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. 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:Light current

Light current (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) :There's been some disagreement over at the reference desk- see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Disrupting_the_reference_desk_to_make_a_point. My personal opinion here is that Light current is either completely clueless or is intentionally trolling, and I've given him a stern finger-wag. However, my supply of AGF is probably running out with this guy so I wonder if anyone else has opinions. Friday (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a situation before at one of the content policies that appeared to involve trolling from Light current. The warning was a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Good luck. See his block log. A warning was proper though. Considering the numerous ones he's had in the past, I wouldn't mess about if he continues however. pschemp | talk 04:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current doesn't really strike me as bad, but he sometimes acts in a juvenile manner. Dragons flight 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. He either does not have, or does not use, good judgement about what to say. At a certain point, however, even if we assume the best of intentions, something has to be done. -- SCZenz 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know I have responded to all current criticisms and taken corrective action (including deletions). If there are any other outstanding issues, please let me know. 8-)--Light current 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, be aware that it is common for people to be banned from places they disrupt. I hope you have decided to stop the nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to all the issues raised. If you raise a specific issue that has not already been dealt with I will respond.--Light current 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, you asked for opinions, so here is mine. I don't see how Light current is being disruptive. You unilaterally deleted a non-offensive question about HRT from the Science RD; Light current re-instated the question; and then Light current and StuRat discussed the issue with you on StuRat's talk page. For you to say that Light current is "completely clueless or is intentionally trolling" is unjustified, and very close to a personal attack. Gandalf61 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Friday is biased in this matter, and should recuse himself from any actions, as he indicated he would do: "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [1]. That was a good idea, it's too bad he didn't do as he said, and leave this matter to other, calmer heads. StuRat 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you check his contributions? Particular gems include making a masturbation joke in response to a RD question. He's been quite unresponsive to complaints on his talk page. Well, unresponsive is not the right word- he responds, as a chattering child might respond. But thus far he's failed to modify his behavior. Friday (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with Light current's contributions. Do you have a link for the masturbation joke ? If you are thinking of the "popping your collar" remark, I found that quite funny in context, but I don't believe it was one of Light current's answers. Gandalf61 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

How do you know it was related to masturbation? THat interpretation is purely in your mind!--Light current 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. Here's another recent off-topic sexual remark that someone complained about here. See also the numerous complaints on his talk page about his RD activities. He seems to honestly believe in his right to use the RD as a chat board. I'm not opposed to a certain amount of that, but here's a user who's been getting and ignoring complaints for some time. He's exhausted my patience, but I don't know if he's exhausted the entire community's patience yet. Note that mostly his remarks aren't that bad in isolation- you have to look at the overall pattern of disruptive behavior to see the problem here. He seems to enjoy being a pest- if there are little or no useful contributions to offset this, the answer looks obvious to me. But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it. Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He has not been "ignoring complaints", he has discused them, and, where appropriate (and given the opportunity to do so), he has reverted his edits. StuRat 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't remember what you meant by the "masturbation joke". Is it possible you are conflating the activities of several RD users, and attributing them all to Light current ? As for the "photography" example, Light current's remark was challenged on the RD talk page, and Light current says he would have amended it, but we will never know if he would have, because you didn't give him a chance - you deleted his response 7 minutes after it was raised on the talk page. That does begin to look like stalking behaviour to me. You say that Light current irritates you - my opinion is that this irritation has led to you no longer being objective about his behaviour. Gandalf61 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember it fine, and the diff is here. Why are you objecting to me quickly deleting irrelevant (and possibly, slightly offensive) content? Doing it slower doesn't mean it gets done better. Yes, I've been reviewing his contributions- so have others. This is so we can remove the more juvenile and off-topic remarks he makes, since he's demonstrated no judgment of his own. I guess one man's "stalking" is another's "damage control". However I intent to continue to remove rude, irrelevant, and/or unhelpful comments from pages as I see fit. This is neither a playground, a chat board, nor a forum for free speech. Friday (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to Light current's talk page before, mostly over the same sort of problems. See archived threads here and here for examples. One comment in particular was very illuminating: "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel. 8-)" (28 October 2006) [2] - despite the smiley, this either displays the wrong attitude, or a worrying lack of judgement over the right time and place to make jokes. This lack of judgment is evident at the Reference Desk as well. There also seems to be a pattern of behaviour along the lines of pushing the boundaries and defying authority up to a certain point, and then claiming innocence, and saying that he has "responded to all queries". Overall, the attitude and behaviour is often (but not always) juvenile and immature. Ultimately, I would say stern warnings (when needed) from uninvolved parties may be the only way to get the message through, along with some mentoring. Of course, the behaviour may improve over time as the user gains experience in life and Wikipedia. And it would be unfair to single out Light current. There are others that exhibit the same sort of behaviour. Possibly showing these sort of users other areas of Wikipedia they could contribute to would work well, as then they really will encounter people who will tell them exactly what they think of silly behaviour. Carcharoth 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there are other problem editors with the same sort of behavior. LC seems to be buddies with some of them. But, we have to start somewhere. Agree that warnings are reasonable but they have thus far been ineffective. Whether the "innocent child" routine is genuine or not I don't particularly care- the disruption is the same either way. He also made some reference to his edit count to me, as though he believes this justifies his behavior. Anyway, he's characterized my telling him his behavior needs to change as "stalking", which I guess translates into "leave me alone and let me do what I want." A block might help him understand that his behavior really is a problem, but it's hard to point to a single edit that clearly warrants such action. Friday (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about an WP:RFC for user conduct? If enough people agree with what they think the problem is, the message might get through. Carcharoth 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: User_talk:Light_current#RFC. He says he understands that many people think his editing is frequently inappropriate. Time will tell I suppose. Friday (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reason with him about a month ago (archived at User talk:Light current/archive7#comment at RD/science with a related thread starting at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 13#Joking on RD with no apparent improvement on his part. This is where the "When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel." quote came from. When it became clear to him that I'm an admin he backed off (somewhat), but has been pushing the edge ever since. I fear RFC may be the only recourse. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 1 week. See my explanation at User_talk:Light_current#Enough. As always, I invite others to review and adjust as they see fit. Friday (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears harsh at first glance, but I understand the logic. When a user clearly alludes to masturbation and then tries to convince people that it's all in their own heads, that's trolling. LC often seems bent on arguing that nobody can prove what he's talking about, and that the judgement and common sense of others may be faulty, so there's nothing anybody can do; I've talked to him before about the fallacies of this approach, but I guess the lesson didn't sink in. Unfortunately, I'm not sure a long block will make him behave better—but I also have no idea what else to do. -- SCZenz 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced it will help either, but it will make the trolling go away temporarily. Or, at any rate it'll confine it to his own page where he can talk to himself all day long as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the feedback, glad I wasn't completely unreasonable here. Friday (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but a week seems a little harsh to me. Light current has shown that he can talk the talk (ie. he says he understands what is wrong and will try better in the future), but I would say judge his actions during a probationary period. Unblock or reduce the block length, and make clear that disruptive behaviour during the probationary period of a week will result in the block being reimposed. ie. Make clearer to him what sort of behaviour he needs to avoid, and then watch for a week to see that he does avoid that sort of behaviour. Again, mentoring is really what is needed ere, with someone to politely tap the shoulder and say "ahem, do you really think that is suitable?" Carcharoth 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, both nonsexual jokes and the serious discussion of sexual topics, such as masturbation, are allowed on the Ref Desk, but there do appear to be significant objections to sexual jokes. That's fine, but the editor should then be asked to remove the post and given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Instead, Friday removed it himself, depriving User:light current of the opportunity to do so, then used this post later as a justification for blocking this editor for a week. Note that User:light current did not restore the comment, and shows every sign of being reasonable in this matter. Furthermore, Friday's actions regarding the Ref Desk have been needlessly rude, as he himself admits: [3] and disruptive recently, including his suggestion that the Ref Desk be deleted entirely. StuRat 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good point, it's not nearly as serious as if you had asked him and he had refused- friday did it himself and then blamed him. LC posted it in the first place of course but he should have a chance.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

As an addendum to all this, I am serious that users who use Wikipedia as a chat room or discussion place, should be encouraged to take that behaviour to genuine discussion forums. Lord knows there are enough IRC chatrooms and bulletin boards out there, and Usenet as well. Carcharoth 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support block. I like User:Light current and I think he enjoys editing here. But he has to realize that his reference desk behaviour is crossing that murky line from making funny comments to being disruptive. If he shows a willingness to tone down his RD commentary on his talk page, I'd be in favour of unblocking -- Samir धर्म 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support block. This guy has been trolling, and the block will reduce disruption. Hopefully it will only be needed once. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a non-admin, but I support the block. Comments like this are not acceptable, especially in light of given question. Were this isolated, it would not be a problem, but he was warned, and continues to lawyer around with things like "you can't prove I meant that". I'm also worried by comments like "I've responded to any specific issues", which seem to be his way of saying, "I'm only going to respond to past questions, and not necessarily fix my behavior in the future." Friday had every right to remove offensive comments on sight; we don't just let ugly comments sit on the board, just so a user has the chance to go back and remove them later to prove his genuineness. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support. This guy is disruptive, and incivil. Viewing his comments on AN/I should tell you that in an instant. I probably won't remember to recheck this so if you have a comment on my comment, leave a message on my user talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this block. User:Friday has admitted he is biased in this matter, and the "punishment" here is way out of line with the "crime": "But, I'll admit I'm personally irritated at him too, so if action needs to be taken I'd prefer someone else do it" [4]. StuRat 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am a non-admin, and I oppose this block. Light current's reaction to criticism of his RD posts has been persistent but polite. I have seen no evidence that he has broken WP guidelines or policy. He has not been disruptive. Friday has over-reacted, and has allowed his feelings of irritation to override his judgement. He has abused his admin powers to pursue a personal disagreement with Light current. He has escalated from his initial AN/I post to a week long block in less than 24 hours. If Friday thought a block was necessary, he should have proposed this course of action, given Light current a chance to defend himself, obtained concensus on the term of the block and asked an uninvolved admin to enact it. Gandalf61 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Gandalf61. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that it's OK for a user to post out-of-context comments about masturbation, camera voyeurism, and other inappropriate subjects, and then, when confronted, not to be penitent, but to lawyer, refuse to admit fault, to argue, and to obfuscate ("you don't know that's what I meant"). I'm sorry, posting nonsense like that, then pretending you did nothing wrong, after repeatedly being asked to stop is totally unacceptable. I'm sorry, he should know better than that. And, I know you're frustrated with Friday, but the fact is, that is an ongoing problem; this is far from the first time this user has been a problem in such areas. Patstuart^talk|edits 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• An Admin should be neutral, but User:Friday appears to "have it in for" User:light current, resulting in his imposing a week long block for what is, at best, a minor problem. It appears as though User:Friday was looking for any excuse to impose a block. User:light current has been willing to remove any of his posts which are found to be inappropriate, if given the chance. User:Friday, however, has not given him that chance. StuRat 11:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In what areas? The ref desk? I don't recall having ever seen you there.

• The ref desk is going to die this way. A one week block?! I sometimes wonder what LC is talking about, but I don't find him disruptive at all. I still don't get what he is being blocked for. It's all about one single remark that he himself agreed to remove (had he been given a chance) and when Friday is asked for another example he restates the same one. Other examples given are from his own talk page. His own talk page! Is that a reason for a block? A one week block? Much more disruptive is factually wrong information, because that looks like a useful answer. That is not the case here. This is about a silly remark. If this sort of deletionist behaviour continues at the ref desk and those who protest it are blocked (in stead of the other way around) the ref desk will become dull, many useful editors will leave (there are too few already as it is) and the ref desk will die. I have already noticed this happening, as I predicted it would. And it's going to get worse. This censorship has to stop. No need to block me. I've done that myself. After thousands of edits over the last year I have decided to stop contributing to the ref desk. And this is probably my last contribution to this page too. It's all too childish for me to waste time on. If people get blocked for a week for something like this, I'm out of here. To those who say 'good riddance' (there will be those): I didn't get two of my three barnstars for my work at the ref desk for nothing. DirkvdM 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• You are going to block yourself? From this it looks like SCZenz blocked you, not yourself. This is not censorship. The reference desk needs to be kept on topic and focused. The more 'playful' and 'stream of consciousness' it becomes, the less useful it is. As I've said above, there are plenty of other places to joke around at, but WP:RD is not one of them. FWIW, I too think the 1-week ban is too harsh, and I also think Friday needs to provide a clearer reason, and Friday should have left it to an uninvolved admin to impose a block, if needed. Carcharoth 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• That block has ended. He is saying he will not participate in the Ref Desk in the future, even though allowed to do so, because of his disgust at the level of hostility aimed at certain Ref Desk contributors from certain Admins, such as User:Friday and User:SCZenz. StuRat 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. You beat me to it once again. Btw, this is a nice example of how some people don't understand certain types of humour. Which is no reason to delete it. One note to what you said: I don't care if it's admins who do it. Any deletions (by others) at the ref desk are baaaaaad because there are about a thousand edtis per day there, which makes it impossible to keep track of deletions. If that issue is somehow resolved, notify me. I might return. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block: Support 12/24-hour block: I did not see any warnings on User talk:Light current so I was going to oppose any block pending adequate warning, but then I discovered that LC has prematurely archived the warning and lots of relevant discussion on this topic with this edit. I find that disingenuous and it speaks to the need for administrative disincentive for inappropriate behavior (dare I say disruptive? don't mean to dis anyone). I have myself found some of LC's post to the forum frivilous and I personally have decided to ignore any questions posted by him. That is based on what I saw as "crying wolf", i.e. asking questions that he really had no desire to have answered, just for fun. I hinted at such in this edit. I considered that LC was disrespectful to the fact that I had gone to the effort of giving him a legitimate answer to what I thought was a legitimate question. As I myself just consider LC overly playful I did not see fit to warn him otherwise. That Friday sees his behaviour as more serious is a matter for those two to sort out but to the degree that LC ignored the warning then he can have the block but one week is WAY excessive; 12 or 24 hours is better. --Justanother 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: SCZenz even removed (not 'archived') a warning template I placed on his talk page. When I asked other admins about this, the answer was that one can do whatever one likes at ones own talk page. Even though this was a bit more than just 'disingeneous'. DirkvdM 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that calling SCZenz' attempts to improve the desk according to his own understanding of purpose and policy; calling those efforts "vandalism" is baiting and he was justified to remove it. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I also think that admins that "don't like the reference desk" should give it a wide berth. I am not judging anyone there, I am simply making a comment. I further hope that LightCurrent (and others) can come to understand that the banter and off-topic junk on the Desks is an enjoyable aside to the real work of answering questions and is never to be started or encouraged as an end-in-itself. I hope that LC gets something out of all this effort and remains on the Desk. --Justanother 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose one week block. I feel very strongly about this, as an RD regular. I think sometimes LC is over the top, but he's shown suitable contrition in response to the recent discussions. I regularly do RC patrol and report vandals. I see persistent, malicious blankers and offensive posters receive blocks much shorter than 1 week. And they are non penitent. Shorten this please. --Dweller 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, a one-week block is inappropriately harsh. Yesterday a spammer who created two articles spamming a website, who deleted spam tags from them, recreated the delteed articles twice after admin deletion, listed the article on the req for page protection page to try to protect it from *me* and the deleting admins, forged my signature, and then lied about it, requested a review of the block, got one, blanked the user page and requested another one, got the same--a week's blocking.

Furthermore, even if one accepted that Light current needed blocking, the action for which he was blocked was under active & general discussion and it was premature to do so prior to some conclusion of that discussion, especially in the absence of clear, uncontradicted and unambiguous guidelines about the behavior for which he's been blocked.

So I would appeal to Friday to rethink the week block and lift it, undoing the self-action, and parole Light current to time served. -THB 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Opposeblock as clearly excessive. This is an unwarranted abuse of admin powers by user:Friday, who has previously proposed eliminating the reference desk: "I'm probably going against years of established practice here, but I fail to see how the reference desk adds encyclopedic value. It's a time-waster- why don't we just ditch the whole thing? Friday (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" It is very hard to assume good faith when an admin proposes eliminating the reference desk then applies grossly excessive penalties to frequent contributors. Edison 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, Friday should recuse himself from all matters related the Ref Desk, as his extreme bias against the Ref Desk negatively affects his judgment in such matters. StuRat 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few remarks and I'll probably bow out of this. As for warnings, there were months of warnings prior to this from different people. Light current has been blocked for trolling before. This was blatantly obvious trolling yet he kept up his "innocent and clueless" routine. He's just looking for a reaction out of people- check out his attempts to engage in conversation after the block, acting like he doesn't know what he did wrong. I did start the discussion here well before blocking, and so far there seems to be admin consensus for the block. So, I'm not personally inclined to change it, however my standard offer still stands: if any admin disagrees with this and wants to change it, I invite them to do so. I don't "own" my blocks any more than we own our edits. I realize a week seems harsh here, but he was very obviously trolling and this has been an ongoing problem, apparently for quite a long while. I acknowledge this is a tricky situation- hardly any of Light current's edits, taking in isolation, seem remotely blockable. This is why I sought input from others before and after the block. Also, please- let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight- I blocked one particular editor- discussion of other editors who are also problems are not relevant to this situation. If anyone cares to notice, after some initial disgust at the sorry state of the reference desk and me questioning whether it adds any value to the project, I've decided it IS valuable, so I've jumped in and started trying to help answer questions. I thank all the people who do useful work at the reference desk, or in any other part of the project. Friday (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You say let's not let this turn into a perceived "admins versus reference desk" fight, after having said "there seems to be admin consensus for the block", thus implying that you ignore the opinions and consensus of non-Admins, and in particular Ref Desk contributors. Can't you see how ignoring the opinions of non-Admins causes just the type of problem you claim you want to avoid ? If you want everyone to work together, then you need to respect the opinions of everyone, not just Admins. StuRat 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! I'm going rogue and starting a wheel war!

Er, by which I mean that I'm lifting the block on Light current. Per THB, I'm paroling him. I don't think that the block was undeserved, but I do think that LC has acknowledged ([5]) that some of his comments were inappropriate for the forum in which he made them and that his judgement has not been up to snuff on occasion.

I think that leaving the block in place will shed more heat than light, as the mounting evidence here would suggest. LC is often a useful and productive contributor to the Ref Desk, and – providing he can restrain his occasional impulse towards off-colour humour and borderline newbie-biting – it would be a shame to lose that. I fear that we may have rushed into a block just when LC was starting to 'get' that the weight of opinion did not support his behaviour. I think it appropriate to give him a shot at reform. Note that I do not use the word 'parole' lightly, and I do expect that LC will make every reasonable effort to temper his remarks. His block will be restored (by me or by someone else) if he doesn't avail himself of this opportunity.

Note also that I expect other parties (both to this specific incident and those involved in the broader Ref Desk discussions) to refrain from sniping, kicking LC or others while down, taunting, gloating, oh-so-'clever' remarks, or anything else that might be taken as a lapse in civility. I'll be all over any sort of 'I-told-you-so', namecalling, 'You-don't-have-a-right-to-talk-about-Ref-Desk-because-you're-not-there-as-much-as-I-am-so-sod-off', or other petty ugliness like stink on cheese. We're at the Reference Desk. We're supposed to be there to help our fellow human beings, and we're doing it because we're nice, friendly, helpful people. Is everyone clear on that? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for opening the door to lift his block. It would have been better had Friday done it, but Friday did leave the door unlocked and let it be known that it was unlocked, so that's a good thing. -THB 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block on general principle. This seemed like a reasonable judgement call by the admin, and it isn't a horribly extended or indefinite block, so we shouldn't be second-guessing it. - Crockspot 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• It is hard to assume good faith when Friday applies an exceptionally long bloc for a minor offense on the part of a frequent contributor to Reference desk after Friday has said "I'm very serious. I stay away from the reference desk but have dropped in a few times lately due to reports of problems there. I was rather shocked at what I saw. I suppose we must let each editor contribute in their own way, but I've not seen a bigger time-waster here than the RD. This is an encyclopedia- the goals of the project go no further. When I buy a copy of Brittanica, I've bought an encyclopedia. I don't expect that this includes a guy who will come to my house, hold my hand, and read it to me. Is it reasonable to expect a reference desk? Not in my opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a forum, and not a place to get other people to do your research for you. Friday (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" Edison 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Please note that my request to be utterly civil and courteous and to try to put this behind us wasn't actually solely for the pleasure of hearing myself type. It would be appreciated if you stopped quoting that remark on talk pages and noticeboards in an attempt to push Friday out of this discussion. If you look upward about six comments, you'll see that Friday has reconsidered his opinion on the Ref Desk, and is actually endeavouring to be a helpful participant there. In the same comment, he also explains that the block was not for a single incident, but for a pattern of behaviour — which we all hope and expect has now been remediated – from an editor who has received many warnings about his conduct. I will also note that Friday has expressed support for my approach to handling this block, and that he seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. I expect that he would have done exactly what I did had I sent him a polite message—I was just impatient at the bickering here. It is not appropriate to kick Light current while he's down, nor is it appropriate to try to lynch Friday while he's being reasonable and accomodating. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if an admin is only starting to understand a project as radically unique as the RD, maybe he shouldn't be allowed to assert his admin powers there. Which I don't necessarily agree with by the way --froth^{T C} 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can I assert my opinion into this one? I don't know if it's valuable here, but it looks like there's a long history of Light Current managing to find a way to get blocked, then unblocked. And the one time he wasn't unblocked was by Pschemp, and he's still bitter about that. In other words, perhaps we need to make it clear that infinite patience doesn't exist, and constantly walking the oline between appropriate and inappropriate, then acting like "poor persecuted me" when he called on it, won't be tolerated forever. That being said, he is a long-time contributer. I dunno: it's "yes, we love you at Wikipedia, no, you can't make masturbation and porn jokes out of context at ref desk after being warned for it." Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that enough people have seen this pattern of behavior to ensure that it won't be allowed to continue unchecked. (can't keep my big mouth shut, sorry). Friday (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we so soft on a user who continues in a pattern of pushing the line? LC's actions appear childish and are frustrating when they happen again and again. i see this block as a cumulative effect of LC's own actions. Friday was right to block in such a situation, although, possibly a week was too long, but I do not know enough of this users background to judge. Regardless of the length of block, if these actions continue then the blocks should become progressively more severe. LC's claims of innocense, given the masturbation link posted by Friday above, are laughable. Go to usenet for toilet humour. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose block. Friday has a clear conflict of interest- see their back-and-forth in the latest archive of the RD talk. Other than that I would have said that he deserved it anyway (after due process, not this one day AN/I fiasco) but lately he really has been quite good about responding to criticisms and having an open mind about his behavior. Also, I'd like to say that I appreciate that friday is starting to understand the point of the RD. Admittedly it seems overblown and unnecessary at first glance but there really is a huge demand for it and light current is overall a positive contributor. I'd hate to lose him over this --froth^{T C} 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well just to round off this discussion, I would like to say that all this apparent waste of time has indeed shown something:

We all make mistakes, some more than others. He who never made a mistake, never made anything. Let us not judge too harshly, lest we be judged in the same manner. Peace on all! 8-)--Light current 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd like to thank all my supporters for defending me and pleading for me. And I will try not to hold it agianst anyone who supported my blocking. I think we ahave all leaneda little from this unpleasant episode. 8-)--Light current 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in late to this, but I have to say that I oppose the block. I do think Light current is too flippant on the RD, and it would not hurt for him to be mentored, but I'm trying awfully hard to wonder why so many admins are suddenly hopping into the RD and tsktsking when they aren't regular participants. The RD has been running fine for months now, there is nothing wrong with the way those of us who do frequent do things there. We need to quit warring over this, guys. Try talking first, blocking second. I would support an RfC on Light Current. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current, rather than giving somewhat veiled threats to those who opposed you, is it possible you could just admit wrong-doing, say you're sorry, and promise to stop in the future? Amazingly, you seem unable to do this. Already on your talk page, talking about the censorship on RD (having masturbation comments removed, what awful tyranny). Two ounces of penitence goes a long way. This is the kind of half-hearted backdoor response that's gotten you blocked 7 times. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how his opinion on censorship, listed on his own talk page, can be grounds for a complaint here. StuRat 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to his above comment. i only came back and added the thing about censorship later when I found it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am a completely neutral party here, having never even been to the RD. However, I just want to chime in and note that, after reading this report and the one above about the block of DirkvdM, it seems to me that a number of users view the RD as a fiefdom and a lot of the debate here has been about "people who frequent" the RD and letting them do things their way, and criticisms of users who "don't usually hang around" at RD but nonetheless voiced opinions in these matters, as though they had no right to do so. Seems a little skewed to me.--Dmz5 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Since Light current was unblocked, I noticed a set of edits to You have two cows such as this one where the edit summaries made it sound like he was removing jokes. (Light current is currently upset at WT:RD that people have been criticising joke answers to articles.) However he was removing content from an article about a set of jokes. The removal was reverted, so that's not an issue. But, I really have to wonder about WP:POINT here. I'm not doing anything about this myself, due to the complete uproar caused by my recent block on Light current, and my own questioning of my remaining supply of AGF. However I bring this here in case others have opinions on this. Friday (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits at You have two cows have nothing at all to do with my recent blocking. i dont know why Friday is continuing to persecute and stalk me in this manner.--Light current 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I note with regret that Light current has opted to try to push the envelope of WP:POINT (and also made at least one attack on Friday) since I unblocked him as a gesture of good faith. I have restored the remaining six days of his original block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on Light Current's recent edits to his talk page (where he's making a production out of his block with countdowns, selectively deleting comments, and so on, I'm contemplating protecting his User and User talk pages for the remaining duration of his current block to help keep him from stuffing his foot any further into his mouth. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems quite excessive, to me. Allowing him to vent may actually be a therapeutic thing. And what's wrong with a countdown, exactly ? There should be far more tolerance for what a person says on their own user page and talk page than on Wikipedia in general. StuRat 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong is that the user simply refuses to ever admit culpability, no matter how many people tell him to knock it off. While I'm not going to accuse Light current of being a dick (I don't really know if he is one), I can point out the famous WP:DICK addage that "if enough people tell you you're wrong, they probably have a point". Light current needs to learn to stop trying to game the system at every turn, and then complaining about the unfairness of his blocks. He needs to learn that Wikipedia is a community, and he needs to abide by community rules, and not his own WP:FREE rules; that's why a talk page block would work. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat & PatStuart, I appreciate your feedback. I've decided to institute the protection, and I'd like to respond to your concerns (Stu). First, the block isn't meant to be therapeutic, blocks are to prevent disruption. They aren't punitive, they're to stop a problem. The intent with temporary blocks is to break the chain of disruption long enough that the user can reset and be productive on their return. Pat's quick summary above is very accurate, and reflects my concerns here too. Not only is this user failing to acknowledge any culpability (note that on his user page, he talks about how "responding" to criticism should somehow equal changing behavior, yet makes no attempt to) but there's also the matter of his/her editing of his or her talk page. A blocked user is allowed to edit their own stuff when blocked primarily so they can have an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the block and appeal appropriately. Instead, Light Current has used this to create grudge lists, working to categorize bad faith edits, announcing alternate interpretations of policy, and nest building in general. I think LC has the capability of being a valuable editor, but his or her shennanigans in user space are going to draw a legit lightning bolt. Also, a couple of posts from other users may be lending to LCs opinion that he or she is a victim of some great conspiracy, and that's hardly conducive to becoming a good editor. I'll protect it now, and ask that any admins who disagree contact me before unprotecting so we can discuss it. I'll make a point of checking for messages frequently. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If Light current is blocked, then why is his userpage protected? His user talk page is one thing, but why did you protect his user page, Chairboy? Picaroon9288 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Picaroon! Did both at the same time per above for the same reason. I've got my fingers crossed that he'll come out of the other side of the block intact and that he'll take Zoe up on the mentorship offer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how he could disrupt anything besides his own pages if you lifted the page protection. BTW, how long is the page protection in effect ? StuRat 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only to be protected until his block expires, of course. I've answered your other question above. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean, Chairboy. I think I misread/didn't read closely enough the comment of yours which I replied to. (Well, that's what happends when you skim a 7,500 word section in ten minutes!) Picaroon9288 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This ban is way too long, and regardless of the reason blocking his user page is unacceptable. You said that blocks aren't theraputic, they're to prevent further disruption... well isn't blocking his user page "to keep him from stuffing his foot further into his mouth" more theraputic than to prevent disruption? He should be able to say whatever he wants on his own pages. You're talking in circles because such an unreasonable action is undefendable --froth^{T C} 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Froth! I appreciate your comments, but I'll respectfully disagree. We don't get to say "whatever we want" on our user pages. This isn't a blog, it's an encyclopedia. I've been corresponding with Light Current in email, and I've expressed my hope that he can use this opportunity to turn things around. I'm not sure I understand your other point above, as I mentioned before the block is not intended to be therapeutic. I've protected his page to help him, not punish. I told him in email that I'd rather he be a succesful wikipedia editor who hates my guts 6 months from now than an indefinitely banned editor who likes me. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If the block is intended to prevent further disruption and not to be therapeutic then I do not get the point of blocking him from editing his own talk page. I can understand feeling that he needs a break and suggesting that he take one. Enforcing that he do so even to the extent of blocking his access to his own talk page when he obviously does not care to take that advice amounts to punishment. You cannot even say he is using his talk page improperly, IMO, as he is using it to discuss wikipedia issues and if someone does not want to see his remarks then they simply need avoid his talk page. For the record, I also suggest that he take a break but if he chooses not to then that is his choice and if it contributes to further disciplinary action in the future then that is on his head also. --Justanother 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant chairboy --froth^{T C} 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, guys! I've talked this over with Light Current, and he's on track to coming back as a productive editor in a couple days when the block expires. The almost 50 edits he made to his talk page during his block before the protection was pretty darn crazy and he might have spun a bearing without intervention. The page protection is the inanimate carbon rod that governs his fission reaction, and it'll drop shortly along with the block. Keep the shiny side up, and let's get back to work. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with making a large number of edits on his own pages. And 50 doesn't seem like a lot to me, in any case (then again, I have over 15,000 edits, so I may be biased). StuRat 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin plays detective...what next?

Ever want to sleuth down one of the long term vandals? Well a couple of people think I've succeeded. My summaries of the matter are at User_talk:Durova#Editor_X_.2F_Joan_of_Arc andTalk:Joan_of_Arc#Return_of_Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse.23Joan_of_Arc_vandal.3F, which I daresay make interesting reading especially if you put on a pair of dark sunglasses and play The Pink Panther theme. If my evidence holds up to scrutiny, this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia's Catholicism, homosexuality, and crossdressing articles for 26 months without getting caught (December 8 will be his anniversary).

Trouble is, because he's been so slippery, I probably can't get a checkuser on this sock drawer. Doc Tropics suggested an RfC. I'd like to find out whether I'm right and if I'm on the mark I'd like to seek a community ban. So all of you Sherlock Holmes types, come on over and bring your magnifying glass. This one might boggle your eyes. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That took a while to read! You have amassed a bevy of suggestive evidence; statistically, Editor X could have won the lottery before being two people from the same town with the same in-depth knowledge and yet rather bizarre theories, unless of course, he has converts. In either case, the behavior is incredibly disruptive not just because of the behavior itself, but the subtly with which it undermines the article. The editor has already been almost completely unresponsive to discussion and attempts to reform their behavior including being dishonest when cornered - since it doesn't appear meaningful contact can be made, I'd support the idea of a community ban. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[ec] Blimey. That was a patient and thorough piece of work! I suspect that support for a ban based on this will be pretty much unanimous, but one could always take it to ArbCom in case of doubt. Gold star, either way. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try and help you get a checkuser through but if he's on AOL it won't do any good. If you assemble a list of accounts with recent edits (<1 month) and a brief statement, go ahead and file it. I expect once more people read this they will support a ban without technical confirmation (which can only go back a few weeks in any case). Thatcher131 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've invited one of these accounts to agree to a checkuser. How exactly does the AOL wrinkle crease this seam - would they be limited to confirming whether or not this person hails from Reston, Virginia? That could be enough in light of the other evidence. I'm not the least bit averse to naming him at AOL's abuse department and requesting they revoke his service. That would take considerably less effort than I've already spent undoing his damage. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's using AOL then I'm not sure how you can even be sure of his geographic location, since I think all US AOL addresses show up as Reston VA. Unless this editor made a specific slip-up which I am reluctant to discuss publically, the only thing checkuser could reveal is that each of the suspected accounts has edited from AOL. Since thousands of editors use AOL, this would not provide any confirmation that the accounts were operated by the same person. A check may still be productive if this person was careless in a certain way, or he may be using multiple ISPs where it would be easier to track him. Thatcher131 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. To the best of my knowledge he's been a loyal AOL customer. They host his website - and as extraordinary as this is for an AOL homepage, of the 3 million-odd Google returns for a "Joan of Arc" search he's consistently numero uno. So regardless of his actual residence location I'm pretty sure AOL's abuse department could pinpoint him and I don't think he wants his service interrupted. What worries me more is his disruption on other topics, which appears to have been continuous - the homosexuality pages especially. I'm getting set to roll up my sleeves and dig into that evidence now that people take this matter seriously - he's clever but not too clever. Durova^Charge! 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing checkuser can do then is, for any user name he has used in the last month or so, give you the IP address as of the time of its edits. This would probably not be released to you but could be forwarded to AOL's abuse department, so they could attempt to determine if the wikipedia vandal is the same person whose web site they host. I don't know what it would take to convince AOL to take action, though. Thatcher131 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova: All AOL users show up from Reston, Virginia. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that the IP address for AOL users is never linked to a specific account but instead is based on the page (URL) being viewed or edited -- see Wikipedia's information on this. It's very odd but that's how AOL IPs work for reasons known only to their engineers.

The upshot is that an IP check won't do any good and neither will reporting a set of IPs to AOL. They're likely to just ignore you because you won't be reporting a single and discrete user given that all users are on the same range of IPs. You will instead be telling them that some of the many millions of AOL subscribers happen to get those IPs while editing certain articles, which is not going to come as a surprise to them.

You can never be sure whether an AOL vandal is one person or a whole host of users who end up editing under the same IPs. Other websites such as BBs have the same problem. EReference 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dissection of AOL's innards. Since I actually do have this vandal's real-life name, would AOL's abuse department take notice? Durova^Charge! 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, aren't you assuming that the IPs are linked to that real name? They wouldn't necessarily be linked to a given individual, or even a single individual. And since anyone can claim to be anyone else on here, a name is not proof of identity. AOL cannot suspend someone's paid account based merely on an allegation. This comes up repeatedly on many websites since there's no way to tell who anyone really is on the internet. EReference 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova, with all due respect for your detective work, I'm a tad uncomfortable with you referring to the guy as a "vandal" and "long-term abuser". Did he ever get blocked? He's not currently banned under any of his accounts, is he? From your description I take it that his main accounts were used subsequently, not in parallel for blatant illegitimate sockpuppetry, or were they? I mean, I have no doubt he may be a disruptive POV-pusher, but has he done anything actually "illegal" in Wikipedia terms besides POV-pushing? And what would we expect his ISP to do about that, at this stage? Let's ban him if he's as disruptive as you say, and then we'll see - any new reincarnations of his will probably be easy enough to spot, once people are alerted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know he's flown underneath nearly every radar except mine. In his earliest months Fire Star tried to offer him some guidance. He was still trying to behave like a regular Wikipedian back then. One quick answer about sockpuppetry is User_talk:Durova/Archive_5#Wikistalking (with several instances of blanking vandalism thrown in). User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc demonstrates that he violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VANITY, WP:RS, WP:OWN, and WP:POINT. Possibly WP:COI also. The damage he caused at Joan of Arc has been incredibly pervasive and subtle - not just garden variety POV pushing but degrading footnotes, inserting inaccurate statements into previously cited material, and fraudulent citations. He even vanity published and faked the appearance of a legitimate scholarly journal in order to bypass site standards and cite himself. Note that the author name on the pseudojournal is the same as the name he self-identified on the original account, and that the IP inserted it while coyly avoiding use of the author's name at Wikipedia. Due to the high profile of the Joan of Arc article I acutally had to dig through several thousand edits to undo the harm that he caused - expending weeks of my time. If you need more evidence than I've already supplied at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc then say so and I'll dig up other examples and more diffs. The peculiar POV he pushes and the amount of scholarly background it reflects identify him as unique - how likely is it that two different people would strain the evidence to draw identical conclusions about a 1929 scholarly work available only in French? And describe their views with the same syntactical structure and leap into edit wars? I know how serious this allegation is and I wouldn't raise it unless I had researched this with extreme care. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember looking at the constributions of Center-for-Medieval-Studies (talk · contribs) after he edited some pages on the Dukes of Burgundy. He was accused at the time of being identical AWilliamson (talk · contribs) (see diff of him removing those from his talk page). IMO, this falls under the "users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies" portion of the blocking policy, WP:OR in particular. Faking up a vanity journal to insert your point of view is absolutely the sort of behavior for which you should be run out of Wikipedia on a rail — it's a direct attack on our credibility. I haven't been involved in any disputes with Center-for-Medieval-Studies, and haven't been involved in the Joan of Arc article, so I feel I qualify as an uninvolved endorser of a ban. Choess 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got to give a nod to Switisweti. During my first weeks as an editor he clued me in to some of this activity. That guy had an awful time because he'd been trying to watch Williamson for a year but lacked the academic expertise to challenge him in detail. Plus there was another disruptive editor at the article who pursued an entirely different agenda. Switi and I wound up holding conversations at my user talk page in German in order to dodge them (I didn't realize that was un-Wikipedian at the time). Switi finally quit the project a year ago and I can't say I blame him, but I hope he rejoins us someday. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a ban.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova has done an exceptional job of gathering and presenting evidence which, if accurate (and it appears to be), would certainly warrant a community ban for long-term systematic abuse. I had thought that ANI might not be able to respond to such a convoluted case, but between D's excellent summary, and the dedication of the editors who have posted here, I realize that I underestimated Wikipedians in general. Sometimes I'm actually quite happy to be wrong : ) Doc Tropics 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support a community ban (disclaimer: I've been involved in a dispute with the editor in question). I'd be more comfortable if there were technical confirmation, but for the reasons explained above it seems unlikely that WP:RFCU will do any good--another reason to dislike AOL. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting the following from my user talk page: if any doubt remains, have a look at some diffs from Voln's talk page. This says "Archiving" in the edit note and an exceptionally small archive was created. The types of complaints and the topics covered bear an eerie similarity to AWilliamson, particularly The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality and Christianity; talk page blanking and misleading edit summaries are also trademark Williamson tactics.[6] He also performed a similar blanking that included the removal of a final block warning while marking the edit as minor.[7] Durova^Charge! 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the evidence you have collected is damning. I also have no problem in supporting a community ban.--Aldux 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Burn at the stake - erm, I mean I would also support banning this disruptive and time-consuming user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far this is unanimous. Think the responses are enough to call a consensus? Much as I'd like to do the honors myself, since I am an involved editor it would be more appropriate for someone else to perform the ban. Then we could set up the suspected sockpuppets category. Who's got an itchy indef block finger today? Durova^Charge! 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support permaban. Sneaky hoaxers are scrouge of Wikipedia. Still I fear that somebody would have to monitor the related articles and block the puppets. Alex Bakharev 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A check of some of the allegations turns up the following.

• The most serious allegations revolved around the claim that the editor (or someone suspected of being the editor) was using a fanciful academic publication ("Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" within the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series") and a fanciful nonprofit organization ("Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies") to dishonestly include his own original research in Wikipedia. But a quick search finds the following entry at a government site which lists this organization as a registered nonprofit in good standing: search result
• And a search at Google Books finds the allegedly "bogus" book in print: http://books.google.com/books?ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Academy+%22Joan+of+Arc+Studies%22&as_brr=0
• A search at Google Scholar finds the "Joan of Arc Primary Sources Series" although only one item is currently indexed. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Joan+of+Arc%22+%22Primary+Sources+Series%22

The most serious allegations are therefore clearly mistaken and some of the other allegations were based on an erroneous understanding of the manner in which AOL IPs are assigned. The rest were I believe mostly or entirely related to allegations of POV-pushing or suspected sockpuppetry, which are more subjective. If people want to vote for a ban anyway then that's the decision. EReference 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

501c3 tax status is fairly easy to get and doesn't amount to validation of the content; I daresay some of these people were acting in good faith. I traded e-mails with Virginia Frohlick some years ago and she seemed very friendly, although she was much too quick to give credence to my assertions. She is, however, an amateur enthusiast who maintains a website[www.stjoan-center.com/] and the only Google Scholars entry for her is another publication from the same organization.[8] Likewise, the only Google Scholars return for Robert Wirth that does not appear to be incidental - there seems to be a medical doctor by the same name - is one of this organization's publications[9] (although this drew my interest briefly) For Margaret Walsh, the other claimed reviewer, there is a Margaret Walsh who is a professor of American economic and social history.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Some of these names also turn up random returns in the hard sciences, dentistry, and medicine so I doubt these are the same person. It's been three months since I wrote the original summary and it doesn't particularly surprise me that this group has produced a hard copy edition of Williamson's study, but I see no reason to conclude that this nonprofit is anything other than the pet project of four people who have no formal expertise in their field. I could create a 501c3 organization with three friends, throw up a website, and print out a few copies of my pet theories - but that wouldn't make me an encyclopedic source. I'll post more on Williamson himself in a few moments. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, here's Allen Williamson's Google Scholar result - you decide if he looks like a real historian.[15] On his original user page he claims to be a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her portion of the Hundred Years' War[16] and claims to be a historian in talk page posts[17] [18] [19] and at mediation[20] but, to my knowledge, never identified his academic qualifications or affiliations. At User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies the first question the talk page receives is from Adam Bishop to ask which Center for Medieval Studies this is. The question went unanswered and the account blanked similar questions from other editors without reply.[21] The account blanks other criticism without response[22] including a suspected sockpuppet template[23] and finally blanks all remaining material and redirects to both the user page and the talk page to a new account User:Center-for-Medieval-Studies.[24] [25] on 10 May 2006, one month after User:AWilliamson got blanked and redirected to User:AWilliamson..[26] [27] Assuming the anonymous AOL account is the same editor, here's a post where he manufactures a fraudulent citation and admits in the edit note that he chose the source because he thought I hadn't read it.[28] Well I had read that source and he thoroughly misrepresented it. There can't be room for good faith in this instance because I had objected to the relevant passage the previous day and transcribed a quotation coauthored by the same historian in a later publication that vigorously denied any such claim.[29] If other editors are curious about the subject details I'll go into those matters at my talk page - but to summarize this doesn't strike me as someone who's out of his depth but as someone whose every move is tainted by the need to advance his own peculiar opinions by any means necessary and who plays just as fast and loose with his sources as he does with Wikipedia's policies - so much so that I doubt he could pass peer review at any journal he didn't control. To be candid, I hold only a bachelor's degree in history from Columbia University (my graduate studies were in another field) and my interest in Joan of Arc is an amateur one (although serious enough that I have traveled France to follow her campaigns). Yet I know the standard reference works and I can recognize when someone cherry picks data and distorts information in bizarre ways. Challenge me for more evidence if you aren't convinced: this case is so complex that I've held back to conserve space. I welcome scrutiny because I want to know whether I'm right and I think I have enough facts to satisfy reasonable doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to respond to all the topics you've raised, most of which are rather obscure. I'll post a reply later today or tomorrow. EReference 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This "book" by Allen Williamson is a great example of self-published scholarship. It's available in two flavors, print and pdf. On Amazon, the "book" costs a whopping $5.00, which means it's probably a bound print-off of the pdf. The title page lists not only the editor, but the names of two peer reviewers. In legitimate scholarship, peer reviewers are not given credit for the work--there's a reason they call it "double blind". This work definitely fails WP:RS, but if anyone has any doubts, Amazon still has 2 copies in stock--order now, and it will be delivered before Christmas! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I might as well add that the diff I showed for the IP's misuse of sources contained two fraudulent citations. His reference to Henry V's will is another bizarre distortion. What's insidious is how the reader has to know this material as well as the perpetrator to even challenge it. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have more time now. I guess I might as well cover several items in the same message since they're all interrelated.

Yesterday Akhilleus alleged that a certain book by this organization is not valid because the peer reviewers are listed. I don't think that's justified since this type of disclosure has in fact become more common in recent years for a number of academic publications. For example see the following guidelines here (see point 5 specifically) for an academic publication which lists the peer reviewers and accepting editors who recommended each article (only reviewers who rejected the work remain anonymous under their method).

The low price is not too unusual for smaller books, especially at Amazon.

Durova has brought up a number of subjects, mostly dealing with old debates and issues which are hard to follow. Some deal with the organization which you dispute.

For starters, let's look up the organization's website. On one page it lists at least fifteen members in two categories without listing whatever others there may be aside from these "recent" ones. You had said the total was only four people. Googling the listed names finds that Stephen Richey authored at least one published book on Joan of Arc. François Janvier is evidently an official at the CAOA in the Department of the Meuse, France. François Thouvenin seems to be a translator with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Others could be Googled if I had time. The website also lists a publisher's ISBN prefix, which is definitely not cheap to buy. It lists an Employer Identification Number, a SAN, several ISSNs (which might take months to obtain from the Library of Congress) and a list of current or upcoming publications which include subjects such as military records, government docs, a "transcription of BNF fr 4488 ff 463-476" and a bunch of other stuff. This clearly extends beyond four people with one pdf file, I think. Remember that this ultimately comes back to the allegation that a dishonest editor had created or invented a bogus org so he could insert his own stuff into the article. A bit of searching indicates that this is wrong.

Your objections to the people themselves have been of two types. One was based on a search for their names at Google Scholar, which is likely to be unreliable for several reasons. It looks like you initially didn't find the organization's publications there either although at least some of them do show up if you use certain keywords. It's also the case that Google Scholar is hardly exhaustive. The other argument was based on the assumption that certain anonymous IPs or accounts here are disguises for one of the members (which would be hard to prove). You assume that certain edits by these anons were deliberately made in bad faith and therefore undermine the person's credibility as a historian. In one case this was because (if I understand correctly) you believe he misrepresented an author's position with regard to specific pieces of evidence. After looking over the links to the old edits you provided it looks to me like the two of you were arguing about rather different issues (an author's mention of a document versus an author's view of a theory related to that document) and therefore misunderstanding each other. Here's why I think that. Looking at the first link you provided, we see him adding citations for two books which quote or mention some historical documents he was using to back up one of his own theories. Now, his edit comment specifically says he's citing a book by Pernoud because Pernoud "mentions this document" (he doesn't say Pernoud supports it) which his text lower down specifies is a letter from "the University of Paris.. to John of Luxembourg" which was among several documents which he said supported his theory that "Charles or his faction" attempted to save Joan of Arc. The other link you provided leads to your rebuttal which you based on a quote from one of Pernoud's other books in which Pernoud casts doubt on this theory and questions the reliability of the "Morosini" records... but it seems that neither of those two issues were the point. He wasn't saying Pernoud's book supported his theory but rather that this book by Pernoud "mentions" the University of Paris letter. This is "original research" on the anon's part but not dishonesty. You state that these rather ambiguous matters would undermine a specific real person's scholarly credentials ... which would not be the case even assuming that he was genuinely the anon in the first place.

You also objected to a comment the anon made about Henry V's will in the same link. As far as I can see this refers to footnote 3 in that text in which he argues (I'm summarizing here) that the decision to keep Joan of Arc as a prisoner rather than letting her be "allowed ransom" was similar to previous cases in which important prisoners were also retained in this way. He gives as an example the case of Henry V retaining "the duke of Orléans" according to a statement given in Henry's will. You didn't say why you object to this, but I'll do my best to try to figure it out. Is it inaccurate to say that the duke of Orleans was retained as a prisoner by Henry V ? Or as with the other disputed Pernoud citation are you objecting to the reference to Pernoud because perhaps Pernoud may have disagreed with this theory as was the case with the other one? Since this reference to Pernoud's book occurs in the middle of the sentence right after the mention of Henry V's will but before any mention of the theory which compares the two cases, he doesn't seem to be attributing the theory itself to Pernoud but only the claim that Henry V's will ordered the duke of Orleans to be kept a prisoner. But I'm grasping at straws here to guess the specific objection since I don't think you stated the problem. At least not in your last note. EReference 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the practice of the Digital Medievalist, it is not common to disclose peer reviewers in most academic publications. Nor is it common for an association to publish original material that's authored by one member of the association and "peer reviewed" by two of the other members. This is a self-publishing house that isn't following standard academic rules. That's not surprising, because its members/contributors aren't academics--Chris Snidow and Catherine Hénon are musicians and tour guides (or perhaps I should say pilgrims?); Kevin Hendryx is, according to his webpage, "an editor, is a freelance writer by night, and ... loves Tolkien, the Beatles, and Joan of Arc..."; and Bob Perler apparently enjoyed the 2004 pilgrimage guided by Snidow and Henon. I'm sure that all of these people have a strong and sincere interest in Joan, but they don't have the credentials we expect from people who are running a research institute or academic press. At the risk of publicizing too much personal information (even though it's accesible through brief searching on the web), I'll note that the organization is headquartered at the residence of one of the members of the "academy", which is another indication that this isn't an academic organization.

By the way, ISBNs are not cheap, but they're not astronomical, either; a person could get a few contributors together to cover the cost, apply for 501c3 status, and voila, you have an "academy" that issues publications and a journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The four people I listed were the four named in connection with this particular publication. As I stated before, some of them may have acted in good faith. My original summary was written three months ago, at which time the organization had no other members, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get something more serious off the ground. An author who self-publishes may have partners and a larger goal of building a real publishing firm.

My earlier post traces a history of unethical behavior by Williamson and his probable sockpuppets in which he consistently attempts to put himself forward as more authoritative than he actually is. To address the two specific instances of misused citations:

• Henry V's will To explain why this is worse than garden variety OR requires background knowledge, a good deal of which I can demonstrate through the same book that Williamson cites. Henry V died seven years before Joan of Arc entered public life.(168, 266) That will did forbid any ransom of Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans but did not in any way extend that prohibition into some general rule against ransoming prisoners.(193) Ransoms were one of the principal ways of profiting at war and the English accepted other war ransoms for French prisoners.(172, 190) The duke of Orléans was a special case because at the time of Henry V's death this duke was second in line to inherit the throne of France according to the Valois claim. This duke's son would later become king of France when the older line died out.(196) Henry V claimed legal right to inherit the French crown and had solidified his claim through marriage and treaty,(3) so his prohibition against this particular ransom had everything to do with dynastic succession and nothing to do with Joan of Arc: Henry V wanted to bequeath rulership of France to his infant son. Furthermore - even if by some stretch of the imagination this will did apply to her - Williamson claims this document held legal force in Burgundy, which it didn't. The English alliance with Philip III, Duke of Burgundy was not even a very cordial one.(170)
• Attempts to ransom Joan of Arc As my other diff demonstrates, there weren't any such attempts. Far from what Williamson tries to represent about Charles VII's actions, "cowardly abandonment" is the standard interpretation of his behavior while she was a prisoner.(167) Williamson's citation of a delegation from the University of Paris is completely misleading: Paris was not under control of the French king at this time and its university was solidly pro-English. The University of Paris endorsed the charges against Joan of Arc during her trial and many of her judges had some prior connection to that university.(125-126, 207-217) The delegation from the University of Paris that Williamson mentions is not any action on behalf of the French king - to make that implication in this context is absurd - and Morosini's rumor mill was unreliable: in August of the same year Morosini thought that Joan of Arc had escaped.(99)

To summarize, Williamson has been laying traps for the uninformed. This is someone who knows exactly what he's doing and who sets out to fool people. One of his own edit summaries admits that he selected citations because he believed they were out of my depth. Before I joined the project he had successfully disrupted one of Wikipedia's core biographies for a year because - I think I can use a strong term without exaggeration - his other crankery actually was beyond the depth of previous editors. He constructs sophisticated exercises in contextomy while giving them a veneer of plausibility and the above two examples are by no means the only offenses. The good faith assumptions of editors such as EReference account for much of why I waited so long to raise this matter: as absurd as Williamson's claims really are, Wikipedia has at most a handful of editors who know this material in sufficient depth to challenge it on its own terms. So I had to build my own reputation for editing, investigations, and integrity before my charge could be taken seriously. If Wikipedia were a university I would have referred him for formal academic discipline in November 2005. While this assault on Wikipedia's credibility is significant, my real concern is for the students who relied upon us while his edits stood. At best, those students' time was wasted. More likely their grades suffered. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see there's another round of allegations here to sift through and try to analyze. I would ask both of you to please read through the whole thing before thinking of replying. Maybe we can finally bring at least this one part of the matter to a close.

Akhilleus' post was first. I have to say that I've been confused by your statements here. I'm curious whether you also reject other publications which disclose peer reviewers? Remember that your original accusation held that this was an unethical practice, not merely that it was uncommon. Clearly some journals use that method (uncommon as it is) without being accused of an ethics violation, do they not?

You have now added the related allegation that this publication should be taken to task for using peer reviewers who belong to the same association. I may be mistaken, but doesn't (for instance) the Journal of the American Medical Association include articles in which both the author(s) and peer reviewers belong to the American Medical Association? My understanding is that they do, without being considered suspect. I think that's also the case with many small, narrowly focused organizations, isn't it? Your statement on this matter repeated the view that this is an "uncommon" practice, which is debatable but again it isn't the issue.

You objected to some of the members, for example by describing Chris Snidow as a musician and tour guide. It doesn't take much searching to find that Chris Snidow has a published book on Joan of Arc which was given the endorsement of a person who is a familiar name from one of Durova's links, Marie-Veronique Clin. Now, in Durova's link Marie-Veronique Clin was described as the co-author of a book which Durova was using as a source. Clin therefore would apparently be someone whose endorsement of Snidow's book would be significant, I would assume? Your characterization of Chris Snidow clearly is unfair I think. If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging.

With all due respect, what I've been seeing here frankly seems to be a case in which arguments continually shift ground whenever one assumption is shown to be mistaken after closer examination. There has also been a great deal of speculation which assumes the very worst about all of the people connected with this organization without any verifiable evidence to substantiate that assumption. I'll assume you are acting in good faith but it's becoming more difficult to maintain that view when you repeatedly refuse to do likewise for the increasingly larger and larger circle of people you're trying to discredit.

Next is Durova's post, which sought to explain a few previous allegations.

You addressed the issue of the organization's membership. You said that when you had written the first allegation three months ago the org had no one except the four members who are listed in one of their pdf files. Their site mentions other members being brought in far earlier than that, such as Stephen Richey who came in more than a year ago. The rest of your comments consisted of speculation about their motives. You assume they are acting in bad faith (or worse) based mainly it seems on the following issues concerning the anon. I'll now look at those.

You first addressed the anon's handling of Henry V's will and the Duke of Orleans. You said the anon claimed that Henry's will held "legal force in Burgundy", therefore he was claiming that it directly affected Joan of Arc's circumstances. In the link you provided he never said anything like this. What he did say was the following. He said important prisoners were sometimes retained and he gave the case of the Duke of Orleans as one example which was rather similar to Joan of Arc's case. He never said that one case provided the legal basis for the other. It seems his point was that Joan of Arc was important enough that her enemies didn't want to allow her to obtain her freedom either. In your recent note you seemingly argued against this by saying that the Duke of Orleans was a "special case" who was retained only because he was so important, which makes it sound as if you're implying that Joan of Arc wasn't important enough to be retained like this Duke was. Didn't she have a significant effect on the war, much more than the relatively obscure Duke of Orleans in fact? Whatever their relative importance was, I can't find any statements from the anon saying what you thought he said. It's common in internet debates for misunderstandings to arise, and I think that's what happened in this case. Unless you feel he was dishonest for saying that Joan of Arc was likely considered too important to be allowed her freedom, I guess I don't understand why you charge him with dishonesty.

You then addressed the anon's handling of Charles VII's actions. You said (in summary) that the anon's citation of a letter from the University of Paris cannot be accepted as valid evidence of Charles VII's actions because this University was pro-English rather than pro-French and therefore could not have been acting on Charles VII's behalf. In the link you provided the anon never claimed this University was acting on Charles VII's behalf but rather that the University's letter mentions actions taken by Charles VII's government. The latter is not the same thing as the former. A letter can describe actions undertaken by an enemy ruler even though the letter's authors do not support him. I guess I don't understand how you're reading something different into this passage.

You then again charged him with dishonesty which you said was sufficient to undermine his credentials and credibility, which is a little hard to fathom. I'm sure you know that in order to make an allegation of this type against a real person by name you would need very substantial proof and there is no proof here. He clearly doesn't seem to be saying what you attribute to him, and it's an anonymous editor saying it.

You criticized me (and unnamed others) for our "good faith assumptions" about the anon and this organization but with all due respect I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see these allegations as anything other than a series of misunderstandings at best. We all tend to jump to conclusions in heated internet debates. Sometimes it's best to step back a bit.

A ban based on charges of sockpuppetry against whoever is behind the accounts might be justifiable, but all these other allegations against quite a sizable group of named individuals and their organization are frankly rather disturbing. If I had unlimited time and patience I could continue sifting through more of this type of thing, but since all the previous allegations have turned out quite clearly to be mistaken I would suggest it would be better to drop this portion of the matter. This has long since gone beyond a productive stage, especially since a siteban could be pursued by other means. EReference 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, you raise a lot of points, most of which I won't respond to. However, you're slightly misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that disclosing peer reviewers was "unethical", I said that what the publication did--not only disclosing peer reviewers, but using "peer reviewers" who are members of the organization, is not typical academic practice and wouldn't be done in legitimate scholarship. There's two reasons: first, the publication seems to be giving them credit as co-authors, but more importantly, these "peer reviewers" are not independent of the publisher. If you want to use the AMA as an analogy, what the "academy" is doing is like the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association writing an article and submitting it to two members of the editorial board for "peer review". If that article were published, you'd have no confidence that an independent assessment of the article's quality had been performed. Similarly, we shouldn't have any confidence that Virginia Frohlick and Margaret Walsh performed an impartial assessment of this publication, since they are members of the association that published the book--this is elementary conflict-of-interest stuff.

Whether or not other publications disclose the names of peer reviewers is less important than the fact that Frohlick and Walsh are not independent peer reviewers. However, I note that the Digital Medievalist is not a historical journal, but a journal about the use of technology in studying history--its practice isn't directly relevant to how peer review is used in historical scholarship. It's more relevant to look at journals like the American Historical Review or the Journal of Medieval History, neither of which, I believe, disclose the names of referees. The Journal of the American Medical Association does disclose peer reviewers, but doesn't associate them with particular articles.

A more important issue than peer review is that none of the members of the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies have the credentials we expect in a historical academy (association). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even one of these members/contributors has an advanced degree in history or a related field, or a position at a college or university. We have seen evidence that they're amateur historians and devotees of Joan--this is fine, but the format of their publications is clearly designed to make readers think that they're getting the same kind of product they'd get from a university press, and that, I think, is misleading at best.

Chris Snidow's book is no evidence that this is a legitimate academic organization. Rather the opposite--the book is a print-on-demand work which you can order from iUniverse.com. This is self-publishing, which fails WP:RS. Snidow's book hardly gives me any confidence that the Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies is a reputable academic publisher, academy, or (association).

You wrote: "If I had time I could wade through these other accusations you've been making against quite a number of other people, but I think a clear pattern is emerging." I don't understand what you're implying. Could you spell it out, please? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...sigh... I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of previous allegations without much substance to back them up, but that is seemingly what has happened again. And it's late. I'm hoping my fatigue will excuse any mistakes or apparent irritability.

Akhilleus, you have repeated many of your previous charges against these people without addressing my comments very much. To reduce tedious repetition to a minimum I'll just cover the following topics. You stated that you aren't making allegations of unethical behavior but then proceeded to do precisely that by claiming that this publication violates basic standards of scholarship. The "conflict of interest" allegation and hypothetical analogy given to illustrate it was insufficient for many reasons. Among these would be the fact that the author in this case did not also serve as the editor (as in your analogy) and more significantly you entirely sidestepped the point I had made about JAMA's similar practice of publishing articles in which the author and peer reviewers all belong to the AMA. In other words, if you applied your argument consistently you would need to also dismiss the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the most respected publications in any field. Rather than addressing this you instead switched the topic to JAMA's disclosure of peer reviewers, which was not the issue. Worse yet, you alleged that the publication was listing peer reviewers as "co-authors" whereas on the contrary the publication states otherwise by clearly labeling them peer reviewers. If you want me to view this as a good faith discussion then you need to stop doing this. You also need to show that your objections can be applied consistently. Namely, if you're going to reject this publication because the author and peer reviewers are members of the same association then you also need to reject JAMA and many others for doing the same. Do you reject JAMA because their authors and peer reviewers often all belong to the AMA? I think this is probably an important point.

The allegations you have raised against the people are again based on unsupported speculation. You ignored the members I had already noted who clearly do possess more standard credentials or positions. You sidestepped the point I had raised about Chris Snidow's book having been endorsed by someone who apparently is (correct me if I'm mistaken) a respected author and perhaps recognized authority in the field since one of Durova's links to a previous discussion uses one of her books as an apparently authoritative work on the subject (please correct me if I've missed something here). The publishing method for Snidow's book would not appear to be relevant because the book's content and the expert endorsement it received would not be outweighed by this factor or other objections you have raised.

There may well be some problems with this group but this current discussion isn't accomplishing anything. Nor is it directly related to the siteban issue, so I think it's time to move on. EReference 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EReference, I haven't addressed most of your comments because I don't believe they're germane. For instance, it doesn't matter whether Snidow's book has been endorsed by Clin--it's still self-published, it still fails WP:RS, and it in no way establishes that Snidow has an advanced degree in history or a position at a college or university. Similarly, nothing you've said about the other members of the Historical Association (Academy) for Joan of Arc Studies (HAJAS) has established that they have advanced degrees in history (or a related field) or positions at a college or university. The only member of the group that has a significant publication on Joan that's widely known among historians, Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have an advanced degree. To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association. They are, rather, enthusiasts and amateurs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur, but the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS.

Here's the byline on Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing: "Robert Wirth (editor), Virginia Frohlick (peer review), Margaret Walsh (peer review), Allen Williamson (authorial contribution and translation)". These credits imply collective authorship. Frohlick and Walsh are listed after an editor and before an author/translator; to me, this looks like they're getting equal credit for producing the work with Wirth and Williamson, i.e., they're basically co-authors. If I were to list this work in a bibliography, it would appear as "Wirth, Robert, ed., and Virginia Frohlick, Margaret Walsh, and Allen Williamson. 'Primary Sources...'", etc. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that Frohlick and Walsh were only peer reviewers and not authors, they should be listed in a separate line, or acknowledged in a footnote--most journal articles that I've read recently thank the anonymous referees in the first or last footnote of the article (and in all of those cases the referees remain anonymous, as in this article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies). An additional point that needs to be raised is that since neither Frohlick nor Walsh have formal expertise in this field, there's no indication that they're qualified to perform peer review--we have no way of knowing whether they're familiar with scholarship on Joan of Arc or historical method in general.

What you're saying about the AMA is ridiculous. It's obvious why it's ok for ordinary members of the AMA to author and referee articles that appear in JAMA--they're not directly connected with the editorial board of the journal or the administration of the AMA. In contrast, Walsh is the president of HAJAS, Frohlick is Secretary-Treasurer, and Williamson is "Founding Director". If the president or founding director of the AMA published an article in JAMA and it was refereed by the secretary-treasurer, I think most people would see a problem. Now imagine if none of them had an M.D., yet the article were about the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. I think you'd lose some faith in the editorial standards of JAMA at that point...

Failing to meet the standards of legitimate scholarship isn't necessarily unethical. As Durova stated, most of the members of HAJAS are probably acting in good faith; but since they aren't professional scholars, they're unaware of the standards that should be met. However, if someone is aware of the proper editorial processes in publishing professional work in history, including peer review, and still presents HAJAS is a legitimate academic publisher, then I'd say there's a potential ethical problem. That's just one of the things Editor X is accused of. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Since you won't let this drop I'm going to analyze the latest spate of accusations. If nothing else it should show why other editors really need to check allegations more closely from now on.

You again alleged that this organization is not scholarly because its members fail WP:RS. You justified this in part by stating that Stephen Richey's book fails this test because he's an amateur without a university position. This is puzzling since a search of Wikipedia finds that this book is cited as a source several times in the main Joan of Arc article and the Joan of Arc Bibliography article. The edit histories of both show that these articles have been repeatedly edited by you yourself. With all due respect, this puzzling pattern begs the question: Did you object to this book before or only after it became apparent that the author was associated with this organization you're trying to discredit? In the first of these articles that book is not only cited but also extensively quoted in the text itself (for example, see this part here. This fact could hardly have been overlooked since entire passages from the book are included so prominently in the text. Clicking on previous versions from the edit history shows that they've been there a very long time without being removed.

The WP:RS standard has nothing to do with the wider issue of scholarly merit since WP:RS is a purely internal regulation which governs WP inclusion but does not necessarily affect someone's legitimacy as a scholar. Snidow's book clearly has merit because it was endorsed by an expert. Richey's book appears to have received good reviews from De Re Militari for example. A scholarly organization can be composed of independent scholars without violating any rule and indeed many of these organizations contain quite a few independent scholars. Wikipedia's RS rule would only be germane if you want to remove any of their books from WP articles, in which case Stephen Richey's would appear to be the chief one which would require removal.

I think your other criticisms are also clearly irrelevant or unfair. In brief: the publication clearly states that the peer reviewers are peer reviewers. Listing them in a single line may be nonstandard but since they are labeled quite clearly to indicate their function your criticism on this point is petty. Your treatment of my AMA analogy was unfair, since your objections (the closeness of one group's members) would essentially boil down to the difference in size between the organizations. You need to assume good faith and remember that we're dealing with a very small and new organization which cannot be expected to have the same degree of distance between members that an old and large organization like the AMA would have. If you look at other small scholarly societies such as the Marie de France Society I suspect you could find the same objections to make. It's a small close-knit group, the founding members still have prominent positions and all the members obviously know each other pretty well since their website includes a jovial tongue-in-cheek group photo of them gathered together. Surely their peer reviewers must belong to the same small group unless there are lots of other Marie de France scholars out there somewhere who could provide meaningful critiques for this very obscure subject. The point I was making with the AMA example was that if the AMA also allows its own members to provide peer review (the procedure which you're complaining about) then the only point of objection comes down to how well the participants know each other. This seems a senseless objection when applied to a very small group which is just starting out.

If your criticisms have merit then you will need to remove the quotations and endnote references to Stephen Richey's book from the Joan of Arc article. I'll leave that up to you. I've been trying to bring this discussion in here to a close because I think it has gone beyond the productive stage and is turning into a classic Usenet debate. But ending it is also up to you since you are the one making public accusations which I've been trying to balance against some analysis. Some balance is clearly needed I think. EReference 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say Richey's book fails WP:RS? Apparently a feature of a "classic Usenet debate" is the failure to read carefully. At any rate, it seems that none of the members of HAJAS have advanced degrees or have a position at a college or university--it's a group of amateur historians. So I can't see how it can be described as a scholarly society, or how its publications can be regarded as reliable sources.

Regarding the byline: when "'Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing" was added to Joan of Arc bibliography by an IP user (presumably Editor X), the author was given as "Robert Wirth et al." (see this diff). The same credit was given to another work published by HAJAS. So, I'm not the only one who thinks that Wirth, Frohlick, and Walsh are being given credit as co-authors--Editor X does also. Or, perhaps he just doesn't understand how bibliographies should be formatted, in which case I hope he's not doing any copyediting at HAJAS.

Last (and least important): why do you assume that the peer reviewers of HAJAS must be members of HAJAS? Is it because no one else would pay attention to their work? Perhaps a quote from peer review is in order: "Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise." HAJAS would be on better ground if it recruited peer reviewers who aren't members of the organization, and who are recognized experts--for instance, professors in history departments! This is the practice of most academic journals--they find referees who are experts in the subject that aren't members of the editorial board. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have said that these people lack degrees or university positions. A bit of digging would find that Margaret Walsh is/was a university professor. If I had time I could check others.

In your last post you denied having ever said that Stephen Richey's book fails WP:RS. In your post the day before that one, at 23:49 on 10 December 2006 you said the following: "Stephen Richey, is an independent scholar, not associated with a college or university. ....To repeat myself, the members of this group don't have the credentials we'd expect from an academic association... the publications of such a group don't meet WP:RS."

You quite clearly have said that Richey does not have the right credentials, by which I assume you would mean his book fails the standard you've been applying.

The rest of your comments probably require only brief observations. The method chosen by an anon at WP to list one of the group's books does not change the fact that this book quite clearly and explicitly does identify the peer reviewers as peer reviewers. Finally, I already cited examples of two other journals which also evidently use peer reviewers who belong to the same organization. Yet you do not criticize or dismiss these two for that practice.

I will ask again that you please allow this increasingly pointless discussion to finally drop. We both could be doing better things with our time. EReference 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's pretty frickin' impressive, Durova. I definitely support both a community ban and your actions here. Good job. Let's take this misinformationist down once and for all. ♠PMC♠ 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova did a lot of hard work, but my analysis has indicated that much of it was probably honest misinterpretation or was in various degrees unsupportable, as happens with all of us in this type of endeavor. She should certainly be commended for her anti-vandalism efforts though. EReference 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line here is whether this editor and sockpuppets deserve a community ban. I think the final smoking gun is here.[30] For that account - which was created last August to impersonate me - almost the entire contribution list is blanking vandalism of old talk pages and talk archives pertaining to Allen Williamson's posts and favorite topics. I took the liberty of banning that account because I know for certain that it isn't me. With the exception of EReference (and regarding whom I'm on the verge of requesting a checkuser), support for a community ban has been unanimous. This discussion has continued for a week. Shall we proceed to the bans? Durova^Charge! 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KPbIC

I really don't know where to begin on this one, but I just want to keep in mind that this conflict is nowhere new, yet it has for a while remained dormant...until today. Anyway in the past there has been many incidents when this user, has repeatedly stalked on my edits and in some cases it came to pure trolling... like these three edits on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] before the article was protected. On demand I can provide at least thirty examples where he stalked on my edits like that, and as this one shows, he did it (and at times continues to) by using a dynamic IP to avoid blockage...it really reached its peak moment on Maladzyechna this example is a showcase of just how ridiculous this user can be. Originally it was about getting rid of a title that was inputed by a user who was not aware of wiki policies and functions. I moved it back to the translit version Maladzechna [36]. Like any stalker would do so, he went straight at it and reverted. That begun a four month dispute where I went on all possible attempts, including WP:CYR that was (and now is) to be a guideline for article titles...And I got the most stubborn resistance one has ever seen (relevant link). Even after you had Belarusian users with professional linguistic knowledge supporting, and when it eventually came to a point where no one would challenge on which title the article should rest, he went on link resisting the change... In the end we did move the page...and the word Maladzechna became Maladyechna... That's right four months of his stubborn resistance just to add a y... Does one laugh or cry about this?

Now then October/November he is absent on wikipedia. But, recentely he has returned, and really I just do not like knowing that every single edit of mine, particulary on sensitive articles is bound to get reverted by him w/o any consensus or discussion... Really its annoyance more than anything... However there is a WP:STALK policy which clearly dictates that such behaivour is unacceptable, regardless of what form my edits happen to be. So I decided let it be sooner than later, and managed to set a trap for him. If one can go to my contribs [37], then all edits between 14:36, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006 were made deliberately to check his response...and what do you know? Check contributions for him between 19:04, 6 December 2006 and 14:38, 6 December 2006... all reverts. Oddly enough, I did actually have an excuse for the page moves which I put on his talk page here, and reverted him again, just to put one final test... And as I am submitting this contribs for 23:4x of the 6th December, same articles. Was it right or wrong for me to test him, you judge, even I get blocked for this, might be slightly extreme, but I won't challege it provided that I have the assurance that upon returning KPbIC will not be stalking me... --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point Kuban kazak wrote: "You once accused me of Russification, well on one side you are correct" [38]. This is the core of the conflict. Kuban kazak is a Russian user who devotes significant amount of his activity on Russification of Ukrainian history (as well as the other territories, which were taken by Russian Empire). The user recently moved 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro stations from Ukrainian spelling to Russian spelling. A part of the problem is that the metro stations do not really have a well established English name. But it should be noted that the people of Ukraine have chosen to have the only official language (as stated in Constitution of Ukraine), which is Ukrainian, not Russian. The Ukrainian independence, laws, and traditions of Ukraine are recognized by the civilized world, which commonly uses the local names in case establish English names are absent.

Back to WP:STALK alleged accusations, I explained to Kuban kazak that his identity is of absolutely no interest to me. My interest is primary limited to the Ukrainian topics, the topics of my country. If there are drastic Russification attempts, such as Kuban kazak often used to commit, then it’s my understanding that it should be prevented. Kuban’s attempts are on the edge of vandalism, as basically he’s challenging the integrity of Wikipedia.

The bigger issue is the relation of a majority and a minority. There are more Russian editors than Ukrainians. While WP:NPOV is postulated as one of the key elements of Wikipedia, often it’s difficult to achieve. With respect to the Ukrainian topics, instead of bothering with analyzing references, looking for information sources, some use brutal force to substitute NPOV by Russian POV. The rest of Wikicommunity very often does not care. Frustrated with the situation, many new Ukrainian editors simply leave, which only amplifies the prevalence of Russian POV. In the end, instead of being a source of reliable information, Wikipedia may fail into the hands of such majority groups. This is the challenge that Wikipedia is facing. --KPbIC 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard argument, that is half full of lies... anyway talking about NPOVs and integrities then I invite anyone to take a look on my contributions for the period that KPbIC was absent October and November... I knew he was gone, so had I wanted to choose to troll and russify articles, would I not take advantage of not having a stalker? Please if anyone finds anything in my contributions of that time then his argument might stand...however so far there is really is nothing for him to bite into... which immediately discredits every comment about russification which I must say is an extremely abstarct term, and in some cases is actually offensive if all my actions (according to him) are Russification. So that means, hypotherically every article I edit that is related to Ukraine is Russification...

As for Kharkiv Metro stations, then I agree with Alex Bakharev and actually with the moves... and as explained above it was but a simple provocation, to test whether KPbIC has grown up since his departure in October...I even told him on his talk page that should he raise the issue on Talk:Kharkiv Metro without first reverting, as a proof to me, then I would support him. One needs not be an expert to deduce that he has not.

Just to be clear, if there is a dispute on articles, I, unlike KPbIC prefer not to edit war if the people approach with necessary comments on a talk page... There is a WP:EQ which I strive to follow... yet some people, like him do not.

Finally, WP:POINT clearly states that insulted national conscience (his second argument) is no reason to harass other users by stalking on their edits... and the same goes with the integrity and NPOV arguments that he brought up... And just for the record, there are plenty of Ukrainian users contributing, yet so far only one seems to be harassing a Russian user by stalking his edits and then doing a big-bully accusation. I wonder why noone of the "Russian majority" is not extending him such a favour...And that is not because only 10% of his other edits are useful, i.e. as opposed to the 90% of them being reverts of mine. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent example Holodomor, a very charged topic, there was a very lengthy discussion on whether or not to include a controversial category. Even KPbIC participated, in the talk page and the dominating consensus was not to include it as genocide. However new users are often oblivious to this and sometimes this POV-pushing takes place [39]. However, per all consensus on talk pages when thousands of people revert this its ok for KPbIC, when I do it [40], its obviously not [41].

Like I said, I was patient for a long time, but its wearing thin, and frankly at times like these I ask that an admin takes serious action. Not just for the edits over the last two days, but for everything in the past. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the move war over the names for the Kharkiv Metro stations. I think User:Olexandr Kravchuk and User:KPbIC are right here. User:DDima and Kuban kazak wrote nice articles about these stations but the name should be based on the rules of Ukrainian language not on a strange Russian/Ukrainian mix. I have moveprotected the articles in the Ukrainian version. If Kazak or somebody else wants to move them back he can file WP:RM but I doubt it would succeed.

The second issue is that I agree that KPbIC (when he is onwiki) appears to stalk Kuban kazak and User:Irpen. E.g. I strongly suspect that even in this case he became involved into the move war of Kuban kazak vs Olexandr Kravchuk not because he had the Kharkiv metros stations on his watchlist but because he monitors all Kazak's edits. This is a recurring pattern and in the most cases (unlike the Kharkiv Metro names) it leads only to a petty harassment of Kazak without any benefit to the project. I have my own history of conflicts with KPbIC, so I might be biased in my assessment of the situation but I ask an uninvolved admin to look into the stalking allegations. Alex Bakharev 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues here have to be separated. As far as moves where concerned, those where indeed not "unexplained" as KK claimed when reverting them, but simply "unproposed". Unproposed, at least informally at talk, moves are generally a bad idea, but should not be automatically reverted. Those moves were sensible. As the articles are now at those sensible locations, the issue is moot.

The core of KK's complaint is that KPbIC habitually stalks his edits and reverts, picks fights and edit wars in various articles. I can ascertain that this is true. The editor indeed stalks KK (and myself) and while I find being stalked amusing and even thrilling to be that editor's obsession, I can see that Kazak has no obligation to take the stalker with a similar humor and can be, as such, annoyed by him. Stalking is really an issue here. KPbIC' response is basically off-topic. He has grievances about Wikipedia's systemic bias, he has his eternal grievances against "the Russians" in general, he invokes some unrelated issues in Ukrainian politics, etc. This all does not belong to WP:ANI.

Kuban kazak complains that he is being stalked for many months by user:KPbIC. I can certify that this is true. The only issue here is whether the KPbIC' habit in question falls under Harassment ("following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" , "stalking another editor who is acting in good faith" and "constantly nit-picking in violation of required courtesy") or it is a legitimate activity of correcting the problem editor. In my opinion KK is not a problem editor but a committed contributor (not without the fault like all of us) and KPbIC' activity qualifies as Harassment. I can tell because I am also an object of KPbIC stalking. I simply take it with pity rather than with anger. --Irpen 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Stalking is a big deal. To answer Kuban's original question, and I do think Alex's and Irpen's agreement that it is stalking is convincing (and therefore worrying), this noticeboard probably won't solve this kind of problem. Your best chance would be to file an RFC and go to arbitration if the behavior doesn't change, or perhaps even make an arbitration request immediately. Arbcom has banned people for stalking [42] [43], but, based upon severity and the offender's productivity, it has also devised useful remedies for preventing harassment [44] [45]. Either would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They say there are two separate issues. Wrong. The Russification is the primary and the leading issue; the other issues are secondary.

All the conflicts I had with Kuban kazak were caused by his attempts of Russification. On Kiev Metro he was pushing for the Russian language map. He did the same on Kryvyi Rih Metrotram. He attempted to impose the Russian spelling for Maladzyechna. Exactly as he moved the 4 articles on Kharkiv Metro to the Russian spelling.

I'm primary interested in contributing on the topics of my country, Ukraine. I check the Ukrainian new article announcement portal, Ukrainian projects on subdivisions and language, and I do check contributions of users that are know of being involved in Ukrainian topics, and Kuban kazak is among them. Nonetheless, I decline the alleged accusations of me wikistalking Kuban kazak. I'm not following him from article to article. Kuban kazak had conflicts and problems on other issues (like on Moscow metro), which I don't care of. Having no significant interest in Russia, I'm not getting involved in his other conflicts. I'm not supporting his opponents based on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. But when Kuban kazak comes to Ukrainian articles being in Russification mood, here I get involved. I did found out that Kuban kazak moved 4 articles (not 3 or 5) by checking his contributions. But this is the common approach to respond to vandalism issues. When I notice, someone vandalized a page, I fix it, and I check vandal’s contributions to find out whether the other articles were vandalized. As a vandal probably getting pleasure out of vandalizing the wikipedia, possibly Kuban kazak is pleased by his Russification attempts. When disagreement is expressed with his attempts, he may be under negative emotion. Yet, there is no valid reason to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s his attempts to Russificate the articles of the neighbors of Russia, predominantly Ukraine that when discovered, may cause his dissatisfaction. It’s not the other way around. What should I do, keep my eyes closed when someone is damaging the articles, compromizing the neutrality of them? My advice to Kuban would be to leave the Russification spirit out, and I’m always open to cooperate on improving the encyclopedia.

Dmcdevit, what worries me is that you found Alex's and Irpen's agreement convincing, and this is in the situation when yet the other "members" of "Russian mob" like Grafikm_fr or Ghirla did not show up. What I'm kindly asking for is an independent review of the conflict. --KPbIC 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That reply above does not really need a comment. It supports the point about the user's attitude well enough. But I will comment on the previous proposal, especially since Kuban kazak asked me to. I know that Krys makes occasional useful contribtuions and find his stalking of myself really just a rather minor neucsance. I got used to being stalked from time to time and mostly ignore it unless the stalkers' actions go beyond bugging me but causes a major damage to encyclopedia and is a large scale harassment, like in some cases this ([46]) or this ([47], [48]). So, I am not annoyed enough by this to undertake the time comsuming arbitration. As per this, I would advice Kuban kazak neither for or against taking this to ArbCom at this stage. --Irpen 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say, the arrogance displayed by KPbIC is extreme, but not surprising. The point is its not as easy as to say Russification of Ukrainian articles must be allowed. For example, Oleg I of Chernigov, this actually was a source of previous vote fraud, when an infamous archtroll User:AndriyK moved it with no consesnsus to its twisted Ukrainian name Oleg of Chernihiv. Then vote frauded the request to move it back. In fact one of his first edits was (a stalk on my contribs) a revert of [49] the return to the move, that is despite the fact that the article was moved shortly afterwards anyway, by an admin... Disregard to consensus, disregard to other users... a classic patter of his. Or the European Square (Kiev), where he twice reverted me by arguing that I was russifying the article. Ok, I must say this, Ukraine was privledged and fortunate (or in KPbIC's view un-) to be united with Russia for over three and a half centuries. I mean even my ancestors, Kuban Cossacks came from the Ukraine and in KPbIC's views, must be still Ukrainian [50], so if such, that means his claim that I have no right to edit Ukrainian articles is even more absurd. Taking this extremely contradictive logic further, that means, my homeland, Kuban is Ukraine (again I did not say this, I am just following his thoughts). So, again according to KPbIC, I am now actually in Ukraine, whilst he is in Minnesota and hence (again according to him) I have more rights to edit Ukrainian articles and stop Ukrainisation attacks on shared history. (Such as historical names for European Square (Kiev)). However the part of that statement that is true is the shared history. In particular the events that happened to the land that make up today's Ukraine, (not only the Ukraine, but other neighbouring lands that were incorporated into the republic over the course of the 20th century), what heritage have they took from the pre-Ukrainian times etc, and as it turns out to be that heritage is much MUCH stronger than anyone things it is. For example why would in the course of last spring/summer over 10 regional governments elevate Russian as an official language? Why indeed do the people of those areas almost exclussively speak Russian? So why should wikipedia be biased against those people? The city of Kharkov is a perfect example of this, and Kharkiv Metro should also be. Is that Russification? Not really, it is my attempt for wikipedia to be fair towards everyone. For example nobody is trying to get me to move all of the Kiev Metro stations to their Russian names (articles which I alone wrote). Now before KPbIC shall start arguing about what is what and that I am not from Ukraine so hence I cannot make those decisions, let I remind that Minnesota is much farther away from Ukraine than I am (three hours drive to reach the Kerch Straight)

Now then, continuing to make sense of his extremely contradictive views, how, and for what reason did he become involved with Belarus. The latter country, unlike Ukraine, actually has Russian as its primary state language. Now there are Belarusian users on wikipedia, some very useful contributors, some I must say are not useful at all, except for starting disputes and edit wars. However that does not stop KPbIC from trolling [51], POV pushing [52], [53] and of course the circuis around Maladzyechna, which I must say I did not move to Molodechno (the Russian name) but to Maladzechna, a different variant of the Belarusian transliteration (a system which was a mess, as there was no guideline whatsoever on how to title articles now has order partly due to my efforts on WP:CYR which KPbIC VIGOROUSLY opposed). Last and not least in almost all cases here is his claim that I had no such rights as I was from Russia not Belarus... Well KPbIC, I must stress this, and break you some news...even though being born and living most of my life in my dear Varenikovskaya, my mother happens to be from Polotsk... So does that mean I can stop any user from moving articles that are written in Russian to Belarusian? According to you that is the case.

Lastly I ask anyone that sees any Cyrillic (let alone Russian) letters [[54]] to speak out. --Kuban Cossack 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Are posts like these from User:Nadirali acceptable?

1. [55] Ethnic slurs, nationalist sentiment, coterie formation.
2. [56] Xenophobia
3. [57] Threatening admin Ragib
4. Spamming hate sites [58]
5. Anti-Hindu remarks [59]
6. [60] Baiting
7. [61] Xenophobia and falsehood (History of India has multiple flags)
8. [62] - declares he will edit war together with the help of User:Siddiqui (extremist views per RfC here) Hkelkar 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He continues trolling on Talk:History of Pakistan. See Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hkelkar 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a stern warning. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note; he seems to have admitted to being a puppetmaster, I would think that would warrant an immediate block, no? -- Chabuk

^{[ T • C ]} 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic, is the list of "threats to world peace and stability" this user has on his userpage really necessary? It seems to me that it will do nothing except cause disputes. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... nah. He threatens to become one, but doesn't say that he has. --Kizor 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have ganged up against me a third time.Im not stupid enough to ignor that.This whole affair would not have continued had you stopped threatening user:Sadiqui along with calling me a "madrassa student" and vandalizing my comments on the Pakistan talk page.Regarding the "sock puppet",I only have one account.I lost my temper at ragib because I was under the impression that he was taking sides against me.As for the flags,you probably never heard of free speech.User:Szhaider has similar content on his user page.I also find it curious that you HelklerHekler and your freinds happen to post approximately the same time when attacking me or other Pakistani wikipedians with your anti-Pakistan sentiments.Is falsly reporinting me to an administrator while hiding your own violations your way of getting back at me?Nadirali 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali Let's talk about Xenophobia then: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore[63](Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS)[64][65]. [66].Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Here's your Xenophobia.Hope I didnt scare you by revealing all the racist stuff you posted along with demonizing Pakistanis.Nadirali 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

• Oh for goodness sakes. Wikipedia is not a message board. You've both violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I think both these users could use a short time-out. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering[67] and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond)[68].This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I [69]. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned [70], effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war)[71].Hkelkar 06:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not going to say much.But people should know that it was not I who started the personal attacks.And regarding the "formation",that's exactly what Hklelkar and his fellow nationalists do by posting together and attacking other wikipedians such as me.That's all I have to say.ThankyouNadirali 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

To pipe in, I've had conversation with this fellow a few times and his tone seems to me to be unapologetically contentious, xenophobic, paranoid, rife with a sense of persecution, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Indian, anti-Hindu, and generally trollish. Top that off with bad spelling, grammar and punctuation/space usage, and a strong inclination to delete other people's comments on talk pages and/or edit them (by changing copy or interspersing his own commentary), and I am beginning to think this guy is going to be a thorn in the side of most people he decides to disagree with (which it seems is most people). He demonstrates a lack of good faith and a willingness to play tit-for-tat over perceived slights (i.e., comments that disagree with his opinions or make note of his behavior). Taking him at face value he seems to be genuine in his rationale, and not just being disruptive for sport. But he should probably be watched closely and given more serious consequences for continuing his unpleasant behavior.

By the way, some of the comments above ARE baiting, and not constructive. If you don't like this guy's approach, don't comment on his background. Comment on his approach. I understand that discussions of South Asian religion and politics can be rocky, but don't feed a troll like this guy. If you want to debate these issues, at least keep ad hominem comments out of it. Erielhonan 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar is banned for a year for other reasons. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read the case against him,but I dont want to get mixed up in any of thisNadirali 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Highly offensive userpage

This user's page [72] is blatantly offensive to Muslims, pagans, and homosexuals, to name only a few groups mentioned therein. My reading of [[73]] regarding "Polemical statements" seems to indicate that Dwain's page is in clear violation of the userpages policy. 141.154.220.74 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

His user page does not seem offensive at all; nor can I see any mention of muslam. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's the quote. That said, he doesn't say much more than what a lot of people say about Christianity, and "to name only a few" seems groundless. --Kizor 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, see the quotation on the very top of the page for what is being referred to there. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and the reporting IP probably also means the bolded "quotes" towards the bottom. 141.154.220.74, please first try to resolve this issue by discussing it with User:Dwain himself before alerting administrators. Sandstein 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not User:Pitchka, but User:Dwain, which is where the user actually complained (contribs show this). I have no idea why the link is different, but Dwain also maintains a very polemical Freemasonry page linked from his user page that borders on libel, as he has inflammatory statements regarding Freemasonry placed right before a list of Masons on Wikipedia. MSJapan 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be both: User:Pitchka seems to be the main account that does most of the 'real' editing, but that account's user and talk page redirect to the secondary account, User:Dwain, which is used mainly for userspace edits. the user also signs with a piped link that reads 'Dwaian', but links to 'Pitchka', which redirects back to 'Dwain.' Is that kosher? It seems like it would just cause confusion, as above, and make it more difficult to access the contribution history of the editor you're dealing with. -- Vary | Talk 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the quotes should be removed. He's entitled to his opinion, but this is a bit too much. Khoikhoi 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He also seems to enjoy in a little libel himself every once and a while. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADwain&diff=92489363&oldid=92436162 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwain&diff=prev&oldid=92436062 Ours18 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the precedent regarding this sort of behavior I think an indefinite ban is in order. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of misbehavior from a new user, why should we tolerate it from User:Dwain? The Mirror of the Sea 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This man is a dick. However, the views he is expressing on his userpage are typical devout American Catholic opinions - you can't block him for that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been made clear that maintaining a userpage with controversial material designed to be polemical is trolling and can be punished for as such. Need I also mention that he deliberately libels Wikipedians who are also Masons? That seems like deliberately disruptive conduct. The Mirror of the Sea 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that his userpage, as it stands, is not offensive but religious. If he's disrupting the wiki, sure, ban him, but blocking him for being devout and/or redneck isn't a good idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it offensive. I find it to be a deliberate bit of trolling intended to incite disruption. That is not what wikipedia is for. After all the stuff that went on in the userbox wars, it seems patently obvious to me that polemical and uncivil material is not welcome on wikipedia, in ANY space.--Vidkun 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling it a "typical devout Catholic opinion" is a bit of an over-generalization... My experience with Dwain/Pitchka has been that he has virtually no understanding or regard for WP:CIVIL, but if we start indef blocking for that, there are an awful lot of editors and admins who wouldn't be editing here anymore. I do think one of his accounts should be blocked though because he edits from both of them and it is damn confusing if you aren't watching very closely to discern those accounts are the same person. To be clear, I've never seen him do any abusive sockpuppeting, but unless he has a very good reason for running two accounts he should be given the option of keeping one active and having the other locked. He can link to the contribs for the other account from the userpage of whichever account he choses to stick with. From what I see there is no good reason he has two accounts.--Isotope23 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see any user blocked for his religious beliefs or lack thereof. As far as I can see, the paramount issue here is the use of two accounts for one editor, which I believe is verboten. Let's ask him to stick to one account, and handle any mainspace issues as they occur. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of highly offensive userpages, does this qualify? riana_dzasta 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is -- Samir धर्म 07:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down here. Indef ban? I've seen people put pornography on their pages and not get indef banned. He was expressing his personal opinion, albeit it with the tact of a hammer. Wikipedia policy says he needs to remove it, but an indef ban is going way overboard. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that recommendation was based not just on the user's userpage content, but on his refusal to remove the offensive material. He has removed several messages about the content from his talk page without responding to them, and with edit summaries like 'removed devil worshiping anons statment'. I agree that an indef block might be a bit harsh when the user has never been blocked before and has made constructive contributions, but this is about more than just userpage content. -- Vary | Talk 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Get some perspective. It looks like all the complaints really are about "just userpage content". There have been admins and would-be admins who have posted their disdain for Christians on their user pages and elsewhere. I do not share this guy's views, but they are his business and well within the range of statements to be found on userpages. I, for one, consider the tolerance here for the posterior orifice who professed his admiration for Osama bin Laden infinitely more offensive than this (yes, the tolerance expressed here for it, not just the box itself). Lots of people have alternate accounts: as long as they are not used in the same conversations they are not sockpuppets and not against policy. Not everyone in the world is "politically correct" and you need to deal with it when it creates a problem in articles, not just its existence on userpages. alteripse 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, his name is Dwain. He chose the username Pitchka, and then discovered that it meant something offensive in some other language. He didn't want to abandon the account, so he created the account Dwain. (If that's not exactly how it was, it's still fairly close, I think.) Yes, he has things on his user page that are confrontational. I don't endorse them, but I don't find them any more offensive than some of the things that other users have posted on Wikipedia about Christians. As for blocking him, that's absurd. He's a good-faith editor, who sometimes gets annoyed when people are trolling and harassing him. A few months ago, he removed a message or some messages from his talk page — something which is not forbidden by policy, and which many administrators do — and within hours, users were descending on him, reverting, sending him template warnings about vandalism, and making him even more annoyed. I've seen numerous insults aimed at Christians here on Wikipedia, and I have never even considered blocking the users. I think we need to move from an "I'm-not-going-to-let-him-get-away-with-it" mentality to one of "it's-not-urgent-to-get-rid-of-it-and-I-don't-want-to-make-matters-worse." I would suggest that someone who hasn't already been hassling him might suggest nicely that it would be better not to have those quotations since they might offend some people. AnnH ♫ 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree. During the userbox wars, it was flat out verboten to have polemical attack user boxes, be they anti Christian or anti anything else. Listing a number of people for whom you have distaste (based on their associations) and then accusing them of trying to prevent verifiable information from being added to wikipedia is assuming bad faith. Repeatedly referring to those who have attempted to discuss the polemics as being devil worshipping vandals is BEYOND overbaord, and shows that the editor is more concerned with disruption and insults that what is or isn't encyclopedic.--Vidkun 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And that my friends is grounds for an indefinite ban. Such behavior is completely unacceptable and given the fact that Dwain is unrepetent, I believe his time here is done. The Mirror of the Sea 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have to wonder if that's a good idea in this situation, as historical precedence rarely favors indef'ing users in such instances. Also, Mirror, I find the fact that you're a new user who immediately jumped into administrative level action, and who has the words "free timecop" (a known GNAA troll who's offline stalking an admin of ours) on his userpage, to be rather suspicious. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence, Patstuart, it doesn't take that long to figure out how Wikipedia is run. I'm entitled to display "Free timecop" on my userpage, as the policy page on userpages states that you can show "your opinions about Wikipedia." I am illustrating my opinion that the block was illegitimate. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(personal attacks, removed) --202.213.148.223 11:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (timecop, lol @ wikipedia, trolled for life)

(personal attacks, possibly from Timecop, removed)--61.114.193.102 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The only real issue I see here is that he still edits from User:Pitchka and as I said above, one of his two accounts should be locked from editing because there is no valid reason for him to have 2 active accounts. Other than that I have to agree I don't think an indef ban of the user is even close to warrented here.--Isotope23 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Pitchka in some of Slavic languages means "cunt". There are also more examples: Swear words#Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian. "Pitchka" is read same as Serbian "Pička". Btw. Im not involved with anyone here, this username just caught my eye while I was browsing ANI. Shinhan 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

user:kronecker

please warn him, again. He keeps changig my userboxes constantly. He already was warned, but he doesnt stop.--Tresckow 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned with test4. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He responded to me with this: Hiya, thanks for the 'last warning'. Upon looking over you're talk page you seem to be a pretty poor administrator. By the time you've read this, I will have fixed Tresckow's user page again. I do believe a blocking is in order. Cheerio; you're a complete and utter dick. And since he vandalized Tresckow's page again, I blocked him 48h for vandalism and personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse 48 hours, at the very least. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated violation of WP: Living rules

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead (BTW, that story seems a bit silly to me anyway. Unless she was a subtanial beneficiery which seems unlikely, then I'm doubtful anyone would bother to go to the trouble and risk of killing someone. Even if she did have sex with him, at most I would say she didn't care if he died but it seems unlikely she was trying to cause him to die) Nil Einne 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on that page, Rjensen's wild accusations above have little in common with Tvoz's non-sensationalist and well-sourced edits. Rjensen was recently blocked for 31 hours for revert warring on Nelson Rockefeller, and should probably be blocked again for making what amount to personal attacks against Tvoz. (As I have myself worked on the article in question I recuse myself from doing so.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue reverter, won't listen or respond

At the recommendation of admin Steve Block, I'm asking on behalf of User:CovenantD, User:Doczilla, other editors and myself who have tried many times and ways to talk and work with a persistent rogue editor, User:Asgardian, over his repeated wholesale reversions to several sites in WikiProject: Comics. He insists he doesn't have to follow the comics project exemplar, he reinserts misspellings and other erroneous edits, he removes authoritative reference sources that I and others have used and cited, and he won't give straight answers to our questions and comments.

There's some discussion about all this at this article's talk page. There had been much more criticism of his edits at User talk:Asgardian — with other editors complaining about his clumsy wholesale edits of Galactus and other articles — but he erases all comments.

Could you suggest a way to go on this? Maybe have a third party compare, for instance, the properly formatted and written version of the short "Awesome Android" article here and Asgardian's consistently reverted, "nyah-nyah-nyah" version here. Just by skimming, not needing to know details of the character, the differences are obvious to the naked eye.

As you can see from these comments he erased from his talk page and retrieved from its History here, here, and here, other editors have tried to speak with him about his wholesale reversions that go against both consensus and editorial policy/guidelines/exemplar. The word "stubborn" comes up a lot in these posts. Several editors are at their wits' ends.

What can we do? Please help us: Dealing with him is taking up so much of so many people's times that could be put to good use writing and helping to improve Wikipedia articles. Thank you so much for any help. --Tenebrae 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes he responds. It's sporadic. Sometimes he takes a lesson to heart when it's explained in great detail. Sometimes. And sometimes he just repeatedly blows off style guidelines no matter how many people disagree with him. I first got drawn into his mess because someone else in WikiProject Comics begged for people to come take a peek and try to help find a way to resolve Asgardian's relentless edit wars over the Thor articles. At that point, he'd only been at it for a month. I think it's been three months now, fighting the same edit wars. See how he stubbornly insists on reverting Hercules (Marvel Comics) to tightly in-universe perspective. One night I spent hours trying to edit his version bit by bit to give him a chance, then he just redid all the same mistakes and guideline violations. It wears you out. So many of us got so tired so long ago of fixing his edits that we just can't devote the energy to selectively keeping his good edits when he makes so many bad ones, therefore a lot of people have to revert articles even when it means reinserting some problems he'd fixed because he did more damage than good. Several of us repeatedly advised him to make one edit at a time so he could learn from each. It's just bizarre. There are now at least two competing versions getting edited, bouncing back and forth for almost every article he keeps hitting. He has some good information. He makes some good edits. He's just so amazingly stubborn.

He got warned about 3RR. He got blocked for violating 3RR. I saw other times I could have reported him for violating 3RR after that, but chose not to because I really was trying to find a way to work with this intelligent, knowledgeable person despite how aggravating it could be. He deleted WikiProject Comics notices about his edit wars until I warned him very strongly that to do so was deceptive when he knew darn well that edit wars were going on. Lately he hasn't been as overtly contentious. Lately he simply hasn't been replying to people as often. Admittedly, a lot of us have given up on explaining all of our fixes to his edits when we've already offered the same explanations repeatedly. I still think there's hope for him. I really do, based on the times he has learned lessons, but after this much time, I question whether he's worth the effort because he creates so much work for so many people voluntarily helping edit Wikipedia articles. Doczilla 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

• He is willfully lowering the quality of Wikipedia articles.
• He is fully aware that his edits are contrary to various policies and guidelines.
• He isn't responding (well, severely unresponsive) to light methods of behavior correction.

He's doing no good and shows an obvious disinterest in collaborative efforts. Block him for a month; hopefully that will make him realize that, hey, we're here to improve articles together, not single-handedly make them shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across this user's edit war with Covenant D over the Thor comics articles about two months ago. Sadly, since that time, I have seen little progress, only regression. The edit war still continues and has expanded to other comics articles. I reported the disputed articles on the WikiComics Project notice board in order to get more people involved and, ideally, settle the dispute. However, rather than trying to work toward consensus, he erased my notice. [74] I know that we have to assume good faith, but actions like this strain credulity. Nonetheless, I have tried to work out compromises by changing problem sections within disputed articles in a piecemeal fashion, rather than a wholesale reversion. Initially, this seemed to be effective, but things eventually degenerated back into blind edit warring with little to no discussion. Occasionally, he will justify his edits on an article's talk page, but he is more likely to ignore or erase requests for discussion. When he does comment on talk pages, he is frequently incivil [75] [76] [77] and more than a little combative. [78] [79] Sadly, he actually makes some valid points in his arguements, but they are all but lost in the edit wars he provokes. Like Doczilla, I, too, had hope for Asgardian. But that hope is fading. --GentlemanGhost 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The posters here assume a great deal and present a fairly weak case. On behaviour, their own has been self-righteous and condescending on more than one occasion. Citing users such as CovenantD is also not a good idea given his track record and some of the comments he has made (such as "as long as that silly list appears, it gets reverted"). As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right. As for the argument that I am lowering the quality of the articles - I believe that's a very silly thing to say. They both know I have created over half a dozen sourced entries on characters that did not exist. Not for my benefit, but for the everyone's use and enjoyment. I have also added references and tidied up many, many more. They KNOW some of the entries were a mess prior to the fix. Rather, we are tussling over fine grammatical points, NOT revised articles per se (example - much of the Thor article is my version).

On co-operation - the posters here seem to have missed the discussion on Galactus, another comic character. I trimmed it back to an acceptable length, and was acknowledged by some as being quite good. Others responded with petulant insults. It is here that many posters fail - it is NOT about who knows more but the enjoyment factor, and of course presenting the information within a "Wiki context." I then offered another poster a chance at presenting his version of the Galactus article. I don't think he's been able to repost yet, but true to my word I've stayed off the page until he has had his chance and we can then discuss it. If that's not co-operation, I don't know what is.

As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikiepdia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues). The second time I believe the moderator got it wrong - I was editing and improving on an article, not swapping backwards and forwards three times or more times. I explained this and simply received a "you should know better." I actually expect better from a moderator.

I am happy to discuss this, but there needs to be more objectivity and less exaggeration. At present, some of the argument smacks of "X must be stopped!" and is a tad immature. The fact that certain users have followed me to pages they had never previously visited speaks volumes (or those that I've created). There needs to be a little less "my way or the highway" from everyone, not just myself.

I won't be making any edits for the next fews day or so, but would hope that when I do that a discussion can follow - not a simple revert and complaint. They are simple grammatical issues that can be thrashed out courtesy of the Exemplars. So long as people are reasonable and a little less self-righteous, then a compromise can be achieved. I'll start with a topic over there in about two days and hopefully some positive change can come of it.

Regards

Asgardian 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: "As for deleting comments on my user page, what of it? At least two of the persons cited do it all the time - as is their right." Actually, I stopped deleting comments on my talk page because a remark someone else made on your talk page made me realize that wasn't how Wikipedia does things. (I'd thought of it like deleting old e-mail. Somehow I'd missed that Wikipedia policy along the way.) The one exception to this in the last several weeks was to revert a heading Asgardian should not have added to my note about my own talk page. Doczilla 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wait a minute. It just hit me: Asgardian, you just said you deliberately violated 3RR as an experiment while writing a paper. You're not editing much this week because you're taking finals, aren't you? Did you start these edit wars as an "experiment"? Doczilla 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That's it, isn't it? That would explain the thing that has baffled me beyond all else about you. Why else would anyone spend three months making nearly two thousand edits (seriously) on the same bunch of articles over and over, editing, reverting, defying Wikipedia guidelines, reverting, and reverting without branching out and taking an interest in other articles any more than you have? Doczilla 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian's answers here are simply spin. He is at the very least guilty by his own admission of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Three editors here and a larger number throughout the affected Talk pages are all corroborating the extent and the nature of Asgardian's behavior. I don't know if he's been behaving as he has for purposes of some Sociology or Media class project, but it's extremely unfair to let him continue when so many responsible editors are spending so much time and effort on him. I don't want to give up on the Comics Project, but all it takes for his kind of behavior to flourish is for good Administrators to stand by and do nothing. --Tenebrae 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The comments are still somewhat self-righteous and quite a few assumptions have been made once again. I suggest more discussion on character pages where needed. Have there been any reverts of late? No. Cooperation? Yes - see Galactus. Some of the articles mentioned still need work (eg. Awesome Android) and some will also have to accept that a touch up is inevitable. I'll start with an Exemplar discussion today as some of the "accepted" features need to be readdressed. See you there.

Asgardian 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Have there been any reverts of late? No." How can you say that? Here's the most immediate example of how that's just not true: Your last four edits before this noticeboard report were all reverts.

[80] reverted all changes since [81].

[82] reverted a lot of changes since [83], keeping (or adding, whichever) two little edits

[84] reverted all changes since [85]

[86] reverted all edits since [87]

And we could keep going back through your edits, pointing out how very many of them are reversions. You tend to edit your version of each article and not the version most other people are working on. Doczilla 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to forget that I rewrote much of the information on those pages and it is still in use. The changes are also minor and acceptable. You are also not taking in what I've been saying. As this is an Admin Board, forward any direct comments to myself or place it under the relevant character.

Asgardian 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an Admin Board, and this information is for the benefit of whichever admin looks at this because they'll be unfamiliar with what you've been doing, even though I've worded these newest remarks in second person to Asgardian. I say them to you because part of me still hopes you'll work with other editors (remember, I personally made sure you knew about this so you could contribute to this discussion), even though experience says how stubborn you are about not taking other people's remarks to heart. I haven't forgotten your edits. I know you've reworked a lot of things, and I've tried to incorporate your better changes to see if you'd accept that as the compromise you mention further above, but you just don't back off. You've kept reverting and kept reverting for three months. You've got your own version of each of those articles. Someone reverts your version, other people edit, you revert back to your own version, it gets edited, it gets reverted. Notice how many different people have been reverting away from your version. You're the single person repeatedly reverting back to your version in spite of all the reasons people have outlined over the last three months regarding what's wrong with your changes. Yes, some of the edits in your versions still need to be added to the version everyone else is working on. I've entered some of your edits into the other version of some articles and I've left some for you, hoping you'd start working with the other regular contributors to those articles. It's just not working. If you really want a compromise, act on the suggestion that several of us have made: Make one edit at a time and learn from other people's responses to them. There have been good edits I'd have backed you up on if you hadn't made twelve bad edits at the same time. But you've gotten this advice and gotten this advice, and yet here we are now. Doczilla 06:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So let us begin with Exemplars. One final observation I will make is that the more serious contributors seem to fall into two groups - those that focus on technical edits, and those that contribute creative edits (I'd be the latter. I'll let anyone else reading decide what camp they sit in). Marrying the two together seems to be the challenge, which is not always easy. Asgardian 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Messianic_Judaism#Stepping_down_as_project_lead

Sorry to bother everyone, but I wanted to inform the admins of what has been occurring here. IZAK and inigmatus have been in a disagreement over Messianic Judaism. While both are entitled to their opinion, inigmatus has remained calm and mature about this while IZAK feels the need to belittle inigmatus. This disagreement has been quiet for about a week as inigmatus has not been editing since then, but IZAK felt that he needed to stir the pot a bit and state today: "Keep us posted on any other special messages Hashem sends you, while here on Earth all the other good Jews wait for the real Jewish Messiah to show up. IZAK 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Personally I find IZAK's behavior immature and childish. He has a history of being uncivil when someone disagrees with him. I am a complete outsider in this except that I have emailed inigmatus about 2 weeks ago just to say to keep his chin up in all this. My issue here is that I have seen countless times on here that when people disagree, instead of doing it the right way, it leads to childish and immature behavior. Shouldn't we leave the games to the kids? Anyway, thank you for your time. MetsFan76 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious propaganda of user:inigmatus, as exemplified in the section you qouted, has absolutely no place in wikipedia. We are here to edit encyclopedia, not to provide "this frontline position for Messianic Judaism". Also, his claim "I am stepping down as project leader at the immediate direction of the Lord himself" makes me question either his sanity or neutrality: I would certainly strongly object to have editors here who in their editing are guided by some foreign God rather than by rules of wikipedia. Not to say that we have Jimbo to guide and direct us. :-) `'mikkanarxi 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, inigmatus's sanity is not the issue here. It is IZAK's immaturity and blatant attack on inigmatus. I could care less as to who thinks who is under the direction of the Lord, but immaturity such as IZAK's "has absolutely no place in wikipedia" either. Thank you. MetsFan76 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I support mikkalai's assessment. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is there to support Humus? MetsFan76 13:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:I am not an admin, and I acknowedge that I have no real standing here.While I cannot find any particular support for Inigmatus's actions in written policy, I have no objections to seeing someone who has an interest in a religion contributing to, and possibly even founding a WikiProject, relating to that religion, as long as the content itself meets wikipedia standards. Nor can I see how a fervent believer expressing his beliefs on a project discussion page regarding his project-related activities necessarily qualifies as insanity or lack of judgement, just sincere belief. However, I really can't take too many shots at IZAK's actions either, as I have a rather sick sense of humor and might have made similar comments in the past myself. Personally, I think we're all best served if we approach all subjects in wikipedia from as fair and objective a position in possible, and that includes each other's comments, and while I do not in any way fault Inigmatus's actions, I acknowledge that they were almost certainly a driving force behind IZAK's criticizable actions. Unfortunately, I can't really see any other way of avoiding the subject than by trying to avoid using religiously-loaded language, on either article, talk, or project pages, and actually only using it when absolutely necessary. Badbilltucker 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last suggestion sounds reasonable, with a word of caution, though. There are some seemeingly religious phrases that are just a matter of speech, kind of "oh, God" or "Allah forbid!" Ive see so some people overreacting in these cases. `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It comes to my mind that filing such complaints on behalf of a third person looks like a harassment to me, especially keeping in mind the mildness of the quoted IZAK's quip. If the other side feels insulted, it may demand an apology, and it is quite possible IZAK will withdraw his commment. If he will refuse, then we have a case, but not before. We are people here not robots, and running around and unnecessarily policing other people speech should be frowned upon. There is a blurred bounday betwen jokes and insults, and only the receiving side has the right to decide, unless we have clear cut cases such as "you moron" or "your fascist edits". `'mikkanarxi 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it comes to my mind that when I see someone being uncivil on here, even if I am a third-party, that it should be reported on here. Why should we turn a blind eye to it? If you see an old lady fall down in the street, would you turn your back on her? C'mon Mikkalai....be reasonable. IZAK was clearly acting like a child, regardless of what ignimatus said and the fact that you are actually justifying his actions is ridiculous. MetsFan76 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you see someone uncivil, why don't you talk to the person privately first? Even anon vandals are supposed to be warned before being blocked. And I am not "actually justifying". Too bad that you seem to have a bad habit to read between lines. And I guess it is quite useless to tell you to stop unwarranted policing and talk to people instead. `'mikkanarxi 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I guess its too bad you have a bad habit of picking sides as an admin.....Aren't you supposed to be impartial and look at the facts before you open your mouth? Anyway, I'm done with you. Have a good day. MetsFan76 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no request for arbitration from IZAK or inigmatus, and I am free to express opinions about any of them just as you did. Since I am not a Jew, believe me, their intersectarian squabbles are indifferent to me. At the same time I express an opinion that yours looks like harassment and spamming the admin's noticeboard, since you did not provide any evidence of attempts to resolve the issue amicably. `'mikkanarxi 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Looks like harassment??"" So you don't agree that IZAK was being rude to inigmatus? He has been provoking him for several weeks now and I am surprised at you, being at admin, that you are attempting to turn it around to make me look like the bad guy where all I am trying to do was show what was occurring. And to consider this "spam" is ridiculous!! As I clearly stated in my last messages, I am done talking to you. It's the holiday season....try chilling out a bit. MetsFan76 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may. I was not aware of a process to forward complaints about rude behavior to admins... though I am now. I tend to be very lenient with those who I believe sincerely misunderstand me or what I believe, so I would not have submitted this particular request for review, but I am glad it's here for the record. IZAK has crossed the line of civility with me several times in my opinion, and if anything I'd like this discussion to be kept on file as an archive that proves that his comments towards me are quite distracting and offensive to other people as well as myself. Personally, I don't think it really is helpful to engage in such character-smashing and nitpicking; especially on a talk page for a project that has nothing immediately to do with the character-smashing. I provided in the same discussion a reasonable explanation of what I meant when I wrote the "frontline" phrase. To be honest though, I am a little concerned that my work on wikipedia seems to be policed by IZAK for practically any WP violation, when I've done my best to read up on process, be courteous, and contribute to an NPOV standard for the articles I'm engaged in. As I implied above, I believe IZAK misunderstand me and my beliefs, and that is why I have not pursued a complaint process such as this admin notice board. But again, I'm glad it's here for the record. Sincerely, inigmatus 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Inigmatus....I knew you weren't going to complain about IZAK, but I just could not sit by and watch him bully you any longer. All one has to do is look at his user contributions to see the snide comments he puts on his edit summaries regarding you and it is obvious he has been policing your work. Personally, I have nothing against IZAK. I just feel that his actions are taking away from your work, which contrary to his beliefs, are important. I am glad to see you are acting as the better person here and I apologize if I overstepped by reporting this here without discussing it with you first. It needed to be on record as you stated. It's a shame that other people on here don't feel that way. Anyway, happy holidays! MetsFan76 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You still continue to miss my main point, although now you yourself agree with it: before grabbing big guns, talk to involved people first. By the way, did you inform IZAK about your proxy axe grinding? `'mikkanarxi 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point because you don't have one. If you read what I wrote to Ingimatus, I clearly stated that I was going to report IZAK's behavior regardless. And yes, I am sure IZAK knows about this as I linked this to the talk page where this was being discussed. Anything else I missed? Unless I'm mistaken, isn't it your job as an admin to stop editors from harassing others as IZAK has been doing?? It shouldn't matter who reports the incident. It was an infraction that I noticed so I reported it. Maybe you should re-read some of the words I have written above because it seems like you are missing MY main point MetsFan76 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WarHawkSP and Derek Smart

Well he's exhausting my patience. Can't speak for the community. He got his second 3RR violation in 4 days today (I haven't checked to see if he has been blocked yet for todays violation). diff. He's been blocked before for vandalism to that article, which is his only article-space entry he has edited( see here.). The only other edits he has are to AN/I regarding edit wars on that page, and to his own user/talk pages.

This is such a rampant case of repeated POV pushing and blatant disregard for policy, I believe administrative action is necessary.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: He's been reported at 3RR, and after being told he violated 3RR in the above diff, he's proceed to revert up to his 6th revert, and then filed a request for page protection on his version. I should note here that his reverts are removing multiple sourced materials that there is talk page consensus to include (his grounds for doing so are allegations that newsgroup postings, even those verified to be from the subject of the article and on a subject inherently notable to the topic at hand, are not reliable sources. There is considerable consensus on the article talk page that in this instance they meet all criteria for inclusion, especially given the notoriety of the subject for engaging in flame wars on usenet, to the point where Daily Victim did a comic on it and it became a notable web meme. It should be further noted that the link to the daily victim comic, and link to a less than flattering article on Opposable Thumbs at Ars Technica were also repeatedly removed by WarkHawkSP.)

At this point, I'm requesting a block on WarHawkSP for exhausting the community's patience. I find it ironic that his user page notes the "SP" as standing for "Sock puppet", when in this case it should be more like "single purpose".⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 48h by Steel359. Let us know if the behavior resumes - or, if it's just reverts, file a new case at WP:AN3. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update 2: He's removed the 4RR warning and another vandalism warning from his talk page. As I'm not sure what the current status on policy regarding removing warnings is, I won't re-add them, but he was notified of a 12hr block. I'm not sure exactly how long is left on it, I think around 6 hrs, but I believe it to be an insufficient cool off period, especially given the time it was issued (3am eastern time? Midnight pacific? He'll be asleep for that whole period). Seems to me if a 12 hour block were to be effective, it would need to start around 10am EST, which correlates to 1500 UTC, which should cover the most primetime editing periods, yet leave him sufficient time should he indeed decide to be constructive to do SOME editing between the hours of 10 and midnight eastern. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user exhibits the same behavior as User:Supreme Cmdr, and as I wrote here, for dispute resolution purposes as per a previous arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Sockpuppets (and_related_principles)For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. It would not be that much of a stretch to put forth an article ban for this user as well as he is clearly a single purpose account with interest only in Derek Smart. Cowman109^Talk 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that as soon as he is blocked there are suddenly IP edits to the talk page (I didn't even check the page itself) attacking the editors who oppose WarHawkSP. This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!}

Hi Jester. The IP address you are talking about is 209.214.22.231. This IP Address started making edits to the Derek Smart article after WarhawkSP was banned for violating WP:3RR originates from Fort Lauderdale, Florida with the hostname host-209-214-22-231.fll.bellsouth.net. There has long been suspicion that User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarhawkSP were both Derek Smart's users, but this latest happen chance seems to confirm it.--Jeff 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice wiki-detectiving. Derek Smart, as in the subject of the article, has offices based in Ft. Lauderdale, and as I've mentioned several times before, this is exactly the kind of behavior he is notorious for. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, despite the coincidence, I'd be surprised if this anon IP is the same user. That or the user is a good actor. His demeanor, post-first-edit, is not that of Warhawk. Just my opinion. Is a RfCU warranted? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a pretty astonishing co-incidence. Warhawk gets blocked, and a drive-by user happens to stumble upon the article a few hours later and removes the exact same paragraph the blocked user was removing with similarly inflammatory edit summaries? This is the internet, you don't need to be a good actor. -- Steel 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Take this edit as well. This anon is not new to the Wikipedia, nor to the situation with Warhawk. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Cmdr also edits from bellsouth out of florida - see here. Supreme Cmdr has explicitly taken ownership of edits from that address - see the first edit under his user account. Warhawk also edits from Florida IPs when he 'forgets' to log in - see this or even better this. This is in the public logs so I don't think it should run afoul of any privacy policies, but feel free to blank this comment if I'm misunderstanding that. Ehheh 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, Derek Smart's screen name is Supreme Cmdr (across the internet, not necessarily here), and his offices are in Ft. Lauderdale, something that WarHawkSP has also tried to conceal by removing from the article. Seems pretty cut and dry all over the place to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what hasn't been mentioned is that "both" Supreme Cmdr and Warhawk seem to have the fine art of "rules-lawyering" down pat. Either poster is quick to mention any and all relevant Wiki policies they can cling to in order to justify their edits and reverts. To be sure, this sort of person would also be aware of WP:VAIN, though they would never mention it. It would also explain why You-Know-Who will never fess up to being You-Know-Who or You-Know-Who. Or in other words, if Derek Smart were hypothetically editing his posts, because of his careful study of the rules, he knows that he would always have to appear to be someone who isn't Derek Smart or all of his changes could be dismissed and reverted. Even if he was painfully aware of the existence of an article related to himself, he could never get involved (much less own up to it). More's the pity. Mael-Num 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, a checkuser was inconclusive. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

incase one doesn't click the link, DmcDevit says that while inconclusive, they're the same region, different ISP and suggests its possible that it comes from another house or library etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that I semi-protected the talk page Talk:Derek Smart due to the rotating IP trolling and leaving personal attacks directed at other users. [88]. Cowman109^Talk 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that now the page itself is semi protected, comign down from full protection, and is in the midst of a full scale edit war. I fail to see this ending in any other way other than arbcom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah and friends lying

Regarding this edit can an administrator please take a look? His edit summary claims the edit is "unsourced OR" when clearly it is NOT OR and NOT UNSOURCED.

He's blatantly lying and I see no reason to even continue a pretense of assuming good faith in the case of this POV pusher; WP:AGF policy clearly states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

Lying like this is pretty massive evidence. RunedChozo 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah's second lie: there is no "discussion" of these changes anywhere previous on the talk page. RunedChozo 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This dispute resolution page can be your friend in a case like this. (→Netscott) 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't care about that, it seems. RunedChozo 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Runed. Why can't you use the talk page before adding disputed content so you can discuss them and defend them? I haven't seen you discussing them at all. Please use the talk page and stop accusing contributors of POV pushing. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah has now had an admin tool lock the page in bad faith on his behalf. This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. RunedChozo 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to take this up on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat before going to dispute resolution or coming here. The only comment I see from you on that talk page is this: This article is already such nonsense it should probably just be deleted. Completely nonfactual propaganda and whitewashing. RunedChozo 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) and that doesn't speak to good faith on your part. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmmm! Talking about an admin who got a clean block log? This is yours (5 blocks w/in 1 month). Please behave. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything, they have friendly admins ready to harass anyone who doesn't think Muslim POV-pushing is OK at moment's notice. RunedChozo 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your accusations. It won't help your case. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

seeing as RunedChozo has come to AN/I, i think it would be appropriate to mention that this user has been aggressively revert warring, for which he has been blocked several times. he has also been blocked before for exhibiting the same behaviour as soon as his block has expired. he was recently blocked for three days for revert warring, and as soon as his block has expired he is back, doing the exact same things again. as for my apparent lying, he had inserted his own OR, and every revert since then has been to that version. and i have been involved in every discussion on the talk page, while RunedChozo has been involved in not one of substance. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah starts lying by calling a properly sourced item in the article "Original Research", doesn't mention his own constant edit-warring and POV-pushing that I've been trying to counteract so that the articles are actually fair and neutral (let's face it, "Mohammed the Diplomat" right now is a joke, nothing more than "mohammed was so great let's all worship him" fluff). His comment is nothing more than more bad faith. RunedChozo 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was examining block logs here and there's a massive disparity between Itaqallah and RunedChozo, that would seem to be indicative of where the problem is stemming from here. (→Netscott) 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah is part of an organized meatpuppetry group called the "Muslim Guild." RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally I don't like to bring this out, because it's more often used as a whacking stick, but this seems to be the case in point of why the policy was created: one must assume good faith on Wikipedia. I've heard the words "bad faith" or "lying" in your words far too often to be comfortable. Throwing around accusations, refusing to use the talk page or talk to them first, and accusing the admin cabal of being on Itaqalla's side has not helped your case in the slightest, even if you were right. Please act more in line with the procedures that Wikipedia has set up before coming to the message board. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to assume good faith, but I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries. WP:AGF does not say that I have to be a stupid idiot blind to obvious bad faith behavior, Patstuart, and I'll thank you to notice that please. RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, let me also add that I do not particularly appreciate this: [89]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd acted in good faith it wouldn't have been necessary. RunedChozo 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, that diff doesn't look too promising as far as the future participation on the project of the editor concerned here. (→Netscott) 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Attack me all you like, that's what you do right? Attack the messenger? Yeesh. It was bad faith after I reported Itaqallah blatantly lying in edit summaries, and it's bad faith given the obvious conflict of interest. RunedChozo 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) In accordance with the dispute resolution page, I'm taking a break for the rest of the day. POV push all you like Itaqallah and Muslim Guild meatpuppets, I won't be around to stop you. RunedChozo 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, being incivil just increases wikistress for everyone. This is exactly why you AGF because getting into a mindset like this is just unhealthy. Wikipedia works on people being able to sit down and talk. Your rhetoric towards those you view as "POV Pushers" ensures they don't want to come to the table.--Rosicrucian 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RunedChozo (talk · contribs) blocked

I blocked RunedChozo (talk · contribs) for his personal attacks and incivility here for a period of 1000 minutes (16 hours, 40 minutes). Reasonable? -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mild, I'd say. But I won't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. I just didn't want to have to deal with the you only blocked him cause he was saying anti-Muslim statements sentiment. I do think a longer block is not a bad idea, especially considering this block comes less than twenty-four hours after coming off another. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a look at this user's first ever edit summary in wikipedia, i am afraid Netscott is right. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go up to 48h a week on him, given his block history and the fact that they seem to have no effect on his behavior. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed and denied his unblock request. I will lengthen the block to 48 hours if nobody objects. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User has continued this behavior on this talk page even after being blocked [90] --BostonMA ^talk 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and denied again. I don't see this going anywhere good. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Rosicrucian has reposted User:RunedChozo's comments containing personal attacks upon Itaqallah and Future Perfect at Sunrise. [91]

I was a bit irritated by that too when I saw it, but I think the context makes it clear that Rosicrucian was only mirroring what Runedchoso had written on his talk page in order to reply to it. No reasons to get upset. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I didn't quite understand at first. nevermind --BostonMA ^talk 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. When I reply to a comment left in my talkpage, I typically copy the conversation as completely as possible to the user's talkpage to preserve the context.--Rosicrucian 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I endorse a block length approximately five days. Also, the user is abusing {{unblock}}. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he is now removing denied unblock requests as well as warnings from admins, I'm afraid I have to endorse extending his block as well. He's made his bed, and he seems determined to lay in it.--Rosicrucian 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have increased his block to 48 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering his rather obvious block evasion here, I think another extension may be in order. --InShaneee 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One step ahead of you; I restarted the block and upped it to five days, due to the further incivility and the fact that the user has been blocked multiple times (twice for three days). -- tariqabjotu 06:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not cool. Please cease lengthening his block if all he's doing is aruging on his talk page. Nobody's going to unblock him until it's over; admins need to walk away and let situations cool down rather than continue to provoke them with multiple (what, three now?) block extensions when the only offense is arguing on the talk page. He may be too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves for this. For shame. Leave him alone, or do an indef community block, but stop piling on like this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For all interested; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo, mentioning the claims of block evasion that were not actually mentioned on here. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being possible. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo (talk · contribs). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed IP address comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only possible) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one and two). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo (talk · contribs) and 70.114.237.14 (talk · contribs) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the tool accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 (talk · contribs)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo (talk · contribs). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to say something.

So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 (talk · contribs) and RunedChozo (talk · contribs) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statement. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth reading the (long) WikiEN-l thread on the subject. Likewise, this post seems to build a pretty strong case that they're the same person (I say so because no one's even supposed differently, since that post, as far as I can tell). Luna Santin 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Embargo's userpage again

I've just gave a fresh block (24h) to User:Embargo for his persistent addition of provocative anti-Jewish cartoon and material. I've warned him a few times but he couldn't abide by the rules. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As his only articlespace edits are to change 'Allah' to 'God' repeatedly in Hezbollah, I suggest making it indefinite next time if he doesn't show some sign of being useful. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about that. Of course. I'll be watching him. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I missed this when posting below, don't know how. I don't think there should be any tolerance at all, in the slightest, for this sort of thing - it should be straight to indefinite. Palmiro | Talk 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor has made no useful contribs, and appears to be using WP as a forum for hate-speech. I would strongly support an indef block until this newcomer demonstates a bit more understanding of what we are not. Doc Tropics 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse an indef. blocking per Doc. WP's NOT a soapbox and this is particularly the case for hateful displays. (→Netscott) 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

pgk had contacted me for a block revision (not being done properly) before endorsing it. I than left an explicit detail on the abuser's talk page. In that you'd see that i noted i'd follow the recommendations of the other admins at the noticeboard if he comes back w/ the same userpage today or if he'd not abide w/ our policies and guidelines. We'll see what would happen then. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso (talk · contribs) requests unblock

Hello. I have unblocked Amoruso yesertday in response to his request. However, Dmcdevit has convinced me that it would be proper to restore his block and solicit wider consensus. So I have reblocked him and taken the matter here.

Before you opine, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crzrussian#Amoruso
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Amoruso_reported_by_User:RedMC_.28Result:48_hours.29

I have restored the original unblock request on Amoruso's talk page. Thank you. - crz crztalk 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's clearly revert-warring without reference to the talk page. That he's four minutes outside 24 hours is frankly beside the point. I would also support page protection. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block - "which he didn't trip, making his 4th revert after 24 hours and four minutes" stinks of gaming the system, the purpose of WP:3RR is to prevent edit warring, not to permit provided specific rules are followed --pgk 21:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse as well. There's no reason we should encourage edit warring. Once people revert more than once you already have an issue. WP:IAR overrides such technicalities of four minutes. Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• My reasoning for the block was that for someone who has been blocked for 3RR before, 4 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes is simply gaming, and, compounded by the incivility, the block was valid and uncontroversial. 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war. Dmcdevit·t 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

copied form user talk

I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. User:Patstuart's claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of WP:BLP. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted user:Dmcdevit personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet he removed my explanation (as blocking admin) as to why WP:BLP did not apply for that case, then proceeded to request an unblock as if such an explanation never existed, writing: "Not only is that ruling wrong, but it's also supposed to be max 8 hours per first offense. But really in an edit war like this, no block should have been made, perhaps page protection" El_C 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He also got away recently without a block for persistent edit warring on Pisgat Ze'ev (cf page history), although another user was blocked for five days for a similar level of edit-warring on the same article. This user is a persistent problem. Palmiro | Talk 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Being the editor who reported Amoruso for 3RR (for which El_C blocked ), I disagree with Amorusos report of the events. First; if anybody worked "against consensus", it was in fact Amoruso. Only three editors worked on the article at the time; two of us were in agreement, and Amoruso disagreed with the two of us. Secondly; I found Amoruso extremely incivil, e.g saying I made "outright lie"s, etc., which I find very offensive. (And nobody reviewing the edits/block have agreed with Amoruso) Regards, Huldra 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (who is, btw, a "she", even if Amoruso insists on referring to me as "he".)

I wasn't talking about that 3RR Huldra, you read it wrongly. Amoruso 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. In general, I believe once a block is reversed on an editor, it should not be reinstated. Assume good faith, prevent edit wars, make the administrators look more consistent.  :) However, there are too many other issues with this particular editor and I believe a 48 hour block is justified. It's only two days, anyway. --Yamla 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Coincidentially, I'm just finishing up writing a few words on this user based on his edits from last week alone, which I intend to post tomorrow/when done. This user has been engaged in some heavy disruptive behaviour and edit warring for months, and I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked more than twice. I think some furter action is warranted. -- Steve Hart 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. I know this is not a popular opinion and although I do not support Amoruso's every edit (in this case, I wish he had waited and not called his opponent a vandal). Please let's keep in mind that we deal with the area of WP inundated with daily attacks of all kinds. In his defense, I'd like to point out that Amoruso usually does discuss his edits on the talk pages and is far from being the worst violator of WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is a recent example of a user with worse violations who made 5 RVs in 24hrs weaseled out of block. I find such discrepancy in applying penalties unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Discrepencies mean that it should be better enforced, not that we should unblock them all (otherwise you are aguing for that unblock). Dmcdevit·t 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Since we discuss technicalities here, 24 hrs is 24 hrs - I saw users casually being forgiven for reverts made over period longer than 24 hrs. And finally, Amoruso's opponent was a sockpuppet of a banned user: #The return of User:Panairjdde/User:Kwame Nkrumah etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've edited on the same pages as Amoruso for quite awhile now. Like Humus, I don't endorse every edit he has ever made, but I completely disagree with Steve Hart and Palmiro that he should be singled out for censure and criticism. I would ask you Steve, when you make the list yo mention, to look at ALL parties concerned and their behavior as well as Amoruso's. It obviously takes more than one editor to make an edit war. Amoruso is interested in some very contentious pages. These pages are also plagued with frequent vandalism. The general contentiousness of his topics of interest, and the way MANY OF US deal with them, are at the root of the problem. Given the contentiousness of the topics, we would all do well to pay very close attention to WP policies about NPOV, civility and assuming good faith (note to self and others). Singling out one editor for severe censure is not as helpful to the project as learning to compromise, to state things neutrally, to allow more than one pov on a particular page. Elizmr 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Editors are judged on their own edits, the misbehaviour of other editors is not an excuse for violating the rules. I'm not going to include other editors as I'm not involved in the case, but do report them if you want. Your wise words about NPOV and civility is actually the root of the problem, since this user has a longtime history of not adhering to these policies. When a user such as Jmabel posts to the Notice board for Israel-related topics that, quote, "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material" [92] (partial quote) it should ring a bell. -- Steve Hart 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Elizmr if Amoruso is being singled out, he's being singled out for not being blocked and not being banned when the users who are behaving like him are blocked and banned. For example crz's 5-day block of User:ILike2BeAnonymous for being essentially one half of an edit war on Pisgat Ze'ev with Amoruso, who remained unblocked. Or User:PalestineRemembered, who looked rather like the mirror-image of Amoruso and was indefinitely blocked if I recall correctly. Palmiro | Talk 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Palmiro, this is a strong personal attack against Amoruso and I feel you should retract it. I'm quite familar with User:PalestineRemembered's editorial history. This user ran afoul of many core Wikipedia policies including WP:AGF and WP:NPOV on many occasions. Please refer to the history of her talk page to see the lack of any development as an editor in terms of adherance to policy or "culture" in terms of civility, etc. In terms of WP:AGF, she accused everyone who ever disagreed with her of poor faith, attacking her personally, etc. She once accused me of trying to get her to make a racist remarks. In terms of her understanding of WP:NPOV, she once said that "infidels" had no place editing pages in English Wikipedia that have to do with Islam. Saying that only one class of EDITORS should be editing on a particular topic raises a very red flag when it comes to her participation in this project. Finally, her understanding and implementation of WP:NPA was completely lacking. Calling non-Muslim editors "infidels" and refusing to retract that remark was highly uncivil. She did not even attempt to be CIVIL to anyone she considered a "Zionist" (which was basically a curse word to her). If you are going to compare Amoruso to this woman, you are way way off base. (Also please note that many editors who share PRs viewpoints are great Wikipedia editors and I very much enjoy working with them, but she was not by any criteria a good editor). Elizmr 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Humus and Elizmr. It also seems to me that if the "3RR" is going to be applied the way some people are applying it, the reference to 24 hours should be eliminated from the policy page. If the rule is really that you can't revert more than three times in an unspecified time frame as determined subjectively by an administrator after the situation has occurred, let's say so. 6SJ7 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, User:Dmcdevit's judgement was correct. This is particularly the case when the user who posted the Amoruso 3RR report was himself blocked just before from a report posted by Amoruso. Also, ANI should not have been brought into this rather obvious case. (→Netscott) 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose block per Humus, Elizmr and 6SJ7. Amoroso was not violating 3RR so the reverse of the block was correct. I agree also with Humus that he has thrown himself into the maelstrom of some very contentious pages and that there needs to be evenhandedness here. I've personally stopped editing some contentious pages involving religion because the arguing is endless and never resolved. He might want to step back from some of this editing but I think that singling him out for severe censure is not warranted.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Edit warring in general is discouraged. I think that WP:3RR likely contributes to the erroneous notion often held by edit warriors that they have a right to revert 3 times within 24 hours, as long as they do not exceed the electric fence. This is false and it should be clarified that edit warring is bad, without specific reference to the numerical requirements of 3RR. Khoikhoi 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of life is, we do need an electric fence because some users won't listen to any arguments and some policy must be enforced. The problem is, it is enforced inconsistently. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree...but four minutes? WP:3RR even says "users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day". Khoikhoi 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso's editing is aggressive, but those he is opposing seem equally aggressive, if not moreso, and Amoruso does use the Talk: page to support his edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Jayjg. Once we begin overstepping the actual 24h limit, we're down a slippery slope. Does 4 reverts in 24H+ 55 min count as gaming, too? 25 H? Isarig 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• If Amoruso was indeed engaging a banned user then I would support a lifting of his block. Obviously the original blocking admin User:Dmcdevit could independently verify this. (→Netscott) 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block per Humus and Elizmr explntion. He is a revert warrior but is a longstanding contributor in a very contentious area where we have recently seen the formation of a clique dedicated to protecting their member's views. FrummerThanThou 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose since he was reverting a blocked sockpuppet (per Humus et al). While I don't agree with many of his edits, I don't see why he should be singled out, especially as he does utilise Talk and generally respects policy. Tewfik^Talk 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per humus and others, I can recall of many precedents were it was decided that 3RR specifically means that the user reverted at least four times in a twenty-four period (at least one of Irishpunktom's blocks comes to mind, [93]). Anyway, Amoruso isn't really a problem user, while he can be very aggressive I would primarily attribute it to reactivity to the behavior of other users rather than anything malicious on the part of Amoruso.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm disappointed to see several editors who share Amoruso's political viewpoints, to the extent that a couple of them has exchanged barnstars with him, suddenly comes out in support. Editors should not value political leanings over rules and procedures. And I don't think edit warring with a sock puppet changes the facts of the case, unless he knew it was a sockpuppet, in which case he should have reported him instead of revert warring. Dealing with a sock puppets is not a carte blanche to do what pleases us. -- Steve Hart 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read over the WP:AGF policy before you decide to comment on the presonal motivations of other editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AGF does not exclude me from raising the point that sometimes editors let their personal opinions stand in the way of upholding our policies. -- Steve Hart 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moshe's right; just because it a number editors who have 'exchanged barnstars'with Amoruso are supporting him in this does not mean that we can assume that it is their shared viewpoints that lead them to do so. That being said, I note that a good number of the arguments are "but the others are worse!" Not a relevant statement, and one that one hears from people who are supporting someone for the sake of supporting someone. Hornplease 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose block, per Humus and Moshe. I don't believe Amoruso and I have a single political viewpoint in common; nevertheless, he has made plenty of worthwhile contributions to the wikipedia and I have never found him to be disruptive despite laboring on many an article alongside him. It's easy to cherry pick a few bad edits out of the bunch, as below, but I'd hate to see the write up someone could do about me! -- Kendrick7^talk 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This block is wholly unjustified by the 3RR, and appears to be inconsistent with WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits

Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_edits_from_banned_or_blocked_users clearly states that

Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.

As Amoruso was blocked because of his reversions of the edits of RedMC on Masada, and since RedMC has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Amoruso's reversions on Masada qualified as "reverting edits from banned or blocked users", and thus did not violate the 3RR or otherwise constitute revert warring. Moreover, Amoruso's alleged incivility on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Amoruso_reported_by_User:RedMC_.28Result:48_hours.29, "characterization of others' edits as vandalism", was actually quite appropriate language when employed to describe the edits made by a sockpuppet of banned user. John254 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you... and yet I served the whole 3RR so I would like to ask someone to ban and unban me after a second and say it wasn't a deserved block for the record. Because else people will use the bad record of block against me. Thank you. Amoruso 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Longtime disruptive behaviour by User:Amoruso

(note: there's a preceding debate above regarding a disputed 4RR by this user, I wrote this up before that situation arose).

Attention to User:Amoruso per WP:DE. This user is engaged in editing Arab-Israeli articles where he, as I see it, is on a personal mission. While I believe he has violated pretty much every policy and guideline we have in the months he has been here, I will limit diffs to a few of his recent edits (mostly from Dec. 3 - 8):

• removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: [94]

• page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer) [95]

• deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [96], ABC News: [97], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [98]

• adding material based on partisan sources without independent verification, e.g.: [99] [100]

• a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g.: [101] [102]

• consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [103] [104], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor: [105]

• and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully, as a suggestion to editors of WikiProject Israel to take the edit wars over Israel to other country articles in the region, I quote: "See the concerns over Talk:Israel#Permanent semi-protection. I wonder how we can address the issue that Israel's article will be attacked fervently but it seems that nobody is concerned with articles concerning Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran... ... I feel that this line of thought is an attack on Israel's sovregnity as state and I just wonder if there can be some perspective or edits by us on other country articles in the region atleast to attempt to balance the heavy and undue bias.", [106] (partial quote)

I should provide additional diffs on request. I briefly wrote about this editor's behaviour three months ago, here: [107]. There was a brief discussion on AN/I last month which involved the editor and a bad faith request to have a page unprotected: [108]. You should note that I was involved in a dispute with the editor in August [109], but I also received some kind words from him [110]. I'm generally not editing the same articles as him, we crossed paths as I was working on the NPOV backlog.

People are allowed to hold strong opinions and still edit articles. But it doesn't exempt them from following rules. In this case we're dealing with a user who for a long time has replaced well sourced material with text and links to partisan sites, is edit warring when other editors objects and often resort to calling those who disagree with him vandals.

This user has been subject to every attempt of dispute resolution except ArbCom, so it would be nice with some discussion on AN/I. I believe that this kind of behaviour is out of line and has been allowed to go on for too long. While I wouldn't call for a ban myself, I do think that the editor needs a break from editing Israel-Palestine related articles, at least for a month or more. -- Steve Hart 09:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you want to call for a lengthy block, then it should be clear from the discussion above that you won't get consensus for it. I understand that you find some edits by Amoruso objectionable, but overall, this is a productive editor with a history of positive contributions. Beit Or 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively use an user conduct WP:RFC. (→Netscott) 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like the editor to move this back where it was, in its own section. This sections deals with a disputed 4RR and I have said what I have to say about that (and I'm not calling for a lengthy block). Second, I stated that every attempt of dispute resolution but Arbcom have been tried. This will go to Arbcom I presume, but I would like a discussion on ANI first. -- Steve Hart 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved this thread here as it is directly related to the above thread. It is generally poor form to have two discussions about a given user separately on ANI. Obviously no one owns ANI so if you feel that my moving the thread here was unjustified then feel free to move it back. I'm still reviewing this post myself. (→Netscott) 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not reverting. But my post has nothing to do with the 4RR and should not have any bearings on that discussion (it is a separate case), and it was mostly written before the 4RR occurred. What I would like is a broader discussion on what kind of edit behaviour is actually acceptable. -- Steve Hart 10:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart, I understand. Although it does happen occasionally, ANI isn't really meant for such discussions, it's generally for reporting nefarious editor behavior where timely admin intervention is likely to be necessary and also for review of admin actions. Again I'd suggest a user conduct request for comments. (→Netscott) 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart: earlier you assumed bad faith, and now you are piggybacking on another case to besmirch your opponent who is temporarily unable to respond at ANI. Not a good place and not a good time, colleague. See WP:DR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Amoruso editing at WP or for that matter an unblock per se. Nor do I care much for either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What I am concerned about is allowing this kind of editing pattern to continue, a pattern which even according to some of those opposing the block is aggressive and revert warringish. -- Steve Hart 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So why aren't you pursuing with equal vehemence editors on the other side of the Arab-Israel question who are equally if not more guilty of edit warring? I'm really uncomfortable with the way this is being handled.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly will do. It's not like I'm immune from doing something when I see it [111]. -- Steve Hart 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but listing an article for deletion is not on a par with pursuing a campaign against an editor. The list of so-called "offenses" above, such as your objecting to Sirhan being called a "murderer," indicate political bias here.--Mantanmoreland 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to justify myself to you or give you "a list". If you disagree with my edits, drop me a note or file a report. As I have stated: I don't care much about the conflict at all. If you believe that editors should stand silent while properly cited material are removed and replaced with unverified statements from dubious partisan sources under the pretext all or nothing you're free to do so. I, however, disagree. -- Steve Hart 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You just called for removing Amoroso from editing Arab-Israel subjects for a month or more. This is a harsh and in my view unjustified penalty, based on the flimsy "evidence of disruption" that you've accumulated here. Your citing his justifiable Sirhan page move is, I think, significant as that was a good move and a good edit.--Mantanmoreland 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, to your objection, you might wanna read up on Let the facts speak for themselves. -- Steve Hart 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And in your view it is a "fact" that the convicted murderer of Robert F. Kennedy, who has spent the last forty-odd years in a California prison and was never a member of a millitant group -- that that convicted murderer is more accurately described as a "millitant" than as a "murderer." OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is anything but a mainstream one and speaks to what are clearly strongly held opinions on your part. (see below) --Mantanmoreland 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, the Sirhan Sirhan (murderer) is different from the assasin Sirhan Sirhan. (→Netscott) 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(restoring margins) Thanks for clarifying, Netscott. Then Amoroso's edit seems even more justifiable. That Sirhan was a murderer of children! Good gawd. Just underlines my point that this was a good edit and that political motives are involved in this effort against Amoroso.--Mantanmoreland 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso has published a reply on his user page. I'm taking the liberty to post a copy. If I'm out of line, I'll remove it: -- Steve Hart 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve, it appears to me that Amoruso's responses to your specific allegations are more than adequate, and that in general this has the feel of a personal issue, rather than an AN/I issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So you feel it's ok to delete material which is relevant to an article and properly cited to reliable sources? Or to include material based on partisan sources, even over the objections of other editors? In that case we will never agree. Yes, this is personal issue, but in the sense that I'm tired of seeing propaganda in articles. This is either an encyclopedia or not an encyclopedia. Amoruso isn't the only one doing this, he's just the worst offender I have come across so far. -- Steve Hart 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a usual content dispute on which I have no opinion. Anyway, AN/I is not an appropriate place to resolve such issues. Beit Or 08:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hart, I believe I completlely refuted your claims. Saying I deleted material which is relevant to an article is simply a false statement. Partisan sources is your POV in the matter, it's a regular content dispute - I and others believe it's a very valid source , and frankly if we take the Lebanon flag example your allegations seem to have been made in bad faith. You couldn't have missed the original user who explained that Lebanon wasn't a combatant and removed the flag before me, and you couldn't really have missed the user who added the flag who admitted his mistake and even apologised. One would think you chose that example to make a quick slur which people won't check, and it's disturbing. I want to assume good faith here and I hope you won't resort to this again. I hope we can continue happilly as fellow wikipedians now. Cheers. Amoruso 11:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you certainly have not addressed my issues (see above), ..I found it quite insulting (+totally wrong) the way you accused me of making lies; I think an apology is due. Regards, Huldra 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, I answered you on my talk page at the time. You were confused, misunderstanding - you talked about the previous 3RR while I talked about this ban. There was consensus here not there, I said "this time" and you thought I meant the other thing. You read that wrongly, so it's in fact you who needs to apologise ;) Amoruso 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One by one respones to allegations of Steve Hart

I will reply one by one to the allegations made by user:Steve Hart here.

• removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Too bad Steve Hart didn't (hmm.) go a bit further and saw that the user who placed the Lebanon flag admitted he was mistaken. Lebanon wasn't a combatant in the conflict and therefore the flag was out of place. The editor who placed the flag removed it himself. [112]

• page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)

Yes, I did. Murder is NOT WP:WTA as far as I know concerning someone who murdered a whole family. Perhaps Steve Hart can explain us how is such a person a militant ? A militant could belong to an organization like HAMAS or Islamic Jihad MAYBE but this person was acting SOLO. So perhaps Steve Hart wants us to change the definitons of Criminal Law ? This page was not a page in contention and no edit war or reverts took place.

• deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [134], ABC News: [135], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [136]

Did I ? I would like to remind Steve Hart that Blanking = vandalism and that's harsh accusation incivil one and he should avoid that ASAP. This was according to policy, another banned user pushing this, not Timshifter apparently possibly (who got 3RR for this) but BlueDome (actually another sock-puppet of the banned user in question ) and policy explained here [113] and here [114] by many users. User was acting against consensus of atleast 4 users in good standing.

• a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g. [139] [140]

none of the two example seem to be incivil. Actually, the Paranoia remark seems very light-hearted and a WP:LOVE behaviour if anything, just jokingly. If someone got offended by it, I'd apologise of course. In fact, like Steve Hart said I (wrongly it seems) was particulary civil to him too even though he deleted material of mine. Seems strange allegation. [115]

I'll just note that the "paranoia" comment was directed towards myself and in all honesty based upon what I was saying to User:Amoruso at the time that was a pretty tame response. At this point the whole discussion that was occuring surrounding that comment is now a moot point. (→Netscott) 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [141] [142], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor.

Ah, the ol' "don't remove from your page" think. Have you looked on other user talk pages at any chance ? Are you seriously pushing this allegation ? Note that the alleged olive branch response was made by user:PalestineRemembered a user now banned for 1 month for disruptive behavoiour on people's user pages. Seems Hart is missing a whole lot of information here. The timeshifter allegation was addressed already above - it was completely inappropriate and therefore removed.

• and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully...

Yes, you read that wrongfully. The topic on hand was how leads should be written for country articles. I suggested we try to reinstate some format into this in the name of WP:NPOV. I feel it's my right to discuss such issues with my fellow wikipedians at the project page ? There was no malice or ill-intent there, just concern to make Israel on par with other country articles.

Steve Hart notes that he was involved in a dispute with me back in August. That's true. In fact, this seems to be what it's all about. Steve Hart not just disputed but edit-warred over that page and reverted constantly and was also warned about it [116]. He also wanted to ban me from the head-start which was almost a threat and perhaps a violation of WP:BITE - "Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this" and didn't seem to be concerned of WP:NPOV issues [117]. He says he already mentioned something bad about me in August right when I was a newbie but forgot to say I refuted his claims[118]. Finally, his repeated violations of WP:AGF saying that other users are biased towards me for political reasons even though this has just been contradicted by a good faith editor who disagrees with my political opinions completely and utterly.[119] Another proof of Steve Hart's agenda which revolved again over his war edit in August can be found again on this noticeboard. Steve Hart violated WP:CIVIL (I shall file him a complaint over that because it seems repetitve) by saying "Let me be perfectly clear: There's no reasoning with these guys. You will have better luck convincing a priest that God doesn't exist" [120] and making sure we all realise his crusade "One day someone's going to write him up and report him, and he'll be gone. Not even WP's forgiving policy enforcement is going to save him" (see same edit). <sigh>. Amoruso 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I knew I shouldn't have said anything on czr's talk page, because you would accuse me for having it out for you. As I said on his talk page, I happen to be on your side quite frequently. But, looking over your edit history, how can you tell me you're anything other than a single-purpose account to promote Israel? Your contributions speak for themselves. I might remind you that WP:AGF specfically says, "there is no need to assume good faith when there is evidence to the contrary". Otherwise, we'd never be able to address what we see as problem editing. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered you in your talk page. Cheers, Amoruso 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible way forward

As explained here, Amoruso's block is not justified by the 3RR since he was reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Such reversions are specifically exempted from the 3RR, and, to my knowledge, are not otherwise considered to be "edit warring". With regard to allegations of edit warring and WP:NPOV violations by Amoruso generally, it would be a mistake to block only this one user, but to refrain from blocking other users who have been engaging in at least equally severe policy violations through pro-Israel and anti-Israel revert warring on a large number articles related to the middle east. As just a small example of this phenomenon, some users have repeatedly added entirely unreferenced anti-Israel material to Terrorism against Israel. Blocking a single user is not going to stop pro-Israel and anti-Israel editors from carrying on the Middle East conflict in the form of edit warring on Wikipedia articles. Rather, it might be advisable to identify the articles suffering from the worst pro-Israel/anti-Israel revert warring, and instead of fully protecting them, community banning the editors most involved in the revert warring from editing those specific articles for a period of several months. Unlike outright blocking, temporarily banning the editors responsible for the revert warring on a per-page basis would allow such editors to continue to contribute to any other articles that they could edit in a constructive manner. John254 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a great suggestion. I would also like to see a zero-tolerance policy against adding unverified statements, claims of facts, and so forth, which we see from both sides. Dubious or contested material should always be moved to talk until it's either verified or consensus is reached. -- Steve Hart 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one should always add referencedd statements which are true, and this is something I've always adhered too. We should be careful not to exploit this doctrine in order to enforce one POV over another. Amoruso 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw something else into the mix here that may be relevant...I've seen calls before in other discussions, incuding Jimbo's talk page, for a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to be done on Amoruso and Mantanmoreland. Has one been done, and if so, what were the results? Cla68 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(sound of applause) Hear hear! I knew that this thread would attract a troll pushing the User:WordBomb line of swill, and Cla68 has filled that role handsomely, as he has in the past and I am sure will in the future. Meanwhile, I think he should get a block to remind him that being a meatpuppet of a banned user is not the way to go.--Mantanmoreland 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Cla68 engaged in the above trolling in not one but two AN/I threads![121]. Bless my soul he is a dedicated troll.--Mantanmoreland 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the reference again ([122]) and it's a message from Fred Bauder accusing Mantanmoreland and Lastexit of being the same, not Amoruso. I apologize to Amoruso for casting aspersions on his/her account. Cla68 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pareto principle appears to apply to many of the users whose actions are discussed on this page. It seems that the same names are always being discussed for corrective action such, as in this case, disruptive editing. Would the administrators agree that 80% of the disruptive editing problems caused on Wikipedia that demand their attention come from the same 20% of Wikipedia's editor population (besides anonymous IP editors)? Cla68 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe less than 20% of editor's cause repeated problems. I would guess 10%. Cla68 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would you apologize to Amoruso and not to Mantanmoreland, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by what Fred Bauder reported in the diff that I posted above because I understand that Fred has a lot of credibility on Wikipedia. If he's wrong on what he reported, then of course I retract and apologize to Mantamoreland for presenting false evidence that he used sock puppets in the past. Let me make it clear, that even though Fred presents evidence that Mantanmoreland was using sock-puppetry in the past, I'm not accusing Mantanmoreland and Amoruso of being the same person right now. I realize I need to apologize to Mantanmoreland also for implying that. I'll expressly state it: I apologize to Mantanmoreland for implying that he and Amoruso are sock puppets of the same person. Cla68 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla. Whatever Fred was referring to was back in March and has been dealt with, so it's best not to keep on raising it. It's pretty clear that Amoruso isn't a sockpuppet. Thanks again for the apology. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla, what is your explanation for your making the same allegation in this other AN/I[123]? If you have an explanation, that is.--Mantanmoreland 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla68's cyberstalking and trolling

His last comment and "apology" to Amoroso -- conspicuously not to me -- was a repetition of the same old User:WordBomb cyberstalking and harassment directed at me. Cla68 engaged in more than just trolling and disruption in two unrelated AN/I threads. He acted as a sock/meatpuppet of a banned user, as he has in the past, for which he was warned to desist[124]. I reiterate my request for an appropriate block. --Mantanmoreland 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cla68 is a respected and dedicated editor, the author of many superb articles. Please do not waste people's time with absurd claims that he is a "sock/meatpuppet" or a "dedicated troll". It will achieve nothing, and reflects very poorly on you. --Robth^Talk 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, Rob, Mantan was responding to Cla's allegations. The best thing is for these claims not to be recycled, then no one will feel they have to defend themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rob, Cla68 has a history has pushing the agenda of banned User:WordBomb [125], and of making false sockpuppet allegations against me[126]. In this AN/I he made scurillous sockpuppet allegations -- in two AN/Is, one having nothing to do with Amoroso -- against Amoroso and myself. When called on it, he offers up a lame excuse and apologized to one of us. This is nothing less than Wikistalking, and I think appropriate sanctions are warranted.--Mantanmoreland 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy

I have stubbed the Ron Jeremy article in accordance with the BLP policy, as it contained large amounts of unsourced and potentially defamatory material. User:Tabercil Has been restoring the material, claiming my actions are vandalism despite clear edit summaries stating that the edits are for BLP reasons. Posting this here because the BLP board is relatively unmonitored. Thanks, Frise 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That action makes little sense. Why not identify (specifically) the issues instead of removing everything in the article. The entire article now consists of "Ronald Jeremy Hyatt is an American actor." (!) El_C 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually have to agree with the removal of what was last removed in the article. The tid bits that were in that were a bit excessive, unsourced (are there any?), and a bit POVish. Maybe rewording would be a little better. Try to calmly talk this one out on the talk page, and abstain from editing until an agreement can be reached. Note, I didn't see this[127], which is excessive to do with the exception of copyvios. Yanksox 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the bits that Frise had problems with per WP:BLP and warned both editors about revert warring. I cannot see much more that would be seen as libellous but blanking the page would not be the best course of action - removing the offending info would be. Hope this helps. Localzuk^(talk) 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that you added an infobox to the article stating that he has a 3.25 inch penis. Do you believe this isn't negative material? What other information did you not verify before you added it? What is true, and what isn't? Frise 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have explained this on your talk page, please read it. You have now been told by myself and Tabercil, and the editors above that blanking is the incorrect course of action here.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical question: If I were to add the statement "Damon is referred to as "the clown prince of porn" for his comic sensibility and "The Hedgehog" because of his hairy body." to the article on Matt Damon, would that be a BLP violation? How is it any less of one because it's Ron Jeremy? If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to source. If it isn't able to be sourced, it shouldn't be in the article. That's not to say that each and every living person article should be stubbed, of course, but in this case there is too much bad mixed in with the good. The article should be stubbed and good information carefully added back with proper sources. Frise 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are slightly confused by the WP:BLP - the idea is to remove controversial material from such articles, not all unsourced statements - the majority of the information in that article is not controversial. If you think the article needs sources, add an 'unsourced' boiler plate to the article, don't blank it.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands is shit. Apologies for the language, but it's appalling. As it's a living person, all content should be vigorously sourced, particularly when what is there is risible. I've spammed every uncited 'fact' with a citation needed tag. Anything not cited within or day or two will be excised. Proto::► 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have to apologise for your language, you shouldn't use it... Seriously though, the issue Frise had was BLP which demands the removal of controversial unsourced information.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced information may be removed by any editor, especially negative information and doubly especially in biographies of living persons. If editors wish to put it back, they must verify it first. I cannot believe that people still do not grasp that we are writing an encyclopaedia, not Wikipedia, the collective repository of shit people think they know about stuff. I had to remove a report on admin intervention against vandalism about this, for ----'s sake. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So you say that blanking a page is better than going through and removing the problematic info?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is looking at the problem incorrectly. Blanking the page is better than doing nothing. Better still, would be to go through and remove the problematic information. The worst thing would be to do nothing. I would rather than we have a nearly blank article of information that we can verify, than a long article of unsourced and unprovable nonsense. I have said more on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All unsourced information is problematic. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Browsing through the history, I see that 155.33.145.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is our problem user for violating WP:BLP. Although everything was unsourced beforehand, he introduced a lot of BLP vandalism into the article that I later saw removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring bad information after it has been removed is no different than adding it in the first place. Frise 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not my point. There was no "bad" information in the article to begin with, just very little sourced information. Some anonymous user vandalized it, afterwhich you removed everything but "Ron Jeremy is a male adult film star." I also find it a little odd that you have only registered in the past 48 hours, and are well versed in WP:BLP's regulations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All unsourced information is bad. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the question there. The user, Frise, blanked a page that contains a large amount of information - about half (i'd guess) is sourced. Are you saying that it was right for him to wipe all of that information? All I have done is gone through and removed the BLP offending information - leaving the general unsourced stuff to be dealt with on the article by people who edit it regularly.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the last version blanked by Frise (oldid, before "blanking") was completely unsourced, apart from a single line about him appearing at the Oxford Union - which wouldn't have had much context if it was left in the stub. I did answer the question; you asked me if blanking a page is better than removing the problematic info, and the answer is that in a (to all intents and purposes) completely unsourced article, blanking is removing the problematic info. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see, I can see 3 sources there - one regarding the oxford talk, one to the Adult film db and one to the IMDB - which contains some information. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it also contains information which is simply not needing blanking because of those 3.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'm merrily beavering away in the background with Google trying increase the number of sources: from 3 to 11, and growing. Just the same, a lack of citations shouldn't be fatal to an article... look at Jimbo Wales's article - I count 7 "citation needed" links. As I type this, Ron Jeremy now stands at 9 cites needed. Tabercil 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And of those 7 citation needed links in the article about me, virtually all of them are citation needed because they are false, misleading, or POV. There are no citations for a reason... --Jimbo Wales 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Two general information sites added to the bottom of the article cannot count as sourcing. If they can be used as a source, then editors should have no problem spending five minutes adding inline citations to the relevant parts of the article before re-adding the information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few editors here that are missing the point here. Frise - you deleted everything in the article, regardless of whether it was sourced or not. How is this acceptable??-Localzuk^(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The stubbing of the article was way too dramatic. Frise should focus more on improving the article and discussing particular points of issue (if there really are any) rather than wiping the article down to nothing. The stubbing looks like a WP:POINT violation to me, given that Frise's account is so new and yet supposedly so well-versed in WP:BLP. Johntex\^talk 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fellas, this isn't the only article Frise has gone after while citing BLP. There's a pattern here that I don't like. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the motivation behind the editing, about which I am disinclined to speculate, I suggest that your reversion here was not a good edit, and would encourage you to revert yourself. Jkelly 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He should revert himself on this one as well.[128] People seem to be more concerned by my status rather than the relevant policy. That's too bad. Frise 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some/much of that content can come out, but you're also removing plenty of legitimate, easily sourced content on the grounds that it's unsavory, not that it's inaccurate or unsource-able. For example, I just added one citation to Jude Law to the section I restored. I couldn't care less how long you've been here; I care that you're deleting legitimate content. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative unsourced material is not legitimate content. If you are adding the material back with sources then you are doing exactly the right thing. Wholesale reversion of unsourced articles that speculate on penis size and general attractiveness is not. Frise 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up, both Jude Law and Mike Price are now restored, with proper citations for all content that Frise removed. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Frise 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only point I see is that some new accounts understand cornerstone policy better than some older ones. Deeply regrettable, but not in the way you think. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, that is a scary pattern. Some of the information he is removing is being done so correctly, but in other places it would have been very easy to get citations for the info (for example the Helen Wong article with its list of movies would likely have been available on the Adult film db site.) I wonder if Frise will own up to who they really are?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's easy to get citations, then editors should have no problem adding them, instead of simply reverting and making innuendos about the account's age. The burden of proof is on those adding or restoring information, not those removing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware stubbing of an article is only used in WP:OFFICE concerns; if it's just run-of-the-mill unsourceable statements, just remove them as appropriate, don't wipe out the whole article. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What shall we do if the whole article on a living person is unsourced statements? Frise 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Add {{verify}} to the top of the article, add {{citation needed}} to anything in the article that needs specific attention, and maybe look for sources yourself? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Cornerstone policy. Please read it, and stop suggesting that people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the obligatory "tag it and go away" arguments, maintenance tags are less of a sticking plaster, more someone sellotaping a piece of paper to the wound reading "This is bleeding, pls fix". Certainly not a solution. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimbo Wales, on the Mailing List linked from the BLP page. Frise 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Note the words "unless it can be sourced." So far, everything I've found that you've removed has been easy to source. I'm not sure why you won't make that effort. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's been easy to source, then what's the problem? Why are editors so up in arms if it's so easy for them to replace the material in accordance with Wikipedia policy? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for any other editor but myself. Why do I find Frise's actions problematic? One, he's removing accurate-but-unsourced content, rather than taking the time to source it himself. He's not removing inaccurate content, according to the sample at which I looked. Two, he's doing it quickly, meaning that lots of accurate content will be lost, because it's faster to run around deleting than it is to run around sourcing. Three, he's using a cleaver when he needs a paring knife, and has caught up a lot of innocuous info in his deletions (e.g., in the Jude Law deletion, he took out simple details like the fact that Law was married and divorced, has several children, was engaged to Sienna Miller, etc.). And finally, this still looks like WP:POINT to me - particularly the part about coming here to talk about his actions. Nothing speaks more loudly than a set of solid citations, IMO. That's the sound I'd prefer to hear. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If I hear the words "rather than taking the time to source it himself" or variants on the theme of 'people who find rubbish in the street are responsible for sweeping it up' one more time, I'm going to be the one running round with a cleaver, and it won't be metaphorical, it will be sharp. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. As far as WP:POINT goes, the worst Frise can be accused of is a breaching experiment on, well, how much we're willing to follow the cornerstone policy that makes us an encyclopaedia and not Popbitch. The answer is, apparently, not very. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with editors wanting to improve an article having to rummage through the page history to see if there are possibly unsourced bits that were removed earlier, that would in fact be easy to source. Many editors prefer to see articles gradually build up the way we are used to seeing the wiki-process work. Editor A adds this bit, Editor B adds this bit, Editor C adds a fair use image, Editor D adds sources for the bits that Editor A and B added, Editor E replaces the fair use image with a free image, and so on. This process is being short-circuited (for good reasons) for articles about living people where the material may be libellous or without sources. Obviously it would help if those removing unsourced material and those wanting to re-add the material, could work together to find sources. I once saw a suggestion for a voluntary code where everyone who removes a piece of unsourced material should try to counterbalance that with adding a source for another piece of material (not necessarily in the same area). That would ensure productiveness in the addition of sources, as well as productiveness in the removal of unsourced material. Carcharoth 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution to this perceived problem is quite simple: don't add unsourced information to articles in the first place. Adding the unsourced information is the problem, removing unsourced information is a solution. WP:V is very clear on these points: adding unsourced information is a violation of policy, removing it is not. Chondrite 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding unsourced information is not a violation of policy. People do this all the time throughout the encyclopedia. If they stopped, the encylopedia would cease to grow. What WP:V actually says is that editors should not (not must not) add unsourced material. WP:BLP is stricter and says that adding unsourced material to articles about living people is really bad and should be stomped on. Outside of article about living people, there is a long tradition of people coming along later and tidying up material and adding sources. That is what the {{fact}} tag is for. You also seem to fail to realise that I support both stances on this issue. Adding sources when adding new material is the ideal, but I also support the "let the sources accumulate later" model. Drawing the line is a matter of judgment. Merely undoing good-faith additions is not the best solution. Again, I would appeal to those removing unsourced material, and those adding unsourced material, to work together. Any individual from either side should balance any removal of any unsourced material with the provision of a source somewhere else. Build at the same time as pruning. Always, of course, excepting WP:BLP, which is a special case. Carcharoth 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The original issue that was raised was that WP:BLPN was crowded and larely unmonitored. I have, as per nobody objecting on the talk page, archived everything that was a month old (there were still listings from early October on there). I have also suggested, on the talk page, that we use tags similar to {{drt}} and {{drb}} to close issues that have been resolved. That way, the noticeboard will be of a manageable size and scope. Please consider (1) replying on the talk page if you like or do not like my suggested method for closing issues and (2) remanding this particular issue to WP:BLPN since it was setup for that purpose. Thank you. BigDT 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather disapprove of editors creating a new account purely to do things they think will be unpopular, so that the tar won't stick to their other account. Frise, knock it off. Pages should not be blanked when only certain parts of it are problematic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to removing warnings from his talk page [129] and deleting messages without archiving them, Frise is refusing to discuss the issue there, insisting that the discussion take place here (which seems to me to be more WP:POINT evidence - a two-person dialogue does not require an audience). Frise continues to mix in deletions of non-controversial content with deletions of controversial content (example), which seems to me to run counter to this part of BLP, the second graf here in Verifiability, and this part of the Verifiability policy as well: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page" (emphasis mine). Between those two policies, it seems clear to me that the proper course of action when one finds unsourced, non-controversial content is to tag it as unsourced to give other editors a chance to provide references (or, better, to source it oneself), or to remove it to the article's talk page for the same purpose, but not to delete it entirely. There's also the issue of Frise pointing to WP:BLP in his edit summaries, even when BLP itself doesn't justify the edit. Since Frise refuses to discuss the issue without an audience, I'm bringing it back here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would object to me removing those warnings from my talk page, considering that they were reviewed and dismissed by an uninvolved admin and even Jimbo stepped in to say that I had done the right thing. They were obviously without merit; What possible purpose would leaving them serve? The reason for insisting on having the conversation here is so that it is out in the open and everyone can weigh in and benefit from it. ANI has a much wider audience than my talk page, after all. Given that Jimbo agreed that stubbing the article was the right thing to do, it would seem that there are quite a few people here that could stand to benefit from this discussion. Since you also disagreed, I would respectfully suggest you stop for a moment and carefully re-evaluate your understanding of the verifiability and BLP policies. We might have to agree to disagree, which probably happens hundreds of times a day on Wikipedia and not worth getting upset over. Quality, not quantity. Verifiability, not truth. If we are going to represent a living person's number one result in a Google search, then they deserve the strictest interpretation of our core policies and an article that is rock-solid.Frise 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo did not state that stubbing the articles was the 'right thing to do'. He said that a stub was preferable to leaving an article on a living person with unsourced information, especially if that information was negative. However, he outlined several preferable things to do over stubbing it.

You seem unwilling to help actually improve these articles. You are unwilling to discuss your actions on your talk page, which is generally an unacceptable practice.

You have also ignored, and thus I will repeat, my criticism of your actions in creating a single-purpose alternate account to do this. You clearly know that your behaviour will draw fire and are hiding behind the cloak of an alternate username to do it. This is not QUITE in breach of our current sockpuppet policy, as I understand it, but it IS skating on thin ice and is IMO not a responsible way to behave. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism is respectfully noted. I intend to adhere to policy, so you need not worry. As far as improving the articles, pruning of unsourced information is an improvement. Removing is better than nothing, and it's still safely in the page history so it can be restored with sources later. Your allegation that I am unwilling to discuss my actions on my talk page is a bit misleading. There is already a lengthy discussion taking place here. Splitting the same issue across two different pages wouldn't make much sense. If you feel it's more appropriate that the discussion actually take place on my talk page, just say the word and I'll copy the whole mess over there. However, I feel that the discussion itself is far more important than where it actually takes place. Frise 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would not be opposed to an RFC if anyone thinks that would be a better venue. The underlying issues are serious enough. Entirely up to you guys, though. Frise 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict - response after Morven)I have to say that your comments mirror my own thoughts exactly. The idea of the site is to create an encyclopedia - removing unsourced information is A Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. My grief is that the methods of doing so are confrontational and dismissive of the work of those who have added sourced information to articles. The way to improve the site is not to delete content, it is to add sources and remove false information. If we went through the entire site and simply deleted all information that was unsourced the site would shrink hugely - and upset a large number of editors whose work was deleted in the crossfire. Instead, what most editors do is see unsourced tags and go off and find sources (at least that is what I do). If the unsourced information is unverified after having done a bit or looking for sources, yes, you should move it to the talk page - deleting it outright just because you think it is nonsense just means that you don't have a source - but someone else might.

With regards to the BLP - I 100% agree that all contentious information should be removed if it is unsourced. There is no argument here.

I disagree with your (Frise) and Jimbo's blanking of the Ron Jeremy article still - as it is using a slegdehammmer to crack a nut (leaving a single line is not a stub, it is a blanked article). Both Frise and Jimbo saw that there were a collection of willing editors trying to improve the article so should have let nature take it's course for the references and should have simply deleted the contentious and stupid material in the article, and moved anything they saw as unsourced to the talk page (as there were sources there for some of it).

Finally, Sam Blanning said that 'Two general information sites added to the bottom of the article cannot count as sourcing' which is incorrect. Not all sources have to be inline.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SOCK this is an entirely legitimate use of multiple accounts. -- Chondrite 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably in breach of 'Avoiding scrutiny from other editors' in the 'Forbidden' section of WP:SOCK. Additionally, creating a second account for disruptive purposes is frowned upon by '"Good hand, bad hand" accounts' in the same section.

It's certainly uncool, whether within the letter of policy or not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you take note of the Legitimate Uses area, specifically "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area" and "Keeping heated issues in one small area." Frise 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The first seems to apply only to admitted second accounts, not to unadmitted socks. As to the second - it's arguable. What makes it arguable is that you are not doing it in regard to subject matter, but in regard to actions that will be unpopular. The arbitration committee has frowned on such use of sockpuppets in the past. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the relevant talk pages, it has not been established that user:Frise is a single-purpose secondary account of an established user. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this assumption is true, Frise has pointed out two (of several) uses that are explictly sanctioned by policy and that would be appropriate in this situation. Use of a secondary account in these explicitly sanctioned ways is hardly violates the spirit of the policy. The policy doesn't say anything about "admitted socks." User Frise has definitely left an audit trail in regard to this matter and does not appear to have made any attempt to avoid scrutiny. Quite the opoosite, as a matter of fact, Frise has invited scrutiny by first bringing this matter to AN/I [130] and by suggesting RFC. I respectfully suggest that this line of discussion does not address the substance of the issues. Chondrite 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But are the actions unpopular just because they are performed by a new user? I feel too many people are focusing on the editor rather than the edits. Tell me, honestly: If I had stubbed an unsourced and controversial article as an established editor, would I still be facing the same reaction? All I can do is assure you that my actions are honorable and that I'm acting in good faith. I have refrained from making many BLP edits until some resolution is achieved as a sign of that good faith. Frise 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, your actions are unpopular because you acted in an overly dramatic way to stub the articles. Your being a newly created account raises additional questions, but they are not central. The central point is that your actions were too extreme for the circumstances. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are speaking of the Ron Jeremy article specifically, I'm having a hard time reconciling your statement that my actions were too extreme with the fact that Jimbo said my actions, while not ideal, were at least acceptable. Frise 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How to differentiate real stubs and cut-down stubs

One of the problems here is that this action of pruning to a stub (which is quite proper for articles on living people where there are problems) fails to differentiate between articles that are a stub and always have been a stub, and those stubs that are the remnants left behind after pruning (what I call a pruned or cut-down stub). Ideally, anyone expanding a stub will first check the page history to find out whether the stub is a genuine stub (usually shown by a stub template) or whether it is a stub that has been cut-down from an earlier version. Often though, a cut-down stub gets expanded from scratch, and previous effort is wasted. It is sometimes more efficient to build on previous material, adding sources, rather than building up again from scratch. Sometimes, of course, it is more efficient to build up again from scratch. It depends on the article. I have a proposal that I hope will avoid well-intentioned editors coming along later and rebuilding from scratch and duplicating previous work (they might, for instance, add a stub template, re-inforcing the impression that a stub was all that ever existed). My proposal is to have a template that people can use if they are pruning down to a stub, and this puts a stub-like template at the bottom of the article that explains what has happened, places the article in a category of articles that have been 'pruned', and either gives the date(s) when the pruning(s) took place, or a link to the version just after pruning (those that know how can then skip back a version to review the material and decide whether any material is worth is rescuing). This is what I would call thoughtful and constructive pruning, leaving the path open for rebuilding and regrowth, as opposed to lazy, quick, 'blunt hacking' type of pruning that is destructive and sometimes tramples roughshod over previous work (some of which was added in good faith and is perfectly OK).

What do people think of this idea? I'm not that good at creating and implementing such templates. Can anyone create or find such a 'pruning' template? Carcharoth 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what the talk page and the edit summary are for, no need to comment about our editing process on the article page. Kusma (討論) 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the point of {{stub}} and its numerous variants in Category:Stubs? They all speak to the editor, not the reader. What I am proposing is merely another type of stub template, but a template to label pruned stubs, instead of labelling fresh stubs created from scratch. Do you see the difference? A normal stub template says:

• "this is a stub - expand me".

A 'pruned stub' template would say

• "this is a stub - I got cut down to size from a larger version - expand me - consider rescuing material from previous versions of this article, but don't repeat the mistakes people made before".

Both templates talk about the editing process, appealing to the editors, not the readers. Is that any clearer now? Carcharoth 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be drawing attention to bad versions in the history from article space. Kusma (討論) 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that direct mentioning of this would be a bad thing. That is why indirect and vague language can be used. Just to tip off editors that there is a bit of history to this article. If you've ever gone through the history of an article (and I really hope that experienced editors don't ignore article history), you will know that it is sometimes possible to find material that it is quite easy to re-add to the article and provide sources for.

Another thing. What I am writing here is an attempt to be constructive. It is annoying when someone responds by picking out the negative stuff without acknowledging whether there are any valid points. There is a genuine concern that excessive and aggressive pruning of articles loses genuine and valid content, and what I am proposing is an attempt to acknowledge and address this problem. It would be very easy to prune Wikipedia down to a few hundred thousand articles if the "remove unsourced material" concept was taken to its logical conclusion (and again, in case anyone missed it, I know that WP:BLP is an exception where unsourced material should be aggressively removed). Carcharoth 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, if material has been pruned from an article, we shouldn't want it simply being added in again. If it can't be sourced, it should be gone for good. If it can be sourced, it would be better that editors add the material while referring to reliable sources. In fact, I would favor a warning not to use material from the history, but to be sure to use only material from reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

It doesn't look to me like there's any more progress to be made here. Jimbo has already weighed in on the Ron Jeremy article, so I would suggest that if someone wants to take a deeper look at the underlying issues they should start an RFC or some other procedure where consensus can be guaged. Frise 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where would be the best place to take the newly-created stub versus pruned stub section I started above? Carcharoth 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the village pump WP:VP. Eluchil404 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request pending review

I don't know who is watching Requests for Unblock, nor what the usual response time on that board is, but there is a block that should be reviewed pending at User talk:ThuranX. The blocking administrator, User:Philwelch (redlink is correct), is aware of the unblock request and has posted his views on the userpage, so the block is ready to be reviewed. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• There's discussion on the talk page, and it's clear that ThuranX's edit summaries are deceptive, and that his use of the deletion debate is incorrect. I'd feel better if somebody else had blocked, but I see no reason to overturn. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'll admit I'm surprised by that analysis. It appears to me that Philwelch, in his capacity as an editor, blanked an entire article after talkpage discussion that elicited mixed views and turned it into a redirect. ThuranX disagreed with that action and reverted with an edit summary "rv vandalism." That was less than helpful but I can't see it as warranting a 24-hour block, particularly by the administrator who was engaged in an ongoing content dispute with the editor. Granted the user has some rough edges and some history. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure someone looked at it. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From the talk page there seemed to be agreement that a merge was a good idea, and that it wasn't just Philwelch in favour of the idea. I'm not one to count heads, but 3-1 with the 1 maintaining that the AfD result was a binding reason to do nothing...granted, Philwelch certainly shouldn't have made the block. We need another opinion here. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • II am second that Philwelch shouldn't have made the block. Thuran was incivil and was already warned for incivility, but Philwelch should not have blocked him. IMHO blocking for rvv in summary is warranted after a few specific warnings and there was non. If nobody objected I would give Thuran a stern warnings and unblock him. Also a warning for Phil is IMHO warranted as well Alex Bakharev 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked and asked him, ThuranX, to engage on the talk page (you're right, Brad, that was somewhat out-of-character for me). Whether Phil needs to be engaged further on this matter remains an open question, and perhaps one best pursued by ThuronX himself. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch has abused the blocking policy in the past. [131] [132] [133] Dionyseus 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears I have a stalker. Whatever the Wikipedia equivalent of a retraining order is, I want one placed on this clown. Philwelch 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you don't have a stalker, and you shouldn't call anyone a clown like that. You have drawn the attention of someone who didn't like what you did in the past, and who quite rightly alerts the community when you do similar things again later. If there is a pattern of inappropriate behaviour on your part, then the problem may be with you, and not those drawing attention to this pattern. Carcharoth 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I have two stalkers. Can you guys please let go of your pathetic little vendetta? Philwelch 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By your definition of stalking you have a lot more than two stalkers. Count up the number of people that have questioned your actions. In the interests of preserving the peace, I'll stop there, but I will plead with you to step back and look calmly at what people are saying about you. Carcharoth 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: User says he's still autoblocked. Someone take a look, please? Newyorkbrad 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have looked, and I can't find anything that says he is blocked still. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and although I know ThuranX dislikes me (He tends to accuse me of conspiracy against him), I do also want to voice my disappointment with the editor's blocking him. Find another editor and ask for them to review the situation. This was inappropriate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to all the Admins and Users who helped me get unblocked, esp. those involved with the odd lingering autoblock, including NYBrad, ChrisGriswold(yes, really!), and Sarah Ewart. ThuranX 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I've never been involved with you, but Dionysis is right. Your block and page protection for John Reid was probably the most inappropriate admin action I've ever seen, and your response above only worries me even more. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus I've heard on Reid is that it was "the right block but the wrong admin". In any case, Reid's disruption and petty incivility has come to an end, and I can only see that as good for the project. Philwelch 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't edited for 3 weeks, if that's what you mean. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request block for editor who repeatedly inserts attacks

Derik101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in a pattern of attackish and, in some cases, particularly vicious insertions into articles. He has been blocked once for 48 hours for PA and vandalism. His insertions include something he's just done for the second time:

• X has a grandson named Y who is very promiscuous and is a flaming homosexual. He tends to have several lovers at one time, which has led to him contracting Herpes.

And this less recent, but repeated and more vicious attack:

• A, B's son is a gigantic, bleeding vagina who joined PETA and is a vegetarian. He brings pain upon himself because he is stupid. So don't feel bad for him. He is also an asshole. Some describe B as a cancerous tumer on society.

I'd suggest a week, and next time indefinite. This guy's contributions are mostly vandalism and stuff like above.--Kchase T 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (not by me). You can report cases like these to WP:AIV for a faster response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite. I've also blanked the names as posted here, as there's no reason to spread this stuff further, and suggest deleting the edits. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Next time I won't post names when re-posting the attacks. I've got about 55 hours before I get the bit, so somebody else will have to do the legwork of deleting the edits from the articles.--Kchase T 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, don't go counting your chickens ... you're only at 45/0/1 at the moment. :) Newyorkbrad 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone please delete these edits from the article histories. Newyorkbrad 04:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've nuked both articles and restored what I could. If someone could make sure I've gotten it all, that would be lovely. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619

I just blocked User:DaffyDuck619 for a 3RR violation at Films considered the greatest ever. This is Daffy's 117th block since June. As such, I made the block indefinite because I see little evidence that Daffy is trying to play by the rules. As I have had my own problems with this user in the past, I'd like other admin to review the block. I'd also like to hear opinions as to how long this user should remain blocked. BTW, I also blocked User:CovenantD for 24 hours as part of this incident. -- Samuel Wantman 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Daffy has responded to the block with a legal threat. -- Samuel Wantman 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, I think, but an indef block was definitely the right move, given the legal threat. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As he continues his incivility and legal threats on his Talk page, I have protected it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Without trying to sound pedantic, he has 7 - excluding unblocks and reblocks. I only looked it up because I blocked him a while ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. How many is too many? -- Samuel Wantman 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. I wouldn't necessarily say 7=indef block, but the temper tantrum afterwards (and the message right before it by Luna) just show this user to be unable to handle himself properly on here. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He also accuses another editor of wanting to have sex with him. Frankly the guy is a waste of space - people like that never turn around into productive editors. --Charlesknight 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, waste of our time, move along. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying and pasting Sam Blanning's comment. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse as well; I'm having difficulty finding any redeeming contributions amongst the mass of nonsensical edits (some bordering on vandalism), personal attacks and general incivility. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article

There are penises on Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India. Cannot work out how to delete them. They seem to be floating above the text. Could someone with more technical experience take a look? -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that image was used in {{Politics of India}}. User:HappyCamper got there to revert it about 10 seconds before me [134] ;) BigDT 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas about the painting of female genitals now super-imposed over the article?-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That was from {{Rights}}. That too is gone ... though someone should face being eaten by a clown for protecting it without reverting it. [135] ;)

And it looks like there was another one in {{fnb}} that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me got. FYI, to patrol for search things, take a look at [136] ... this is Special:Recentchanges set on the template namespace. You can easily look for redlinked users and find them. BigDT 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Two additional templates were affected by this, and all have been vandalized using deceptively phrased edit summaries and creative use of includeonly code, just as they were last week. The entire lot has been semi-protected for the time being, please feel free to adjust as necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The day's featured article should be move-protected as well, as there has also been pagemove vandalism on a couple of the recent FA's, and there is no valid reason why anyone would move them. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't been familiar, this is the same vandal that's been hitting over and over again for weeks now. He's been hitting high-use templates, requiring us to protect them all. He often uses deceptive edit summaries, and sometimes logs in to do it. I heavily suggest, that from now on, before any article is put on the FA list, that we semi-protect any templates that are transcluded onto it, including templates that are transcluded onto the templates, and so on and so forth. This has been going on for weeks, and it needs to stop. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, this is incredibly damaging. riana_dzasta 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well d'oh... of course.... *nods* in Patstuart's direction, well spotted there. (→Netscott) 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here, and we need to have the IP access folks o thecase. Fast. It's the only solution, I shudder at thinking what would happen if they hit e.g. {{Infobox Cricketer}}, {{Infobox Politician}}, {{Methodism}}, {{Politics of Canada}}... Circeus 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are those typos red-links a cunning double-WP:BEANS bluff to send the vandal astray? :-) Seriously, don't give them ideas. Though if this is the same vandal that managed to vandalise the "#R" button in the editing toolbar, that's actually quite inventive. Carcharoth 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The vandal doesn't seem to look at this page. If he did, he would already have stopped using redlinked accounts... Circeus 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, even better than having to track down all of these templates to semi-protect would be if we had non-vandalized versions. Now that would be nice. --Cyde Weys 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think, with the dozen or so attempts at vandalizing the article within an hour of it going live, that they are specifically out to force us to protect it. Circeus 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Technical question: Is it possible to protect an article from the addition of images without changing the editability of the text? If not, is this a feature that should be requested of the developers? Newyorkbrad 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how that'd be possible. Adding an image really is just adding something to the source. I suppose you could hash out a list of images in the article, and disallow new edits to the wiki source if it changes the list of images at all ... but really, that'd be very ugly, and probably not worth dev time. Also, you'd still have to somehow deal with template vandalism. The real solution is just to finish up those non-vandalized version flags that the devs have been working on for awhile now. --Cyde Weys 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a question for any recent change patrollers who browse special:recentchanges: do you watch article-only changes, or do you include all namespaces? Vandalism to articles is regularly reverted within seconds, but I've seen vandalism to talk pages and wikipedia talk pages that sits for several minutes, as if there is a significantly smaller amount of people watching those spaces. By extension, it means a significantly smaller amount of people then the normal amount of rc patrollers see edits to templates at all. This might be the explanation as to how template vandalism can sit for a while. (Or my theory could be completely off base. That's possible too.) Picaroon9288 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd take issue with the statement "Vandalism to articles is regularly reverted within seconds". I'm reverting vandalism that is hours or days old in several articles every day, and ocassionally deal with vandalism that has been sitting around for weeks or months. I often see vandalism being reverted that misses the two or three other vandal edits that preceeded it. The bots can't help it, but live editors need to be more careful about looking at the recent history. I'm apparantly the only editor that reverts vandalism on many of the articles on my watch list, and I shudder to think of all those articles that are not on anyone's watch list. In other words, it is my opinion that we are not doing well in the fight against vandalism, be it in article space or elsewhere. -- Donald Albury 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And there are also human mistakes as well. It took me ages to work out what was wrong with this version of Carol Ann Duffy, but I eventually realised that two or three closing </ref> tags were missing, and corrected matters with this edit. The article history shows it had been in that state for a week, since 20:52 on 6 December 2006, and that two registered editors had edited in that time, one to revert vandalism, but they had failed to pick up on the formatting errors made on 6 December. Carcharoth 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I do it too. I see a problem in an article, or something I want to correct or add, and I edit without thoroughly examing the article. I tend to focus on thing at a time, and not see other problems. That's why having more than one set of eyes watching an article is important. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough of us to go around for all aricles. -- Donald Albury 12:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The return of User:Panairjdde/User:Kwame Nkrumah etc.

User:Panairjdde, and editor who was banned for aggressive editing, reverting, and sockpuppeting, eventually returned as User:Panarjedde, under the understanding that he would stop sockpuppeting and editing in the same aggressive way as previously. Since then his User:Panarjedde account has received several blocks, and he has created a number of other sockpuppets, including User:BaldClarke, User:BlaiseMuhaddib, User:BlueDome and user User:RedMC, some of which have also been blocked for 3RR, and all of which exhibit the same editing patterns (aggressive editing and reverting, removal of "AD" from articles, etc.) For more detail regarding this editor, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde.

As the new accounts have been editing in the exact same way as the previous problematic (and indefinitely blocked) accounts, I suggested on the Arbitration Committee list that these accounts should be indefinitely blocked as well; Essjay and Jimbo have supported this suggestion, and no ArbCom members have objected. I have therefore gone ahead and tagged and blocked the accounts, and brought this incident here for further discussion, if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that we allowed the user to continue editing at Wikipedia after his constant use of sockpuppets :). I think it's clear that he should be blocked on sight. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has had plenty of opportunity to stop being disruptive. Ban. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Support, the style was definitely familiar. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell couldn't have said that any better on your page, Jayjg. Thank you for taking the time to investigate this fully. My only concern is that this person will likely create new pseudonyms and will try to edit WP once again. Have you considered blocking subnet ips? --Palffy 10:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. He edits from a large IP range, and I don't know all the history, but I think that previous attempts to block IP ranges didn't work very well. Still, might be worth a try. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One question about the tagging, is it confirmed by checkuser or edit pattern? Because they require tagging of different templates per WP:SOCK --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by CheckUser. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Oden's threats

Hello all,

In the past few days, this guy made some highly incivil edits. The first one was on User_talk:Khoikhoi, where he apparently has the pretention to teach an admin how to do his job. [137]

Here are some "nice" stuff from the diff. "Your failure to participate in that thread is, in my opinion, further indicative of a disregard of Wikipedia's guidelines on etiquette.", "I fail to see how you can serve any real use on Wikipedia." and above all, "the next RfC you will be reading might not be someone elses', but your own". The user apparently fails to grasp the principles of wikipedia, and threatening someone with an RfC borderlines on trolling.

The second "nice" edit was on my own talk, where the user basically threatens to "review my contributions", that is to say, to stalk someone else's past edits because he fancies to. I find such an attitude highly disturbing.

He got an informal warning from Inshaneee and Alex Bakharev on his talk, but I think a further reflection on the matter and a potential enforcement might be necessary on the present page. I hope it will get some more attention than the previous one, too. Thanks for your attention, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is being handled well enough by Khoikhoi and the others, no need to add more energy to a dispute. Mangojuice^talk 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking complaint

User 71.139.38.76 continues to Wikistalk (I reported this before and he was warned on Dec 9). Latest examples: Anti-Americanism blanked out non-controversial summary of a major scholarly article. (calling it POV); Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. blanking section on Kennedy connection with McCarthy for maybe 35th time; Timeline of United States diplomatic history as of Revision as of 00:00, 9 December 2006 removed many substantive edits I made under the fake subject heading "typo." The stalking is seen in numerous edits just after I finished mine on topics from Megan Marshak to Know Nothing to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Republicanism in the United States in the last three days. Add United States presidential election, 1968 He's checks what I edit then blanks or reverts--stalking-- and he's a nuisance to Wiki. Rjensen 10:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at some of the IP contribs and i am afraid to note that it is more a content dispute than a wikistalking. Try to discuss the issues at the talk pages or at his talk page and see where it would lead. Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Grapheus is back

See 80.90.37.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Long-term troll with a penchant for privacy violations. See [138], [139] for background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(range) blocked. —Ruud 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Block evading socks

User:Nintendude is creating sockpuppets for vandalism again. User:MKoltnow tagged them (I've mostly stopped tagging his socks because I think he enjoys the attention... or he's just not a very creative vandal). Is it possible to block his IP from user creation and editing (he's mostly on a static cable from what I can see). At what point would that be warrented?--Isotope23 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a real pain. I would say it's time to ask for an underlying IP block, as he seems to be doign this as much just for the WP:DENY effect as anything. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where would I go about asking for that? I've got pretty good evidence of his underlying IP... I agree this is a WP:DENY issue, which is why I stopped tagging his socks.--Isotope23 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User posting obscenities on his talk page

I'm not quite sure what the policy is, and I hesitate to use the term "vandalism" for postings that a user does to the user's own talk page, but recent postings [140] [141] [142] by User:William E. Johnson to User talk:William E. Johnson seem to show a certain, um, disregard for wikipedia conventions, and for the opinions of other editors, whose comments he deleted. Guidance and/or administrator intervention would be appreciated. John Broughton | Talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would recommend an immediate protection of the page and block for personal attacks. – Chacor 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick trawl through his contribution history leads me to believe that the recent edits are very out of character... is there a chance someone's had their account hacked somehow? --Dweller 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. I indefblocked it for the moment, but didn't protect the page. Syrthiss 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To give some credence to the "hacked" theory, he posted again to "his" talk page, with an edit summary (I've omitted the leading sentence, containing graphical language) of: NOBODY STOPS JOHNNY THE VANDAL. I suggest blocking the account from editing the talk page as well. John Broughton | Talk 18:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some form of very subtle vandalism which I can't figure out - URGENT

If you go to the edit window there is an innappropriate image in the spot which normally clicking on results in the formation of redirects. JoshuaZ 16:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not seeing it on mine. Syrthiss 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. You are talking about the "#R" button? Looks fine to me. Firefox/Windows. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not seeing it (Safari/Mac). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a monobook.js, so it's not from there. yandman 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely fine on Firefox/Mac. – Chacor 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is undoubtably the penis vandal again who must have been quickly reverted. We need to nip this in the bud. This entire noticeboard is full of notes on this guy. Let's find out the IP range this guy is going through and give it a 1 month hard block. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And perhaps contact his ISP as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is still showing on mine- shouldn't that sort of thing be the sort of thing that only sysops can edit? Anyways, if it matters at all I'm using Firefox on a PC with the MonoBook (default) skin. No monobook.js. The image appears to be a small closeup of of female human bending over. JoshuaZ 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be that the change was reverted but is still in your cache. Try pressing Control-F5 to see if it goes away. --ais523 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem w/ Windows/Firefox/monobook default skin. Have you tried to post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Also, could someone who is on the IRC channels maybe post it over there? Clearing the cache didn't help matters. JoshuaZ 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone post a link to the actual image that was vandalized? Where do those icons above the edit box come from anyway? --Cyde Weys 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, although I don't know where, that the images used for those buttons are available as images. In that case, it might be a simple case of a vandal making changes to those images. Protecting and reverting those images would solve the problem. On the other hand, I don't see any problem - I see the WP interface as usual. Nihiltres 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A screen grab would be useful too. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've uploaded a screen capture Image:Screenshotwithredirectvandalism.JPG. JoshuaZ 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe MediaWiki:Common.js is where the code for the buttons exists. If so, the redirect button uses http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png as the image. However, I don't know how one translates a direct link to the image into the Image:* page name syntax to check the history & ensure that it's protected. -- JLaTondre 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, when I look at the above link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png I see the vandalism image in question. JoshuaZ 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, using other browsers(such as IE) shows the correct image when I go that page. I'm going try restarting firefox and seeing if that helps. JoshuaZ 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Someone on Talk:Jimmy Wales was complaining about a penis at the bottom of the page, but I could not see it, and there were no edits to either the talk or the article between the complaint and my view. Using IE6 and IE7. The link above displays the proper #R graphic.Crockspot 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restarted firefox and cleared the cache again and its still showing the vandal image in both the redirect and on the .png page. JoshuaZ 22:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I turned java and javascript off and then cleared the cache and that seems to have dealt with it. Why I needed to do both though isn't at all obvious to me. JoshuaZ 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So ... have we figured out how this happened yet? I'm very curious. I don't see how it could be a JavaScript attack ... only admin users can edit JavaScript. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we even sure it was vandalism? I get wrong images served from Wikipedia every once in a while, so perhaps this was random bad luck. Kusma (討論) 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it may be some image uploading nonsense, similar to when Willy on Wheels overwrote the portalpage logo on Commons. Is the icon hosted on the wiki? Is the software designed to use a specific imagename on the wiki if it exists and if not defaults to the built-in one? 68.39.174.238 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The image has not been overwritten/vandalized here (as it is protected) nor at commons. --Splarka (rant) 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image upload frenzy

User:Animeguy99 has been busy uploading music related "google image search" type images for a couple of days, with a big push in the past hour. I've warned him to stop but don't have loads of image patrol / policy experience, what to do? Deizio talk 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of those appear to be valid promotional images. I'm not sure about the rest. He needs to be told to use the appropriate image tag. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are images with no tags at all, not even Missing Copyright tags. As he's been told to use the correct tags and has been warned several times, it looks like he'll need a break from Wikipedia for a couple of days. Sorting out image tags is a bugger frankly but I'll try and run through all the images he has uploaded and tag them as best I can. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. But please, remember that not all publicity images are acceptable on Wikipedia. Per WP:FUC item #1, we only use unfree images when it's not possible to create a free one. Note that, in cases where no free replacement is known to exists, but could be created, we stick to using no image at all instead of using a replaceable unfree image. This pretty much rules out images of active music performers. Yes, this is the most abused criterion on WP:FUC, but it's still policy, and has be supported by Jimbo himself. --Abu Badali 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to save something like 4 photos, one album cover, one logo and two group photos where there is no chance at all of Free Use image being created. The remaining images are all copyright violations and I've tagged them for speedy deletion as such, they're not even lifted from the artists websites, just random webpages, mainly music magazine sites - some were even lifted from Photobucket. What was more annoying was the fact most of the images were actually unused. There's one image that is missing a source altogether so if an admin wants to delete that too, that would be much appreciated. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all what you tagged that was not used in articles. `'mikkanarxi 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User is indefblocked by me at the moment. Anyone can feel free to lift this block without talking to me if you can get the user to understand the licensing issues. Syrthiss 18:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a few more of his images this morning when they were discovered to be copyvios. Syrthiss 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User has apologized and asserted he will now comply with image policy. I'm happy to take this in good faith and unblock per instructions given by Syrthiss and Mikkalai. Deizio talk 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

There's some serious vandalism and edit warring going on over at WP:N, if an admin could go take a look and see what they think, please. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism or edit warring. One user appears not to know how to edit without making dozens of revisions an hour, but that's not edit warring or vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw something else into the mix here that may be relevant...I've seen calls before in other discussions, incuding Jimbo's talk page, for a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to be done on Amoruso and Mantanmoreland. Has one been done, and if so, what were the results? Cla68 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the place to discuss Cla68's wikistalking and disruptive trolling at this other AN/I here[143], where he engaged in identical, simultaneous trolling.--Mantanmoreland 03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by anon user at User:131.137.245.200

I would be grateful for an experienced admin or two taking a moment to look at this user's stance on Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, please. It appears to be bordering on legal threats, possibly past the line.

Additionally User talk:131.137.245.200 shows suspected sock puppetry in the past. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps we ask user to confirm it's not a legal threat? And to avoid same action in future? Rich Farmbrough, 20:06 12 December 2006 (GMT).

Interestingly the user has now migrated to editing this article from another suspected sock puppetry IP address - see User talk:131.137.245.199. There is now a statement from the new IP address that it is not a legal threat. I think we seem to have moved beyond that into some sort of agenda based sock puppetry. Whatever the realities of it I do perceive the editor's behavour as intimidating and unhelpful. Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact this user is now in process of switching throughout the IP address range. A "whois" is educational, and may explain the "brooks no nonsense, takes no prisoners" attitude, but a recent edit summary at Royal Canadian Sea Cadets is somewhat presumptive despite being asked to change the attitude Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This may well be dynamic. I suggest WP:AGF as best as possible, and come back here if there are insurmountable problems? Rich Farmbrough, 20:31 12 December 2006 (GMT).

I always assume good faith, even when the going gets really sticky :). I have been watching this with some concern, especially since the article edit history is now containing the words "responsible authority". Of course the problems are not insurmountable, and of course this editor has the right to edit unless proven otherwise. I was looking at "dymanic IP", and of course it is likely to be. But it held steady for a long time and now has started flitting about. To be fair my neck hair was raised by the "possible sock puppet" warning on a couple of the talk pages, plus a somewhat intractable attitude displayed, hence my initial request for an experienced eye. I'd appreciate it if that eye stayed looking for a while, please. I don't have any particular interest in the article. My edits to it have only been cosmetic Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PocKleanBot

This bot is doing massive spamming of User Talk pages. I have asked User:PocklingtonDan to turn it off until it gets opt-in permission from users to have it spam their pages. If it doesn't get turned off soon, I'm going to block it. See PocKleanBot (talk · contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot appears to have been withdrawn by the author as of 20:29 today. Deizio talk 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that this bot was never approved. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It also appears it's on a tear again the last ten minutes: Special:Contributions/PocKleanBot. -- Fan-1967 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the bot for 3 hours and notified its owner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's totally unacceptable. He used a bot to spam user talk pages, and at that without permission. The bot should have been indef blocked, and possibly PocklingtonDan blocked for 24 hours. Patstuart^talk|edits 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the ArbCom in the business of creating policy?

This is frightening. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not to me. That's a workshop edit by one non-arbitrator. I'd be surprised if it was taken up. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern would be not that they will explicitly state that, but that they are desysoping Mongo on that basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What Tom said. Speaking as the non-arbitrator in question, it seems to me to be necessarily implied by the Arb Comm decision as it currently stands. I would like the Arb Comm to take it up, at least to explain the scope of the rule they've identified, but I'll leave it up to them. TheronJ 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth reading the judgment as currently written, though some remedies are under review. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue they are objecting to is the last item under Section 3.2.6. In that instance MONGO unprotected a page which he had not been editing at all recently (if ever). It had previously been protected three days prior by Seabhcan, but subsequently unprotected and reprotected by two other admins. This might thus be called a 'wheel war' and the ArbCom is apparently assuming MONGO's action was motivated by his ongoing conflict with Seabhcan elsewhere... but it could also have been a good faith unprotection on the assumption that the dispute was resolved. --CBD 12:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What it comes down to is arbcom can desysop anyone if they think it is appropriate. If that's how the community/Jimbo wants it to work, fine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

U-Pack Moving

U-Pack Moving: The article probably needs to be deleted and protected, look at the history, there's some sort of funny business going on. Thanks. -THB 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (Looks like it should be a protected redirect to prevent commercial spamming). -THB 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the to my watch list and talk to contributors. `'mikkanarxi 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -THB 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sock tagging of ips

is tagging ips by sockpuppet tags really acceptable? I observed the following recent tags: User:82.60.190.93, User_talk:82.60.190.93. At least it may lead to impractical results: an ip may next time be someone else's ip, and however there is a ready tag, then totally misleadingly labeling another editor as someone's sock. Then, I am not aware how that sock accusation is based: where are the grounds actually to make such tag - are taggers not at all required to document grounds for their accusations; both regarding the actual identification, and also regarding the reasons why the sock allegedly is an abuse case. Then, a small side concern: sockpuppet tagging is a way to make personal insult to someone, and rather lomg-term one, perhaps permanent in record here, so: is the tagging not qualified in any way?. Should sockp tagging be assessed as any other personal attack, and if not, why. Well, and finally, admin intervention is needed if those now tagged pages are to be deleted, or otherwise refactored to erase attacks and insults etc. Knowing that the editor who made the tagging, is not willing to listen to reason in many cases, some admin sanctions would be needed if that person is desired to get to listen. ObRoy 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect Maryville High School (Missouri)

• Can I get a semi-protect on Maryville High School (Missouri)? There is an persistent vandal there. Look closely at the IP edits because they are using deceptive comment summaries.--Isotope23 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Best place to report protection requests would be to WP:RFPP in future. --Majorly 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Yamla 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I knew there was a page for this... just coudn't find it.--Isotope23 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable question for ArbCom candidate

There have been a series of disputes over the past couple of weeks regarding whether a disputed question should remain on an ArbCom candidate's question page or be deleted. My suggestion is that in future elections there be a designated Election Official who could resolve these disputes. In the interim, I suppose this noticeboard is as good a place as any to elicit consensus on whether this question from User:Tsunami Butler should remain on a candidate page or be deleted. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors are completely entitled to ask whatever questions they want. Candidates are also entitled to not answer questions they deem to be trolling. Indeed, I could see a candidate choosing to answer that question as arguably a negative. JoshuaZ 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...not to say that it is a very interesting question even from the point of view of its logic, being doubly loaded. A possible answer would gove an interesting insight in candidate's way of thinking. That leaves me wondering: is Tsunami Butler a shrink?  :-) `'mikkanarxi 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that question. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's probably something wrong with it somewhere along the lines, but there's no reason for it to be removed. If he asked a question that contained a personal attack or broke some other policy, ok, remove it, but there's nothing wrong with permitting this one to be asked. BigDT 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that question Consider the source: the user's contributions shows his/her single-minded interest in Lyndon Larouche, part of an seemingly endless series of single-purpose editors that those articles attract. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was on the other end of this ... hell no, questions shouldn't be removed. The very thought that the elections can be impacted by removing questions by someone acting in defense of said candidate is ludicrous. We definitely need impartial election officials for all such elections in the future to deal with issues such as these. Since it is too late for these elections, I say we take a very conservative approach and only remove questions that are clearly beyond the pale. This question doesn't even approach the pale. And remember, the candidate always has the option of ignoring the question.

I just want to emphasize how important it is to have fair elections. The electoral process is sacred, and we shouldn't do anything that even gives the impression of something below-the-board going on. That is why it is so wrong that another administrator actually wheel warred over whether my question about a candidate's statement could be asked. It disgusts me that someone would even think of doing such a thing. And I hope, for all of our sakes, that it never happens again. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If electoral process is "sacred", then "what is your response to those critics who say that Wikipedia has aspects of being a cult"? ;) --BigDT 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

we prefer to think of ourselves as a new internet movement.Geni 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While the question isn't relevant to the ArbCom election, it's still an interesting question. Wikipedia is listed on List of groups referred to as cults with a solid reference. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is an opinion piece, seen here. That is one journalist wondering whether Wikipedia can be thought of as a cult. This is precisely why people should assess the sources, not just whether there is a source at all. Carcharoth 11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Leave it to the candidates. Any 'impartial election monitors' could disagree over whether a question should be displayed or not too... and there'd be nothing preventing regular users from warring over it as they have this time. IMO any and all questions / comments should be left entirely alone by everyone except the person adding them and the candidate. --CBD 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with CBD. A candidate's question page is the sole responsibility of the candidate. We don't need an additional layer of bureaucracy for Arbcom elections. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"CBD and Mackensen agree. Film at eleven!" :] --CBD 12:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! If this isn't consensus, I don't know what is...Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite a consensus, because I still think an Election Official would be helpful to deal with, if not this particular type of question, trolling like was occurring on Avraham's question page a few weeks ago. But we have a year to figure that out before next time. Newyorkbrad 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The same here. If we have clerks, stewards and all sorts of officials to keep the RfAr discussions more or less decent, I don't see why we should not have officials who would keep election pages in order. ArbCom elections do not appear to be a less sensitive topic than most of ArbCom proceedings. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, you really don't have standing here, as you were one of the people trying to remove my question to an ArbCom candidate. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thinking it inappropriate, he decided to remove it because there was no designated person he could speak to about whether it belonged or not. So I think it's fair for him to point out that having a designated person(s) to make such decisions would have avoided that controversy, among others. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He has close ties with various people involved in that question (especially the person the question was about). It's indefensible of him to think that he could somehow play the role of neutral elections official when everyone knows he wasn't neutral in that situation. He's just trying to cover for himself now by blaming a lack of elections officials when the real fault was his inability to determine that he was too involved to have standing to neutrally address the question. --Cyde Weys 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, please don't hijack the discussion to ad hominems and ready assumptions of bad faith, OK? Contrary to your insinuations, I have no interest in "playing the role of neutral elections official" or any other official role in Wikipedia now or in the future. I hope we may return to discussion of content (rather than personalities) now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly

Eww someone had seriously vandalised the monopoly page. I think it may be gone now though, but ewwww — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.0.238 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we really need non-vandalized version flags. Go bug the WMF-paid devs. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lpritchard

The one-week block of User:Lpritchard expired today and she has attempted recreation of the deleted and protected pages (Legal medical advisor and Legal Medical Advisor) by replacing the disambiguation page LMA (Diff), creating Legal Medical Advisor Certification and on her talk page.

She's also spamming her website on the talk pages of the deleted and protected articles, so those need to be deleted and protected as well.

After her last block she blanked her page and tried to get reinstated twice. She also has done some strange listings on log pages and forged my signature, etc.

The new spam article(s) need to be deleted and page protected and she needs blocking again, perhaps permanently this time? Please see her user page, talk page, and history of contributions.

I'm not going to try to revert the vandalism until she's blocked because it wore me out last time trying to keep up with it. Thanks.

If there's any doubt this is spam, see [144] with her name and business scheme. She's also leaving messages on User:RHaworth's talk page now as he was the Admin who first blocked her last time. -THB 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Raw Deal: A Question of Consent

I was going through some of the items on WP:BLPN and came across this one. Old versions of it [145] give unsourced allegations of rape and the alleged victim's name. The page was tagged for a speedy deletion, but was turned into a redirect without actually deleting it. From what I've read about the incident, this seems like an accurate rendition, but considering the enormity of the allegations, I would like to ask that an administrator delete all versions of the article prior to the redirect being created. BigDT 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart edit warring and User:Mael-Num

The Derek Smart article is in a sorry state of rampant edit warring which lead to the semiprotection of it and its talk page too.

Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talk • Mael-Num|contribs) has been pushing to have two cited incidents from reliable sources, namely the notable incident involving the alleged assault by Derek Smart of a coke machine, and a cite from ben kuchera of ars technica. User :Mael_Num has claimed a consensus for deletion of the cited information based on a discussion in the talk page that has lasted only a few hours, and with only three contributors out of many, which is not acceptable. He has warnings for civilty on his talk page. He can be possible SPA by his contributions Mael-Num|contribs.

I kindly request the admins to mediate and offer a acceptable solution to this long running (>13 months) edit war. I would also request for a checkuser to be performed on Mael-Num and Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP to see if there is any violation of the blocks placed under WarhawkSP and SC.Kerr avon 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I mirror Kerr avon's stated concerns. Except the check user is much more complicated. Besides the 3 usernames, there are also anonymous IP addresses that have recently appeared editing the Derek Smart article and it's talk page. They all purport the same viewpoint, share writing styles (mostly) showing uncanny similarities to recently blocked WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr, and always agree with each other. The IP addresses are 63.28.69.164 and 63.44.66.100, which are both Fort Lauderdale IP Addresses, where Smart lives and runs his business. Also, it should be noted that these violations may fall under WP:Auto policy because it is likely the person is Derek Smart himself. --Jeff 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I don't believe Mael-Num is a sockpuppet. Supreme_Cmdr/WarHawkSP and the IP Addresses are. Mael-num has a distinct writing style, but there are still issues that need some oversight over at the derek smart article.--Jeff 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned as well. I'm concerned that there is organized off-wiki attempt to push a POV on this article that removes cited sources. As mentioned above on this page, WarHawkSP and Supreme Cmdr have been single purpose accounts blocked from editing due to this. There have been numerous more single purpose accounts and now a rash of anon edits. Checkuser is inconclusive, but did not rule out the possibility that these are socks. I mentioned above, this edit war does not appear to show signs of slowing down soon, and I believe it will likely continue until everyone is 3RR blocked, or it goes to ArbCom. We absolutely need some administrator intervention. Users are misquoting policy, especially BLP to remove cited, reliable material. This is a major problem. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond tiresome. I believe this page needs full protection until all parties can form some sort of agreements. --InShaneee 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm working with Mael-Num to try to keep him civil and try to find a reasonable solution to this. I guess you could call it informal mediation. However, I do think this case would be good for a formal mediation attempt, which I have neither the time nor the interest for conducting myself (not to mention I'm not AMA). I agree with InShaneee. This page needs to be full protected, a mediation needs to be conducted, administrator oversight towards those who continue to be uncivil needs to be enforced with short blocks, and hopefully this can be fixed without the time and frustration of an ArbCom case. Unfortunately, I think that it will end up coming to that otherwise. For further reference, see the cross conversation on my talk and Mael-Num's talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'll go ahead and do a full mediation on this. I posted on the talk page. Got nothing else going on anyway. Hopefully this will at the very least determine who is willing to help advance the article, and who is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected. It's getting hard to keep track of all the SPAs on that article. -- Steel 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template vandal

Mentioning it here because of recent events ... see Template:User0 ... specifically [146]. --BigDT 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the template has been protected and the vandal blocked. --BigDT 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLARodent (talk · contribs) violating consensus, threatening edit warring, actual edit warring, attempting to own article

See Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F. The above user has threatened edit warring more than once over the timeline [147] (edit summary), [148], [149], clarifies it here as undending war [150]. After it is pointed out that consensus is about 9-2 in favour of removing the timeline he makes this statemet [151], and again insists it will again remain no matter what [152]. I gathered consensus between that discussion where there were 3 or 4 individuals who clearly did not want it there and only 2 (that editor and an IP) who see it as useful and this related AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death) where 5 editors state the timeline isn't useful or encyclopedic in that level of detail. He's already restored it 4 times in the last 24 hours, but I think my leaving a 3RR at this point would only exasperate the situation and I need someone else to step in here and clear this up.--Crossmr 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor trolling in ArbCom votes?

Again I am not sure if this is where this question belongs, but it possible to deem an editor guilty of trolling based on his or her votes in the ArbCom election? User:Ybeayf, who has a recent block for trolling but has been around for awhile and has made good-faith edits, has been voting in the election for the past few minutes, with ... creative explanations of the votes, such as:

• Paul August - Oppose - "Candidate appears to be a Yankee"
• Blnguyen - Oppose - "Per user page, candidate appears to be an inanimate stuffed animal"
• Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me - Oppose - "Unclear if candidate is, in fact, a clown"
• Flcelloguy - Oppose - "Candidate appears to play the cello"
• FloNight - Support - "Candidate does not appear to be a Yankee"
• Geogre - Oppose - "Candidate's name is misspelled"
• Harvestman - Oppose - "Candidate is French"
• Improv - Support - "Candidate is kinda cute"
• John Reid - Oppose - "Candidate has boring name"
• Jpgordon - Oppose - "I hate Oingo Boingo"

Voting rationales like this make a travesty of the election, but a trolling block based on votes in an election presents an obvious slippery slope problem. Plus, although the philosophical issue here is an interesting one, we don't want to feed the troll either. What is to be done? Newyorkbrad 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Said votes with comical rationales removed and editor indefinitely blocked by Cyde for disruption and trolling. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Nothing to see here, move along. --Cyde Weys 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it's been deCyded. Us process wonks will lose sleep ... but not too much. Newyorkbrad 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The slippery slope concern you mention is well considered, but in this case it's so obvious that there's no need to lose sleep. I chose to warn instead of block, but the block is fully justified. - Taxman ^Talk 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's heartening to hear that someone else takes the approach that process is important. However, after following Cyde's periphrasis on his talk page, once I traced the references he made, his approach to the situation is defensible. While I'd've preferred to see the transparency of the vote maintained (by deprecating rather than deleting the votes), I do see the value of the deletions as a means of not feeding the trolls. --Ssbohio 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This was just an account that was once good now being abused periodically to return to vandalize and sow disruption in-between blocks. No point in stringing it along with the incremental blocks, allowing further disruption each time. --Cyde Weys 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is anyone striking out the votes, or are you letting them stand? ~Kylu (u|t) 08:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They were all rolled back hours ago. Grandmasterka 08:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with the rollback button...

Undo some blog-spamming please. - 152.91.9.144 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know about AIV but this isn't exactly vandalism, and they get narky on tht page if you don't follow the "rules" robotically.

Interesting comment from someone who gets "narky" when he thinks other people aren't following the "rules". pschemp | talk 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Blocking policy "rules" versus AIV beaurocracy "rules." My mother said If you can't say something nice then don't say anything, so I'll comment no further on pschemp. It would be nice if he returned the favour.
152.91.9.144 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

She. Essjay (Talk) 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I think its perfectly appropriate to point out when the pot calls the kettle black. Besides, you've already said plenty of not nice things about me so once again, it would be nice if you followed your own maxims, but that's hardly to be expected. pschemp | talk 04:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend both of you take a step back and let the appropriate people handle the situation. You don't get anywhere here making digs like this at each other, regardless of who said what.--Crossmr 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SkyBoxx

Not really vandalism per se ... but could someone take a look at SkyBoxx's contributions [153]? He/she seems to have been a pretty good vandalism reverter, but replaced their own talk page with every user warning template in the book and an edit summary of "haha eat me". Now, he/she is giving "tireless contributor barnstars" to vandals and new accounts. I'm at a loss ...BigDT 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Now it is vandalism ... and a massive cleanup is needed ... I have reported on AIV BigDT 07:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • User has been blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bosniak

Take a look at all of User:Bosniak's edits from the 13th of December 2006 onwards ([154]). He is inserting this on a lot of user pages and on articles.

It is interesting how Serbs promoted invented word "Serbophobia" on the internet. First they introduced the word to wikipedia, and then thousands of other scrapper sites copied content from wikipedia, and now Google yields thousands of matches for this invented word. Of course, while Bosniaks wanted to do the same, and create an article Bosniakophobia, Serbs quickly jumped and voted "NO!". And of course, attempts to create Bosniakophobia article failed thanks to Serbian activism on wikipedia! They don't use wikipedia for educational, but for their nationalistic/politic purposes. It is sickening to see Serbian propaganda and lies poisoning Wikipedia

Some of the users he is sending the message to are completely random and have never interacted with him, or Bosnia related articles before. Is this bad faith behaviour or is this sort of thing acceptable on Wikipedia. It just seems to me that it is User:Bosniak who is causing trouble, not Serb editors. Any comments? - Ivan K 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I received it.. I'm trying for the life of me to figure what it is going on about :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to post this very same same thing, but you beat me into it; I was one of many on the spamlist. I feel inclined to rollback all that ranting and warn the user, but I'd prefer a neutral admin to do it. Is there a relevant policy—such behavior is awful from whichever side it comes, and I'd like it to stop in the future. Duja► 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Coredesat and I just reverted all of the messages. JDoorjam Talk 08:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ivan K 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned, and blocked, for disruptive behaviour. He was only recently unblocked for some of the behaviour reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#Block request for User:Bosniak. —Psychonaut 12:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not connect this user with other Bosnians on this Wikipedia; that is incorrect and not human. His username shouldn't make us bad, or worse than Serbs (I've never said anything bad about them on English Wikipedia nor anywhere else). --Emx 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, enough of your Serb-loving comments. Show some fairness, objectivity and neutrality for once, please. I was communicating to people who were affecting articles such as Srebrenica Massacre, Bosniaks, Markale Massacre, etc. Most of them were Bosniaks, although some of them were Serbs and their loyal friends. Some users have complained about YOU rolling back and deleting comments that I left them, here are some of many example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#re:_comment_on_my_talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam#My_User_Page By the way, user Psychonaut is Serb and he defends Serb interest on Wikipedia, just so you know. Peace Bosniak 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I calmly explained how the editor's behavior violated several policies here, and he has not only resumed his page-spamming, but he's also making wild accusations against myself and a couple other editors, and he even posted to ANI. Last I checked, I wasn't Serbian. I think a longer block may be necessary, because he's not heeding warnings or advice. --Coredesat 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why people always have to be compared by nationality? --Emx 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR in practice

I was heavily bold and deleted Serbophobia, Anti-Croatian sentiment and Anti-Bosniak sentiment in the name of symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR. Those were poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point of how poor us are prosecuted and tortured by them throughout the history.

I stand open to potential deletion review and, if called for, a request for comment and even recusal of administration rights, if the community wants it. Duja► 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say deleting them was a good move. - Ivan K 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the related articles were any indicator of the Wiki-ethnic feuding going on there, this was almost certainly a good move. Though Serbophobia would imo be better stubbed to referenced info than deleted outright, since it does seem to have enough references to justify its notability as a term. I think you can safely up your rouge application level to full in that userbox now. --tjstrf talk 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out—Acknowledged . I know that something could have been salvaged, but e.g. Serbophobia survived the AfDs mostly because it was a larger stub describing only the usage and origin of the term; meanwhile, it humongously grew to describe all acts of violence and discrimination against us throughout history. If I stubbed them, the vicious circle would undoubtedly repeat. Yes, some ethnic groups are hated by some people; that doesn't make the respective articles necessarily encyclopedic. Duja► 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Boy, the way those guys go after each other you'd think someone had started a World War over it. WAS 4.250

• That's a very bold move Duja. You are brave. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hah, that's ROUGE indeed. But I'm all for the deletion of such articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very bold, and effective. Viridae^Talk 11:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe that practicing IAR can be sometimes much more easier, funnier and effective than throwing a rotten tomato at the face of a rotten actor! Good job anyway. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, good stuff. All had gone well past the point of irretrievable nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hurrah. What we need here is coverage of ethnic conflicts and rivalry in the Balkans in general. Serbian-Albanian conflict seems to be one of the least bad articles like this, for example. Having those three articles, each of them being a POV fork, is just silly. Morwen - Talk 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The pages sound like they are better nonexistant. But why IAR? Why not follow process? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because process is not policy, and process is not, in some people's eyes, required to produce an outcome consistent with core policies. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• No objection from me, but I would say that being poorly referenced, troll magnet, POV-exchange and hopelessly apples-and-oranges articles serving the purpose of proving a point is a better deletion rationale than symmetry, brotherhood and unity, and WP:IAR. Eluchil404 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Pile-on support. This is a good application of IAR. JDoorjam Talk 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Duja's unilateral deletion, although he won't be rogue until he deletes Anti-Romanian discrimination and Anti-Hungarian sentiment... ;-) Khoikhoi 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik and User:E104421

Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been involved in a long Turkish-Iranian feud over issues of historical central Asian ethnic identities, with week-long petty revert wars on multiple articles, POV forks, personal attacks, sockpuppet allegations, mutual accusations of stalking, several blocks on both sides, and other such niceties. After a renewed bout of revert warring on at least three articles I've blocked both of them (see WP:AN3 and my talk page). What can be done to keep these guys away from each other? Short of Arbcom (which might become necessary too though), I propose going ROUGE on them both and imposing an informal community 1RR probation on both of them. Can we do that, through admin consensus? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a fellow cabal member, I endorse your block and the 1RR probation proposal. Duja► 09:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. This has become quite disgraceful. Hopefully the 1RR probation would not lead to sockpuppetry. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Me to: we really need to put a cut too this.--Aldux 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time Tajik was blocked for 24 hours, he immediately returned to incivility, and was blocked for 48 hours for incivility, then he came back and immediately plopped a bogus Stalking warning on my user page in retaliation for my reporting him. When I complained about Tajik posting the bogus stalking warning on my page, I was ignored, except that administrator Khoikhoi came to his defense, without any evidence, and while evidence to the contrary existed on Tajik's talk page. I certainly hope administrator Khoikhoi can read German. I would hope, though, after a user has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility, then almost immediately reblocked for 48 hours for incivility, then comes back and acts incivil, again, and then posts the incredibly nasty comments about other users (not just E104421) and about Wikipedia in general, that Tajik did, that an administrator would block him for longer than the 24 or 48 hours that did nothing the first time. As long as Tajik OWNS Afghanistan on Wikipedia, no one else will be able to edit it. And, considering how he feels about the competence of other Wikipedia editors, it's no wonder he feels he should own the article. And, yes, I am biased against Tajik, he is attempting to instill hostility into my experience on Wikipedia, in retaliation for a copyedit of the Herat page, and he has a lot of administrator support in owning his pages. Actually, I hope more administrators than Khoikhoi can read German. KP Botany 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS And if Tajik is blocked how come he is editing his talk page while blocked?[155] KP Botany 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A blocked user can still edit (only) his or her own talk page, unless the page is specifically protected by the blocking admin or another administrator. This is necessary to allow dialog and the posting of requests for an unblock. Newyorkbrad 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and quick reply, as I didn't know that, and had seen numerous spats about this particular thing on Wikipedia, and thought they had to e-mail or something. But that's not what he used it for, he used it to remove a 3RR warning from another user. KP Botany 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be fair, that one was not a problem - the warning was for the revert-warring he had already been blocked for anyway, so the warning was unnecessary in the first place. Besides, like many here, I'm not a big fan of sanctioning the removal of warnings anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I have personally seen from these two users (particularly on Babur prior to its protection), they have been quite incivil and disruptive. I support the idea. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, you said on my talk page, "for the moment, I propose to impose an informal 1RR regime on them both, on all the articles they've been reverting each other recently". To clarify, this 1RR would only apply when Tajik and E104421 are edit warring together, right? If so, I would support it. However, if it applys to all articles, I don't think it would be very fair both to Tajik and E104421. Khoikhoi 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And what's fair to other editors who go in and try to do a copyedit on some article Tajik OWNS, and become a target for his incivility and visciousness? Tajik has been blocked twice recently and warned numerous times, and what does he do? Blast all of Wikipedia for being inferior editors to him. And administrators have done nothing, there's even a notice above Tajik's complaint about E104421, on the 3RR board, another editor complaining about problems with Tajik, another editor ignored by administrators. I tried to use WP:DR, including just withdrawing from the articles for a while, and Tajik blasted me for NOT CONTINUING AN EDIT WAR! And Khoikhoi supported Tajik posting a blatantly false retaliatory stalking warning on my talk page--which is, in fact, the very essence of stalking: creating a hostile atmosphere for other editors, with the help of an administrator.

What would be fair to other editors who would like the Afghanistan articles to be usable and worthwhile for users of Wikipedia? Who don't have all day to edit and administrator shop to get administrators to protect their pages and edits, who don't have all the time in the world to make sure they have an administrator on their side, ready to speak up on their behalf, no matter what they've done? Editors who are targetted by Tajik in retaliation for COPY EDITS, then find out that Tajik is protected by administrators in his atrocious and repeatedly uncivil behaviour?

What's fair to the rest of Wikipedia?

And how unfair to Tajik is it, since he thinks no one else in the world is capable of reading an authorative source and using it properly to assist in writing Wikipedia articles?

Well, obviously I am ticked off at being the target of Tajik's abuse, and of having him targetting me and so many others be ignored by administrators, however, Tajik's behaviour has been ignored for a long long time. Ultimately I don't think unilateral action against Tajik is fair, because I truly believe that he was created by administrators thinking they were doing him a favor by siding with him and ignoring his behaviour--ultimately, imo, administrators who ignored his bad behaviour early on created what he has become: an uncivil, edit-warring, reverting, abusive, personally attacking editor. He does not appear to be able to work with other editors. This has not always been the case, though.

Administrator favoritism does nobody any favors, not the editor, not the community, not the administrator.

The next time he puts phony warnings on my talk page, or attacks me for a copyedit, I would really like to see an administrator take it seriously, and when Khoikhoi comes in to defend his atrocious behaviour, I would like an unbiased administrator to come in and take it seriously. It's a great technique he has, though, attack attack attack, get supported by an administrator, and bam!, there you go, he's got rid of another editor. KP Botany 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, And I am going to start editing the Afghanistan and Herat articles and other Afghanistan articles. I never should have allowed Tajik to bully me away in the first place. And I do know better now than to try Wikipedia DR, because administrators don't support editors who try it, and editors like Tajik, who see newbies like me foolishly use it, are probably just snickering. KP Botany 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Wikipedia does not allow you to simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason you please, and you can only harm the site if you're going to jump into debates to 'save the day'. --InShaneee 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators allowed Tajik to "simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason," against me, and Administrator Khoikhoi did the same thing to me, in support of one of Tajik's "thrown around accusations." When I complained about unsupported accusations by Tajik and Khoikhoi, I was ignored. I wasted my time with supported allegations, Tajik and Khoikhoi countered with unsupported allegations, and I was the one ignored. That's where I learned it from, from another editor, far more experienced at Wikipedia than I am, and from an administrator. Wikipedia does not only allow it, but seems to prefer it, as the unsupported accusations against me carried far more weight than my supported accusations against Tajik--the unsupported accusations carried 100% of the weight, and the supported accusations 0%.

If it is harmful to Wikipedia for users to "Simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason," then administrators should not have stood by in mute silence while Tajik and Khoikhoi did it to me. But, administrators did just that, ignored it when it happened to me, probably because I'm a new user.

When administrators and editors use a technique to gang up on a newer and less sophisticated editor, and Wikipedia administrators support it by ignoring it, it's a bit confusing to then have another administrator come in and say, what was allowed to happen to the new editor, what more experienced Wikipedians used against the newer editor, is "not allowed" to be used by the new editor. Khoikhoi is an administrator and Khoikhoi supported Tajik's unsupported accusations against me, without Khoikhoi providing any support for his own support of Tajik. All the more experienced editors and at least one administrator know how to profit form this technique, to scold only the newcomer for following established practices of more experienced users simply gives Wikipedia more of an appearance of bias towards established editors and administrators and against newer editors. KP Botany 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much a fan of wiki-drama, however, maybe it would help if you specified what you want. I don't (and I doubt anyone else does) care if you're right or not, just want everyone to be happy. What do you want, do you want Khoikhoi to ban Tajik? //Dirak 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:71.100.6.152

Not sure where to report this, but User:71.100.6.152 has made some (admittedly hilarious) personal attacks on me on my talk page. Said user did this in response to my removal of a trollish comment on the science refdesk here (economics or politics had nothing related, I was going to let it be but "Hence the spoiler for every person on the planet having their own source of (cost free) electrical power is terrorism. In other words every person on the planet can not be ultimately rich because the terrorists will not allow it." was enough, I felt, to remove it). Also, I am concerned this user is a sockpuppet of User:MinervaSimpson due to both's repeated use of the phrase "teeny-bopper" and the fact I recently placed a block template on their userpage (blocking administrator neglected to) here. Here, and other AfDs created by user, use the same phrase. User has been warned (see their talk page). Again, I apologize if this is in the wrong place. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks should normally be reported to WP:PAIN, although usually some administrator reading this will look into it as well (I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do) In this case, a gentle reminder to the other user to please refrian from personal attacks may be a good first step, before taking this any further. Fram 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pkulkarni (talk · contribs)

I first blocked Pkulkarni on the 7th when it was discovered that he was running a large sock-farm to disrupt articles and attack other users. [156]. He continued to create more accounts and I increased his block to 2 months. Today 5 more sock accounts were discovered by Dmcdevit. See this. 4 of these accounts have been created after my second block. In light of this continued disruption, I have indef-blocked Pkulkarni. If anyone feels that an indef-block is too harsh he/she is welcome to reduce the duration of the block. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the correct decision to me. Proto::► 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the indef block. Still might be a good idea to keep an eye out for sockpuppets, though, given his persistence. --Coredesat 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback please - requests for speedy deletion as minor edit

Silverhorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested speedy deletion for several articles, has not given an edit summary, and marked them as minor edits. Can someone please rollback the user? Thanks, Andjam 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled back those speedy requests where a reason was not included. Viridae^Talk 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In his defense, many of the ones he has provided reasons for are valid speedies (for example, Hope Party - content was "The Hope Party of Australia is a political party in Australia"). Proto::► 12:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Which was why I left them alone. Viridae^Talk 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of blocked user User:Peterwats

59.100.76.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is, by the user's own admission (see contributions), a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Peterwats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block. —Psychonaut 12:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done by Fuzheado. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

September 11 attack + Tom Harrison

I am having a problem with admin Tom Harrison. He is currently engaged in an edit war, reverting the inclusion of a link, however refusing to participate on the talk page. I have asked people to discuss the issue on the talk page using guidelines and policies, instead of personal opinions on the source. Tom has refused to even respond to me after being asked twice to participate.[[157]] I just went to ask them again after their latest revert and found their user page protected from all editing. I am asking someone politely ask Tom to either stop reverting, or at least feign interest in the discussion for which he is a minority. Himself and one other user has argued the link should not be included, calling it a blog, which was refuted, then a wiki which was refuted and finally an anonymous site, which the registrars information was then provided. I am growing tired of this user simply ignoring people and reverting blindly.[158] Note, tom has not posted anything regarding any of those points, the other user brought them up and were disagreed with by myself and others.

Tom has also displayed a misunderstanding of WP:EL, stating we do not use an external link if we have a Wiki article on the topic,[159] however the EL in question is actually more detailed then possible to achieve on the article and provides a greater period of time that can be covered by a single Wiki article. WP:EL also states that the external link should contain more information that then article its being placed in would have once it reaches Featured Article status. --NuclearZer0 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'ved asked for arbitration enforcement with regard to NuclearUmpf and his constant edit warring and personal attacks here: [160] Rx StrangeLove 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the only other user who refuses to discuss the link in terms of policy or guideline. They are the ones who said it was a blog, then an anonymous site, then a wiki etc. Then refused to discuss anymore after the majority of the people stated they were wrong. --NuclearZer0 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually stopped talking to you after you started making personal attacks.[161] Needless to say your characterization of my arguments are not accurate. Rx StrangeLove 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the personal attack there, however I do notice that noone agreed with any of your points and even PTR agreed to the link as long as it was made specific. Do you realize noone but Tom is taking the link out? Do you have anything to say regarding Tom reverting and refusing to participate on the talk page? About Tom ignoring the request to participate 2x? That is what this AN/I is about, an admin refusing to use the talk page yet reverting anyway, refusing to even state their point, and not following WP:EL. I ask you again to go back to the talk page and use policy as your reasoning instead of your personal opinion. --NuclearZer0 17:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's the personal attack in there? -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the edit summary? "My personal problems"? Rx StrangeLove 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• As usual the onus is on the editor seeking to include content to provide a justification and persuade those who disagree. You haven't. They rightly note that the timeline you want to link is contentious. The solution may be to do our own timeline which conforms to policy, i.e. misses out or adequately contextualises the contentious elements. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That timeline is not as detailed and further WP:EL states that external links can be used if they present more information then that of which can be included in the article in question if it was to reach Featured Article status, this surely fulfills that. We have articles on the Geneva Convention, are you stating we should never link directly to the Geneva Convention on outside websites, hows about the Declaration of Independance and other historical records? WP:EL is quite clear on this and I have yet to see anyone disagree. --NuclearZer0 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have according to WP guidelines stated my case, the arguement against its inclusion has not been based on any policy or guideline but just that the people do not like it, which is not adequate. What if you were in a situation where someone on the article for China did not want it included that China was in Asia, what do you do if two people disagree with 7 on this? Do you leave it out? Even if they do not present a reason that fits a policy or guideline, they just dont like it. I would be happy to discuss it, but as I have pointed out to you, Tom has no participated on the talk page regarding this, which is what this AN/I is about, not the link itself. If Tom is just reverting to maintain "concensus" then that means RX is actually alone in not wanting the link, and the concensus is actually completely against him. Further reason Tom should not be reverting and refusing to use the talk page. --NuclearZer0 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is ↔ over there. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Referred from WP:AE. Over the last 7 days, the contended link was added 18 times by 5 editors and removed 17 times by 7 editors, without any attempts made at the normal DR process (3rd opinion, RFC or mediation). I left a comment advising DR on the talk page and decline to enforce Nuclear's arbitration probation as he was only one of 12 editors edit warring. Thatcher131 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jules Verne external links

This is in regards to User talk:217.119.180.170 and User talk:193.252.18.96 who is the same user, who has been editing Jules Verne adding two external links to a foreign language site (I believe they are also self-links). I have reverted over 10 times over the course of the past 3 weeks and left numerous messages on the article talk page, article edit notes and users talk pages per WP:EL rules on foreign language links. The user ignores all attempts at communication and has continued to add the links back to the article despite over 8 warnings left on the users talk page to communicate and/or acknowledge. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both IP addresses. -- Kjkolb 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

208.66.198.224

This IP has continued to vandalize after receiving a final warning. Geoffrey Spear 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seven vandal edits to four articles in a little over an hour, but only one warning today, and the previous warning was November 20. From the history, it looks like a school IP, and I don't think the damage today rises to a level needing a block. -- Donald Albury 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking on MFD

StuRat (talk · contribs) did not like the way discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline was headed, so he created a fork of it, essentially taking the people who agreed with him along to write a new page without involvement of those who do not agree with him. He's been using parliamentary-style eight-hour votes for the wording, convinced of the idea that supermajority voting is recommended or endorsed by WP:CON. Needless to say this is not a useful way of arriving at consensus; hence, his fork is now on MFD here.

StuRat has been vote-stacking this MFD by canvassing several people agreeing with him before (but none that disagreed with him) to "vote" on it. I feel this is disruptive. [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] (Radiant) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Um Radiant, I am on that list but I don't recall ever agreeing with StuRat on anything. Soooo... I feel that you're misrepresenting me. Anchoress 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have frequently disagreed with StuRat, so notifying me of an issue on RD is perfectly appropriate. Edison 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of those canvassed by StuRat, I was surprised to be notified by him of the MfD. I had been peripherally engaged in the most recent discussions at the Ref Desk talk pages, and StuRat had canvassed me for my opinion on several previous ocassions over the last day or so. In the MfD, StuRat does seem to misunderstand several points about how WP works, so it is possible this is a genuine misunderstanding here, rather than deliberate vote-stacking. For the record, I voted merge. Carcharoth 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that a least one person on the other side of the debate has only solicited votes from those who they think will agree with them, such as User:Hipocrite submitting an RFC against two of us in the "supermajority" and only contacting those in the opposition minority for comments: [173], [174], [175] (in addition to contacting the two of us who were the subjects of the RFC). So, is there a specific rule against this type of behavior ? If not, then it shouldn't be brought up as an issue here. StuRat 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I've explicitly advised StuRat in the past that attempting to stack discussions isn't a good way to handle disagreements: [176], [177]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And probably worth noting he's ignored your comments. Honestly, everything on the ref desk these days is being decided by a small group of editors who harass anyone with a different opinion. I've half a mind to make a nomination to delete the whole project, it has become quite disruptive to Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. Seems like it's outside the scope of Wikipedia and if the users there want to continue providing the service, they should do so via a separate project. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a good suggestion there, maybe the Ref Desk has somewhat outgrown Wikipedia. What steps should be taken to make this happen ? StuRat 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The RD has not become disruptive, those who do not particpate there and want to make it over into the way they think it should be are the ones who have become disruptive. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Zoe. Still, I hate to see such unnecessary conflict, no matter what the cause is, and, if moving the Ref Desk outside of Wikipedia into a separate project would accomplish that, I would be willing to do any work necessary to accomplish that goal. StuRat 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, that is correct. People have been "sent in" to "fix" the reference desk, one of whom is a sockpuppet. Although admittedly the sockpuppet has not been disruptive, the others have been, and it's disturbing. -THB 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to count every vote during stroll polls to determine whether a supermajority exists. I now understand that, while a supermajority is often used as an indicator of consensus in many area, like determining who should be an Admin, who should be on the ArbComm, and AFD, and RFC, several people object to using a supermajority to determine a consensus on the Ref Desk. I will, therefore, only refer to the results as a supermajority from this point on, and not a consensus, in an attempt to ease any conflict. StuRat 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The way to ease conflict is to listen to the people who don't agree with your little group rather than blowing them off and attacking them, not to have more polls and count votes more process wonkily. pschemp | talk 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it's not a "little group", it's the majority of the people on the Ref Desk Talk Page. Second, I do listen to the opinions of everyone, and respond, and have found that the supermajority wanted something different than what I wanted in a number of cases, and I've respected those results. However, there are some who just refuse to participate in the process. It's difficult to accomplish anything if you need to build a consensus, and you have several people who refuse to participate in building that consensus. For example, they've deleted the straw poll results, launched sockpuppet attacks, deleted the contents of the page where we recorded those results, and now are trying to delete the page itself. This makes it quite difficult to proceed. Instead of continuing the revert war they started by deleting the supermajority content, I thought it wiser to move to another page, so they can do whatever they wish with the old page, and tempers can cool down a bit. Then, once we complete our proposed rules for the Ref Desk, and they complete theirs, we can once again work to merge them together. StuRat 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that XFD/AFD is not - most categorically not - a vote. Closing admins do not just number crunch: they look at the arguments as well. Moreschi 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I believe I've also looked at the arguments for each side of an issue. For example, I've often had a poll where a yes or no answer was expected, but, based on responses, formulated a more nuanced "yes, but..." or "no, except..." answer to the question under consideration. Once I take a read on the consensus, I'm also quite willing to reconsider if people tell me I've read it incorrectly. There was a rule interpretation I took to be a supermajority, but was then asked to look at it again after more input came in, and I saw that there was no longer a supermajority either way, so removed that rule interpretation from the list. And, at this point, we are only building a list of proposed rule interpretations for the Ref Desk. These are not carved in stone. After the list is completed I will ask for more input on additional rule interpretations people might want us to consider, changes that should be made to the current rule interpretations, etc. StuRat 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just part of a multi-pronged attack including a vfd [178] and an rfc [179] all of which are baseless. -THB 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that StuRat's behavior is disruptive in some ways- the vote stacking mentioned above is part of that. However I'm not the most unbiased person, having been the target of what I considered a bit of harassment by StuRat. I invite uninvolved admins to review. Friday (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm not completely unbiased, either, but I'd like to point out that this discussion should probably not be focusing entirely on User:StuRat. I could be wrong, but it appears (based on perusal of the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline) that he and some other Reference Desk regulars were attempting a reasonably orderly, consensus-based construction of some useful Reference Desk policies and guidelines, when their process was somewhat rudely barged in on by User:Radiant! and User:Hipocrite summarily making some fairly sweeping changes in directions different from that of the fledgling consensus. (Examples: [180], [181].) Naturally StuRat was upset by this, and while I can't condone vote-stacking, I can certainly sympathize with his frustration. But AN/I probably isn't the place to discuss all this further; there are already ample discussions going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/THB, and of course Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, an energetic RD editor is being victimised. In my view, both Rick's MfD and Hipocrite's AfC are intended to provoke StuRat. Those of us who were there know exactly how Radiant and Hipocrite hijacked Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline. For those who weren't there, Steve Summit has provided edit history links above. No amount of wiki-lawyering and Newspeak double-talk can disguise the fact that this is simple playground bullying. Gandalf61 10:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• And yet I note that on that guideline, you are part of the discussion and part of its continual improvement - so you are not in fact being bullied, you are being cooperated with. How is that a problem? Note the difference between StuRat's version and the current one. The former was a set of sentences, each individually voted on, that was not allowed to be modified by anyone without further vote. The latter is a descriptive guideline that gives a consensual view of refdesk operation. I invite you to look through our other guidelines and see which of the two methods is commonly used. (Radiant) 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The bullying is the deletion, by the minority, of supermajority votes, deletion of those rules agreed to by supermajority, blocking of users in the supermajority, filing RFC's against members of the supermajority, filing an AFD against the page containing the supermajority rules, etc. The minority appears to be determined to get their way "by any means necessary". StuRat 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Have you considered that the minority may in fact have the same goals as you do, but is disagreeing with your methods? Note that "supermajority rules" are disliked on Wikipedia, we prefer consensual guidelines instead (and no, that's not just a matter of semantics). I am unaware of any deletion or blocking related to this issue so far. (Radiant) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (I am, of course, aware of some blocks related to other issues on the refdesk, but not related to the proposed guidelines)

• OK, it's surprising you forgot, since they were your own actions, but here's a reminder...this is where you deleted votes to establish a supermajority: [182], [183], [184], here's where you deleted requests on your talk page to stop doing that: [185], [186], and here's where you deleted the supermajority rules for deletion proposal, without discussion: [187]. StuRat 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• One quibble: I can not say (and I'm not sure how you can) that the current state of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guideline represents a "consensual view". (It certainly doesn't yet accurately reflect mine. But no, I haven't edited it yet, either.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I stand corrected, it's not consensual yet (hence, the {{proposed}} tag at the top). So let's reword it until it is. (Radiant) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Garry Newman

User:SteveIrwinsMom has posted what looks like personal information diff on the page. It's removed from the page, but not the edit history. The user is blocked for, it's just to get rid of the personal info. --h2g2bob 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article does not demonstrate compliance with WP:BIO (I appreciate his mod is well known) so I've listed it at AfD. Deizio talk 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy - this section moved here from WP:AIV

Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Andries is a self-professed critic of Sathya Sai Baba and said he will continue to revert the Robert Priddy article [188] despite specifically being warned by Admin to stop [189]. Since the time of Admin's warning, he included the link in defiance of Admin and the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 4 times, 3 times today so far. See: [190][191][192][193]. I have placed 4 warnings on his talk page. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am relisting this incident because no one responded to it. This has been a persisting problem and I fail to see how it is going to be resolved if Admin does not step in to resolve it. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:3RR. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, he reverted the article 3 times but no more. So it does not violate 3RR. Originally reported it as Vandalism, and the Admin there moved it here. Who else is going to deal with this issue if not the Admin here? SSS108 ^talk-email 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible resolution to the edit war on Palestinian exodus

Per the rationale described here, I suggest that Palestinian exodus be unprotected, but that the following editors involved in the revert war be prohibited from editing this article for the next month: Zero0000, Amoruso, PalestineRemembered, Isarig, Nielswik, Humus sapiens, Huldra, Shamir1, ManiF, Shrike, Ian Pitchford (and any other users I missed). This remedy should improve the editability of the article for most users, and should allow uninvolved editors to work towards an article that is more consistent with WP:NPOV than the protected version, which was arbitrarily selected from two competing versions in an edit war. John254 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On a more general note, our current tools for dealing with ongoing edit wars (where each editor is well-meaning, but the sum of their efforts negative) are rather too granular (blocks, protection, or nothing). A one-article "daisycutter ban", where every editor who had edited a contended article in the last n months would be prohibited from editing it for the next n months, might be a way to break the logjam and let some fresh brains tackle the problem. But I'm not aware of community consensus for anything like either what you describe or my more general version, and really WP:VP/P is a more plural venue for obtaining said. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Therefore, even if there is no consensus for a general policy authorizing the use of this remedy in most cases, we can still unprotect Palestinian exodus, but prohibit the users involved in the revert war from editing the article, if there is a consensus for this remedy on this particular article, as shown in the discussion here. John254 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for creativity and flexibility in applying admin measures like that, below the arbcom level. If we as admin-community have the power to wield the strongest of all sanctions, the indef ban, then a fortiori we should have the power to hand out lighter but better focussed sanctions such as partial/temporary bans, revert restrictions, probations and the like. For a similar idea, see my proposal for an individual 1RR restriction for certain articles to be imposed in a different case, above under #User:Tajik and User:E104421. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that there is no policy basis for banning individual editors from certain articles unless these editors are on probation. Applying bans as proposed will amount to placing all Wikipedia editors on probation. Beit Or 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism of today's FA

Today's FA is under quite a concerted attack from vandals armed with the usual genital images. Reports have been made to WP:AIV some time ago, but faster action would be appreciated... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's now semi-protected, which I do support in theory, but which I also thought was all-but-forbidden per official policy. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619 back again as User:220.237.67.250

Recently blocked User:DaffyDuck619 (see above) is back again as User:220.237.67.250. I have blocked the anon (logins are still possible). Is there any way to track new accounts coming from this IP? Could someone also check that I have done this block correctly, as it was my first time doing this sort of block to an anon IP. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the talk and blocks page, and it's fairly obvious to me that near every edit that's happened from that IP is from Daffy Duck. What makes you think it's a shared IP (I'm not sure someone didn't put that on the top erroneously). Patstuart^talk|edits 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the tag on the page at face value. If it is not a shared IP, there is still the guideline on the block page that says that anon IPs should not be bloced indefinitely. So what is supposed to happen when a indefinitely blocked user moves to anonymous edits? -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a long look at the history, and it was clear to me that every edit was from Daffy Duck. Perhaps we just put a long hard block on it, like 2 months, and if he feels sorry, he can appeal the block (though he's been a problem user for months now, and it's unlikely). That would be my take. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at closed TfD?

I know that when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions are closed, any new edits to them are generally reverted by administrators, and discussion continues on their talk pages. What about Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? Specifically, there is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Template:Cquote, which was speedily closed, but continues to be edited. As a reasonably green admin, I'm loath to revert without asking, since it isn't necessarily doing any harm, and especially since the discussing parties seem to both be experienced admins (User:Omegatron, User:Mzajac), however the closure notice does seem to say "No further edits should be made to this page" ... ? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered: what harmful effect will further edits to the actual page have? Continuing the discussion on the tfd talk page, the template talk page, or participant's user talk pages would be unneededly breaking up discussions. As long as further discussion on the tfd page itself isn't disrupting anything, I think leaving it is okay, especially since you closed it as speedy kept after only 27 hours. Although I think the speedy closure was the right decision (there was a definite consensus to keep, and I'm going to assume the tfd notice looked terrible when transcluded in articles), there is still plenty that could have been left unsaid in 9/8 days, and continuation elsewhere could leave later readers confused. Þicaroon 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't the closing admin - I participated in the discussion, which made that verboten, and anyway, probably wouldn't have been BOLD enough. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can think of precious few reasons why you'd ever want to shut off discussion. This doesn't meet any of them. Let the discussion continue on the talk page or something if it's really so imperative that the main TFD remain further unedited. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:HarpsBoy

Could someone who knows these things please review the edits of HarpsBoy (talk • contribs)? I know nothing about Irish football, but this editor recreated the hoax article John Fullerton, so I distrust anything this new editor has done. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick google seems to reveal that every one of his current edits are for real players and/or places. anyone want to second-check me? --Charlesknight 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They're real, but probably AfD candidates. They are all players or former players of Finn Harps F.C., a semi-professional club from the second level of Irish football. Oldelpaso 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Article Monitoring

Greetings. I would like to request that the admins would monitor the editing activity currently going on in the "Homosexuality" article. A known vandalizer, Izanbardprince has been placing his virulent pro-homosexual bias into his edits of the "behavioural modification" section of the article. I myself probably also need monitoring as I am prone to rash action at times and relatedly, Izanbardprince has also vandalized my user page in the past because he disagrees with me. Thank you.

Imgi12 15:25, 13 December 2006

Just to note: Izanbardprince is currently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, so he won't be able to respond to the above. Þicaroon 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that there is no vandalism going on in the article, but rather a content dispute which has resulted in the blocking of two users involved. Imgi12 and Izanbardprince have both falsely accused others of vandalism on the article, in what appears to be a misunderstanding of the differences between POV and vandalism. It is true though that Izanbardprince did in fact vandalize Imgi12's user page in the past and was blocked after the occurance. --Wildnox 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop MetsBot

User:MetsBot. This bot is not just doing what it says. It replaces not just signatures. More arguments on User talk:Mets501#Why go through people's user space? — Sebastian 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you mean User talk:Mets501#Why go through people's user space?. Þicaroon 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)tw

It's subst'ing templates. That looks fine to me. Can you show us specific edits where this bot is doing something outside of subst'ing? | Mr. Darcy talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's subst'ing templates. But not just the ones it says. Also, did you read why I think it's creating more harm than good? — Sebastian 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your rhetorical arguments on server usage - and yes, I did read those - don't carry weight with me, because I can't prove or disprove your argument. What would be compelling would be some diffs showing where the bot is subst'ing templates that are not listed at Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Templates_that_should_be_substituted and that don't include "substitute and delete." | Mr. Darcy talk 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that using transclusion in signatures is a seriously bad idea. It means that discussions (which should be a historical record) can change arbitrarily without records in the history, for one thing, and there are massively more instances of a given signature on a busy talk page than of any template in project space (plus we work to remove a lot of them, like {{fact}}). I have yet to see a compelling reason for using transclusion in sigs. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy, this was an edit conflict. We can discuss this when the bot is stopped. — Sebastian 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't someone please just push the button? There's no argument against pushing the button. It always can be resumed later. I protest against this disrespectful dismissal of what a seriously concerned user perceives as an emergency. — Sebastian 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly push the button if you provide instances of bad edits by this bot. You've been asked twice, and have failed to do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It does not do what it says it does;
2. It creates more server load than it saves. — Sebastian 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Repeated assertions of the same claims are not evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those are the diffs that have been requested. I understand that you have some serious concerns, but you're gonna have to meet us half-way if you want someone to take action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK you may be right that the bot does the right thing. Maybe I have been just overly scared. But it isn't meeting half way, if you request of someone who feels he is in an emergency to start doing research first. I feel administrators have an obligation to respect polite requests to stop a process if there is no reason why it couldn't be stopped for a moment. By refusing to help you only pour oil in the fire. — Sebastian 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not quite convinced that the only reason to stop a machine is after it has done damage. If you were a parent, and you saw a truck running towards your child, would you have to wait till it rolled over your child? — Sebastian 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian, it's quite clear that you don't have a specific complaint against Metsbot. Several of us tried to help you, and I went so far as to look at the bot's contribs to see if I could find a problem. There's no evidence it did anything wrong. It's time for you to let the matter drop. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK this example may be a bit far fetched, but you have to understand what goes on in someone who's confronted with an unstoppable machine. Is there a better forum to discuss this? I don't want to spam this noticeboard. Please reply on my talk page, I'm outta here. — Sebastian 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The preferences page specifically says not to use templates in your signature. I doubt the fact that it's in the User namespace not the template namespace makes any difference. The bot is doing a good job. People with illegal signatures are the problem here. --Tango 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict again - i hate discussing on big busy pages like this) OK this example may be a bit far fetched, but you have to understand what goes on in someone who's confronted with an unstoppable machine. Is there a better forum to discuss this? I don't want to spam this noticeboard. Please reply on my talk page, I'm outta here. — Sebastian 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "unstoppable machine" at all, any one of the dozens of administrators who've read this thread could have stopped it any second, had there been and compelling reason to. There isn't, and you failed to produce any. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing, and it's doing a good job. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all for responding for me in my absence. —Mets501 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Downwards

This user is consistently reverting my efforts to better sort Category:African American basketball players and Category:American basketball players. I am seeking to delete the American basketball player category from players already in the upper category of African American players, but the editor has consistently worked against it, claiming (through his edit summaries, (not on any talk page) that "he is definitely american" or "(restored cat: African-American is a cultural identity, American is a nationality)" or, "Not African-American apparently" or "(yeah, I used to have that same outlook, but then I thought if you change one, you'll have to change them all. It's not worth it. rv). The last was in response to my message on his talk page concerning this. I asked user:darwinek to intervene on my behalf but downwards seems not to care for Wiki's rules.--Thomas.macmillan 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've issued one final warning; this looks like WP:POINT to me. I'm rolling back some of his edits now. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He kept right on reverting, so I've blocked him 24 hours - after which I discovered this lovely edit. It's too bad, as I see a lot of good edits in his contribs. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandalisim , personal attack

user 203.10.224.59 and his second IP addres has been addressing other editors with profanity besides blatant trolling some of his actions can be found in these links. a Contrib. Check shows that they are clearly the same guy, and at either rate both have engaged in vandalisim.[194][195] [196]

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

203.10.224.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Marshalbannana 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't see evidence of trolling. Some mild PAs in the edit summaries, I would give you a warning Alex Bakharev 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's something funky going on with the Wales page. My apologies I don't have time to figure out how or where to report properly.

User Coredesat , User JDoorjam , and User Psychonaut

I was communicating to people who were affecting articles such as Srebrenica Massacre, Bosniaks, Markale Massacre, etc. Most of them were Bosniaks, although some of them were Serbs and non-Serbs. Some users have complained about user Coredesat and user JDoorjam rolling back and deleting comments that I left them, here are some of many example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#re:_comment_on_my_talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDoorjam#My_User_Page By the way, user Psychonaut is either Serb or pro-Serb oriented and he defends Serb interest on Wikipedia and constantly complains about non-Serbs to administrators, which brings his fairness and good faith into questioning, just so you know. Peace Bosniak 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I have recently posted three WP:ANI reports about users who self-identify as Bosnians or Bosniaks:

• Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive149#Block request for User:Bosniak, 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC))
• Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150#Serial copyright violator User:Bosna 101, 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
• Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Ancient Land of Bosoni, 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

These reports were made because the users in question had repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy in defiance of warnings, and not because the users were Bosnia{n|k}. Whether or not I am a Serb is irrelevant. —Psychonaut 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Uninvolved outsider here, but I'd like to point out that any POV-pushing here is definitely a 2 way road. [197] Characterization of other editors as vandals for content disputes, attempting to rally editors along ethnic lines, accusations of conspiracy, etc. are all uncivil and will simply polarize a situation even more than before. I also found this rant[198] rather disconcerting, in which he "thanks God" that another editor has stopped editing and effectively vows to have an article created despite its deletion by community consensus. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Serb, or a Serbophobe, or a Bosniak, or an anti-Bosniak. I didn't even know "Bosniak" was a word until yesterday. I'm simply anti-spam. It was requested up the page that a neutral admin roll back the dozens of spam messages User:Bosniak posted; I did so. Don't spam Wikipedia. JDoorjam Talk 04:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak left the same message on Talk:Srebrenica massacre which I deleted according to the talk page guidelines as it did not pertain to the article. I now see that it is also mentioned here, so I thought I'd better left a note. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Less cries plz, Bosniak;) - Ivan K 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive anon

71.219.132.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (previously 71.219.141.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding an unsupported category (Chaos magician) repeatedly to Kurt Cobain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has also engaged in personal attacks and attempted privacy exposure (see User_talk:71.219.132.57 and this edit summary). —Hanuman Das 02:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Very questionable move

Someone has moved the page Demon to "Satanic Spirits" without any discussion whatsoever. Could someone revert this before it causes even more damage? --Sofeil 02:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --tjstrf talk 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User Shantz1

Shantz1 has over the course of a few months been inserting material promoting homejobsite.com. He was given a "final warning" for it in september. I suspect 216.59.251.61 to be his sock puppet due to edits on "Work at home". Darwin Peacock 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen - possible sock puppeting?

I have reasons to believe that User: Marina C (2), User:Marina E.Cummings, User:Lovellester, User:Carter Zoll, User:Roger Preston, User:Iapethus, User:GRANBRO, User:Nicolae Zanetti, User:Arkadiam, User:Bernardbblois, User:Morgandy Aithne, User:Marestefanpopnicu, User:Tobias Greene, and User:MarinaC are all one and the same person. I may be wrong, but all of them focus on the same small set of articles related to the Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen and the rest of the Romanian Royal Family. Also, all of them seem to share an identical POV, which I find quite idiosyncratic, all of them being in favor of Radu Duda and of the Romanian royals. If anyone could, please, check and see if they are one and the same person, that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! JamesP2003 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Have any of the users done anything, such as edit warring, voting, or entering in discussion, in a common goal? Just having multiple accounts is in no way illegal, it's all about how they are used. --Wildnox(talk) 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For instance, User:Lovellester and User:Iapethus have engaged in conversations on the Discussion pages of the Prince Radu, Michael I of Romania, and Prince Charles of Wales articles, with the goal to create an apparent consensus about the below-mentioned edit wars (see, for example, the following Talk messages [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205]). Then, using the unacceptable primary sources represented by these so-called emails (which, as we know, can be forged) from the above-mentioned Discussion messages, both of these users entered into edit wars. They tried to alter accordingly the Prince Radu, Prince Charles of Wales (therein joined also by User:Carter Zoll - see this edit), Michael I of Romania, and Princess Margarita of Romania articles to suit their common POV (see, for instance, the edits [206], [207], [208], [209], and [210] done on the Prince Radu article; similar edit wars happenned on the other three articles). I can give you more such examples about pretty much all of these users, but for the sake of time and effort, I hope these examples are enough to prove their attempts to break the Wikipedia rules by sockpuppeting. JamesP2003 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove an IP address from the notice/Incidents archive?

I hope an admin can help with this.

Apparently a Wikipedia user has caused problems with other Wikipedia users. There is an incident in the archive with this users Wiki name and IP address.

The IP address is not his, but rather my companies.

We have discovered this user may have caused problems elsewhere on the Internet, and our searching shows he seems to have done the same here.

We would very much like to disassociate ourselves from this behavior. While I can't speak about specifics publicly in detail, though I wish I could, you may read 'disassociate' in very liberal terms and it will be clear what I mean. This will not happen again from this user/IP address.

While we do not care if his Wiki user name remains, as it should, we wish greatly to have the Incident archive post edited to no longer reflect, via the IP address, any negative association with our company.

We would appreciate it very much if a Wikipedia admin could contact me for further information and directions on how we can resolve our problem.

Thank you very much.

Netmask 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent insertion of a commercial link by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

On the Grosses messer page, WP contributor Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg persists in adding an external link (Example of a traditional grosses messer) that feeds into an online catalogue page, complete with ordering instructions and prices, maintained by a maker and vendor of reproduction swords. His reason? Because, he says, "...in a search for a picture of the weapon. I was unsure about the legal status of the photo so I added the whole link." When warned (on my talk page) that adding blatant commmercial links to a WP article appears to violate WP:EL policy #4, he replied, "it was the only picture of the weapon available and thus gives an adaquate reason not to follow it." He further insists he has no commercial or other interest in such a link but is justified in inserting it, "since a picture of the weapon would be helpful to the article." To prevent further acts of what might be considered vandalism, i.e., willful violations of WP:EL policies, and after encountering three reinsertions of the commercial link by Al-Silverburg on December 13th, it seems the matter should be referred to cooler heads at the WP Administrator level. Could a decision be made whether persistent insertions of purely commercial links are considered vandalism, or whether such links are justified because a contributor believes they would "be helpful to the article" and he says "it was the only picture of the weapon available"? Thanks, Jack Bethune 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this back to Talk:Grosses messer; other admins, come on over if you want to weigh in, of course, but this is really more of a content issue. JDoorjam Talk 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have already told Jack I had never even heard of the site until I googled "Grosses Messer" looking for a picture, since I was unsure of the legal status of it I decided just to add the entire link. I will also mention that I did not appreciate how Jack began our interaction by immediately accusing me of link spamming which was not only a violation of good faith but was also completly unwarranted. I also attempted to explain my position by stating that guidelines may at times be ignored if their is good reason which in this case there was. I will admit that my reaction has not been appropriate at every turn but I feel it was almost justified considering such incivility on such a mundane detail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Backlog of articles for speedy deletion

There is a 147 article backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Admin help appreciated. — ERcheck (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just deleted ten and made another one a redirect. If each person around handles five entries, we'll have it down to a manageable size in an hour or so. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Still 119 articles left, not to mention images. — ERcheck (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've cleared out atll 165 images, and I see the articles are down to 38. I'm going for a lie down now. Proto::► 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What if a Userpage is being used as a blatant advertisement

I have been looking through Wikipedia trying to find a policy that covers this. This userpage User:ViraltheShow appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for their service and company and links to promote it. Ordinarily, if this was an article, I would put a speedy delete on it and move along, but how to handle if it is the user account. This user has no edits to anything other than their userpage and it is pretty obvious what they are doing here, but never having dealt with this before, I didnt want to make a mistake. Any direction? Can U put a speedy delete on a userpage, or should this be addressed in a different way? Caper13 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedied the userpage. Someone else can decided what to do about the user in question, I am going to make a pizza dough. Viridae^Talk 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I speedied the page again after the user recreated the page. The user has been warned. Gdo01 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedied again and Salted. Never seen a salted userpage before. Is this a first? Viridae^Talk 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So what? If it stays on the userpage, is it a big deal? Trollderella 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT. Wikiepdia is not a free webhost. That includes your userpage. Viridae^Talk 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand, see WP:Enforcing every rule, all the time, wastes a lot of time, annoys a lot of people, and makes you look like a petty rulemonger, especially if no obvious problem is being caused. Trollderella 08:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this in any way benefit the encyclopedia? If it did, or if it was a valuable contributor I would be inclined to overlook it. But it doesnt and its not. Viridae^Talk 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it was recreated 3 times, after being warned twice, and they have made no useful contributions in the larger encyclopedia, I support an indefinate block on this account. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, we need no more spam. Doc Tropics 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) PS - did you mention "pizza"?

Mmmm, pizza...Oh, sorry. Just to let you know that {{prod}} now applies to user pages. And yeah, giving a free pass to user pages of the sort not allowed in article space to the sort of unvarnished spam, self-promotion, and other MySpace-like pages is a ridiculous notion. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since the user now has zero remaining contributions after deletion of problematic / spam content, I think we're wasting our time even discussing this. See ViraltheShow (talk · contribs). Guy (Help!) 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IDF barnstar?!

We have a IDF barnstar? Can I create a OBL or Hamas barnstar? Or should the IDF barnstar be deleted? What is the correct course of action? --Striver 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF isn't an internationally recognized terrorist organization. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And you need not create an OBL or Hamas barnstar because you already have the following on your user page:

• An Islamic sword helping to symbolize Islam, the Religion of Peace. [211]
• An unabashed image displaying a US serviceman sitting on an Arab as a blanket statement about all Americans. [212]
• A pentagram hexagram drawn on an American national seal - an obvious "Jewish conspiracy" insinuation. [213]
• Numerous intolerant, anti-Masonite images and links. [214]
• Miscellaneous inflammatory links. notably: [215] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, your userpage is stepping rather firmly on the line between offensive and acceptable.--Vercalos 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr....a pentagram has 5 points, not 6. And since when has the pyramid been an American seal? Why is the picture of the serviceman a statement on all Americans? Maybe it's just a statement on those who take photos of themselves sitting on prisoners? The sword is an important symbol of shia islam (it's compared to excalibur in the description page). Anyway, your argument is ad-hominem. We're discussing the IDF barnstar (which I find totally acceptable, by the way. I'm sure there are dozens of US Army inspired barnstars out there), not Striver's userpage. yandman 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I completely missed the "Jewish conspiracy" insinuations. Thanks for pointing that out. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right... we are discussing the IDF barnstar, and you're really jumping to conclusions with quite a few things. For example, the purpose of the hexagram is to show the connection between the letters that spell MASON. Also, I'm sure you're aware of your sardonic use of Religion of Peace. Anyway, in regards to the IDF barnstar, I don't see it as a problem. They're a military defense organization, not a terrorist group that targets certain groups of people. -- tariqabjotu 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That being said... another name would have been better since the Israeli Defense Force doesn't really seem relevant to the barnstar itself (it's not like it's for contributing to articles related to the IDF). -- tariqabjotu 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr...I'm pretty sure I said the seal was American, not the symbol of the pyramid. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my 07:08 one-liner was a devestating refutation - the rest is ad-hominem, but only in response to Can I create a OBL or Hamas barnstar? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly support renaming and redisigning the barnstar so that it is less explicitly POV, but to a certain extent that it up to the members of the wikiproject. If you think that it is inflammatory the best course is to nominate it for deletion at WP:MfD rather than creating another problematic one (see WP:POINT). Eluchil404 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The barnstar has no likeness to actual IDF logos and there is no Star of David. It is arguably less POV than any barnstar containing a symbol that represents Israel/the Jewish people. What precedent would you like to set? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the attacks against Striver, the IDF barnstar is very divisive. -Lapinmies 08:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that premise doesn't make any sense. It's a total non sequitur. This discussion, and "attacks" on Striver have nothing to do with wether a barnstar is acceptable or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lapinmies, I tend to disagree. The majority of the discussion is about how disruptive Striver is. The barnstar itself doesn't seem to be a problem. Doc Tropics 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

People are so passionate about that barnstar that they have to start making accusations against Striver because he brought it up. This is why I say it is divisive. -Lapinmies 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's passionate about it? I think it looks poorly made, but poorly made doesn't mean it's offensive. Striver should just stop calling the kettle black - and stop disrupting for that matter. He hasn't even bothered to participate in this discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF barnstar is a fine way to reward those who are here as soldiers of Israel (as opposed to being here to make Wikipedia into an accurate and balanced encyclopedia). --Zero^talk 08:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of barnstars that are used figuratively. It's not like anti-vandal barnstars are only for people with black surveillance vans and satellite uplinks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the Wikiproject page says that the IDF barnstar was created since most Israelis would recognize the distinctive shoulder bars since Israeli armed forces service is compulsory making it extremely common in Israel. I find nothing offensive about it existing. Despite what the IDF might have done, it is no worse than having US army type awards or userboxes on Wikipedia. If we remove the IDF, we'll be on a slippery slope to removing all presumably militant-themed awards and userboxes. Gdo01 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree with you on those grounds, I'm just saying that it isn't required to be as literal as Zero is maybe suggesting. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be simpler and more neutral if all project awards were named for their project. This award is being given by WikiProject Israel. Just call it "Israel Barnstar". -Will Beback · † · 09:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Having this barnstar apply to any Israel-related contributions, and not specifically to the Israeli military, is absurd, and the barnstar below it advertised as "for Israel's defenders" similarly makes it seem that this WikiProject seeks to advance or protect particular interests, rather than write a neutral encyclopedia. (Would someone contributing to articles about American universities ever be given a "U.S. Army barnstar"? is the "Bagel of Zion" only available if you create articles full of praise?). —Centrx→talk • 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but they might be given a very generic looking mascot barnstar for working on a university project. So I agree with you in the sense that an IDF barnstar for any contribution is absurd, but I don't think an IDF barnstar for general Israeli projects is inappropriate. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The description of the barnstar is "The IDF Barnstar is given to Wikipedians who have made extensive contributions to Israel related articles on Wikipedia." It doesn't mention anything about the military. -Will Beback · † · 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying it doesn't have to per the aforementioned. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the only way someone would have a problem with the barnstar is if they didn't like the IDF... Where exactly does the barnstar actually pus POV? All I see is 'exstensive contributions'. I have nothing to do with the project, Israel, or the middle east, so I don't have any problem with the barnstar.. It'd be one thing if the barnstar was for something patently offensive, such as the KKK or the Nazi party, but it's the IDF, and the only place the IDF is found to be offensive is by those currently hostile to Israel....--Vercalos 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree w/ people exchanging IDF barnstars as per Centrex and Zero. As for Striver's userpage, it is another issue which cannot be discussed using ad-hominem arguments. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia guys! Are you fighting here militarly Haizum to defend Israel? If it is the case than we got a serious problem here. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not complicated. I only brought up Striver's userpage when he asked if he could make a UBL or Hamas barnstar. To be even more clear, he wanted to make something offensive - I explained that his user page was already offensive. Just drop it already. As for me, I'm using logic. I don't actively participate in any Israeli projects, I'm not known to, and I don't intend to. So, if you want to point POV fingers, direct them at the guy that has a sword of Islam on his user page. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(to Vercalos) I know a user here who witnessed his friend being killed by the IDF. Would you mind if I created a PLO barnstar? Khoikhoi 10:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain to you why this is an admission of POV. The IDF embraces a moral and peaceful ideal on the official level. Accidents happen, people make mistakes, but the goal of the IDF is peace, not war. Your statement. by virtue of deductive logic, shows that you believe all deaths at the hands of the IDF are wrong/evil/bad and are never by accident or in legitimate defense of Israel. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that this image now forces us to discuss whether the IDF is "good" or "bad" shows how divisive it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't legitimize the bias - the morality of the IDF is not up for discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we all try and avoid "The Userbox Wars 2 - The Return" please? yandman 10:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should avoid creating offensive barnstars. Khoikhoi 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of getting rid of this. The whole old "barnstar of national merit" idea is suspect too - as Wikipedians, we are simply not supposed to act with the motive of promoting the interests of a particular nation. But this one is particularly bad, with its implied reference to "defending" the interests of one particular nation, and to military violence as a means of achieving this. The image clearly alludes to military organisation, and the filename is part of the message too. If this was technically a template and not just an image it would certainly have been speedied under T1 long ago. I'd say that images designed primarily or exclusively for quasi-userbox purposes should fall under the same criteria as userbox templates proper. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just implement the German userbox barnstar solution for this type of barnstar? yandman 10:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is so difficult to create a different Barnstar to award for excellent Israeli-related contributions but simply a less contoversial one. Issues aside, this will cause flames. And there is no reason for extra inflammation. --Irpen 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC

I feel sorry for people that have such a timid outlook on the world. Controversy does not mean there is something legitimate to controverse; in this case, we're talking about pixels on a screen. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We do encourage anyone to contribute to the encyclopaedia and we do have plenty of barnstars as rewards. The point is that Israel-related articles are not limited to the IDF. The IDF (be it bad or good) got a military connotation. There's nothing wrong at all to present Jewish/Islamic/Christian barnstars as they cover thousands of articles but the IDF? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum... Israel Defense ForceS are defending Israel on the ground but what are they defending here? -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, maybe, just maybe the IDF barnstar is sometimes being used figuratively. OMG, ever consider that? I mean, it's not like editors are literally receiving little metal stars in the mail. WOOOOOOW, that just dawned on me! --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it. My ancestors slaved in the barnstar factories, and my father was killed by a falling barnstar. I'm offended by their usage. Why can't we just say "Thanks for being a great editor on this project. Three cheers!" instead of using such a sharp, and offensive object such as the barnstar? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but that doesn't give objective answers to my questions Haizum. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors that strengthen project Israel articles with reputable and verifiable content, and defend them from vandalism, rogue edits, and unsourced material are IDF barnstar worthy in my opinion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok! -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its quite funny that you guys are taking this serious, has anyone actually looked at Strivers edit history, this is what he does, start drama. Anyway the idea that the barnstar be given for anything doesn't make sense, but me giving a barnstar for the wrong reason does not delegitimize the barnstar itself. Wouldnt the simple answer be to revise the banstar text instead of deleting since it will just be recreated with the new more acceptable text anyway? Also this whole issue over "defense" meaning defending Jewish ideals is insane considering it most likely means defending articles against vandalism, takes some bad assumption of faith to assume its for ideological reasons. --NuclearZer0 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You got to the right point. So it is set as a counter-vandalism award! Who are those vandals? Palestinians or wikivandals? Does this barnstar concern non-Israeli fighting against vandalism at Israel-related articles? What is the use of barnstars that are given w/ restriction? As for Striver's userpage, i personally have concerns about it as well and would argue against many things used on the userpage. I've just blocked a new user 2 days earlier for having anti-Jewish quotes (according to what he explained, they were only quotes stated by others. Ummm!) Again, what i am defending here is keeping this place clean of troubles especially between contributors working on heated articles. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF barnstar is a stupid and ridiculously POV barnstar, and ought to go (I suggest any admins to speedy the thing right away). And, for that matter, so should all the Muslim barnstars which are distributed as often as a way of saying "thanks for pushing our Muslim POV" rather than "thanks for helping out the Muslim articles". And so should the LGBT barnstar or any other barnstar which is a subtle way of saying, "thanks for the POV pushing". And, finally, Haizum is right, Striver, your userpage is incredibly offensive. You might have a point about a bad barnstar, but this is a case of WP:POT if I ever saw one. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

... wow, Striver is even more offensive than I am. Anyway, I think that a barnstar for WikiProject Israel is a good idea. But linking it to the IDF is probably not very smart. I understand that a lot of people support Israel and the IDF as only reacting to terrorism, but I can't see any reason why the barnstar should identify with the IDF or use that kind of styling. As for the assertion that the only people who find the IDF offensive are Israel's enemies, I cannot agree. I personally feel that both sides have stepped over the line far to many times to be taken at face value anymore. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Durova and myself have just left a message at Stiver's talk page urging him to do some GOOD CLEANUP to his userpage. I believe this kind of stuff SHOULD stop so nobody would argue anymore. It's just too silly to hear stuff like ohh, jacko got a puppy, i want one too or he does shit on the floor, why not me?!. I hope there would be no need to follow WP:IAR. I also hope this would help wikipedia. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly controversial, should be edited. Nothing wrong with a barnstar for Israel or IDF articles, but it shouldn't be a military symbol for a controversial military. Consider this - we should certainly have a barnstar for Soviet Union or WWII Germany related edits, but it should not be a Soviet or German military symbol. (desperately trying to avoid Godwin's Law, but darn it, it's the most appropriate comparison). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat depopulation?

It appears at a casual glance that Str1977 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is on a mission to depopulate "Category:Christian mythology" (note the last 2 dozen edits in Contribs). Given that the changes are occuring rather quickly, with 20+ deletions in 20 minutes, I thought I should mention it here. Doc Tropics 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it being replaced by something else? Viridae^Talk 09:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, such as Child Jesus[216], yes. In most, no. Some of them appear to be valid recategorizations, others are rather reactionary seeming and misunderstand that the Category:Christian mythology is for Christian wikt:mythos in the technical sense, not myths in the colloquial sense of unsupported/false tales. --tjstrf talk 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I appreciate that bringing it here is a result of your concern over a series of rapid decategorizing, but I think it's misguided in this case, though certainly well meant. Str1977 is a longstanding valuable member of the community, with well over 10,000 edits to his credit, many of which are reversions of vandalism, archiving talk pages, helping other users with formatting, etc., and many of which are also completely unrelated to Christianity. So "on a mission" seems rather loaded language. It seems likely that he saw an article in that category which didn't seem to belong, removed the category, and then looked in the category to see what other articles were in it, and removed the ones that he thought misplaced. It seems that the first place to express concerns should have been at his talk page. Bringing it here suggests that admin action (rather than user discussion) is required, especially by using the {{user5}} template instead of simply the {{user}} one. I don't think we need a quick access to this, though others may disagree :-)

It's possible for good editors to disagree over the appropriateness of categories. Sometimes it's more about POV pushing than about honest disagreements between users. For example, there could be a notorious serial killer, who happened to have Jewish parents, but who was himself an atheist. Someone who shows by his pattern of making anti-semitic edits that he has an axe to grind adds the murderer's article to the category (if there is one) of famous Jews. Other editors quite rightly protest. There can also be misunderstanding of what it means to be in a category. Months ago, I took Margaret Roper out of the category of Catholic martyrs,[217] because she wasn't a martyr; her father was. Geogre reverted me, and gave a very reasonable explanation on the talk page, which I accepted.

Str1977 seems to be offline at the moment, and someone has already left a message on his talk page, about him, not to him (i.e. in the third person!), and I'm sure he'll be open to discussing it when he next logs on. In this case, I would certainly agree with some of his decategorizations (or recategorizations), and can see the reasoning behind the others. AnnH ♫ 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and the time that you all put into reviewing this issue. I'm not always clear on when to talk versus when to call for attention, and I did have concerns about the speed of the changes being made. I didn't realize that "appears at a casual glance...is on a mission" would be considered loaded language; in fact, my intent was rather the opposite. I was trying to indicate that I wasn't quite sure what was happening, and at 2:00 a.m. (my time) I simply wanted someone else to look into because it was way past my bedtime. Likewise, I didn't realize that the various {{user}} templates were associated with specific "threat levels"; I almost always use {{user5}} on this page because it makes all relevant info easily available. I actually tried to ensure that my post wasn't accusatory or inflammatory, but I did want someone more experienced to review the situation. It appears that he removed the cat from 40 articles in about an hour, which strikes me as odd, but if others are unconcerned about the issue I'll not worry about it any further. Thanks again for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience. Doc Tropics 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, you were quite right to bring it here if you thought it was a problem, and I don't think Str will get huffy. Regarding the different user templates, a lot of examples can be seen at the bottom of the {{user5}} one. There used to be a problem with one that was called "vandal". It was eventually moved to {{userlinks}}, so we don't use it with the "vandal" name anymore. It gave user, talk, contribs, block user, and block log; and a decent user who had been blocked for 3RR (yes, there is such a thing!) would have his name appearing on the noticeboard with the word "vandal" in front of it in the source code! AnnH ♫ 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this section title made me very concerned until I realised it was short for something. Please use abbreviations with care :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, my first thought was "Colbert?" – Chacor 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Joke edit protected by spamfilter

Someone made a joke edit in the article Bob Costas in part "Costas captured the gold medal in powerlifting during the 1996 Olympic" [218], when I tried to revert it a Spam protection filter stopped the revert claiming that a saturday night live database link which is being used as a reference for a previous legitimate edit on this bullet:

• Bob Costas has been impersonated several times by Darrell Hammond on Saturday Night Live

This is true and wasn't added by the vandal, the snl database link doesn't appear to be spam, and when I search for it in the blacklist here the snl database website isn't listed. how can this be fixed? ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Docued

User:Docued is once again creating articles with unoriginal and possibly unfree content (see earlier report). Also, he/she has now created a number of articles with notability issues (for instance, P.Kerim Friedman, Catarina Alves Costa). See Special:Contributions/Docued.--Media anthro 12:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: The articles are on films or filmmakers associated with the company which Docued is employed. — ERcheck (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like these articles are fodder for a mass AFD, though it won't be me doing it. Goodnight. MER-C 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone already removed the prod notice from John Marshall (filmmaker), but I just wanted to make sure that he doesn't get swept up in the mass purge. Of all of the articles User:Docued created, John Marshall is probably the only one that meets notability requirements as he was an extremely prolific and influential filmmaker. I believe that this is adequately documented on the page itself, but please let me know if anyone has further concerns about his notability. Thanks.--Media anthro 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

This is the IP address of blocked (for 24 hours) user:downwards (see discussion above). This should be blocked too, as the editor is defying his block by just not signing in.--Thomas.macmillan 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• user:downwards was unblocked by the blocking admin, so it's not really an issue. If he keeps up the incivility bordering on WP:NPA like he did in reponse to the block, then there is a problem, but right now I don't see anything that warrents further action.--Isotope23 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, it's not clear that User:Downwards was wrong in restoring the deleted categories, so I removed the block, and I've asked User:Thomas.macmillan to review the relevant guidelines and to cease removing the disputed category, at least temporarily, until we sort this out. I also started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Subcategorization_question to try to see if there has ever been an actual consensus on this issue. While I removed the block because I felt that the initial reason for the block was invalid, Downwards' subsequent behavior is definitely a concern, and worthy of a re-block if he keeps it up. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia conspiracy page

EveryStateLine (talk · contribs)'s talk page is currently a theory that the U.S. federal government is "infiltrating" Wikipedia to make it a puppet of the current administration and names several established users as "federal contractors". I had previously removed this post from the village pump, but it may qualify as a personal attack page. - BanyanTree 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not any more... Guy (Help!) 16:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The page also contained a direct personal attack against Fred Bauder. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the subject, this is a returning vandal, which is why he was indef blocked. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*passes out tinfoil hats* Syrthiss 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I left mine on the grassy knoll. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, that's exactly what you want us to believe, isn't it? You probably never even had one! *twitch* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to the ref desk to ask them what metal is the most effective for lining a TFH... | Mr. Darcy talk 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per the new guidelines, we're not permitted to give opinions. ;-))) Anchoress 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to see here... move along.--Isotope23 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock. Please list them at WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And yet MONGO is going to be desysopped for having properly dealt with this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ifeldman84

This user, in both Benny Sela and Mizrahi Jews, reverted rv's made by both Sirmylesnagopaleentheda and I, without even having an edit summary (not even "rv"), and without saying anything in the acticle discussion page or in my talk page! Benny Sela: [219], he stopped when Amoruso said that I'm correct. Mizrahi Jews: [220], [221], [222]. He hasn't stopped yet reverting the reversions. I contacted him in his talk page (User talk:Ifeldman84), and he said: "next time, if you do a "revert" (as you claim) i will ask my friends to block you from editing the English wikipedia. end of discussion, dont try to edit my talk page". From what I understand I cannot talk to this person, who doesn't have the minimal respect rules in order to be here, so I'm commenting in the Admins' noticeboard. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the user 24h for the whole pattern of behavior ... but I'd like to have another admin review it. I may have been a little harsh. It seems to be that Ifeldman84 is pushing a dangerous POV (dangerous in a Wikipedia sense), one which should probably be nipped in the bud before it escalates. Again, would appreciate another opinion. ([223] is what struck me as dangerous. Something like that should be added after a consensus, no?) | Mr. Darcy talk 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Darcy. His whole attitude should be condemned here: reverting edits without an edit summary, controversial edits, and threats of telling "his friends" to block me. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, warning him first would have been nice, but given the obvious malice behind his edits, I don't think anyone will fault you for the immediate block. --Scimitar 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IP Address of Vandal who is not signed in

When I find a vandal, is there a way to determine if his IP address has been involved in prior vandalism. An act of vandalism that I reverted here seems to be from someone who is experienced with the system. If possible, reply to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just check their contribs. This is also in the wrong place, there's no admin intervention in an incident needed. – Chacor 16:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User continiously removes large sections from an article.

Ultramarine continiously (for more than a month) removes well-souced sections about Marxist view on democracy from "theory" section of Democracy article [224]. I do not know how to considerthese actions other than vandalism.--Nixer 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)