don't think it was needed and I think you might want to reviewthis case, In fact I ask you do do that. Thank you. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I note Pats1's edit summary : "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Pats1 - I was directed to Ted Ginn, Jr. by User:Chrisjnelson on my talk page. As an admin, I checked the situation, saw that this IP had been reverted by a few different users after this IP renamed the trivia section of the Ted Ginn, Jr. article as "Notes" and removed the trivia tag that had been previously applied. Keep in mind there was a source code comment explaining why the tag was there - the section was trivia, no matter how you sliced it. There was a note about Ginn's learning disability, another about a lyrical reference, and one with his jersey number history. Under WP:TRIVIA, applying the trivia tag to call for the insertion of these trivia items into the prose was perfectly acceptable, and as I've seen, removing such a tag is generally considered to be removal of material as long as the tag was appropriately placed. This IP then "called for arbitration" in the matter. Quite simply, there was nothing to arbitrate. And in essence, I was the "arbitrator" - I was an admin called to the situation. But apparently this IP didn't agree with the simple Wikipedia guideline I was applying, and called for me to "find another admin" - which was totally unnecessary - any other admin who knew WP:TRIVIA would say the same thing. This IP then "called for dispute resolution." Again, DP is a set of procedures to follow if there is a content dispute. First of all, I think this IP mistook it as a process for some third party "arbitrator" (was I not that third party anyway?). Secondly, the removal of an appropriate tag is not a content dispute. This IP also went ahead and found a couple of comments from previous, totally irrelevant article discussions made "the objectors" - those who had reverted his attempts to remove the tag, including me. Additionally, this IP left a series of messages on my talk page, telling me about how my talk page warnings to him/her were "threats" and how they "proved X, Y, and Z about my administrator status." This IP also went and posted his/her grievance with me and the article at AN3 (3RR), which was quickly removed by User:B. B then went to the Ginn discussion, told the IP he/she had violated 3RR, and that his/her argument was both directed to the wrong noticeboard and, in general, not valid. The IP instead posted his/her grievance at the Admin talk board, where User:DGG made the post above. I then informed DGG that the dispute I was "involved" with was only about the removal of the tag, and not for the removal of the material. Chrisjnelson had gone in and integrated the trivia into prose, which was what WP:TRIVIA calls for, so I'm not sure if that's what DGG was referring to or not. Quite simply, this is the case of an IP not understanding some of the warning/dispute processes of Wikipedia and then blaming it on me, leaving a serious of messages about my "abuse." Pats1 ^T/C 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Back from ban and back at it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Referred to ArbCom

I have refered this matter to the Arbitration Committee - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez. WjBscribe 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

vandalism and reverting more then 3 times in less then 24 hours

the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dahn vandalised and reverted more then 4 times in a day without giving reasons this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&action=history. In addition he refuses to discuss the reasons in talk page. Adrianzax (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll want to report this at the three revert rule noticeboard. Shell ^babelfish 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kie250 (talk · contribs)

I feel like someone should have a look at this user's user page. Almost every edit they've made has been to their user space, and the ones they haven't are generally vandalism or inappropriate. Her edits should also be oversighted as she's given out her age and full name and she's an underage user [2].--Crossmr (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The user page appears to be a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT. I'll list this at WP:MFD immediately. Caknuck (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at her contribs, I see no intention after over 100 edits to use Wikipedia for any purpose other than voicing her personal opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lumturo

I need some help from a fellow administrator with a situation I've fallen into with User:Lumturo. On December 22nd, an AfD process (in which I was not involved) deleted two related articles; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Begriffsschrift and Interlingua compared and the same AfD covered Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared. Since December 22, he's recreated the first article twice and the second once, most recently yesterday. I deleted it for the obvious reason that it was a recreation of AfD'd material. The user has many Wikilawyerish reasons why the policy about recreation of AfD'd material doesn't apply to him, even though the article has the same title it's different, and that sort of thing. He's been telling a non-administrative user, User:CastAStone, that CastAStone's attempts to keep him to policy are "disruptive" and "harmful". I told him in no uncertain terms that his only option was Deletion review, but I'm afraid I've completely lost patience with his antics, and said so. Rather than follow my instincts and block him for disruptive editing, I've decided to ask someone among my fellow administrators to deal with him because my emotions are now engaged, and that's wrong. I note as I write this that he's posting another Wikilawyerish note at Help desk because he's "threatened with a block for re-posting an encyclopedic article", and I now throw up my hands -- this has to be someone else's problem, I'm sorry to say. If there's something further that I need to do, I'd appreciate knowing about it from a more experienced administrator than myself. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am otherwise engaged in the real world and need to be offline for some hours; my apologies for leaving this situation hanging. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh...I've never been mentioned at the Administrators Noticeboard before...exciting... Anyhoo, User:Lumturo has been making fallacious arguments and repeatedly asking for policy to back up consensus even though I explained to him that policy is based on consensus. While he did accuse me of being "disruptive" and "harmful", Lumturo has assumed good faith and been civil with me, and has not attempted to recreate the pages since the lengthy part of this discussion started. Frustrating and disruptive have a line between them, I do not believe that Lumturo has crossed it. If someone can present him with a better explanation that I did it might be helpful, but I do not believe that his actions at this point warrant administrative action, beyond perhaps salting those pages for a time.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Accounting4Taste is not telling the whole truth. The bottom line is that I haven't done anything wrong or prohibited on Wikipedia, and User: Accounting4Taste has threatened to block me. I said at the help desk that I think this block should be prevented, and I'll say so here.

Before I reposted the characteristica article, I responded to the reasons for the deletion by revising it and thoroughly sourcing it inline with reliable references. I think it was encyclopedic to begin with, and if it wasn't, it is now. As far as I know, it's perfectly acceptable to repost an article after thoroughly revising it in this way. I have also revised and throughly sourced the begriffsschrift article, and I was ready to post it when User: Accounting4Taste threatened to block me.

I never suggested that any Wikipedia policies didn't apply to me. What I said was that the deletions of my articles were contrary to Wikipedia policy. First, my articles were prodded, which shouldn't be done because they've been through a deletion discussion (WP: PROD). Then, they were speedy deleted, which also shouldn't be done because they were substantially revised to address the original reasons for deletion (WP:CSD).

The other user also wasn't trying to hold me to policy, which I was already following. He was saying things that, as far as I know, are not in policy in the first place: that any article comparing two things is original research, that the inappropriate deletions were within process, and so on. When I asked him to support his statement about articles comparing two things, he answered that it wasn't written down but was still a widely accepted guideline. In responding to him, I wasn't bucking policy but simply saying that I thought he was mistaken. I did say that his actions had disrupted my evening because they had, and that it was harmful to delete encyclopedic articles, because I think it is. I also suggested that he should just move on, because this was taking his time and mine.

I don't know what User: Accounting4Taste means by Wikilawyerish. I do think administrators should understand and abide by Wikipedia policies, and that I am already doing that.

Thank you, CastAStone, for responding in a balanced way and saying that I've been civil and have assumed good faith. I always try to do that, and really my concern has to do with User: Accounting4Taste - especially since he's an administrator.

I'm pretty sure I haven't made any fallacious arguments. I don't know what "asking for policy to back up consensus" means, but again, what I've said is that the prodding and speedy deletions of my articles were contrary to policy.

My main concern is that I don't think I should be blocked. I have two articles that are carefully written and are thoroughly and reliably sourced; I think I should be permitted to re-post them without fear of a block. I did that with the characteristica article, and User: Pedro was fine with it. I also think I should be able to write other reliably sourced, encyclopedic articles if I choose.

I would be glad to post the Begriffsschrift article somewhere, since it isn't available in its current form. I'm sorry this is so long-winded! Thank you for your help, and have a good day! Lumturo (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If a person were sincerely interested in doing what's best for the community, with a minimum of disruption, one would rewrite the article in their User space and then post a request for review at WP:DRV. The fact that the user has not done this and instead has made attacks against the admin who is trying in good faith to get procedures followed, would tend to indicate, to me, that they're not interested in collegiality, but are more interested in an agenda. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was the deletion review procedure. I still don't know how to do it or what user space refers to, but I would be glad to read at the link below and try to follow the procedure.

At this point, it's more likely that I'll just resign from Wikipedia after the way I've been treated. Now I'm being accused of insincerity, attacking an administrator, being uninterested in collegiality, having an agenda, and apparently of not following procedure. I don't think any of that is true or fair. Lumturo (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not an argument here to make. If an article has been deleted through AfD, then the recourse is at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Any arguments made there need to indicate why an admin was incorrect in deleting the article (i.e. the deletion was done out of process, that it did not represent consensus, or that it was in violation of policy), rather than rehashing the reasons given in the AfD. Only in the most extraordinary of cases will an article be restored after an AfD without going through deletion review. Really, that's all there is to it. I'll post a message on User talk:Lumturo emphasizing this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Papa Smurf 690

Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannie (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Papa Smurf 690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Rjd0060 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has made several inappriorate pages, all of which so far have been speedily deleted. Due to the frequency and weakly bad already demnostrated of repeating this over and over again, he started out on second level warnings. He is up to his last vandalism warning because of this behavior, and I believe he will do it again. Adminstrater action may need to be taken. --Kannie | talk 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the users' final warning at 22:42 (UTC), the user hasn't created any more pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unapproved bot?

Chankara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Made a few edits with summary "robot adding..."...but as far as I can tell, this bot isn't approved. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they're a non-native English speaker, and are just copy/pasting the edit summary used by the bots who add inter-wiki-links without knowing what they mean? Have you tried asking them what they're doing?--69.118.143.107 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Rather than wait for the user to continue, if it is an unapproved bot, I brought it to Admin attention. Then I was sidetracked, but I just left a note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So far they seem to be editing at a rate of about 1 inter-wiki link every 4 hours... I would think that an actual bot account would have a slightly higher throttle.--69.118.143.107 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When I try google searching for Chankara and Wikipedia I get ru:Участник:Константин С. Белик, could this be the same user?--69.118.143.107 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine, considering I speak English. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x4):::No, I guess he's adding names in Telugu for the India Wiki, given the name. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My best guess would be that this person is of a foreign language; the ru: user has 'chankara' in their email. Probably doesn't speak English and just copy and pasted an edit summary (yes, I just compromised two ideas above).   jj137 ^♠ 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, they are just working with bot software. I remember one time I was working with my pywikipedia bot software and accidentally made an edit saying in the summary: Robot: Clearing sandbox.   jj137 ^♠ 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re to Rodhullandemu: Perhaps he has interwiki accounts set up.   jj137 ^♠ 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Chankara is an Indian name, if the Russian wiki account is his, that would explain it.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Russian account is named "Konstantin S. Belik" - not a very close match, and I think it's a coincidence. But this account at the Telugu Wikipedia te:సభ్యులు:C.Chandra Kanth Rao must surely be the same person. I think he's simply tranlating articles into Telugu and then adding interwiki links. Doesn't appear to be a bot at all. Someone could try adding a message to the talk page on Telugu Wikipedia, but I don't think there's any problem beyond the slightly confusing edit summaries. --Reuben (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on the Telugu Wiki explaining the issue, asking him to not use "bot" in his edit summaries here, and inviting him to contact me for clarification. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD page not updating

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)

Block and ban needed

ElectricEye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come out of "retirement" to harass Theresa knott on her talk page (starting with the fifth comment down in this thread). In May of 2007 EE changed their talk page to read, "Electric Eye has withdrawn his support of Wikipedia and has joined the ranks of those who oppose it." (diff of user page change and link to user page). He/she has continued to reiterate this point to anyone who leaves a message on his talk page. As of this writing, they have also begun commenting on Jimbo Wales' page (diff). Intimidation, harrassment, whatever you want to call it, coming from someone who has "joined the ranks" of those who oppose WP (whatever that means) demonstrates that they do not need an account here and should (imo) be blocked if not permanently banned. Thank you, R. Baley (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notification of this thread here and here. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too late; I blocked him while you were leaving the messages. Happy new year, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call IMO, TenOfAllTrades. This alone seems like a pretty good reason to block, as you mentioned on his talk page. That statement is a fair warning that the user was going to be disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to request that you reconsider and unblock EE.

This whole incident is making a lot of people upset. A lot of people on all sides are being uncivil and snippy with each other. None of this is good. ElectricEye was not doing good things. But he was doing not good things in response to stuff that he saw Theresa Knott doing on the Arbcom case which was also not good.

No warnings were left for EE that his behavior had crossed the line into abusive enough for user behavior sanction until I did just a bit ago, right before you blocked.

Blocking in this instance without warning and trying to calm the situation down is likely to lead to more drama, not less. Many involved parties in many parts of this dispute have been warned or asked to calm down by several people now. Please extend drama-reducing civil behavior requests rather than blocking as a first response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I told him what he was doing was harassment here. And respectfully, I would disagree with your assessment whether I had left one (of sorts) or not. R. Baley (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the one edit EE made after that warning was still confrontational, but much more civil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After that, he went to Jimbo's page to spread it around. I would strongly object to any unblock. R. Baley (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't think he is upset. Because unless he is a sockpuppet, and I don't think he is, he is completely uninvolved. Check his contributions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You weren't directly involved in the Jimsch62 / VO / OrangeMarlin case either, and look how you ended up feeling about it, Theresa...

The case is making a lot of people crazy, both what happened and how everyone is responding to what happened. This is really bad. Arbcom members are explicitly leaving civility warnings on arb case talk pages, several relatively uninvolved people are asking people to calm down, etc.

I don't honestly see what he did on your talk page as worse than the worst you did on the case talk page.

You have acknowledged and responded to requests to calm down; I think we owe him (and everyone else) at least one round of the same courtesy and chance to stop the problem behavior. Even if they are mostly uninvolved in the project now, they haven't been trolling elsewhere that I know of to establish that they are in fact operating just in bad faith, so we need to AGF there (and elsewhere, about everyone involved). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I ended up, after mutiply tooing and froing quite angry. That's not the case here. He's trolling. But if you want to unblock him and block him later I don't care to be honest. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He opposes Wikipedia and there is no evidence to suggest that any contributions he makes will benefit the project. He is trying to stir up further trouble with the arbcom case and is simply trolling. I would support a ban at least for a while - maybe he will return with a positive attitude, but running to Jimbo and trying to cause trouble is in no way useful. violet/riga (t) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(scratching head) Surely you didn't just imply that we should ban people for complaining to or appealing to Jimbo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. We ban people for stating that they have "joined the ranks of those who oppose" Wikipedia, and follow through on that statement for most of a year, and then start the new year coming out of nowhere to be an Arb gadfly and to bother editors who are interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Really, if there were any evidence at all that this individual were interested in adding to the project I might have given a warning—but I just don't see that evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For most of the last year, they weren't editing at all. Is there behavioral evidence off-wiki somewhere I need to be made aware of? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not - that wasn't the only thing I said in support of the block. violet/riga (t) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

George I think it would be fair to say at this point that you are unlikely to get the agreement of the blocking admin or to get concensus that unblocking is the right way to go. Which leaves you with a choice, you can choose to go it alone, or defer to the judgment of the multiple people who who think the block is good. If you choose to go it alone, and he reoffends you'd better be willing to block him yourself sharpish . But if you are willing to do that, and take the risk that he will disrupt when you are not around and so people might think you were foolish to unblock then go for it. I've unblocked people unilaterally before, usually stating on thier userpage that I am staking my own reputation on thier good behaviour. This sometimes works as the unblocked person doesn't want to let you down. Other times they can't help themselves . Anyway it's not that big a deal either way.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to add my opinion to this matter, but after his last comments on his Talk page (which included promises to breed incivility & evade blocks ), Coren protected EE's talk page -- an action I support, FWIW. The matter is now moot. -- llywrch (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he not only promised to evade blocks but flat out stated that it is a regular activity of his. I would have stated something in the thread here about my protection if I had remember that's how he ended up on my watchlist in the first place. For what it's worth, I would oppose unblocking an editor that actually promises to be as disruptive as possible and break every policy in the book. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, with that set of comments I no longer have any interest in supporting an unblock. AGF is no longer warranted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:207.237.79.181

This user keeps adding "External Links" to a research paper mill website, "freeonlineresearchpapers.com". These are the only edits this user is making. All of the links so far have been removed. This user needs to be watched. Victorianist (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At least give further notice on the user's talk page per WP:TT. The edits are infrequent enough that this doesn't require immediate administrator action. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to the process. I'll know next time. Victorianist (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding in the next level of warning. This should be continued for further link spamming, but the admins only really need to intervene if the problem becomes serious and continuous over a period of time. Otherwise, watching, reverting, and warning will probably suffice. Gromlakh (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out.Victorianist (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and assumptions of bad faith by User:Blueanode

Dear fellow Wikipedians, please see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Within the past week and half, this user has gone from aggresively criticizing Judgesurreal777 to now going after me. I am not sure how to react to these, i.e. if I should just ignore him or if this is a pattern of behavior that merits administrator attention. Incidentally, while I may disagree with Judgesurreal777 about article notability, we have been civil with each other elsewhere: [27], [28], [29], etc. As for the accusation against me by Blueanode, I know I am a strong inclusionist, but I really consider AfDs a minor aspect of my contributions here and spend much more time welcoming new users or using the random article feature to check articles for grammar, references, and the like. And as another editor noted, I participate in a number of discussions nominated by different users. It has nothing to do with who nominates them. I just use this page to see if there's any that I think are worth keeping and/or that I think I can help improve. If something is a total hoax, I am more than willing to suggest deletion, as I did here. Sure, not everyone agrees with me in discussions (although a good deal have) and I think many administrators are able to decide for themselves if my argument is valid or not. Anyway, I just thought I would seek input on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the background of this, but messsages like most of the above ("deletionist troll", "pathetic", "yoy bastard" [sic], "I despise you") are not tolerated per WP:NPA. I have issued this user a final warning, and he should be blocked after the next edit in this vein. Sandstein (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, thank you for the fair response and have a pleasant evening! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not justified, leave me alone. Blueanode (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Banned sock puppet is back, Cody Finke aka MascotGuy

Codyfinke15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned sock puppet

• Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

etc.

This guy just keeps going and going and going...

The Energizer bunny from hell.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Codyfinke is not MascotGuy. MascotGuy acts differently.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Both refuse to edit Talk pages, both make unsourced, untruthful edits to articles about TV shows and Southern California subjects. Both refuse to stop editing no matter how many times they're warned and blocked. How is this not MascotGuy? Corvus cornix_talk 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy has a known user name pattern. The Codyfinke user does not match that pattern. As MascotGuy was discovered to have autism due to editting patterns and subjects, it is highly unlikely that he changed any way that he edits. The two may edit similarly, but they are still two different individuals. I only yesterday blocked a set of users because it's activity that MascotGuy does. I haven't seen what Codyfinke does, but I can tell that this is not MascotGuy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To summarize what I just said, Codyfinke and MascotGuy are two separate entities that act similarly in edits, but differently in other ways (MascotGuy accounts are named differently than Codyfinke accounts, for one).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy was only identified as autistic by someone claiming to be his mother. Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Still, Codyfinke ≠ MascotGuy based on behavior outside of article edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not identify him as Mascot guy originally, some one else did and I went with that figuring they knew better. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Balouch (Kashmir)

The user who created the Balouch (Kashmir) article doesn't have a very good grasp of the English language, and has written a rather poorly-written article. Editing tags have been placed on the article and the editor added him/herself as the source for the information and wrote on the Talk page that somebody could email them at their supplied email address or can call them on their supplied phone number to verify the information. I blanked the Talk page and requested that they not provide personal information. I then added a cleanup-rewrite tag on the article. The editor responded by removing all of the cleanup tags and putting an aggressive "mind your own business" reply to me on their Talk page. I've pointed to WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. What would be the best way to approach a new user whose primary language is obviously not English? I've never run into a situation like this. Corvus cornix_talk 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He's now making unuseful edits to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Corvus cornix_talk 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Try and determine his native language.
2. Ask users who speak that language to get involved. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow revert war on Iron law of oligarchy

An anonymous user User:70.185.113.212 keeps reverting to a polemical version of the article. From discussion on his talk page, it looks unlikely that he will accept other views. Please keep an eye on that article, thanks. Kosebamse (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:To the lake

Anyone feel like peeking at Special:Contributions/To_the_lake? Seems to have quite a problem with WP:CIVIL, but that may be just me. Yngvarr 11:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also plenty of nonsense at WP:RfA and his sig links to [[:Image:Fellatio.png|

---

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.]]. Seems like a disruption only account but would like a second opinion before taking action. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure seems to me like a disruptive, WP:POINTy account. Seems to be also someone who is already pretty knowledgeable for a brand new account. Pastordavid (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for disruption after he nominated himself for adminship. I don't trust self noms. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And I struck his comments from all RFAs to which he "contributed" with explanatory note added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man filed a checkuser case and linked back to here. The case is now complete and has turned up some rather interesting results - Alison ^❤ 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked all accounts that were still not blocked. John Reaves 13:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious account

Derias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account uploading images of military insignia; another user has expressed concern that the user is a sockpuppet of blocked Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and that the images should be deleted as hoaxes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw > 100 images at CAT:CSD tagged with a link to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr and have deleted all of them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Farsi --> Persian

Every month or so someone decides to start to change every instance of "Farsi" on the wikipedia to "Persian".

The most recent person to decide to start this campaign, like many of his predecessors, is prepared to make this change -- even in direct quotes, as they did here.

I am not a linguist. I didn't study linguistics at University. I don't know whether real linguists think Farsi should always be replaced with Persian. However, even if I had studied linguistics, wouldn't it be a violation of WP:OR to make this change? Verifiability is a core princiiple. It seems to me that if the source we are referencing uses "Farsi" our article should use "Farsi", and if our source uses "Persian" we should use "Persian".

This particular user has made this change to dozens or hundreds of articles in the last couple of days -- all without any edit summary. That is disturbing.

FWIW previous anti-Farsi vigilantes seem to have largely succeeded. All the DoD documents about the Guantanamo captives use "Farsi". According to these DoD documents, and some other documents, Farsi is the other major language spoken in Afghanistan. But, according to the wikipedia, Dari (Persian) is the name of this language --Farsi isn't even mentioned. I think this is a disservice to our readers.

I have asked some of these anti-Farsi vigilantes to explain what they are doing. It has seemed to me that those prepared to offer an explanation innocently offer one where they acknowledge their efforts are based on what more experience wikipedians would recognize as original research.

Some other wikipedians have noted a phenomenon they find disturbing -- participants who have engaged in spirited partisan edit-warring in the non-English wikis carrying those partisan battles over to the English wikipedia. I am wondering whether this isn't another instance.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Based on your comments this appears to be a content dispute, and not an area where administrators can intervene. You might attempt some of the elements of dispute resolution outlined at this page. If there are conduct issues regarding specific editors, please clarify and provide diffs/links. ^Avruchtalk 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Sfacets

sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just finished a block and piled straigh in with this: [30]. 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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 ·:·

Repeated removal of tags at Holodomor denial

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.[31]
• 16:27, 25 December: User:Irpen tags the page with POV and OR templates.[32]
• 8:05, 27 December: User:Horlo removes the tags with the edit summary removed tags - no reason given for their being here.[33]
• 6:57, 28 December: Irpen tries to rewrite the intro to conform to NPOV.[34]
• 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.[35]
• 7:04: Irpen reverts to his version with the summary I clearly explained at talk.[36]
• 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.[37]
• 7:39: Irpen adds a totallydisputed tag with the summary: totallydisputed per persistent insertion of factually false info.[38]
• 8:50: Horlo removes the tag with the summary: Removed numbers and tag.[39] (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,[40], and add a comment to the talk page to explain some of my reasons for doing so.[41]
• 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,[42] and leave another note on the talk page explaining my reasons.[43]
• 18:03: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[44]
• 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.[45]
• 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.[46]
• 18:20, 31 December: Horlo removes the tag without comment.[47]
• 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).[48]
• 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.[49]
• 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.[50] (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.[51]
• 7:32: User:Termer removes the tag with the summary: the tag "Totallydisputed" not justified for well referenced article, please do not misuse tagging.[52]
• 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.[53]
• 13:46: Bandurist removes the tag without comment.[54]
• 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.[55]

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...[56]
• 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.[57]
• 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![58][59]
• 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?[60]
• User:Jo0doe accuses the article's supporters of tr[ying] to exploit WP as a soapbox".[61]
• 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.[62]
• 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).[63]

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)

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)

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.[64]

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,[65] 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. [66]

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)]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[67]

"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: [68],[69]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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,[70], User:Biophys deletes it.[71]. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

Since you keep ignoring my request for any alternative published sources that would be in conflict with the denial of the famine called holodomor [72] [73] [74]; 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)

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)

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)

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. [75]. I removed the numbers, re-wrote the lead, and removed the tag. [76] 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: [77].

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: [78] and here: [79] and here: [80].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

The question has been addressed several times including at this notice board [81] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Jon Awbrey Meta*SockPuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked already—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

User:Dark Sunshine

Resolved

 – User blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have an issue the user Dark Sunshine seems to have been blocked from editing before and admits it. I have marked the user's userspace for speedy deletion for vandalism due to the inflammatory comments on it. I am bringing this up because I do not know what the users other account was. Rgoodermote  20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Kie250 (talk · contribs), blocked. east.718 at 22:04, January 6, 2008

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Isimsizzorbebe

Resolved

 – User warned. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally attacking another user[82]. Warning is probably warranted. VartanM (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

Naomi Almeida

Resolved

 – article speedy deleted (A7) by User:Alison

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)

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)

User:Lilgunner94 Reverting talk page.

Resolved

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Dihydrogen Monoxide banner war

Resolved

 – Utterly childish - knock it off, guys, in deference to the candidate - Alison ^❤ 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Immediately after my participation at Keilana's reconfirmation RFA, which was created by User:Dihydrogen Monoxide and where I ask for it to be speedy closed, User:Dihydrogen Monoxide decided to place this colorful banner on the RFA itself [83]:

This RfA will not be speedily closed. If you have nothing else to say, please say nothing at all. Thank you, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was naturally flabbergasted with such attitude and responded by placing a banner right below his [84]:

The above banner is void by WP:OWN, WP:PATRONIZE and WP:READWELLWITHOUTBANNERS . Thank you, Húsönd 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that my banner would make DHM realize that his attitude was quite outrageous and remove his banner so that I could follow suit, but instead DHM decided to bring yet another banner below mine [85]:

The above banner fails WP:HYPOCRISY. I've watered down the original though. Thank you, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say that after this I was even more flabbergasted and genuinely offended. According to his last banner, it is clear that DHM decided to blatantly apply WP:IAR to WP:CIVIL by calling me a hypocrite. I don't even know what to do next. I just know that I feel really offended by his attitude and would appreciate any comments by fellow users on what should I do, or even if I am to blame for replying to his first banner in the first place. Thank you. Húsönd 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should go and make a nice cup of tea. It seems like mostly harmless a banner-war to me, one from which you are best off retiring. FWIW, I'd agree that Dihydrogen Monoxide was some yards out of line, at least with the second box. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all three of them, and frankly you should both have known better, really. BLACKKITE 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Husond, could you move your Speedy Close to Support or remove it completely, please? BLACKKITE 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the less drama surrounding this the better. If anyone really wants me to, I'll withdraw, get desysopped, live a couple months without sysop, and then come back to RfA in 2-3 months and ask for the tools back. Really now. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, don't do that, this really isn't worth losing a good admin even for a short time. BLACKKITE 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chris Frangou - sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – user:Chris funk bass has no contributions other than self-promotion, warned. Others may be blocked as self-evident sockpuppets if anyone cares enough. Vanispamcruftisement deleted.

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)

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

Issue with userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I want to create some userboxes, but before creating I want to discuss if all the userboxes will be suitable with wikipedia guidelines or not. (I am here giving the texts which will be displayed on the userbox).

1. "This user strongly oppose civilization." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
2. "This user strongly oppose capitalism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
3. "This user strongly oppose communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
4. "This user strongly oppose both capitalism and communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
5. "This user supports Animal Liberation Front." (this userbox may not be suitable becuse ALF is often considered as a terrorist organization)
6. "This user supports Nuclear weapon." (there is nothing controversial in this statement because most nations, including United States support nuclear weopon)
7. "This user supports Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable because Biolohical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
8. "This user supports Chemical weapon."(this userbox may not be suitable because Chemical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
9. "This user supports legaligation of Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
10. "This user supports legaligation of Chemical weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
11. "This user supports Nuclear war." (there is nothing controversial in this userbox)
12. "This user supports Weapons of Mass Destruction." (this userbox may not be suitable)
13. "This user think Osama bin Laden should be given death penalty." (this userbox will be suitable because it reflects majority opinion)

Please advice me out of the above-mentioned sentences, which will be suitable to be used in userbox according to wikipedia guidelines and which not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you don't create any of them if you want people to take you seriously. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't an incident report. I would echo EconomicsGuy's advice, but also add that if you want to ask for advice you should go to the Village Pump or some other venue where Wikipedians traditionally give advice. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Village pump. Exactly where I can find the advice? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask advice in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals would be good, since this appears to fall under "...new ideas and proposals that are not policy related...". If you prefer, Miscellaneous would certainly work. I submit, though, and it's a minor thing - but, I'd change oppose to opposes for several of the boxes above, since it's only one user that is doing the opposing. I'll also note that the image attached to a userbox can be almost as controversial as the text, so do take care if you proceed with this proposal. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find that there is any offensive statement in the first 4 proposals. I agree that the fifth proposal may be controversial as it is associated with Animal Liberation Front, as ALF is often described as a terrorist organization. I think the proposals with Biological weapon and Chemical weapon also may be controversial as no nation is supporting these weopons and these weopons are prohibitated by United Nations. But I cannot find there will be anything wrong with the nuclear weopon proposal, because most nations support Nuclear weapon. And supporting Nuclear War is also not controversial. And the last suggetion may reflect majority opinion that Laden should be given death penalty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they're all unsuitable for Wikipedia because they abuse userspace for advocacy or opposition to a cause. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me if someone is opposing communism or capitalism, then how it becomes an "abuse". In wikipedia, there is already a userbox strongly opposing communism.

This user is against communism.

If anyone opposing communism and capitalism, then how it become "abuse"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Tony, this conversation is best carried out at village pump Ronnotel (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special Case

Resolved

User:Polysynaptic getting out of hand

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [86]). (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)

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)

User:Bluemarine/User:Mattsanchez again

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)"

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

User:81.153.131.222

Continues ad hominem incivilities despite two warnings.

• First warning: [87]
• Second warning: [88]
• Continuation: [89][90]

Disruptive editing (repeated blanking of a section) on Dana Ullman. [91] Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Disruptive actions of User:Smsarmad

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Static IP vandal 83.100.160.154 (again)

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)

Please help monitor Adam Yahiye Gadahn‎

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)

• 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)

User using user page to attack other editors

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

Its not resolved at all. He now had my name on his user page with an accusation of stalking against me[92]. 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

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.)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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

WB/UPN Intrastate Template Deletion resulting in inadvertent CW Intrastate Templates deletion

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)

User:The Noosphere

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Just to pick out one area of similarity, both accounts added "drug-free" and "Platonist" userboxes [93][94] (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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

TfD page not updating

Resolved

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)

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

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)

User:Leftcoastbreakdown and American Apparel

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)

(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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

(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)

• 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)

I can certainly understand a desire to not speculate about future administrative actions in response to misbehavior that has not yet occurred. My question, rather, is whether we're endorsing or letting stand Cumulus Cloud's warning that Leftcoastbreakdown is forbidden from editing the article under pain of being blocked, or simply saying we'll deal with it under usual COI principles if the subject ever comes up again. If I were in Leftcoastbreakdown's or American Aparrel's place, the warning would have a chilling effect on my desire to ever participate again in the project, whereas the softer approach might encourage me to proceed with caution if there is every any minor neutral upkeep I could perform on the article. Maybe that's a good thing. But don't we allow parties to tidy up their own article? Wikidemo (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The do-not-edit warning is overboard and should be stricken. As Wikidemo notes, policy allows even editors with obvious COI to edit. As a practical matter a review of Lcb's edits shows he (she) has no interest in editing here other than to protect or promote his employer's interests, so I doubt much harm has been done. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Raymond Arritt. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Raymond Arritt. Edit Centric (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Administrators Attention to this checkuser findings

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)

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

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)

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)

Needing a Little Help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Take it to dispute resolution, as advised. Neıl ☎ 09:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the affiliate/owned & operated listings on the Moody Broadcasting Network page. The template that is currently being used was created by JPG-GR. The template only allowed for 21 entries total. Currently on the Texas section of the Moody Broadcasting Network listings, there are 26. So I added 9 more entries to JPG-GR's template, which was immediately reverted. [95] JPG-GR even tried to use a different template for just the Texas section, which didn't have the FCC Listings beside the entry, like the current template. [96]

At the moment, the Texas affiliate section of the Moody Broadcasting Network page is only showing 20 stations because of JPG-GR's refusal to allow the template he made to be slightly altered....and not even in a bad way.

When trying to talk to him, I get nice posts, like this. Can an admin please have a word with JPG-GR so that this can get resolved. I don't think this is too much to ask. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have already tried to explain (three times on my talk page and once on the talk page for the template in question, {{RadioTranslators}}), the appropriate template to be used in this article is {{RadioRebroadcasters}}, which is capable of holding 30 stations (as NH has added to it) and is used for fully licensed stations such as those listed in Moody Broadcasting Network, not translators. I changed the article in question to use the proper template and display all the stations, but NH reverted this oddly. I have tried to explain all of this on my talk page to him, but he doesn't seem to grasp it (or, more likely, doesn't CHOOSE to). I am shocked and appalled to see such a hilariously minor situation brought to WP:ANI. JPG-GR (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

...again with the reverting. JPG claims there is "no instance of a radio station having more than 21 translators readily identifiable" when he has been show an "instance" of just that and completely disregarded it. This is a clear cut case of OWN'ing a page/template/etc. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I already adequately explained multiple times that those are NOT translator stations, but you either missed this fact or chose to ignore it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now made the appropriate changes to Moody Broadcasting Network. Also, I'd like to point out I'm curious how you can accuse me of WP:OWN, when I'm the one who originally created both templates. If I was violating WP:OWN, why would I let you edit one freely and not the other? Is one my red-headed stepchild? JPG-GR (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And now, a beautiful example of blind-reverting: [97] NH has now reverted my correction to the properly used template to that of the improperly used template, despite my many attempted explanations of the use of the templates. Of course, now he can complain that {{RadioTranslators}} is not excessive enough and revert it again, knowing that I won't touch it because I'm not going to violate WP:3RR. Yes, this statement in itself violates WP:AGF, but I don't really see any other way to look at it - why on earth would an editor revert away from a version using the appropriate templates, especially while discussion is ongoing? JPG-GR (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this, while pointy accurately discribes that JPG-GR's statement that "no radio station in the US has more than 21 translator stations (as of an October check)" is just plain wrong and that he is violating WP:OWN and not checking his work what-so-ever. This diff shows that the parent station of CSN has more than 200 (just by looking) translators ^[98], which would require MUCH more space in JPG-GR's template.

Also, what is the difference between a "rebroadcaster" and a "translator", if none, I request JPG-GR's two templates be merged. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And, they're not "my" templates. They are {{RadioTranslators}} and {{RadioRebroadcasters}}. Your weighty choice of words isn't very clandestine. JPG-GR (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, you've been edit warring with me and you don't even know OVER WHAT? *sigh* Here we go (note, all definitions are how they are used in the US):

• A translator is not really a station at all, but a special transmitter which is designed to solely re-transmit a radio station's signal. These stations are of the callsign form A###AA and are not responsible for hourly station identification. They only exist on the FM band. For these, {{RadioTranslators}} are used.
• A rebroadcaster is a station that re-broadcasts a radio station's signal. These stations have normal AAAA callsigns and MUST perform hourly station identification. These can be either AM or FM in type. For these, {{RadioRebroadcasters}} is used. Additionally, this template has started to be utilized in Canadian radio station articles, as there is no FCC-dependent variable. JPG-GR (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we pretty much have {{RadioTranslators}} on the Moody Broadcasting Network page. So....that is what we would use. But since you have admitted that you overlooked the CSN thing (and will not have to MASSIVELY expand the template) this whole thing is moot. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Moody Broadcasting Network SHOULD be using {{RadioRebroadcasters}}, which it was until you reverted my correction of it just before you admitted you didn't know the difference between a translator and rebroadcaster. JPG-GR (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't know the difference....I asked what the difference was. You can know something and still ask what the difference is.

But you sparked a thought in my head....why do we need two seperate templates when they are almost the same? One has an FCC listing link and one doesn't? Otherwise, they are the same. Seems like a waste of space. I suggest a merge. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost the same != the same. I've explained the difference. A "waste of space" is adding unnecessary entries to a template and then edit warring over it in the mainspace, templatespace, userspace, and finally WP:ANI. But, that's just my opinion. JPG-GR (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting into the middle of this, is the labeling of "rebroadcaster" vs. "translator" even worth making in the context of a template? Dont they both serve the same purpose here? Actually these templates should be merged, take the link to the FCC database functionality from the translator template and make that available in the rebroadcaster template, and add support for both AM and FM stations (currently the translator template assumes all stations are FM). --Rtphokie (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

JPG, you are just mad cause you were proved wrong, real wrong, by showing you "overlooked" a 200 list of translators and obviously didn't check your work.

Rtphokie, I agree with you, they both serve the same purpose and should be merged. Since you are good with the merge thing, you want to nominate them? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that, RTP. {{RadioRebroadcasters}} is the more general one, useful for any station anywhere (i.e. US, Candada, whatever). For that reason, the FCC link can't be included. However, in the case of {{RadioTranslators}}, because this definition only applies to the US and the A###AA stations, it can have that additional field. Merge, mutilate, fold, or spindle how you like, but barring some rather complicated coding, there's still gotta be two.

And, NH, would you please cut out the personal attacks and discuss/debate without throwing insults around? JPG-GR (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"one of the most insulting people I've ever come across in my entire time online"...and I am the one who is "throwing insults around"....right.

To the templates, just because it is a "rebroadcaster" doesn't mean it can't have a FCC link. That is just a BS excuse. An FCC link is an FCC link. There is no rule that says it can or can't be there. The two templates need to be expanded, for one, and two need to be merged. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the part where I said the template is for use for other countries. Canada doesn't file with the FCC. Unless the template is gonna be set up with a separate variable to control when that field appears, it won't work. JPG-GR (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you make that one (minus the FCC link) for international and use the one WITH the FCC link for US regardless.

Also, don't try to make your comments look like they are by me. I have re-indented them. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(Jehochman ^Talk blows his whistle.) Friends, you have a dispute. ANI is not part of dispute resolution. Click the link and you will see! Please choose another method of resolving your disagreement rather than bashing each other with clue-by-fours at ANI. Thank you very much. Now back to our regularly scheduled program... Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I was confused by the posting in the first place. Regardless, I'm all talked out from running in this circle. Catch whomever tomorrow. *tips hat* JPG-GR (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"all talked out from running in this circle" - Yeah, until you have to comment again. Like on Template_talk:RadioTranslators where you had your "final comment" and then you commented. OK. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yeanold Viskersenn

Resolved

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

I don't understand how WP:DICK confers any authority to remove any content from anything. Frongle (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here...

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)

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

In the future, Arrow740, please bring this up on User talk 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)

Valediction

Resolved

Are there any administrators out there who can handle this issue? There is a proposed or suggested merger of two articles that has been lingering on for three months (since October 2007) ... See Valediction. Can some administrator out there officially come in and close the discussion and end the proposed merger? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Done. :) IrishGuy ^talk 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

M People revert

Resolved

Hello I have added info to M.People's wiki entry which has been removed, it is factually correct so can you please out it back to where it should be as it was a lot of content! I should have signed in when I did it but it's frustrating that it has gone. Please can you authorise this. Thank you Ebs <email removed> Username : ebuaki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuaki (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted, it was a vandal Bot revert that caused the problem. --WebHamster 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sorted, I fear. quite a lot of what is going in seems to be lifted from [99]

and/or [100], the latter of which attributes "Encyclopedia of Popular Music". I can't stay around, unfortunately, but there seems to be a copyright issue here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Associated vandal sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Simple vandalism. Bonk. — Coren ^(talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hotel9999 (talk · contribs) and Hommee111 (talk · contribs) are both apparently creating nonsense articles and have correlated edit histories. Can someone address this? Seems like blatant vandalism across multiple new accounts. Maybe worth a checkuser as well to see if any additional vandal users/IPs have gotten without notice yet. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Plonk. — Coren ^(talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Current DYK Main Page Image vandalism

Resolved

The image Image:1939 Time Capsule Cupaloy.gif on the main page for DYK is being vandalized on Commons. I uploaded the original there, but the vandal reuploaded the cat instead. I know normally the image is moved to WIkipedia from Commons and protected, but I am not sure how to do that. Could someone please help, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The image was protected at the commons. See [101]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, when an image from the Commons is posted in the DYK template, the updating admin needs to upload an identical copy of the image to Wikipedia, specifically. The Wikipedia copy of the image will be protected because it's on the main page, which has cascading protection. The image on Wikipedia gets tagged with {{c-uploaded}}, which notes that it's protected. Once the next DYK update is done, the Wikipedia copy of the image gets deleted, and then the Commons version of the image shows through (so to speak). There are instructions on how to do this in comments in the source of the DYK update template. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_oxymora_2

Resolved

This afd was closed today as delete by a non-admin. However, it seems that the page survived deletion as it was nominated again today as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_oxymora_(2nd_nomination). The latter was closed (but it seems something is wrong with the closing. Would an admin look at both afd's and see what is wrong with them? Thanks.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done A user had closed the first AFD as "delete" despite not being an admin so couldn't actually delete it. That was reversed and for some reason a second AFD had been opened. All fixed now. Neıl ☎ 09:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we need to put the resolved box. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you happy ;) Neıl ☎ 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of sourced statements, harassment, and tendentious edits by Biophys

Resolved

 – Please discuss it at WP:COIN -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake articles and vandalism relating to Victoria Beckham

Resolved

miranda 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles relating to Victoria Beckham that are constantly deleted and resurrected by the same three users ( Girls alouds biggest fan, Surfer-boy94, & 59.100.199.1 -- who are all quite possibly the same person) include the following:

Open Your Eyes (Unreleased album) - which has been deleted at least 4 times as per: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham album)

The Hustla‎ (unreleased song; fake single with fan-made cover art)

I'd Give It All Away‎ (unreleased song; fake single with fan-made cover art)

Aswell as vandalism to:

My Love Is For Real (Victoria Beckham song)‎ - (adding fake fan-made cover art and making up dates and "info")

Template:Victoria Beckham (adding links to all said fake articles)

My constant attempts to simply add redirects to Victoria Beckham have been futile as one of said users just reverts.

These articles are nothing but fan made nonsense with fan-sites and music blogs as the "sources", if any, aswell as links to illegal download sites. Something needs to be done to keep them deleted or a constant unchangable redirect without being resurected yet again.

I may not be completely familair with the exact term, but is salting the fake pages in order?

Celebrity-Benji (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of the redirects would be adequate. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for salting, personally. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if the songs are fake, there's no valid reason to have a redirect. —Random832 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the tracks are real, but only in low quality internet-leaked versions, they were never planned as singles or included on any album. Celebrity-Benji (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect from the supposed album title, since if there's no such album it shouldn't exist - if the songs themselves are real then i guess there's no reason to delete those. It's possible that without a place to put an album article the users will run out of steam; if it continues the redirects can be protected. —Random832 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thankyou very much for your help Celebrity-Benji (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirects have been protected to save theem being speedied when recreated - no point in not doing so. Neıl ☎ 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page has been revived via Open Your Eyes (Unreleased Victoria Beckham album) before aswell. Is it possible to have this page salted aswell, to avoid another possible recreation? Celebrity-Benji (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done by User:Nat at 14:36, 8 January 2008. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Scottish monarchs‎

Edit war in progress here. Admins with no previous involvement required. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reverts are between Micheal Sanders and Deacon of Pndapetzim. Volunteers? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User Xixaxu is using my talk page for his personal affairs

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Xixaxu contacted me by the matter of my recent edit in Český Těšín ([102]) article describing some details [103], which I accepted and I did not interfere that article anymore. Then he came with accusation of Darwinek [104], which I ignored. Then I contacted him that I don't want to be involved party in the case [105] and despite I politely asked him not to post on my talk page anymore [106] and after he got a general restriction notice [107] by loeth, user Xixaxu continues posting on my talk page content far behind the civility. [108], [109] and [110].

I do not wish him to use my talk page for spreading personal attacks, uncivility and accusations. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Xixaxu under the "East Europe" Arbcom clause for continuing his aggressive behaviour after the warnings. But I note Darwinek's behaviour wasn't exactly stellar either. I've so far only given him a warning, but somebody with more knowledge of the context may want to give another look at his case too, since he has a well-known past history of incivility issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the main point of problem was Xixaxu with the personal attacks on my talk page, and from his actions it seemed he doesn't want to stop. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alliance for School Choice

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I need some advice about how to deal with current situations surrounding this article. The Alliance for School Choice article was created yesterday, by Alliancesc (in my mind, that suggests a large breach of WP:COI to start with). I tagged it as failing CSD A7, but this tag was removed - fair enough. A different editor has since tagged the article for notability, COI problems and added a wikify tag, but Alliancesc repeatedly removes them, despite a warning I placed on their talk page. I don't particularly want to be involved anymore, save replacing the tags when they're removed, as Alliancesc makes it clear on the article's talk page that they think I'm obsessed with getting it deleted. I feel that it probably should be deleted, but my view is now tainted by the way that Alliancesc has behaved, and I doubt I have a neutral point of view of the article any longer. Something needs to be done, though, as this user is insisting that the tags be removed, and the article not deleted (though perhaps it qualifies for it), but the tags are most definitely necessary. If an experienced admin could take a look at both the article and user, and take appropriate action, I'd be very grateful. _TheIslander 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for username violation. Alliance for School Choice article deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Other spam contributions by user reverted. Thank you for the report. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved tags removed. The article is not deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Article didn't get deleted because of some sort of Twinkle fluke, but User:Addhoc has done a wonderful job of cleaning it up and sourcing it, so I don't feel it qualifies for G11 anymore. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

206.207.175.135 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Like Argyriou says. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

206.207.175.135 should be blocked. Please check history in article such as Elvis Presley and Nintendo DS. Thank You Sahilm (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Simple vandalism. Hit him with the appropriate vandalism warnings, etc. Not an ANI incident. Argyriou (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism at 19:26, 8 January 2008

Resolved

Urgent [111] a mass coordinated attack of page move vandalism has occured! Blueanode (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, umm...WTF just happened there??? Gromlakh (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All done and dusted. Blueanode (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard class project disrupting Wikipedia via meatpuppetry on articles

Resolved

 – Everyone has said their bit, now let's all get back to work.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jehochman stumbled across this, and asked me to bring it to ANI. Please read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou first. Next, read this page on Harvard.edu (archive link):

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ipc/?title=Group_4_Dispute_Results&oldid=2120

The Waterboarding article here, and it's RFC, and talk pages, have been a constant stream of SPAs, and confirmed sockpuppetry. We now have this evidence that a class orally agreed to take on the waterboarding article (see that Harvard page, search for "oral"), and we have such lovely gems as:

"Should we weigh in on whether Wikipedia should keep the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture"? If so, what is our position? Khoffman 19:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)"

Combined with the fact that the recorded on-Wiki at Harvard material is only part of the information (they say they are discussing the article), we have no way of knowing just how tainted the entire Talk:Waterboarding and RFC process there is (it's been incredibly, incredibly contentious and rancorous). What can or should be done here? I have no idea what to do with this page anymore and have gone out of my way to step away from it, after the waves of SPAs basically became too much to handle, and various admins began to try to organize discussions on there (Jehochman, Henrik). Lawrence Cohen 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

At Jehochman's request, I'm trying to keep an eye on it. El_C 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the syllabus, this assignment is due at midnight. So maybe this will be over soon. Perhaps someone can contact the professor(s) and explain to them how the assignment has disrupted our normal working processes. Since the assignment was to "try to help resolve the dispute via the talk pages" perhaps we can suggest how the students should be graded, as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Found this at the assignment page here "Your group is free to coordinate your comments as little or as much as you want. You can decide to include comments on the talk page from individual group members, or from the group as a whole." (italics mine)R. Baley (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice there are actually six active groups. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of them went after other RFCs, from a quick glance. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BITE not. Full disclosure: Jonathan Zittrain and I were classmates long ago. As a courtesy that we should extend in any similar situation, I request that the students who were involved in this incident be warned rather than blocked. They will hopefully become ongoing contributors to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, we need full disclosure of what happened, and some sort of remedy for the mess at Talk:Waterboarding and Talk:Waterboarding/Definition (the RfC page). Jehochman ^Talk

Suggest Jonathan Zittrain be whacked over the head with an entire case of frozen WP:TROUT and we all move on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight, a group of Harvard law students teamed up to work on a Wikipedia article? And this is a bad thing? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When they coordinate their views in class and then represent that as multiple independent positions on-wiki, then yes, that is a problem. henrik•talk 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Their coordination was not backed by malicious intent and the discussions documented on their wiki are not dissimilar from the ones encouraged on ours. Leave all the wikipolitics alone for a second and consider whether we want to encourage content contributions and thoughtful debate. If even one of those students enjoyed the experience or learned from it, then our whole free content encyclopedia concept was in some small way a success. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the assignment is to jump in to hot-button disputes. When a group of inexperienced users arrives at a disputed page, it doesn't tend to resolve conflict, it exacerbates whatever problem already exists. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm a little confused, it would seem to me the best way to resolve an ongoing dispute (particularly one that is 'hot-button' and has had little progress) would be to have a group of independent, rational, minds try and craft a solution that might work for everyone. Perhaps by attempting to reach rough consensus (instead of insisting that one party must be wrong or right) we took the wrong approach, but I'm not sure what the problem is proposing a solution (on the talk page mind you, no substantive edits were ever made to the main article, just some grammatical corrections). Kevparks (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let's (since this is a talk page we can be informal) just say that it appears to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Wikipedia rules about sock & meat puppetry. I suppose that as lawyers they're going to have to learn about those differences. I'd really rather that they hadn't used us to practice on. I suppose it is better than waterboarding us, whether or not it's torture! htom (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like a straight violation of meatpuppetry rules. Outside and undue influence, coordinated viewpoints, and so on, all entering an already contentious and overheated article RFC. Lawrence Cohen 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm still unclear as to why this is meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. It seems the accusation was based on some misinformation, which I hope to clear up. First, these are all individuals, not clones, and no one is using a false identity. Second, no one was asked to take any position other than through the normal channels of persuasion and argument otherwise found on this site. There are two things that would give me pause were I in your position, namely the wording on the course website and our group page implying that we can post as a group and decide on a single position. Since we did not decide to coordinate our efforts as suggested by the assignment (i.e. posting as a group) the first concern is not implicated by our actual behavior. And the comment "What is our position" was written by someone new to Wikipedia before we did any actual editing. Since I had been researching Wikipedia dispute processes and policies, I made clear to the other group members that they must voice their own opinions as individuals to avoid violating these.

Keep in mind that none of the edits done before noon were by any of us, it is only a few posts under "Another attempt" that were made by group members. And yes, this assignment will be done at midnight.

I have heard some deeper, more valid concerns voiced here, namely that the very idea of a class agreeing to work on a single dispute violates Wikipedia norms in general, and that newcomers who know each other IRL are likely to agree with each other out of courtesy, or for other reasons. These are valid objections, and if these are sufficient for asking us to refrain from participating, then I would agree to cease voicing my own opinions on the matter. However, I think it more likely that law students are simply likely to share views in general, having the characteristics that brought us here to begin with, which is a separate concern, albeit one that might also invalidate our participation.

However, if these "general social norms" are what is being violated here, I would ask that the approach being taken be softened. Since it is not at all clear to me under the current circumstances that we are indeed "meatpuppets", I would ask that people stop posting things such as "Confirmed Meatpuppetry" and the like. It appears as if the accusations here are especially harsh, and might stem as much from the fact that our opinions as to a fair resolution differed as it did from objections to our behavior itself. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The waterboarding article in particular was an especially bad selection for this ill-advised class project. The article has had a steady parade of sockpuppetry, and single purpose accounts that have been congregating there, leading to already raised temperatures and unpleasantness. The sudden appearance of another batch, at once, and with similar lockstep positioning and reasoning had about zero chance of going over well. Lawrence Cohen 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(further comments) I am not amused by this whole mess. The Waterboarding debate has to date been very contentious, with strong opinions, heated arguments and a lot less-than-constructive comments. One should note that this article has been a near constant source of problems for a long time now. New SPAs have been showing up regularly, and multiple warnings and several blocks have had to be issued so far. The process to build consensus is just barely moving along, due to problems like this. henrik•talk 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever you want to call it, this little "experiment" at our expense was extremely disruptive. Sometime within the next hour I'm going to protect the article to prevent further disruption, unless convincing arguments are made to the contrary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to chip in for the kids but sounds like (Lciaccio above) the Harvard Lawyers can speak for themselves adequately. If they can't manage it, I'll go get some Duke Lawyers to help them out :-) Pete St.John (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that there are six different groups from this same class working on at least five different articles. Links to the individual groups can be found here. Pairadox (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how protection is warranted, since none of us ever touched the article. All we did is voice our views on the talk page. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows three edits to the article. So much for "none of us ever touched the article." Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about my own minor edits. I changed:

"Representative Ted Poe stated on Glen Beck show in response to the question "Do you believe waterboarding is torture?", Poe state "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't." " to

"In response to the question "Do you believe waterboarding is torture?" on the Glen Beck show, Representative Ted Poe stated "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."

I don't generally keep track of the edits I make to fix grammar or wording problems. And this was an attempt to fix very poor English based on my own anal nature, having nothing to do with the project. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they haven't done any substantial changes, Lciaccio is correct in that. She did a few minor changes fixing typos, correcting grammar and other minor edits, but that isn't something we should discourage. Thanks for fixing those problems. :-) henrik•talk 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that, of the 6 groups, the waterboarding group (Group 4) appears to be the only one that caused serious disruption to Wikipedia. Group 2 should be commended for openly stating their assignment and affiliation and discussing issues appropriately on the HD formats talk page. That said, I think we should ask the professor not to assign this in the future. The potential for trouble is just too great. *** Crotalus *** 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the behavior of Group 2 was exemplary. Had the waterboarding group behaved similarly I would have had absolutely no problems with the assignment. henrik•talk 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not contact the press? If we could assume that Harvard-trained lawyers were all altruistic, honorable, and on the right side of every issue this would be an innocent thing. However, the last thing we need is a class of alpha lawyers who feel that organized efforts to manipulate reference works is a legitimate tactic. There are more of us than there are of them. Let's just hack Lexis and change some Supreme Court rulings on Fair Use law to our advantage, shall we? Wikidemo (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikidemo should review the Bite policy. -Lciaccio (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, dodging the question like that and turning against the questioner almost think you were a lawyer or something. Oh wait... Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for comments like that, Wikidemo and Raymond. We can't assume that new users should be instantly familiar with every bit of etiquette and culture on this site. henrik•talk 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he/she knew enough to cite WP:BITE... Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As an alternative suggestion - why not write a very polite e-mail to Mr (or is it Prof?) Zittrain, or whoever set the assignment, explaining what our concerns are about the project and suggesting he considers these when setting future projects - eg by encouraging students to become familiar with Wikipedia rules and avoiding off-wiki collaboration. I reckon this would do the trick just as effectively as any public fuss. As for what has happened already - well, it's over now.Hobson (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that would be the best solution. Jehochman says he's acquainted with the prof, so maybe a personal note would be the best approach. Most of the groups weren't disruptive, so clearly it wasn't a deliberate attempt to disrupt and the prof just needs to make sure everyone knows the ground rules. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lciaccio isn't a new user, s/he's been around for a few years. It's surprising that s/he didn't understand that the sudden arrival of the law students at the RfC would naturally result in sock/meatpuppetry concerns, but perhaps s/he hasn't edited enough on contentious subjects. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, generally I just try to fix up articles. I tried to review some disputes over the last few days to become familiar with the process, but I guess they weren't contentious enough to prepare me. -Lciaccio (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to answer every question posed to me, and I don't believe I have dodged a single one. Wikidemo's comment was not a question, but a snipe. I know in other online communities and in real life, it is proper to point out when this is happening. I didn't realize Wikipedia's etiquette and culture dictates otherwise. But perhaps I should have followed my mom's advice there; it seems a better policy to smile and ignore such comments. -Lciaccio (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think WP:BITE applies to groups of lawyers-in-training coordinating to perform edits, however innocent their motives may be. We might as well credit them with constructive knowledge of the rules and the consequences of breaking them; after all, in their future profession ignorance of procedure is no excuse for not following it. They didn't get into Harvard by being helpless newbies. The assignment has to do with understanding how Wikipedia handles disputes. Might as well show them to the real Wikipedia, not a watered-down version. Nobody is going to suffer any real consequences here. I am half serious that we don't want to expose one of our most serious vulnerabilities to the very group best equipped to exploit it, that a small group of intelligent people acting in coordination and adept in the world of rules and argumentation can easily manipulate our articles, and thereby affect public perception. They may be idealistic now, but a few years out in the world and a more cynical lawyer would use the same techniques with bad motives. If that made the news it would be all the more salient a learning exercise. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) These pages need checking:

From Group 1[112]

From Group 2[113]

From Group 3[114]

Group 4 is waterboarding.

From Group 5 this page

From Group 6 possibly lots of pages, this one 1st (congressman Jon Porter)

R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jehochman ^Talk pours everyone a cup of tea and hands out AGF-flavored scones. These are students. We hope they have learned something—that online communities do not like being experimented upon. If you wish to learn about us, participate sincerely, observe and even write about what you see; but do not provoke conflicts or violate social norms by conducting breaching experiments. I hope to speak with the professor and give him some ideas how to conduct this exercise in the future in a way that will avoid disruption. Happy editing, all, Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell him that next time, when his students arrive bearing gasoline... They should, out of courtesy, not add it to any of our very largest bonfires. ^Avruchtalk 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr, but will try to read in a second here. Just wanted to throw in my voice that I don't see anything wrong with this situation, whatsoever. These students are still individuals, and simply because they're a group in the real world doesn't make them meatpuppets. What would the difference be if they were all Wikipedians who first discussed something on one talk page, then went to another, larger discussion? I imagine real-life collaboration with fellow Wikipedians to be something that will only increase, and will be to Wikipedia's benefit. Treat these individuals just as you would any other Wikipedian, and lets not assume meatpupetry every time a project is taken up off-wiki. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Suspensions. Since a number of people here are recognizing that there has not been outright malice or sockpuppetry, is there a call to undo the five suspensions? I'm obviously biased here, but that seems excessive under the current circumstances. -Lciaccio (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Link to thread posted to WikiEn-L. ^Avruchtalk 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I already requested that the students who were involved in this incident be warned rather than blocked. Lciaccio, when one person who holds a certain belief finds a few friends who agree, and gets them all to create accounts and stack one of our discussions without any sort of disclosure, that's a problem. If five people want to join Wikipedia, great, but they should edit independently, or they should disclose the relationship. As remedies, I propose that the No Canvassing template be added to Talk:Waterboarding and Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, and that the comments of the parties involved here be noted to say that they were acting in collusion. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • All their accounts are currently suspended. And, once again, what you are alleging never happened. We all went into this without an opinion on the matter. -Lciaccio (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've always thought meatpuppetry was when you found people to support your view for a specific reason, for a gain of some sort. This sounds more like individuals developing a micro-consensus, then presenting those arguments to a larger group. Considering they were not perviously involved in these disputes, they'll actually more likely to give an honest, neutral, response to the discussions. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, after reading even more about this, browsing the assessment pages, and seeing what was actually done.. It seems to be that it is the regular Wikipedians that have ownership issues. Nothing bad has happened, there is no actual break in policy, and as such we are in no place to ask them to stop or to stop them by force. Monitor the situation if you wish, but do so fairly and with an open mind. It doesn't matter if these were heated debates or not, anyone at any time is welcome to become involved. We don't own the articles, nor do we own the debates. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ned, this set up warning bells for many users because one editor already was caught up by Checkusers for abusing multiple accounts to sock puppet a certain position in the debates and RFC, and very aggressively at that. There is a very, very aggressive SPA account active on those talk pages who went out of his way to insist that the confirmed sockpuppeter was misrepresented, and that editors at his university were all just doing a school project (UPenn, in that case). Then mere days later, these new Harvard users all showed up, at once, with relatively the same shared positioning. A multiple of new accounts all moving in force together, when this article has this ongoing SPA/trolling/sockpuppetry problem: how was this supposed to look and be read? As far as ownership, I challenge that. If some users (not sure who you were implying there) wanted to play ownership of that article, it certainly wouldn't be the handful that are trying to constantly get more people to look at the cesspool it's been turned into. Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So they still didn't do anything wrong, but had unfortunate timing and an unfortunate target article? Shame on them... -- Ned Scott 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they waded into a snakepit with no idea of what they were getting into. For a professor to ask students to edit Wikipedia is not necessarily problematic (we had no problem with the minor edits on Day 1 of the assignment); to explicitly send them straight off to dispute resolution — one of the nastiest aspects of our community — was irresponsible. It's irresponsible because it puts the students in an unfair position where both their actions and motives will be questioned, and they will be mistaken for sockpuppets. It's not fair to Wikipedia either; we were trying to judge consensus among Wikipedians, and single-purpose accounts only impede that process. *** Crotalus *** 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of their suggestions are very good. For newbies, they're doing pretty darn good. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I well understand the reasons that the opinions of new users should be given less weight, especially considering the risk of canvassing and sockpuppets present in single-purpose accounts. But does their lack of editing history make their views of so little weight that the mere act of posting them to a discussion page is grounds for suspension?-Lciaccio (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Only group 4 was disruptive, as far as I can tell. The others, 2 in particular, did fairly well. The problem is: what happens if this sort of assignment were to catch on? We can handle one class, but what if there were 100 of them? Even if 5/6 of the groups behave themselves, that still leaves 1/6 causing disruption, and multiply that by all the potential classes out there and we've got a real problem. *** Crotalus *** 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would become a real problem. Remember, this is all being documented for their assignment, and causing intentional disruption is a good way to fail that assignment. By it's very nature, we're guaranteed that these situations will be reviewed by other people, and are far less likely to go unnoticed than some disruptions we've had. I actually hope this does catch on, and that they (while likely learning ways to help avoid the panic) do more projects like this in the future. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do. As the collective community (or members of it) that compose Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, we do indeed own the articles as long as they are on Wikipedia. Of course, all of our contributors become part of that community (unless they remove themselves by their actions). WP:OWN is aimed at individual action, not collective, and WP:CANVASS and policies on meatpuppetry reflect the community consensus on these types of activities. ^Avruchtalk 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The community welcomes these editors with open arms. It is specific individuals that have the OWNership issues. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised that (as I noticed from the discussion above), we don't have an article on Constructive knowledge, an important legal concept. Maybe some of these editors would be interested in writing that? *** Crotalus *** 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm inclined to mostly side with the students and professor. I think the one thing that some of them did wrong was not be up front about their assignment. Other than that, I don't see any good evidence they were coordinating to promote a particular POV or intended to be disruptive. If the parameters of the assignment included that they should be making their own decisions, following our policies, and not intentionally disrupting Wikipedia, I don't see how having a few fresh, knowledgeable, and intelligent editors hurts anything.

I also don't see how WP:CANVASS applies, since there isn't any solid evidence presented that the intent was to votestack. This whole thing feels a little too hostile to newbies who don't get started under our terms, IMO (WP:BITE). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

certainly they are votestaking, in the sense of conspiring to promote a favored view:

"Do we want, though, to make a suggestion about the multiple graphs right away in the first posting? My only thought is that we might want to have several options to lay out, possibly even with pros and cons. Or that we devise a plan for sequencing our mediation, based on what we believe the reactions may be. " (group 2) What can be clearer--they are planning to systematically present their group position though individual contributions in such a way as to have the best tactical results. sure, one can plan to present a cross-examination in such a way--it's legitimate legal strategy; they have their rules; we have ours. They either didn't bother to inform themselves of our requirements for ethical participation-- or decided to ignore them. Whichever it is, it doesn't look good. I know what grade I'd give this group DGG (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we forgive any transgressions as long as they report back that Wikipedians take neutrality and integrity of articles very seriously. Good writers good thinkers = good citizens, usually, and the plan was slightly misguided but not ill of motive. Also move to ask the professor to extend the assignment deadline a day and award extra credit for anyone writing an article on constructive knowledge. Wikidemo (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they took neutrality and integrity into account well enough, but didn't take into account the strong desire for transparency you find in many here. A lack of transparency is often interpreted as an intent to hide something around here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Their plan was incompetent--would they practice in a jurisdiction and not bother to read its rules? DGG (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Their plan wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad at all. It was panic and bad timing, which no one can fairly be blamed with, that caused the initial disruption. Now that it's cleared up, I see no issue with their actual behavior, nor did they actually break our rules. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on how this "disrupted" the discussion. It seems to me as if the only actual disruption was the accusation of meatpuppetry itself. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this and move on? Quite apart from the class assignment, I'm now aware of what a mess the Waterboarding article is. It came off protection just recently and the edit warring has started right back up. Editors there are begging for it to be protected so that things can be worked out, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the instructor should have his grade knocked down for not doing enough research about the assignment he was giving, not providing his students with the tools needed (links to relevant WP policies), and failure to consider the impact of this assignment on Wikipedia itself. Bad teacher, no donut! Pairadox (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Their impact has been mostly positive, rather it's the over-reactions of experienced editors that are causing the disturbance. I strongly encourage them to do this again, but for their own sake, try to avoid freaking out the natives. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

it's positive in the sense that now we are aware of the effect that there can be from groups plotting off-WP to affect our editing, and they've been transparent enough to give us actual examples of how such a group operates and thinks. I would personally deal with it here by deleting all discussions on the affected pages from the point they became involved. I've cited one example of a literal plot, and there have been others mentioned above. It will be a useful ethics lesson to all. Careless teacher, careless students. But then, i am not from harvard, so I wont make jokes about it. DGG (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be a fool and disregard their good advice and neutral insight, go ahead. Off-wiki collaboration does not equal evil plotting. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a lot more harsh that I meant. I understand why you feel it was manipulative, but disagree that it actually was. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged meatpuppet speaks out

I resent the implication that this was meatpuppetry or that we conspired to vote-stack or to disrupt the normal workings of wikipedia. At all times our intention was to put forth a good faith effort to resolve the current dispute. Because the page was (as has been noted) something of a mess, we felt that the best way to do this would be to first discuss our impressions of the arguments that had come before, and what sort of compromise could be reached. We saw requests for valid sources of a dispute about whether waterboarding is torture. We saw that those sources had been offered and largely ignored. We pointed to the most obvious instance of this ignored offering, and suggested a fairly neutral solution. Because we are separate and distinct people, we posted our opinions separately and distinctly. It was never our intention to inflate our authority by doing this, but only that it be given exactly the weight that one experienced user and several new users' opinions should be given. We encouraged and anticipated comment by other wikipedians, and were perfectly prepared to be outnumbered. The reaction I've seen by wikipedians has been appalling, and has certainly curbed my desire to express my view in any future dispute. I acknowledge one fair point from our various detractors: it may have been a better idea to declare our group project outright. We discussed it, and the reason we decided against it was because we wanted to avoid distraction from the actual issue under dispute. I see that this has happened anyway, and I regret that. Lastly, (though the posting of this comment will render it redundant,) I just wanted to let lciaccio know that as far as I know none of our accounts were actually suspended. Vhettinger (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

I am of absolutely no consequence to this discussion, but the concern I see among the "regular" Wikipedians here is one of transparency. Had the participants announced their presence and intentions, as one group apparently did, I would imagine this would have been a non-issue. Gladys J Cortez 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Give that lady a cigar. And with that, I'm gonna close this thing. Back to work, folks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Gladys here, and Ned Scott above, re -outside groups bringing micro-consensus to the table, not premeditated COllusion of the MeatPuppetry variety. Asserting athat all the groups were homogeneous of opinion seems fatuous at best. I'm not thrilled about the potential for abuse, but here we've got Jehochman saying he can, essentially, vouch for the professor's intent being non-malicious, and a group of students who were open. It's entirely possible the level of candor was open to interpretation, and if we get 30 Harvard eggheads as regular editors, good on us, it'll help balance out the flat earthers. (SAT vocab and pithy references? you bet. got to look best when the bean-town brains show up.) ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheOnly ones has issued a slew of disparaging personal attacks at me

Resolved

 – Rock sock block'd. — Coren ^(talk)

It started when he called me an "obese mallpunk kid".[115] After asking him not to call me names, he followed up by calling me "Warped Tour Kid" in two seperate edits.[116][117] This gave way to him saying about me " You could always go listen to your Green Day CDs while the big boys contrib to the articles."[118]

I'm getting pretty tired of all this abuse. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, he reminds me of a sockpuppeteer who constantly creates new accounts to add his own POV to what genre bands are or aren't. When confronted, he always resorts to juvenile personal attacks by calling others "kiddies" and whatnot. I can't recall who the puppeteer is right now. I will try and remember if no one else can. IrishGuy ^talk 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul. Will ^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock; identical pattern of edits and not very imaginative in his invectives. Indefed. — Coren ^(talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning Opportunity

Resolved

I do not want to bother my local friendly admins with my curiosity so I'll ask here. Is this ok? Brusegadi (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. no. Reverted. — Save_Us_229 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:S Seagal's talk page comments

Resolved

 – editor warned — Coren ^(talk)

User:S Seagal has left some rather uncivil comments on my talk page. Brief explanation of the history: I tagged Anti-Pakistani sentiment for G4 speedy deletion and left this note on the article creator's talk page. Seagal responded with this, to which I responded with this "no personal attacks" template. Seagal once again responded, with this.

It seems like reporting it at WP:AIV would be overkill since mine was only the second warning for personal attacks, but it's clear that any further attempt on my part to communicate with this user would only cause further provocation. Could someone with more experience with this sort of thing perhaps issue another warning, or give me advice on what I might do?

I'm afraid this may come off as rather petty, but based on the user's history of incivility (as documented on the user talk page) I doubt that just ignoring it would have a positive effect on the user's future behavior. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a stern final warning. — Coren ^(talk) 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request for arbitration filed. MastCell ^Talk 01:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

WP:TE is definitely an issue with Jaakobou - multiple instances of blocked for breaking WP:3RR, of reverting "vandalism" of others ^{[119][120][121] [122][123] [124][125]}, accusing others of censorship ^{[126][127][128][129][130][131]} 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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A more perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black would be hard to come by. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Um, that's a nice try to divert the issue, but TariqAbjotu, El_C, and Number 57 are admins with clear block records, Tiamut and Huldra are respected editors with no block logs, Pedro Gonnet has one now-overturned 3rr block, I have a 3rr block from this summer (the blocking admin later said "since I blocked him last week, Eleland has done nothing but remain civil and try to discuss the situation"), G-Dett has two 3rr blocks, and only PR and maybe ThuranX have any serious record of disruption. Whatever stone-throwing from glass houses is going on here, a multitude of respected, trusted editors and admins find there to be something seriously amiss with Jaakobou's actions on the Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot how depressingly predictable all discussions relating to these topics are. Thanks for the reminder, Mr Hicks. Yes, PalestineRemembered's block log is every bit as ugly as Jaakobu's. Obviously the solution, then, is for both of them to carry on as they've been doing, right? Or maybe send it to ArbCom for another round of stern admonitions (if they dare go that far)? Let's not forget the step where all editors/admins who take the time to comment are assigned to dichotomous political camps based on their opinions about a user-conduct issue, either. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bring it on - I'll dare go "as far as" ArbCom - and much more - I'd be delighted to go "up against" Jaakobou. I've pleaded (and been rejected and pleaded again) for the case that bears my name to be arbitrated - I still want it - and I'd be delighted if the many new allegations against me (there've been lots, all virtually evidence free) are added to it. I've never lied, cheated, or damaged the encyclopedia - quite the reverse - in fact, I've several times been attacked and sanctioned (up to and including an indef-block) for doing good work that has stuck. I've never (deliberatly, anyway!) acted unreasonably - so there's a crystal clear comparison to be made here.

And there is more than defending the scholarly against the tendentious can be decided now - it's high time the cancer of false accusations against good editors (and their defenders) be excised, and the cancer of partisan defence of terrible editors be faced and stamped out. Bring it on. PR^talk 08:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone enlighten me to the previous arbitration case that has been alluded to multiple times? Anyway, Eleland, I think you're off the mark with your interpretation of Mr. Hicks' comments, especially because you suggest I disagree with him. Let me be clear: I don't disagree with him. Yes, Jaakobou's actions have disruptive and should be addressed, but it would be unfortunate if we were to levy sanctions against him based on dicussion here and then close the book on this Israeli-Palestinian conflict disruption. Some of the other disruptive editors, including, but perhaps not limited to, you (Eleland), Taimut (who doesn't, by the way, have a clean block log), and PalestineRemembered, certainly need to have their actions scrutinized. Unsurprisingly, all three of those editors have been quick to denounce Jaakobou's actions and feign innocence (i.e. throwing stones in glass houses). Blocks and topic bans are not intended to give one side an upperhand in a dispute. If a broad arbitration case or investigation results with just Jaakobou being sanctioned, fine, but we should be real careful about how we respond to this. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to scrutinize my edits and block log. While it is true that I have been blocked four times, three of those blocks were the result of 3RR reports filed by Isarig (talk · contribs) who was edit-warring with me at the time and the fourth was placed by Traiqabjotu after I filed a 3RR report against Egygey (talk · contribs). Three of those four blocks were lifted before they expired.

Additionally, I have authored at least 10 DYKs and one good article, not to mention my contributions at tens of other pages. I don't think it's fair to compare my editing to that of Jaakobou's, who as Huldra (talk · contribs) points out below, hasn't seemed to actually improve a single article. Tiamut 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Tariqabjotu's comment right on the mark, but in the almost two years since he began editing, PR still spends most of his time either edit-warring or filling talk pages with original research and political speeches. PR, who is theoretically under mentorship, has apparently managed to drive way all of his mentors except self-appointed ones, and they, unsurprisingly, have no impact at all on his behavior. For that matter, another of Jaakobou's current opponents User:Liftarn carries out silent POV edit-wars that have lasted, in some cases, years. Jaakobou is not unique, merely outnumbered, and less sophisticated than his opponents. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for the arbitration that bears my name to be re-opened, and you are a party to it. I will want your statement above entered into the record as evidence. If there are other occasions when you have leveled undefendable statements about my conduct or character, I will enter those as evidence too.

I can assure everyone reading this that all my actions have been carried out with the intention of improving the accuracy of articles, and the quality of the project. In many cases I have clearly succeeded against the most bitter of opposition and the most reckless of personal slander. PR^talk 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what is the deal with his mentorship, anyway? MastCell ^Talk 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of keeping Jaakobou's ANI on track and not filling it with complete irrelevancies I have answered your question at your TalkPage. In a nutshell, despite it's apparent absurdity, I've been delighted with mentoring, whereas my detractors have repeatedly de-railed the process because they're not. Please feel free to question me there or elsewhere. PR^talk 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the Tiamut statement, I must have mistyped it somehow. And I don't "feign innocence," I have violated 3RR once and skirted it a couple of other times, and I've made uncivil comments, especially towards Jaakobou.

Anyway, you have a reasonable point about being careful. This is, after all, a case of infractions which are all, compared to blatant trolling or vandalism, relatively minor when taken individually. And if Jaakobou's block record is any indication, an admin so bold as to put his foot down would just be undone anyway. I agree that this should be taken to arbitration. <eleland/talkedits> 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks as if it is inevitable that any discussion involving editors on Palestine/Israel issues degenerate to some form of WP:KETTLE. I think it should rather boil down to what the "signal-to-noise" ratio is. That is my point: from my experience with Jaakobou I do not know about any article which has been improved by his attention. I am not saying that there aren´t any; I just do not know about it. (And I confess: I have not looked through them all). Can somebody tell me? That is, can anybody tell me which articles that has improved under his attention/edits? And, btw, I actually do believe that Jaakobou acts in good faith....but that doesn´t really make the situation better. Not at all. The "improvement-potential" is, IMO, less in such cases. Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since so many people seem really into this User:Jaakobou / User:PalestineRemembered comparison, why don't we drag User:Jaakobou to WP:RfArb and place him under mentorship and a short leash just as User:PalestineRemembered was? pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 07:52

Because as shown by PR, mentorship does not seem to work. Even in PR's case, it was simply a settlement so the community would be able to stop the drama and try to give him a chance to be a productive editor. It doesn't seem to have been a very good solution, imho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can assure everyone that mentorship works superbly. It provides a conduit whereby minor (or major) complaints about my editing/conduct are funneled through one person and slight adjustments can be requested/required, without the drama of a "disciplinary".

The problem arises because certain editors have taken it upon themselves to object to real improvements going into articles - and my mentors have repeatedly been unable to find any fault with what I've been doing. See this from October 07 and (for productive cooperation), see this from January 08. PR^talk 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion by an editor at the top of this section that Jaakobou be limited to 1RR is a reasonable suggestion that would deal with his mass blanking of article content quite adequately. Tiamut 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that if it was enforced on ALL editors on these tendentious articles. Do we have a WP:GLASSHOUSES yet? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think that we should remove Twinkle from Jaakobou's mono-book. Just a quick scan through his contribs shows he uses it in content disputes and labels good faith edits as vandalism - I see very little constructive use of tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note,

• That Tiamut ignored my serious concerns regarding the factuality of his material and continued editing:
  • i disagree with the removal of the "Palestinian terrorists" category 16:06, 5 January 2008
  • why are you changing the arabic translation and revving up the "resistance" terminology? 18:31, 5 January 2008
  • last i checked "fedayeen" translated to guerrilla, not "freedom fighter", 13:14, 6 January 2008
  • considering you've made more than 50 edits with many contested changes, i'd expect at least the issue i addressed, to be fixed before moving on with more edits. 17:23, 6 January 2008
• To be frank, previous to my recent block (which I well took notice of) I'd have reverted him long before making 4 talk page pleas -- but following these notes, I saw no alternative to the continued edits than a revert to get noticed with my, up to that point ignored, concerns.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

p.s. Ryan, I'd appreciate an example of where I reverted good faith edits and marked them as Vandalism. Perhaps one of those made on the person you're supposed to mentor who still keeps bothering me [132] and call normative sources "hate sites" [133].

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using the tool in any content disputes, regardless of whether or not you add your own edit summary in. There's plenty of reverts using the tool in content disputes and that's serious misuse of twinkle. I would appreciate outside comments on this before I remove twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I may have misused it a couple times if you go over all of the many times i've used it with, but I can't recall any uses that cannot be explained -- I'd appreciate some input on the person you mentor before you remove it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop piling everything on PR - does he force you to click on rollback on twinkle every time you're in a content dispute? No, this is about your misuse of Twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you advise your mentee to stop trolling Jaakobou as well? It isn't about his misuse of twinkle, although that could be a legitimate complaint. Jaakobou has pointed out that he's made an effort to discuss his changes while Tiamut doesn't seem to do the same and is using sympathetic POV language for terms which do not seem to warrant it and opened this kangaroo court instead of trying to discuss the content dispute properly on the talk page of the article. You have a hang-up over his use of twinkle, noone else seems to. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, User:Kyaa the Catlord, it's not a content dispute we are talking about here, it's the hundreds of content disputes which User:Jaakobou starts and then drags on for ever and ever to no avail. Don't try to turn this issue into a content dispute, as User:Jaakobou always does. It's disruptive and tendentious editing that are the issue here and it's just plain annoying for anyone and everyone trying to make decent encyclopaedic material out of the I/P articles. pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 13:40

So its a number of content disputes which are being labelled and sold as nasty words with wikilinks behind them. I find you annoying in our particular discussion on Gilad Shalit, but I'm not whining on AN/I about it and I take the time to discuss the issue with you on the talk pages. Tiamut does not appear to be acting properly and discussing these even when the branch is offered. Both sides MUST be looked at in these matters which you will learn quickly if you take this to arbcom. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, you seem to missing the point: User:Jaakobou starts content disputes over bogus material as a way of blocking articles he doesn't like. That's WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:TE all in one. If User:Jaakobou is so good at discussing and talking things through, can you give me a few examples of him ever having agreed to some compromise on any point? Can you show me any RfC he's followed until conclusion? pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 14:00

No, I'm not the one on the warpath and am not stalking his edits. Maybe he can. I can, however, show you one where you aren't following the conclusion of an RfC if you'd like.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear exactly what the problem is, this is Jaakabou's use of twinkle in content disputes over the past few days - some are labelled as vandalism when they clearly aren't; [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148]

I've gone ahead and remvoed twinkle from his monobook. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan,

1. Which ones of them clearly aren't?
2. I still can't recall any uses that cannot be explained -- I'd appreciate some input on the person you mentor Saeb Erekat edit -> "revert vandalism" now that you've taken to remove it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The PR edit was clearly not vandalism. One of the edits up there you reverted as vandalism when someone removed an unsourced section - this again isn't vandalism, and porbably have to be done. On another page you reverted somebody who removed a comment labelling someone a "former terrorist" - BLP eh? Many reverts I've seen are straight edit wars, with you reverting with very little rationale. One of the best edit summaries I've seen for a while was "(Reverted 1 edit by Tiamut; I STILL object this mass revert.. using TW)" - and what do you think you were doing when reverting that? Exactly the same thing that you reverted for in the first place. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see it.

1. The provided "reverted as vandalism" diff you've given, was not marked as Vandalism. (It was however a series of 3 WP:POV and WP:POINT edits)
2. The former terrorist text refers to Walid Shoebat, who presents himself as a reformed former PLO terrorist.. not only on the back-cover of the film^[0] but also in every TV interview he's made. BLP eh?
3. As i've stated on my page [149], I have not seen a place where it says I'm not allowed to use the tool as long as I give a proper edit summary. Regardless, i've just served a time-out partly due to reverting on that page (despite leading an attempt to resolve the disputes).
4. Anyone giving a look at the Saeb Erekat edit can decide on their own if it is vandalism or not.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, WP:RfArb

Well, sorry for pooping anybody's party here, but to bring this thread back on track... The issue is User:Jaakobou's tendentious and disruptive editing. Many editors and admins have suggested arbitration. I already tried this once on a specific issue (WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT, see here) and it got shot down as a content dispute. Any other editors willing to start an WP:RfArb as suggested here? Or, better yet, any admins up to it? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 13:34

Pedro, despite an RfC [150] [151] showing favor for use of the word hostage, you've reverted that word out [152] - what makes you think the arbcom would disregard this "tendentious and disruptive edit"? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, I'm not taking the bait -- I've answered on this issue far too many times. This is not about any specific dispute, but about your behaviour in general. Stop trying to divert it. pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 14:05

Its kinda funny, Jaakobou shows you evidence that you don't follow the consensus shown on an RfC but you can't handle the heat when your glass house is pelted with rocks. (Yes, I intenionally mixed metaphors. Hurry up and make that RfArb if you think you have a case Pedro...) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, do you mean the RfC at Talk:Gilad Shalit which resulted in the nice compromise solution suggested by User:Dbratton (here), to which I and most other editors agreed to, but to which User:Jaakobou did not, instead trying to turn the WP:RFC into a vote (which the page WP:RFC clearly states it is not)? If so, then it is again an wonderful example of User:Jaakobou's editing pattern... pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 14:42

Yes, due to your continued tendentious refusal (and subsequent 3rr block) to follow the advice of the consensus of editors on the page, we gave in and decided to take the compromise position. Its an excellent example, is it not? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not serious, are you? Tell me you're not serious... Where, in the aforementioned RfC, do you and/or User:Jaakobou accept the compromise solution? And that block was reverted. Have you been drinking again or have you just taken to plain lying? Cut it out with the diversions, red herrings and straw-men. pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 15:07

Neither Jaakobou nor I have editted away the "compromise" position. We may not have held a parade, but we've not fired rockets from the Golan Heights either. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has a long history of abusing procedures, including calling for RfC and then refused to abide by the results. Earlier today, I've informed another editor of one such case here.

Note how, in this case as in so many others, User:Jaakobou's determination not to abide by policy is infectious, and results in other editors slipping into these consensus trashing and article damaging behaviors. It really is of the utmost importance that he be stopped. PR^talk 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the punchline there is Mr. Hicks' final response to you. You should probably read that again before trying to use it as "evidence'. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said to new editor User:Mr. Hicks The III, "Please don't behave as if the procedures and conclusions of the community don't apply to you." PR^talk 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Observers need to check the result of the RfC refered to, "Comments by previously uninvolved users, where, despite interference by an involved user, the result seems to be two to none in favour of Pedro's solution of "abducted" or "captured" (ie not use the word "hostage").

Observers might also care to visit this TalkPage, where it would seem that Pedro has partaken in a model of consensual discussion, with an involved user of an opposite point of view.

Uninvolved observers might suppose that this mini-example neatly demonstrates a massive problem of tendentious editing by the subject of this ANI. If problems of deceit arise at this evidence-based process, then how much worse is it a problem in articles? PR^talk 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Those same observers should scroll down and see where the usage of hostage in the article has strong support. The near unilateral belief that he should not be called that for "pov" reasons is overruled by the clear consensus of editors. Unfortunately, some do not believe that consensus can ever occur apparently. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding of the RfC process is faulty (or I've not fully understood the vast amount of verbiage just on this one issue), then you will be welcome to my apology. But my understanding of the purpose of "Request for Comment" is to get the input of the community, hence the views (or, wrongly, sometimes the votes) of uninvolved editors only are being canvassed.

And in this case, only two uninvolved editors appeared, both of them opposed to the word "hostage". I've obviously not checked all the media sources, but the supporters of "abducted" or "captured" claim to have done so, and claim to be editing to the sources. That's what editing is about - it's called policy, and it appears that User:Jaakobou refuses to abide by it. PR^talk 15:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been presented and summarily disregarded. But hey, let's move on. This is boring me. I await the RfC or RfArb. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forwards to presenting this evidence at the ArbCom. There is a lot more where that came from. PR^talk 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is heading to arbitration unfortunately unless Jaakobou's (and other editors that are in the dispute) conduct changes somewhat. I would suggest a user conduct RfC before any arbitration cases are filed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou in real-time

Actually, for a nice, real-time demonstration of User:Jaakobou WP:Wikilawyering his misbehaviour and attempting to discuss it to death and/or turn it into a content dispute, see User talk:Jaakobou#Detwinkled. He's only just gotten started, so this may fizzle-out as soon as he reads this post. pedro gonnet - talk - 08.01.2008 14:16

I love the part where he says "I'd appreciate some further discussion/explanation on my use of the tool for reverting vandalism, such as the cases on saeb erekat, ....". His claim to be fighting vandalism at Saeb Erekat is breath-taking indeed. Sorry to repeat myself, but this proves that User:Jaakobou has been single-handedly holding off 8 editors at this article, he has demanded it treat the subject a liar - and he's succeeded in doing this for the whole 16 month existence of that TalkPage! No dispute resolution will ever be possible in these cases, the damage to articles such as this one has simply got to stop. PR^talk 15:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And with that out of the way, I'd like to motion to close this. It has been suggested, appropriately, that this should follow WP:DR not be a focus of this noticeboard. Opinion on closing this and letting Jaakobou's detractors take this to an RfC or RfArb? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Ryan Postlethwaite has (quite rightly IMO) taken this to arbitration - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe

User:Nihonjoe created the article Youmex, a now defunct anime and music production company. Another editor tagged it for CSD.[153]. 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.[154] 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"[155]. 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[156]. 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.[157]. In response, he protected the article[158] 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

  • 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.AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • That is a relatively recent addition to the criteria. The edit summary where it was introduced said that it was restoration of policy. But I, for one, wasn't aware that it had been policy up to that point. It doesn't seem to match the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 19, certainly. Nor is it in any prior version of the page that I've seen. It's a rather wide blanket provision, for the simple reason that it is administrators that we expect to know what the speedy deletion criteria are, and whose judgement is supposed to be sound in whether a tag has been incorrectly applied. And yes, as the edit summary said, one cannot advertise for a company that no-longer exists. However, I note that the article gave no indication at that point that that was the case. Uncle G (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • For what it's worth, he at least remembered to protect the wrong version. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
                • 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)
                • 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)

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)

• 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)

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}}.[159] 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.[160] Superm401, then sent to article to AfD.[161] Ok, no real problem so far.

Nihonjo continues to expand the article and add sources[162] until AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) comes in and undoes most of the work and removes nearly all of the sources Nihonjo added.[163] At this point is when the edit war started between the two different versions with Collectonian eventually calling Nihonjoe's reverts "vandalism".[164][165] After Collctonian's last revert, Nihojoe locks the article to keep the edit war going further,[166] 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)

• 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

WB/UPN Intrastate Template Deletion resulting in inadvertent CW Intrastate Templates deletion

Resolved

 – undeleted —Random832 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Brought up again from Sunday, has not been looked at yet.)

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) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted them - I think I got them all, I was going based on the deletion log—Random832 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BillCJ

Resolved

Hello. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BillCJ was created recently. It is malformed, and BillCJ has declined. One strange thing is the nom on the RFA. His only edit outside the RFA was notifying BillCJ. Anyway, could someone please close it? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As there was no follow-through after this, I'm being bold and considering this an odd form of vandalism and simply deleted the malformed page. If there's a serious nomination, it'd be welcome - done correctly. SkierRMH (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is warming, however, to be niminated. User should be grateful, as he could have been nominated. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the nominator is a long-term stalker and troll of BillCJ, given the note at the top of the latter's talk page. Hence the brusque treatment. -- RG² 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Half-dozen hours since unblock request

Resolved

 – slakr^\ talk /

Hello. I'd like to point out that a request for unblock was made on User talk:5dsddddd at 21:35 on January 8. It has remained unanswered for a while, so could an admin please answer it? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock was declined by User:Luna Santin. Nakon 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Resumption of IP vandalism after block

Resolved

 – IP hasn't edited in 48 hours

217.38.127.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [167] Non current. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits

Resolved

 – user blocked slakr^\ talk /

Please see these edits of Jmm6f488 (talk · contribs) here and here. These are totally unacceptable and even after being warned of the first, he did the second. Also this one before the 2 above: [168]. -- ALLSTARecho 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, that was disgraceful. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

48 hours? Feeling generous Ryan?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd call Ryan downright stingy; if it'd been me, I would have indeffed the guy. Stuff like this[169] is 100% unacceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I would have indef-ed too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this here after I left a final warning. Strange thing is, seems to have had a long period of inactivity and then had a couple of edits before flipping. Would agree with an indefinite. Woody (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user had never edited in relation to those topics before, then I would almost suspect a compromised account. But that doesn't appear to be the case. An indef block seems appropriate, but - given reasonable contributions in the past and sincere contrition now and in the future - 48 hours may be acceptable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, he has given some good contributions in the past - we shouldn't banish people for a couple of bad things in the space of one day. No real problems with an indef if someone wants to adjust it, but this could easily be done if he were to step out of line again. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how CU works, but would it be possible to run it on some of his "good" edits and these "bad" edits to see if they're at least from the same location? If the 48 hour block wears off and he comes back with the same attitude, I'd say it's safe to indefinitely block. If it's a compromised account, when they come back, they can make their case for an unblock (which I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to; as has been pointed out, there were good edits in the past). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's curious. This diff shows a considerably different style of approach to these controversial topics. It definitely smells like a compromised account... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it'll be compromised - it looks more like the user got bored with Wikipedia, left for a bit and decided to come back to have a little "fun" - hopefully 48 hours should help him realise that he won't be able to get away with that in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is willing to extend the block, let's see what the user does next. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone sort out this page?

Resolved

 – archived what could be archived in that run, brought back the rest to here. —Random832 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The ANI formatting seems to have gone haywire. Entire sections, such as Liancourt Rocks pert one have disappeared. Can somebody have a look and see where the problem started? Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, been like that for 2 days now, kinda bugging me. Seem on my side the sections are replaced by a black line, this occurs through 4 browsers I have tested. Dureo (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just now deleted what seemed like a rogue discussion close tag. It's also possible that due to the tremendous article size, your browser was having trouble rendering it. We seriously need to more aggressively keep this issue at bay to maintain accessibility. --slakr^\ talk / 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it looks like it was the archive bot that was to blame. It archived the "==" sections of debates but not the related "===" subsections (if that makes sense). See report at AN here [170]. --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. ——Random832 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Resolved

 – since repeated NPA offences and blocked for 24 hours --VS ^talk 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling a female editor 'hormonally deranged' is a blockable offense in my opinion. I've given him a warning and won't block because I've dealt with the guy so it's a COI. I would also appreciate a look into him admitting he has two accounts, both used for editing the same Elvis talk page. Unless users know that, his discussions are meatpuppeteering. Thanks. the_undertow ^talk 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on next offense. —Kurykh 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lara❤Love 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still would like clarification on why the user contributes to the same discussions using two different accounts. Is this an acceptable use of a sock? the_undertow ^talk 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the other account name? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very rude! Second account is User:BomberJoe.I agree with Kurykh and will assist. That said an apology should be offered by User:Hoserjoe.--VS ^talk 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Detailed history from LaraLove

This is not the first instance from this user. Here's a full history:

• August 17, he added the Christian singles to {{Elvis Presley}}. It was a poor addition not only in that it was unnecessary and overly long, but the links were duplicated in instances, and many did not lead to the song they were meant to.
• August 19, User:Rikstar brings the change to the attention of those working on the Elvis article with a talk page thread that ran until archived in late October.
• November 3, User:Crazysuit posted this discussion on the talk page suggesting "to separate the list of Christion songs into a separate article," expanding with a rationale.
• November 11, User:DePiep replied to the talk page message agreeing with Crazysuit, who then removed the then cleaned up addition per the talk page discussion.
• November 18, Hoserjoe responded here and then re-added the section.
• November 19, DePiep reverted the re-addition. This is also the day Hoserjoe initiated a discussion on Talk:Elvis about the content of the article, as seen in full here, running until November 24. He used his other account, BomberJoe, in this conversation as well, as seen here. User:Rodhullandemu called him out here. User:Jeffpw agreed here. Onefortyone also agreed here. Hoserjoe admitted it here then clarified. I then tagged both accounts.
• December 25, Hoserjoe re-added the section once again. He also removed an entire section and a sourced sentence from the article despite the ongoing conversation on the talk page. And also questioned that he's actually referred to as "The King of Rock'n'roll" and "The King". I reverted and posted to his talk page.
• December 26, I reverted his addition to the template, and he responds to my talk page message from the day before on my talk page, to which I reply.
• January 16, Hoserjoe posts to Talk:Elvis (in the middle of someone else's comment) stating that "Most of the article is simply an exercise in editorial vanity by a few (one in particular) self-centred and obsessive editors. ..." [sic] I'm not clear if he is referring to me or User:Onefortyone. Then he posts to my talk page asking "Is there some reason why you deleted the entire Elvis discography template?". Considering I'd not deleted it, only reverted his additions, I reply with this, pointing out that this has already been discussed.
• January 17, he replies with "Thanks for your reply, Lara. The answer to your question is that Elvis was primarily a Christian/Gospel/church singer. He wasn't a "Blues" singer for the simple reason that he disliked the blues, but he'd do it if he had to. Those of us old enough to have attended his concerts know this. You, being a young girl, do not know this. It's the ignorance of youth. Not necessarily a bad thing unless it's accompanied by a closed mind. And it's most unpleasant when ignorant youth try to make a new "truth" out of cobbled-up fiction. The entire Elvis article has become a nightmare of fiction, but you're doing an excellent job of defending it. Soon you all will have remade Elvis into a repressed, gay, punk blues, atheistic, draft-dodging, womanizing biker. Well done!". This is where he has confused me with Onefortyone, as I've not written any of the Elvis article, I only formatted the 237 references and footnotes, created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley and have been attempting, on the talk page, to reach a consensus for trimming some of the info out of this article. It's currently halted for Arbitration. But that's an aside. I reverted the message. the_undertow saw this message and dropped a line on Hoserjoe's talk page. He apparently didn't get it.
• January 20, he posts this mess on my talk page. the_undertow reverts and warns.

Hoserjoe's accusations of my contributions to the article are unfounded. He ignores consensus and causes disruption. I request uninvolved parties review this history, please. Regards, Lara❤Love 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A user RFC would be appropriate here (as a precursor to arbcom or a community imposed ban, if he doesn't improve). MER-C 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)