Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User jayjg stalking and reverting

I have noted the incidents both on the user page and the article page but have not reverted anything. So far this individual has yet to reply but just continues to revert references claiming even cited Bible passages are original research and violate NPOVRktect 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't regurgitate huge chunks of discussion into this page. I've left your dispute but removed the copied text. Please provide brief links only. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the bible even be considered a reliable source? Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can most Roman literature be considered reliable? This is an inappropriate question for this board, but I'll say one thing: ancient literature and sources are different from modern sources. Every ancient historian knows this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<nitpick>Wouldn't it count as Greek literature, technically?</nitpick> -- ChrisO 09:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bible would be a reliable source for simple statements as to, for example, what the Bible itself says (for example, as the source of a directly-quoted passage.) However, interpretations (such as this edit by Rktect) require a secondary source. Primary sources should be used cautiously and sparingly, and should not be used to support a claim which is interpretive. From what I've been seeing, several of your edits, Rktect, are pretty poor in quality (use of "you"/second person, weasel words [1] (the edit there is also of marginal relevance, at best, to the article's subject), poor grammar/syntax/spelling/capitalization which sometimes make it difficult to understand what you mean [2]), and various other problems. I'd suggest you work with Jayjg and other editors to correct these issues, I see you want to contribute, and that is great, but I'd advise you take a more willing attitude toward learning how. You might also want to have a look at WP:ADOPT, I believe you may benefit from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary written sources for [the Bible] are often borrowed or collected from texts in Akadian, Egyptian, Sumerian and other ancient languages which include [pantheons of gods] deemed important in their own right at the time. As the collections were consolidated so were the different gods. Most Bibles reference this in their introductions as they do [the use of parable and allegory] or what some people call wordsmithing which includes some less than reverent double entendre similar to what you are doing here. There isn't a lot of commentary on that because first it takes away from your appreciation of a joke to have to have someone explain it to you, and secondly other people deem it sacreligious to discuss it and revert it. That's the issue here.

The approach in Wikipedia is to cross reference many different sources in many different languages. In doing that a basic problem is lack of consistancy. Each individual link says what is says without regard for what other links say. Many of the referenced sources in the links are not primary sources but link to various religious encyclopedias, commentaries in English Greek or Latin and very few fill in the dots. Archaeologists like [Ken Kitchen] mine the passages for textual artifacts such as the price of slaves or the form of contracts which can often be linked to historic artifacts while at the same time believers try and limit the discussion to what they believe is true. The idea that the first five books are actually a law book called [the Pentateuch] is ancient and much commented upon as Mosaic Law. The purpose of my edits was to gain some cross referencing consistency in wikipedia sources in a comparison of Biblical references to Mosaic Law, Sharia Law and Hotep, the law of the Egyptians. Having them systematically reverted along with their many reputable references amounts to systematic censorship by user Jayjg .Rktect 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect, you have a habit of synthesizing facts and using primary and overview sources as purported evidence for your own commentary. Jayjg is correct in referring you Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Using the Times history of the world book to prove that modern Palestinians are the same as the ancient Philistines, for example, is not good use of sources. nadav (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you figure that since the jews left in a [jewish dispora] nobody remained and the region was uninhabited for a couple of millenia until Israel was established in 1947.

Canaan was refered to as Palestine in Egyptian and Akkadian in the 18th Dynasty of Egypt. Its size varied a little; it was at its greatest extent when Thutmosis I reached the Euphrates and it extended as far north as Kadesh. Its legitimate to argue that Cannan was never a kingdom just a collecton of tribes until after the Conguest, and you could argue that the Phillistines who lived along the coasts were a little different than the people who lived inland, but that people who lived there stayed there and became Palestinians and remain Palestinans to the present day seems pretty clear.

The first references to the [habiru] start here (Babylonian MAT A-mur-ri-e), Kur-Mar-tu-ki = MAT A-mur-ri-e} and in Akkadian borrowing the Egyptian name Kur ti-id-nu-um-ki MAT A-mur-ri-e) Akkadian borrows Kur (meaning mountains and enemy) from Sumerian. MAR TU or SA GAZ ('apiru) and both reference the people of the west known as the Amurru. Thats amout the farthest extent north.

There are other people in Canaan which are covered in [Judges 4] but the people who gave the land their name were the Peleset, one of the [Sea Peoples] refered to in the Bible as [Phillistines ] Thats about the farthest extent south.

The Times History of the World Atlas that I cited, summarises and details the continuity, but there are thousands of other ways we could demonstrate that the Canaanites remain in the same area doing the same things as Phillistines, Phoenicians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Abbisaids, and Ottomans until finally they become a British protectorate. Palestine lasts not just until the European jews return to establish a homeland, but to the present day.Rktect 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussing content. Your reply completely missed the point of my comment, and also puts words in my mouth. You must understand that No original research means not adding your personal interpretation of facts. What you are constantly doing is citing the facts to a good source, and then making up your own interpretation. That is why so many of your edits have been reverted. In the particular case of Palestinian people (if you want to discuss it further, do it on the article's talk page), you cite a general history book about how the land was continuously occupied, and then you add your personal interpretation that this implies that modern inhabitants of the land and ancient inhabitants are one and the same. You made the same sort of mistake in Jerusalem and, I assume, the other articles where you tried to add content recently. The arbcom case tells me you have had this problem for a while. Perhaps the WP:ADOPT program would be a good step towards overcoming this habit; your adopter will be able help in showing where the thin line is crossed from good use of sources into WP:SYN. nadav (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you might explain how something that has encyclopedic sources becomes original research? For example why are the references to semitic roots from Bartleby's removed?. How are the additions of references from creditable sources trolling? Why are the wikipedia links to [Baal] and [zephyrus] removed from a stub on Bael Zephon? Why the insistance that the etymology of all bible passages is Hebrew only rather than allowing an etymology from Akkadian or Greek depending on the period when they are written? Does NOR mean no addition of references? What's the necessity of that? Isn't that POV? Why can't the reverts be discussed on the talk pages? Why the systematic reverts of every contribution? Why always reverts rather than occasionaly an edit after discussion? Is that Wikipedia policy On the Jerusalem page the reverts removed hidden comments noting material which was inconsistent with other wikipedia pages and incorrect? Rktect 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Original research vs. WP:SYN. If the reason given for revert is Original Research, then the argument that Original Research that creates primary sources is not allowed should be the basis of judgement. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. If the reason for revert is WP:SYN then there needs to be A, B and C and the revert should not be allowed if only A and B are present. Rktect 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion is taking place below in the section Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#stalking and unwarranted reverts by User Beit Or. nadav (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry?

This off topic discussion was archived to Wikipedia:God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry? and listed at WP:BJAODN. It's also listed at Digg

Images uploaded by Chrisg21090 (talk · contribs) - help requested

Please see User talk:Chacor#Sorry! Need help! and User_talk:Chrisg21090#False_license_tagging.2Fimage_source. This user has uploaded a whole bunch of images as PD-self (including two NASA images, which was what drew my attention to this user). After some discussion, he claims that the rest of the images have indeed been taken by him.

I'd ask any admin with the time to a) check his story, see if there's anything that is weird with his claims that I might have missed; b) check the images to see if they match his story; and c) check to see if these images are elsewhere on the web.

As everyone knows, we're getting stricter with imagevios. I've already assumed good faith all the way through, and this user is willing to let an admin double-check everything. Thanks in advance to whichever admin takes on this. – Chacor 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the others carefully. If any other is clearly not by this user, assume they're all not by him. Od Mishehu 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to go through it all? I personally have no time to do so. – Chacor 11:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything clearly wrong about the images still tagged as self-created. --Carnildo 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith by User Domer 48 at Talk:Great Irish Famine, apparently supported by User Sarah777.

User:Domer48 has recently made a lengthy list of accusations at Talk:Great Irish Famine of bad faith against me, as well as various accusations of POV, baiting, etc. Here. [3] He has previously accused me of bad faith editing, and this time I asked him to apologise at his talk page. He took my private request and pasted into the Great Irish Famine page. He also made a lengthy list of accusations against User:sony-youth at [4] accusing him variously of manipulation, disruptive editing and other crimes.

The Great Irish Famine page was protected from editing a week ago after a request by myself, following edit-warring. I believe this request of mine is the main cause of all this vitriol. I would be grateful if an admin could take a look and consider either warnings or appropriate action to deal with Domer48 and Sarah777, who apparently [5] Domer48's attacking behaviour. Sarah777 was herself the subject of a recent lengthy RfC on her incivil conduct supported by number of editors. Thanks for any help / advice. MarkThomas 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the RFC was quite contentious, with all sides looking bad, being civil, and in some cases (MarkThomas' for instance) being blocked for disruptiveness in it. This page has a lot of problems, but it needs to be carefully looked at.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I was blocked by swatjester, in what I might say in my own defence were very trying conditions, but on the actual page Great Irish Famine I have repeatedly tried to edit in good faith and neutralise exceptionally POV edits, something for which actually I feel quite punished and harassed by a segment of opinion that supports those views. I ask neutrally-minded admins to take a look at the attacks against me and Sony-youth and evaluate them fairly. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not needed for a talk page (and I personally would remove it, because while the diffs speak for themselves, outside of Dispute Resolution it comes a wee bit too close to WP:NPA for my tastes). I would suggest Domer and Sarah file a RfC of their own, and I would urge both sides to simmer down, no matter how much the other side is at fault, because this thing could become an WP:ARBCOM case very quickly. SirFozzie 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: SirFozzie, I was thinking of that but when I saw the way my own RfC degenerated into open season on myself I thought, what's the point? I can see maybe Domer, instead of doing all that digging and ending up in the dock himself should have set up an RfC - but really - is that what we are here for? These articles are but a tiny % of my Wiki interest and contributions. (If a disproportionately large % of my "talk"). I think we can depend on the majority of Wiki-folk to defend us so long as we remain a bit reasonable, without launching a counter-attack! (Sarah777 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree Sarah, and I'm HOPING that everyone ramps it down a bit and becomes a bit reasonable, at this point, I'm afraid that it's heading ArbCom's way, and no one wants to have their every edit scruitinized, etcetera, plus it's a colossal pain in the tuckus. I was just commenting that if Domer has that much of an issue, that putting it on an article talk page (even by request) is a bit like using Lake Michigan to put out a candle. SirFozzie 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, Listen, I may have gone to town, a little overboard? I admit! But I have had the mother of all head wreckers with this! There is two issues, First, Sony, if they put their hand up and say I was wrong! I can not argue with that, and will have to accept it. That’s it case closed! Now as for the other Issue. That’s never going to end! I will be thwarted and scourged! If you all think that a Rfc will do the job, no problem, I’ll give it a go, sign me up. As for ArbCom, don’t know what it is, but would not have a problem with it. Any editor can review my contributions, and my comments! My contributions are all referenced, and my user page outlines my POV. My comments are rough and ready! If I think someone is acting the goat, I’ll say it. If someone is genuine I’m as polite and placid as they come. I will not suffer fools gladly! So that’s me in a nutshell. What ever you think, I’ll go along with it. I would like if possible that my comments and contributions on the sister sites be included if editors want a complete picture of me. Regards --Domer48 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer, which issue are you referring to because I don't understand what happening anymore. I see two possibilities for where I can say that I was wrong:

1. The accusation of bad faith when I thought that you changed to O'Donnel quote when in fact it was Sarah.
2. My argument that the O'Donnel quote is does not support the claim that the perspective that the famine was a genocide is gaining academic respectability.

I have apologised already for the first one ("It was Sarah who changed it, not you, and so I retract all that I said about bad faith.") but would happily do so again if its important to you. If it is to do with the O'Donnell quote then I'm sorry, but I only ever commented it out because it does not refer to genocide. I made this clear in the edit commentary (diff), repeated so on the talk page when you reverted it (diff) and, although you accuse me of harking back to it only as a ploy (for what?), this is, and was, my only contention. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sony it is that important to me, I rely on my reputation in relation to quotes. That I do not, and would not change a quote. If I were to let it go, any editor would be able to challenge my good faith on quoted references. One only has to read my user page to understand how important it is, and that I cannot be accused of what I mean to address! --Domer48 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I'm replacing the comment above, I believe it got lost in an edit conflict, here. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise once more. It was not you who changed to O'Donnell quote, it was Sarah. In the flurry of reverts that led to the article being locked, I missed Sarah edit and thought it was you who had made it. This you pointed out to me (first saying I hadn't "a wit of cop on" then by calling me a "slow learner"), at which time I appologised for the mistake ("It was Sarah who changed it, not you, and so I retract all that I said about bad faith."). I apologized again later on when you asked me to do so once more ("Domer48, I apologise for persisting in a line of questioning of which you have no part."), although on that occasion I couldn't understand why I had to do so again.

What I feel, however, is that you are confusing my concerns regarding the use of the quote with my misunderstanding about who changed it - you or Sarah. I know now that Sarah changed it, but my concern about its use - namely that it does not refer to the genocide claim - predate Sarah's change (21:14, 27 June 2007, 22:09, 27 June 2007). --sony-youth^pléigh 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. But I think Domer is (as I was) just a bit naive about how the politics works. You don't really expect your jokes, off-hand comments etc to pop up as evidence in an indictment - at least I didn't. (Sarah777)

I agree with you about everything except the Arbcom. I think arbcom will be quite helpful. There has already been RFC on the subject (Sarah777's was essentially indistinguishable from the topic). It should bring closure to everyone: to MarkThomas,Sarah,Domer et. al by determining who is violating policy and essentially enforcing a stop to it, and to the rest of the project by us not having to hear about it! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled. I thought there was a clear rule on Wikipedia that one does not accuse other editors of bad faith. Domer48 has repeatedly, blatantly done so, and has refused to apologise. This complaint is not about the content of the article, it is about conduct. Surely this is the one place where the rules get upheld? If not, what is to stop Domer48 and Sarah777 repeatedly bullying and harassing editors out of the way, which is what they both have a history of trying to do? I came here as a last resort hoping that Admins at least would support the rules. MarkThomas 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins also should not help one side get an advantage in an edit war in which both sides may have unclean hands, like in this case, Mark. As I said, I consider that a wee bit too close to WP:NPA for my own tastes, but that kind of thing would be better served in a RfC or an ArbCom case. SirFozzie 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of my block as the unclean hands part SirFozzie? Or of a specific edit of mine? The block was essentially unrelated to this issue and I believe I have an editing record of determinedly seeking NPOV - is that not what WP is for? In any event, even if this is valid, does this invalidate the basic issue of Domer48's extended and absolutely flagrant breaches of the rules? It's actually quite difficult to think of a more blatant example of breaching than his and as someone who has been blocked for very much more trivial offenses I am frankly astonished. I thought long and hard before coming here to complain. MarkThomas 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading SirFozzie correctly, he's saying that all sides involved have unclean hands already. An admin coming in to take action should be careful to not help one side get an advantage, but rather act to restore the situation to its proper state. For instance, blocking you in response would give Sarah's side the advantage. Blocking Sarah would give your side the advantage. Blocking both would be extremely overkill. So we have to come up with a solution that works the best, and any advantages gained are incidental and not intentional.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Swat! Easy on. I'm not on any "side" here, except my own! (Sarah777 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

That's a very clear summation of the situation, SJ. Nobody in this dispute has clean hands here. I've recused myself from this but someone neutral such as yourself would be invaluable - Alison ☺ 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (last edit before vacation. Honest!)

Restored comments of SWATJester and myself, which User:MarkThomas removed. SirFozzie 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if this happened it was inadvertent on my part, I was attempting to revert a bad edit of my own. MarkThomas 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I pasted the posts from my user page onto the article talk page because that is were the issue was raised. The post was in reply to my comments. I also think it allows editors the opportunity to make up their own mind. I will leave it up to editors to decide what should happen, and will not try to influence anyone, my edit speaks for its self. --Domer48 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, could one of the Admin please set up a Rfc for me please. It would be appreciated. If I’m found to be in the wrong, fine, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth, but I will get over it! What I won’t do, is bitch and moan and go on and on about it. In my defence, I can here because I’m interested in history, I have not had one ounce of aggravation on either Wikisource or Wikiquote. I’m easy going, but hate Bs merchants. I’ll leave it up to you Admin’s to do your job, and what will be, will be. Regards --Domer48 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ArbCom or an RfC would be welcome. I gave up on contributing to that discussion and am fed up with the accusations made against me. As clarification Domer, I edited the copy and paste of my post to your talk page that you made to Talk:Great Irish Famine only because it appeared as if I had posted it there myself. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no sign that the ill will will abate, I have brought it up with ArbCom. SirFozzie 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack vandalism

Resolved

Hello all. Telephonepoll (talk · contribs) has vandalized my user page several times and even uploaded a modified version of the picture of myself.[6] He also tried to post earlier (deleted) versions of that image to the Ameriprise Financial article. All of this is presumably due to my deleting posting of external links to an attack site to the Ameriprise article (one example [7] of many) for which he made personal threats of disruptive editing [8] which he seemed to follow through with from yet another IP.[9] I can only presume that Telephonepoll who started by trying to post a doctored image of me to the Ameriprise article and has done nothing since but attack me is the same person. I would normally bring this to WP:AIV, but with the complication of a doctored attack image in Image:08-25-05 1125.jpg's history I decided this was the better venue, my apologies if I am wrong. Thanks!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the vandalized revisions of your photo and blocked Telephonepoll for 31 hours. If anyone sees fit to extend this block, I won't object. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Polltelephone (talk · contribs) has made the same vandalisms to my talk page diff and uploaded the same doctored image Image:08-25-051125.jpg. A pretty obvious sockpuppet evading a block. I would like to note that several of the IPs this editor used when trying to edit external links to attack sites into the Ameriprise article were later blocked as being open proxies, perhaps a checkuser is warranted? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts are now indefinitely blocked. I don't know if a checkuser request will do any good, since the sockpuppetry was obvious and all previously used IPs should now be blocked. Keep an eye out on similar users/IPs, they might flush out other open proxies. I'll try to keep tabs on the Ameriprise article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again and point well taken on flushing out more open proxies. Who says vandalism can't be useful? In fact I've been consoling myself that as long as he was beating up on me, he wasn't messing around with Mainspace, which is what really matters. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacable fair use nightmare

I've found dozens on dozens of bad free use images, most of which are easily replacable with free use images. Most, but not all, of this search, pretty much. What should I do?! There's so many, and at least half of them are of people from the 16th century or earlier.... And did I mention they're used bloody everywhere? In articles with the most tangental relationship to the subject at hand? I've made a start, but have to sleep, so... Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can images from the 16th century be replaceable fair use? They should be lapsed copyrights. Corvus cornix 23:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The website these images supposedly come from appears to license them as "attribution" - which is an acceptable license if I read the website's terms correctly. WilyD 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is acceptable in a free license; indeed, the license under which Wikipedia content is distributed, the GFDL, requires attribution. --FOo 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The first image I looked at is labeled PD but states permission granted by private email. There's a procedure someplace for granting permission. Origin site has "Copyright � 1996 - 2006 K. L Kamat, Jyotsna Kamat, Vikas Kamat, Kamat's Potpourri. All Rights Reserved." So the copyright has been aging for six months. (SEWilco 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Excuse me? According to this and this Mr. Kamat certainly isn't releasing his photos under a free license. All of these images need a rationale. Yikes! Borisblue 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No they don't. See Wikipedia:Public domain. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." It looks like these are Indian photos, so also see Wikipedia:Copyright_situations_by_country. That says "India: Life+60 Photographs instead go into the public domain 60 years after their creation." These (those I've glanced at) are all photographs over 60 years old, so all public domain, whatever Kamat.com says. We do have to give a link to the source, and we are grateful to Mr. Kamat for providing them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

can we verify that they are all over 60 years old though? There's going to be a huge amount of retagging we have to do in either case. Borisblue 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PersonalityPhotos

PersonalityPhotos (talk · contribs) has been uploading tons of images with invalid copyrights. When questioned, they claim they have the right to do so. All of their images need to be removed, the articles they've added them to reverted, and the User blocked for using the name of a company. Corvus cornix 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hold on... please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#July_1 as it may well be the copyright holder doing the uploading. Where did this user say they are not acting on behalf of Personality Photos? Tabercil 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said they were not acting on behalf of Personality Photos. I am saying that their claims that Personality Photos has the rights to the images is specious, and the fact that they are working on behalf of Personality Photos is a violation of the Username policy. Corvus cornix 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They even specifically said, we may own the images and rights to them, to use them commercially however, requires the permission of the estates of the people appearing in the images. This is an incompatible license with Wikipedia's needs. Corvus cornix 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that they were referring to personality rights. Wikipedia does not require a signed release from the subject of a photograph - a license from the photographer or photograph copyright holder is sufficient. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming an article without prior debate

The article A.R.S.R. "Skadi", about a rowing club, was moved to Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging by a new editor in his first edit to the page.[10] For very important reasons, that at this moment are beyond my capabilities to comprehend, this editor chose to change the name without prior discussion and to a factually incorrect name. Despite that he refused to undo the move. In response to my request at WP:RM I was told that first a discussion is needed as to whether the move should be undone. As I tried to explain here, here and here the club itself uses either A.R.S.R. "Skadi" or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi" as its official name. Again, for very important reasons, it is impossible to undo the move and reinstate the name the club itself uses on their website and in correspondence.[11][12] Since it apparently is policy to discuss undoing hit-and-run edits I bring it here since I would appreciate restoring the article to its proper name, i.e. A.R.S.R. "Skadi" or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi", (I prefer A.R.S.R. "Skadi" but have no objection to Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi") without the sillyness of waiting 5 days.

Second, for my information I have some questions:

1. Is there any policy on WP prohibiting the use of the official name of a rowing club?
2. Do I understand correctly that if I go to an article I never edited, I can rename it and its current editors are obliged to have an extensive debate on whether or not my move should be undone? Or, if a move is contested is it first undone and then a debate is started to see if the new editor (me in this example) can find consensus?
3. Can somebody restore the article to its correct and official name?

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

These questions belong at the village pump for policy discussion or village pump for assistance. This page is meant only for things that require urgent admin assistance, but the issue here is a content/title dispute. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, undoing the move requires admin tools does it not? Second, why is it impossible to undo what to me appears to be disruption without having an extensive debate? Shouldn't the move be immediately undone and the hit-and-run editor asked to start a debate? As I asked above, are you suggesting I can go to other articles, rename them, and then the editors there are forced to await disscussion on whether it should be undone?

Second, how can there be a content dispute with an editor that has never editted the article and made only one contribution? That is silly. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, a dispute about content. Sort it out amongst yourselves. By the way, it doesnt matter if that was the users first edit or their 50000th. Viridae^Talk 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I am on my way to start some "content disputes." My questions are answered and as it stands now the onus is not on one-time hit-and-run editors but on people contributin to an article to undo. Sigh. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved

The case is not resolved because contrary to the above suggestion undoing this kind of disruption is entirely possible and was don in an identical case. All I ask is to do the same thing here and undo the edit by an uninvolved editor that still has not made any other contribution to the article and therefore cannot be having a content dispute. By that logic vandalism is only a content dispute. Please review and do the same as here. As suggested above I also went to the VP. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

stalking and unwarranted reverts by User Beit Or

17:07, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning)

17:06, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (Warning)

16:32, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Isaac Newton's occult studies (rv original research) (top)

16:31, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Deborah (stop inserting your original research)

15:58, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Habiru (Undid revision 141838629 by Rktect (talk)) (top)

15:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Deborah (remove original research)

15:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Baal-zephon (Undid revision 141857893 by Rktect (talk)) (top)

15:55, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Sarah (Undid revision 141857680 by Rktect (talk))

Eight reverts of user rktect today without discussion on article talk page Typically claiming original research for pages which are nothing but references and cites Rktect 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Those logs are not helpful unless you provide links to the diffs. Until(1 == 2) 00:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac removed this thread from User talk:Beit Or and called it "trolling". I tend to agree with him. Beit Or's reverts that I checked are within policy. I would have done them myself if necessary. Shalom ^Hello 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that these are reasonable reverts, and I reverted a similar edit of Rktect's. I tried to explain the complexities of original research to the user - perhaps someone else can have a go at that? Tewfik^Talk 02:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you might explain how something that has encyclopedic sources becomes original research? For example why are the references to semitic roots from Bartleby's removed?. How are the additions of references from creditable sources trolling? Why are the wikipedia links to [Baal] and [zephyrus] removed from a stub on Bael Zephon? Why the insistance that the etymology of all bible passages is Hebrew only rather than allowing an etymology from Akkadian or Greek depending on the period when they are written? Does NOR mean no addition of references? What's the necessity of that? Isn't that POV? Why can't the reverts be discussed on the talk pages? Why the systematic reverts of every contribution? Why always reverts rather than occasionaly an edit after discussion? Is that Wikipedia policy? Rktect 11:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked randomly this action by Beit Or. I saw a few references and blockquotes used by Rktect and went to verify some of them and found that one reference is "Portsmouth Collection Add. MS. 3975, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge University". I haven't checked the rest of reverts at other articles. No discussion at the talk page at all. No message from Beit Or to Rktect. Onlt Tewfik could try to do that.

On the other hand, i see no stalking from Beit Or at all. I only see reverting w/o discussing. Original research comes mainly w/ no reference at all. Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." . So where is the original research of Rktect's Isaac Newton occult studies' edits? There is a published paper used in his edits after all.

I've also sent an email to Proabivouac re his revert of Rktect's message to Beit Or asking Proabivouac about the trolling behaviour of Rktect when he communicated his concerns about the reverts to Beit Or. Could someone please explain to me all this mess? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fayssal F. I suppose that the odd references to both Rktect and Beit Or in the third person, the unusual format, the repeated accusations of stalking by various editors (WP:ANI#User jayjg stalking and reverting above) and what seemed to me the generally crankish nature of the edits in question combined to form the overall impression of trolling. User:Shalom arrived at the same impression. Nor are Beit Or and Jayjg the only ones reverting his edits, e.g. [13]. Perhaps I should have taken the time to explain to him once again (see User talk:Rktect) why his edits were being reverted.Proabivouac 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, it seems Rktect's behavior and editing pattern didn't change much: the same original research thinly disguised under spurious references, edit warring, and claims that Rktect is right and everybody else is wrong. One can wonder whether the benefits of keeping Rktect on Wikipedia actually outweigh the costs of cleaning up after him (and responding to such threads). Beit Or 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry to much about it Beit Or, I don't think anyone is taking Rktect's accusations about you seriously. Until(1 == 2) 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect has been blocked for 48 hours.[14] If he continues with his habit of inserting OR and novel synthesis, then I would agree with Jayjg that Rktect's arbcom case should be reopened. nadav (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption and incivility

Per admin 会話, I am asking for help regarding the harassing anon IP 86.147.92.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His postings at Talk:The Marvel Superheroes have gotten progressively more insulting and uncivil, personally attacking and insulting me for objecting to his desire to add commercial links. I turn the other cheek at least twice, to no avail, and he finally went so far as to post a personally harassing and disruptive WP:NOR diatribe, which I deleted based on WP:SOURCE, WP:DISRUPT, etc. I only ask that an admin you go to that talk page, follow the dialog, and perhaps ask this person not to abuse other editors the way he has. --Tenebrae 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, he's simmering down and I'm working with him. He's registered now as User:Doceo and is beginning to read some of the policies. That's a start. I'm rescinding my request for help for now. And I thank the hardworking volunteer admins; I cannot imagine the constant headaches and bickering you must face. With thanks, --Tenebrae 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Tamokk

Ridiculous personal attack on the talk page [15] SosoMK 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also consider this and this statements by Sosomk (the first is to the User:Tamokk, actually). Alæxis_¿question? 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For everybody interested, this person Alaexis is very strange. When I asked him about arguments on talk page he tried to avoid the page for a while. After that he came back deleting most of the page. He has a strange behaviour.--Tones benefit 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios and IFDs from Babydebo10

User has continued to upload images that are clear copyright violations, without placing them in articles or responding to a dozen messages from automated bots. I'm not sure if they even knows there's a policy against it, or how to add fair use qualifiers to the images, but they've so far ignored all the bots and editors who have tried to explain it to them. They have also uploaded images whose filenames have overwritten other unrelated and fair use images such as Image:Dragoon.jpg. Cumulus Clouds 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user with a request that he/she acknowledge and address the copyright issues. --Richard 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, most of their images are unencylopaedic and somewhat pornographic. Cumulus Clouds 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this last point, consult WP:CENSOR. I haven't looked at the images. If you think they should be deleted, nominate them for deletion at WP:IFD. --Richard 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have, they are not going to be deleted because of "pornography" as they are not pornographic at all. However the user continued to upload images without copyright info for a period of over a week without even responding on his talk page. He has blanked his user page and one of the pages he created so I suspect he has left. I think we should just go ahead and delete the remaining images straight away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All have now been deleted as copyvios. This pretty much closes the book on this incident, as far as I can see. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attack on User:Nate1481

Resolved

User:Mate1481 has been busy reverting Nate's recent history (I noticed a revert of a comment on a talk page on my watchlist, which I have restored). User:Nate1481 has had problems before with another user, and it seems that user might be back. -- Medains 08:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked. {not by me - I was beaten to the punch}Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71 sockpuppets...

Resolved

 – Socks blocked.

This indef community banned user User:DavidYork71 is back - once again editing Mike Gravel related articles. I'm giving notice here that I'm going to simply revert the socks, even past 3 reverts in accordance with WP:IAR and this previous advice from this board. Ie, to short circuit the red tape that includes a check user request when it is damn obvious they are socks of this tiresome troll. A better option would be if someone helped revert or an admin simply blocked and semi-protected the page.

Tonight's socks are User:BigDeeTee and User:TheTathagataBuddha. PS, i reported already to WP:AIV. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Merbabu 11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For safety you should add a comment in your edit summary that you are reverting vandalism by a banned user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to indef BigDeeTee (talk · contribs) because of the username (quite similar to taht of admin User:BigDT) but User:Metros beat me to it by bloking the account as a sock of DavidYork71. The other account was also blocked by Anthony.bradbury. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

indef banned user:Gon4z socketpup

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

user:Klass is another socketpup of indef. banned user:Gon4z. He came and began immediatley to vandalize the same articles as usual with his numbers i.e. MIM-23 Hawk, Albanian Land Forces Command and started a all new edit war at Mujahideen, where he returned to insert his radical Kosovo agenda. Furthermore he has removed the sockpuppeteer notice from his old account Gon4z. --noclador 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

resolved: admin User:Theresa knott banned socketpup. noclador 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

sock of indef banned

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

Averythedog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of User:Arthur Ellis, who was indefinitely banned by ArbComm from pages related to Warren Kinsella etc.: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis and is also under indefinite community ban: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:Arthur_Ellis. Averythedog's obsession with Kinsella is typical of Arthur Ellis, as can be seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, including his attribution of psychopathy to Kinsella. [16] Bucketsofg 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will need a checkuser to prove he is a sockpuppet. There is simply not enough information from the edits alone, though it's apparent which IP he's editing from because he blanked the talk page of that IP. From the edits alone, he looks like an ordinary newbie vandal. Shalom ^Hello 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

His first edit is to RFPP requesting protection for that article? Obvious disruptive sock, come off it. Gone. Moreschi ^Talk 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image uploaded again (by possible Sock?)

• Hello, Image:Twograms.jpg was deleted yesterday as an uncontested rfu (CSD I7)). It has now been put up again by User:Pepso2 - the original uploader was User:Pepso JGHowes ^talk - 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Image re-deleted, user warned. Perhaps a checkuser request is in order. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Why would we need a checkuser for Pepso and Pepso2, when they upload the same image? It's a duck. Corvus cornix 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I created the Pepso2 account because I could not recall the password of the Pepso account. Pepso2 21:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If they don't edit concurrently, I guess it's not a duck after all. (I'm usually an AGF-kinda-guy, but sometimes I slip up.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

An Imposter

Resolved

 – Username blocked.

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Tango 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! -- No Guru 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure? I'm not seeing anything in the block log. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, edit warring again

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

• 2007-07-03T07:53:25
• 2007-07-03T09:30:05
• 2007-07-03T09:52:47 (a .5 revert)
• 2007-07-03T09:54:13
• 2007-07-03T09:57:50.

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi ^Talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi ^Talk 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Callelinea (talk · contribs)

I gave this user a 1-hour block after they nominated a dozen or so article for AFD to make a WP:POINT because some of their article looked like they might be deleted.Circeus 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, since their response indicates that a cool-down time might help. Leebo ^T/C 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he nominated every article I've created because he's mad that I nominated several of his non-notable relatives for deletion. Corvus cornix 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed they were yours. The spree was quite ridiculous just looking at their contribution after an edit to Robin Wilson (author) popped up on my watchlist. Circeus 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange Vandalism at St_Michael's_Mount

There is a very nasty picture, IMG_0269.JPG, that pops up when the page loads and overlays the article so you can't read it. I think the problem might be with a vandalized template, but I'm not wiki-literate enough to figure out how to fix it, or who caused the vandalism in the first place. Anyway, if some one could fix this and see if other pages have been similarly vandalized? 70.227.232.162 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

129.2.100.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had vandalised {{IoEentry}} and {{Max}}. For both the vandalism was set to be visible on includeonly, so you wouldn't see the image if you'd looked at the template themselves. I've reverted those two, although cached pages will continue to have the image for a while. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's linked to all sorts of pages. The template being used is IOE or IoE may refer to:

Education

• Institute of Education (Dublin)
• Institute of Engineering, Kathmandu, Nepal
• Institutes of Eminence is a scheme of excellence for higher education institutes in India
• UCL Institute of Education, University College London

Other uses

• IOE engine, a type of internal combustion engine
• Images of England, an online photographic record of all the listed buildings in England
• Index of Effluency, the top prize of the 24 Hours of Lemons
• International Organisation of Employers
• Internet of everything
• Industrial and operations engineering, a specialization of industrial engineering

. Oddly, the image links to many pages, according to the image page, but it's actually not on many of them.... Exploding Boy 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it was a template {{Max}} and it was just fixed by Finlay McWalter (talk · contribs) diff. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User warned. Someone want to add that image to the Bad Image list? Fvasconcellos (t ·c) 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Exploding Boy 18:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That photo has an entirely useless name - it should be called prince_albert_piercing.jpg or something, which will give recent-changes watchers a fairer chance of figuring out what an edit involving it really is about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move it. Another point: there's still a long list of articles that link to that image, according to the image page. Is there some reason for this? Exploding Boy 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably a cache issue. I've semi'd {{IoE}}, {{IoEentry}} and {{Max}} as high-risk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?

• Mongol Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tablecreation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sce1313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like an edit war. Anyone want to sort it out? Curiously, both accounts have few edits outside this article. Shalom ^Hello 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a slow series of battles to me, but it looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is working on it now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep I'll try to clean it up a little and hopefully simmer things down too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair block?

The user only has three reverts[17] and he was blocked. I think that is because of conflicts of interest, which leads the administrator into obsession, rather than anything else. Please ask both the administrator and the user for mediation and unlock the user because the block is just illegal. SosoMK 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the block log: the reason for blocking was revert warring - not 3 revert rule. And from the policy page for the 3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Pastordavid 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And also the reverts that seemed to follow User:Mikkalai around prior to the block, on more than one article. Pastordavid 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw this user had violated 3rr before (see this) and it is possible that it's User:Bonaparte. Alæxis_¿question? 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case where a user immediately returns to edit warring, so soon after a 3RR block, we can only assume they didn't "take the hint" from their previous block. That said, the user appears to have been in a revert war with the blocking admin, which might change things a bit; it seems to present a conflict of interest, unless there's something I'm missing, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is a vandal. He brings bad quality to articles. It is not about controversial content, but about using very bad English, adding irrelevant material to the topic, and refuse to listen stop. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus

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

---

Due to the fact that this was apparently trolling by a banned troll, and the fact that a normal discussion is occuring on the regular talk pages, this is no longer an incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note:User:Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet of User:Kirbytime, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

Please check out SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contribs, he has redirected tens of articles related to pedophilia, even though there is no consensus for merge. I found this out when I saw [18] where squeak redirected the page. I checked the its talk page where there is no consensus for merge. I reverted it, and someone else agreed with me and removed the merge proposal tag, while squeak came and reverted it again. I then posted a note on squeak's talk page reminding him not to redirect pages when there is no consensus. I then proceeded to rollback all of his redirects. I just want to hear another opinion on this. Am I totally whack? Thanks.--Flamgirlant 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just reverted the redirect and says to discuss on the talk page. There is nothing to discuss, it already has been discussed to death and the result was no consensus, twice.--Flamgirlant 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is ongoing discussion and editing of the mergered three articles. There seems to be a leaning toward merger based on the very close uniformity of content of the article. DPeterson^talk 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the contents of the articles are. I looked at the talk page and saw no consensus to merge, and reverted accordingly. I'm looking for an outside opinion on this.--Flamgirlant 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue re whether to merge pro-pedophilia activism and anti-pedophilia activism inot pedophilia bnut there is no issue whatsoever re redirects, I was merely fixing double redirects which is always a good idea if a somewhat tedious task. I dont believe this is the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of those merges which flamgirlant disputes, SqueakBox 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus to merge, but it was carried out anyway--Flamgirlant 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to either merge or not to merge and I was editing boldly, SqueakBox 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I applaud you for your bold efforts. That's why I labeled your edits as good faith. But there was still no consensus for merge.--Flamgirlant 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see what any admin is supposed to do here...this is a content disupte. Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution may help. — Scientizzle 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a content dispute and I agree that there is no admin action that can be taken. Another editor, Will, has made a great suggestion on the talk page of the article that sort of "splits the difference," and can move us along to creating a better article or articles. DPeterson^talk 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. There was a lack of consensus for merger. I've never edited the contents themselves. My reason for putting it here was that I was concerned about squeak's mass redirects when there was no consensus. Now admittedly the subject of the article is touchy (no pun intended, yech. Grosses me out.), but even if the articles weren't about illegal activities, if there is no consensus to merge, then it ought not to be merged.--Flamgirlant 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a RfC?? Edit warring is underway as well, for what it's worth. I did the "paperwork" on the proposed merger of anti- and pro-pedophile activism into pedophilia, and I supported it. The opinions of established users were running even, pro and con, and the discussion had not been closed. I closed it after the merger because it was pointless to continue to discuss a fait accompli. With the merger done, it's quite difficult to even get back to Pro-pedophile activism where the conversation was taking place, as the entry has been redirected. I located the discussion there because discussion of a previous proposal to merge the two articles, anti- and pro-pedophile activism, had been taking place there, and that proposal was replaced by this proposal. I don't think acting out of process or without consensus was the right thing for SqueakBox to do, and I have made my opinion known. -Jmh123 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still love all of you, so no need for a RfC =). Maybe we need some sort of centralized discussion, 'tis all. But until then, can we keep the articles as they were before the mergers? Isn't that proper wiki guidelines?--Flamgirlant 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note:User:Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet.

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

User Filiusvita

I'm not sure I have the right distance to block Filiusvita (talk · contribs) myself but I'd like someone to look at it. This user has been vandalizing or at the very least edit-warring on Arab slave trade and Caucasian race, seemingly motivated by racism or, shall we say, a lack of fondness for muslims (see this nice summary of his thoughts, this deletion, this pointy deletion, these two oh-so-subtle edits). He has also edited under 72.177.173.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He does not respond too well to criticism of his actions [19] [20] and has also vandalized Negro [21]. Like I said, I'm tempted to impose a lenghty block myself but I'd prefer to have an outsider's perspective. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indefinite seems the right amount of block time to me... — Scientizzle 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure qualifies as lenghty. :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. IMHO no specified length is lengthy enough for this sort of thing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace pages that ought not be in the mainspace

Special:Prefixindex/MoS:

Those are all in the mainspace. Is that the right thing?--Flamgirlant 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been done in the same way as all the WP: shortcuts to Wikipedia: pages. It's not a bad idea, but it would be better to have the namespaces created rather than just put them in the mainspace (this has been suggested before, I'm not sure why it hasn't been done). --Tango 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But they aren't listed as shortcuts on any of the pages they link to, they aren't standard with the other WP: shortcuts, and are going to be a pain to remember. Could we at least get rid of all the ones that don't have inbound links? --tjstrf talk 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it's listed as one of the "recognized" pseudo-namespaces at Wikipedia:Shortcut#List_of_prefixes. Whether that list represents any particular authority, I'm afraid I couldn't say. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it says "These pseudo-namespaces are rarely used or deprecated and should be avoided" so I'm not sure how to continue on with this.--Flamgirlant 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support deleting them. I'd never even heard of them before. They don't fit the standard WP:MoS is fine, I don't think [[MoS:]] is, really. They seem a bit pointless. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Flamgirlant turned out to be a sock puppet. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, though, his/her suggestion that we MfD (at least some portion of) these seems a good one. Joe 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...It's speculated that I hate you for nt being able to read...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and months, with this editor having been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct in deletion debates

I have just discovered that User:Evilclown93 has speedily deleted Category:Fictional affluent characters. There is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and another at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This category and its predecessors have now been deleted without consensus three times. The admins involved are not showing respect for the will of the community, but are doing what they want because they have the technical ability to do so. Please could someone advise me of the appropriate action to take to get higher authoritities to investigate and resolve this matter. Thank you. OrchWyn 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

XFD is not a vote. If an administrator feels that something really should be deleted, even with 100% consensus to keep, he can IAR and delete it. Will ^(talk) 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And then he should not be surprised to find it undeleted later. --MichaelLinnear 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if every other administrator feels that it should be kept? Is there no appeal? Is the power of an administrator completely unlimited? Would you like it if an administrator did this to something that you wanted kept? OrchWyn 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) But they would have to have a damn good reason if it was 100% to keep. The deletion message for this category was "housekeeping". It could just be a genuine mistake. Until Evilclown responds we won't know. Grandmasterka 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the comment that "it is not a vote", no one is saying it is. If you look through the debates, the keepers have put forward many more arguments, and most of them have not even received the courtesy of a response. You really can't say that the deleters won the intellectual debate. All that happened was that one of them who had the power to delete went ahead and did so. OrchWyn 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment: There were five comments to speedy delete in the CfD. I recall seeing this category in CAT:CSD earlier today; I presume that's where Evilclown found it as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also many advocates of retention. And the only grounds for speedy deletion are previous deletions which were performed without consensus, and the latest of which is now up for review. If one accepts that this was a legitimate speedy deletion, then what's to stop any admin deleting any category regardless of the will of the community, and then speedy deleting it every time it reappears regardless of due process and the will of the community? If you agree that the speedy was not correct, please use your powers to restore it asap because right now the current non-existence of this category is distorting a discussion in which many users have participated in good faith, by creating what should be a false impression that the powers that be have already made their decision. OrchWyn 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; I've replied on your Talk page. I don't feel comfortable reverting Evilclown's decision to delete without hearing what he has to say first. Besides, isn't it on DRV? Nitpick: I don't consider myself to have admin powers, but admin rights. :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time, it would be appropriate to close the discussion on Category:Fictional affluent characters at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and wait for the deletion review on Category:Fictional wealthy characters at Wikipedia:Deletion review to reach a conclusion. Instead of recreating the category under a different name, the interested editors should have gone to WP:DRV if they wanted to dispute the administrator's decision.

Also, although the Category:Fictional affluent characters page itself does not exist, it currently exists as red links in many articles. When the WP:DRV reaches a conclusion, I recommend either deleting the red linked categories or changing all of the red links to correspond to the "wealthy characters" category name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with Submilli. This is an end-run around DRV. Have some patience. >Radiant< 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

revert warring at List of United States cities by population

Not knowing the topic of this featured list, I am totally lost as to the content dispute, and I doubt protecting will do any good, as user:Kaldari (which should really know better) is another admin. Circeus 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpage insulting?

User:Ilyuuxox and User:Lilrockinbabi95 seem to be in an insult war about real life. I've never seen anything like this. -Flubeca^Talk 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Unless it's actually interfering with their contributions, I guess there's nothing wrong with it. You could also try Miscellany for Deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already been deleted by CambridgeBayWeather. --Dark Falls ^talk 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just came to say the same thing and I have pointed them to WP:NOT. Also picked up User:Em95. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and Personal Attacks by 70.144.143.165/BlackStarRock

User:70.144.143.165 is currently engaging in personal attacks against myself and two other editors. Furthermore, he is a sockpuppet of User:BlackStarRock (edits refer to each other as independant users, however edit history shows otherwise. He's also made several attacks, and has not made any contributions to mainspace that are in complete good faith. Furthermore, he is also attempting to claim ownership of Rotom and his talkpage, as per some of his comments. Thanks! P3net 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You may disregard this, it Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/70.144.143.165has been addressed. Cheers! P3net 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, User:BlackStarRock was blocked a day for disrupting the SSP case. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - please help!

This individual individual destroyed my harmless anti-genocide denial userbox and messed up my profile page code, so now even if I revert to previous version, nothing is lined up properly - nothing works. He completely destroyed the work in which I invested hours of my time. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak . Please help! Are there any objective administrators around? Please help. Bosniak 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_25#Template:User_Against_Srebrenica_Genocide_Denial. If you feel it is necessary, go to WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just userfy the userbox and you'll be fine. --Hemlock Martinis 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cauzentrouble

Resolved

 – Indef (vandalism only account) Hesperian 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please block the bothersome vandal Cauzentrouble (talk · contribs)? I've listed him at WP:AIV, but reverting his nonsense is getting boring. Corvus cornix 06:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, redux

I happen not to be a banned troll, so I'll restart this discussion.

Both SqueakBox and DPeterson continue to redirect the articles Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. A quick glance at this talk page shows that a vote on the proposal was failing 3-6 before it was closed and declared "no consensus." The "being bold" defense clearly does not hold water when the idea has already been discussed extensively, with the majority of users disapproving. The merge is a dead issue; the proposal clearly failed. Please take appropriate action.

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What action would you have an admin take? Corvus cornix 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate for the situation. Since they keep reverting the pages to redirect even after a long discussion resulted in no consensus on the idea, I would consider their changes to be vandalism. But I'll let an admin decide what action is necessary. Mike D78 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently begun watching the relevant pages. There are clear problems here, with just as clear solutions. The main Pedophilia article has become bloated with activism information, most of it pro-, that simply duplicates information from the Pro-pedophilia activism page and completely takes over the article. What needs to happen is both Pro-pedophilia activism and Anti-pedophilia activism need to be moved/redirected to Pedophilia activism, and the duplicated material deleted/merged from the main article.

I've submitted a move request at Requested moves, but if revert warring and edit warring is happening, the relevant pages may need protecting and those engaging in the behaviour may need blocking. Exploding Boy 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning people - Mike D78 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sockpuppet of the pedophilia-obsessed Kirbytime (talk · contribs), as was Flamgirlant (talk · contribs), who was the originator of the above thread. - Merzbow 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The time has clearly come to be bold. Exploding Boy 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But Exploding Boy is not anybody's sock, and rightfully sees that something's not right. Editing warring just isn't the way to solve disputes. Pro-pedophile activism has now been locked, and the material is duplicated on both pages. Exploding Boy has proposed a merger between pro- and anti-, again, and I'm getting dizzy with deja vu. There has to be a better way than this. ETA: looks like he's got things into some kind of form to carry on the conversation without reduplications everywhere. -Jmh123 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of "Kirbytime" or any other user; in fact, a look at my contributions will show that I've been editing since before his last account was blocked. I don't appreciate you making these unfounded accusations against me, and furthermore, simply the fact that a banned user originally brought up this issue does not mean that the issue is not relevant. Mike D78 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who locked that article; it wasn't me. I've proposed that the Pro-pedophile activism article be renamed Pedophilia activism, and that all activism related to the subject be included in that article, unless there's a good reason for separate articles (ie: there is a lot of information, too much for one article covering both sides, which is unlikely based on the current state of all related articles, and the fact that the anti-pedophilia activism information currently available comprises about 2 paragraphs). Exploding Boy 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Sarvagnya. Plz. refer Telugu script and others

Please refer to Telugu script and other Telugu or Marathi related articles, for possible cases of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry against the above user, for circumventing WP rules.

Plz. also see the page for reports, for checking User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete this thread as nonsense. But I wont. You are the one who has violated 3RR on that article and going against consensus of multiple editors. I have even reported you and you should be blocked soon. Until then, carry on with your nonsense.

ps - can any admin please take action here Sarvagnya 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete this thread without reason. This is unrelated to your 3RR complaint against me.People have had enough of the notorious "editor gang," plaguing painstakingly-done projects on Telugu, Marathi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and umpteen number of other articles. I think it is high time that the "gang" and others of its ilk be exposed, for greater good, come what may. I know that I haven't wronged and have challenged the gang's hegemony. If the latter is a mistake I'm ready to accept any possible action, including a permanent block.

No sensible admin would blindly do whatever you say, without going into the merits & demerits and understanding the problem fully. It is beyond doubt that some users, have greatly undermined WP's purpose, by imposing their fanatical ideas upon countless number of helpless users and wasted countless precious man-hours with petty politics/ideas.

Mind your language and note that you have no business to use uncivil language against me. Despite all the animosity (which I'm sure there is) I haven't ever used a word in your fashion. I strongly suggest that you read WP:CIVIL.--Altruism^{To talk} 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

We are all making inputs in Wikipedia with good faith and clean intentions. I have made similar edits in the past in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family etc., and my edits were reverted without giving proper reasons. When I cited references they were branded fake. When I gave page numbers they were termed 'unreliable'. When I reproduced large chunks of material on talk pages they were ignored. When I tried to protest collusion of certain group of persons I was threatened with blocking. When I complained to some administrators they expressed their helplessness, busy schedules and inability to understand the topic. So, who will come to the rescue of well-meaning people? Please see the talk pages of the earlier mentioned articles. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case too.Kumarrao 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience sake, the Talk pages in question are Talk:Telugu language, Talk:Telugu script, Talk:Brahmic family and many more

• Please see Sarvagnya's Contributions and those of similar users, and decide for yourself. Thanking You, Altruism^{To talk} 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bam Bam Slim Fast and Lee's Summit

I noticed a lot of attempts by multiple users to create articles about this Seattle based radio announcer yesterday, using various different versions of his name, all of which were speedy deleted. e.g. Bam Bam AKA Slim Fast (which has now been protected) Slimfast BamBam etc Also many additions of his name to the Lee's Summit, Missouri article as a notable resident. Finally, the explanation came from one user that Mr. Bam Bam had said on air that he should be included in WP and his upbringing in Lee's Summit noted. [22]. Another article involved is Church of lazlo. I write this to ask for some extra eyes and help, as it seems likely that this might be a recurring theme once he gets back on the air today. Thanks.--Slp1 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to vandalize the redirect from Jews to Jew[23][24]. After reverting to the last non-vandalized version of the redirect, he threatened to block me, accusing me of vandalism[25][26][27]. Requesting intervention. Perspicacite 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Have reported this user to WP:AIV. Continues to remove 77,000+ words from an article. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have some sort of anti-Semitic agenda. The only difference between the page he is reverting to and the July 2 version of "Jew" is that the "Jews" page is under Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Perspicacite 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am actually insulted! Wow! No, I don't read the page, don't care what's in it. 77,000+ words down to 17, I revert it. The content of the page, I leave that up to someone else. I ask, though, you take retract the "anti-Semitic" comment, because it is rude, uncalled for, and not anywhere close to what I am doing. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, but it should be noted that you should not be copy and pasting the text from Jew into Jews as is occurring. If you want to move the article, the correct venue for discussion is at Talk:Jew. Will (aka Wimt) 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in the subject what-so-ever. I see it on the "Recent Changes" page, clicked on it, revert, Warn2'd the user, and went on from there. Seen it was reverted again, Warn3'd and well, you get the idea. I have no real interest in the article, I leave that up to someone else. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this a content dispute? He deliberately put the article into Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. He then proceeded to harass me for reverting his vandalism. I would think his edits merit a 24-hr block at least. Perspicacite 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it seems to me to be an innocent mistake. He is reverting to the copy and paste move from Jew seemingly introduced by an IP here which happened to contain that category. I see no evidence that he is deliberately introducing that category. It is true Jews should stay as a redirect (unless Jew is moved there properly and with consensus) but I see no grounds for a block. Will (aka Wimt) 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN...I do not read the articles, when I see a article that has been reduced from 77,000+ words to 17, I instantly revert it. The content of the article, especially something like Judaism, for which I do not understand and don't claim to even understand in the least, I leave up to someone who does. I am not going to catch a category at the bottom of a page. If I did, I would have certainly removed it, but again, that is not my department. Actually, reverting vandalism isn't either, I just do it to help out.

So, again...I was not vandalising, I was reverting what I thought was vandalism. I have no agenda and I am not and have not vandalised. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently has a long history of incivility[28][29], referring to the "bastards" (no doubt the Jews) behind 9/11.[30][31]. Perspicacite 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt his past edits involving Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks and Cat:Victims of 9/11 are coincidental. Righttttt. Perspicacite 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary on the September 11 page was about people who were Islamic, for one, who took down the Twin Towers. But, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said that on my edit summary.

But it had NOTHING to do with Jewish people, actually had nothing to do with Islamic people. Just 19 "bastards".

Now, you need to stop this personal attack you are going on, because you can be blocked for that. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, you seem to be entirely lacking in any kind of good faith assumption here. Neutralhomer has said that he just saw what appeared to be a blanking of content and reverting it. Trying to insinuate from this and his previous areas of contribution that he is antisemitic is not acceptable. Please stop this now. The issue in question is resolved, let's all get on doing some productive. Will (aka Wimt) 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Neutralhomer, I would appreciate it if in the future you look at the articles before you edit them. Perspicacite 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)