Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

Please tell Jossi to not deal with me

Hi, User:Jossi blocked me last for dealing with sockpuppetry. Since we have had run-ins in the past, I'm asking the community of administrators to request that he not use his administrator functions against me. This is especially true because he is a practitioner of a religion that has been subject to skeptical inquiry (one of my areas of editorial focus) and I feel that this compromises his ability to be objective and evenhanded in his treatment of me. I am particularly upset by his most recent block of me.

Query: He and I have interacted extensively both in talkspace and in mainspace. Do you think it is reasonable to ask that he get uninvolved administrators to take action against me if he thinks I deserve it, instead of doing so himself?

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some reading material: WP:FRINGE#Refactoring of talk page comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is Jossi's rationale. Note that despite our long history of being opposed to each other, Jossi sees no problem trying to teach me to not be police, judge, and executioner, but to me it appears that he has not heeded his own advice. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the further apart these two are kept, the better. I thoroughly support Jossi ALWAYS seeking out another admin, preferably through AN or AN/I, to handle any and all problems with SA from now on. I'm tired of seeing these two go in circles, and think that a guaranteed third opinion before blocks would alleviate a lot of the hassles. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That would make me feel much better. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note that declaring your vendetta "I'm going to put you on trial" is stupid. You need to refactor those comments as well. Jossi's easily provoked, so don't feed the troll. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't putting someone on trial in the Wikipedia sense, I don't know what is. I'm simply trying to be honest. I'm pissed off at Jossi, I think he shouldn't be an administrator. I'm not going to hide that this is my point-of-view. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jossi's easily provoked or not, SA saying (see Jossi's talk page) "wikipedia crimes" and "I'm going to put you on trial" is over the top and should indeed be refactored. I also agree this two should separate, wiki is a big place, there's plenty of room. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I give you permission to refactor that comment, Rlevse. I was trying to be honest. I'm really mad at Jossi and think he should be subject to punitive measures. That's just how I feel right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. SA's primary goal on WP is to get a clear rational scientific view into any article in which it belongs, while Jossi's got a religious group whose articles and ethoses (ethoi?) he strongly watches over. These overlap, and neither will let go short of a community ban. Jossi's got a lot of admins who will circle the wagons at that, and SA has a lot of general community support preventing him from being tossed, so there has to be a careful set of rules for them both to edit. SA needs to learn to avoid provoking Jossi, and Jossi needs to learn that one, SA's often right about factual information, and two, his admin badge isn't a 'do what I want' ticket. ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm proposing to put you on trial for the Wikipedia crimes you perpetrated against me.[1]. Science Apologist needs to take a deep breath, or a wikibreak, or both.
2. @ThuranX: I am not a troll, and I do not need not to be fed, FYI.
3. @ Other admins: Science Apologist needs to be told not to behave like a vigilante: there is enough strength in the community to deal with fringe POV pushers, and not all editors that disagree with him are fringe POV pushers. Science Apologist needs also to learn to utilize the admin boards when needed, and be patient that his reports will be taken seriously, rather than make reports and while reports are still open, refactor comments in talk page discussions as he did in this last incident. I warned him three times, and he persisted, and earned himself a 24 hrs block, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a "crime" about which I need to be put on "trial". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're behaving like a vigilante when you block me after being so incredibly involved with me over the years. Your "warnings" were met with explanations for why they made no sense. I think you behaved very badly and are basically a hypocrite. I don't know why you always feel it necessary to shill for Fringe POV-pushers, but your massive history in regards to this seem to me to indicate that you are not someone who should have ever been given the administrator tools. You abused your mop-and-bucket when you blocked me without getting anyone else to review the situation. In short, I don't want to see you doing anything administrative toward me ever again. I'm sick and tired of your excuses. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By now, SA, almost every active administrator has been "involved with you", so pleas, spare me the hyperbole and the badmouthing. If you are tired of my "excuses", imagine how tired the community should be of your behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that is hyperbole. There are 1800 administrators. I can name maybe a dozen who have been involved with me. Stop invoking the "community" as if you are some sort of spokesperson. Where do you get off being so rudely supercilious? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And you call this an "explanation"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other diffs I could also point to. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• SA's hyperbole is unhelpful. However Jossi is no longer an uninvolved admin regarding SA. In the most recent block, Jossi and SA were reverting each other. It's not right for an admin to engage in an edit war and then block the other party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Hyperbole? Have you ever been blocked by someone who has been in a long-running dispute with you across multiple article spaces, Will? I took a weeklong break. I'm still fuming. I need to have out with it and I'm venting. I'm going to do it on Wiki too. I think Jossi is one of the worst administrators we've got here. Just get him away from me. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If so, then yes, Jossi should walk away and leave blocking to others. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Will. Enigma ^message 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I was not "edit warring", Will. And I don't think Will needs to get involved in this discussion, given our recent disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Really, Jossi? WP:EDIT WAR seems to say differently especially with regards to the fact that you were continually reverting my removals of a Davkal sock. I don't know what your definition is, though. Maybe no one was edit warring. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First, let me echo the sentiment that some of ScienceApologist's statements to and about Jossi need to be refactored. Second, in the last few days I asked Jossi to get outside admin help in the future if he thinks he needs to block SA. I explained my rationale at that time: namely, (1) If Jossi is right about the need to block, other admins will agree and can do this for him; and (2) SA responds better to other admins than he does to Jossi, which may obviate the need to block. I stand by these rationales. I would add that Jossi and SA have previously been engaged in editing the same contentious articles [2] [3], though in a very limited way I stand corrected. Antelan^talk 23:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also give you permission to refactor the statements, Antelan. I'm just being honest with my feelings. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way, Jossi's history with me goes way back to the plasma cosmology wars where he reverted to a "preferred version" and then protected an article to appease certain POV-pushers who will not be named. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That was back in .... 2005? Please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said, LONGRUNNING dispute. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Jossi is clearly involved and should always get another admin with deal with this user in terms of "use of buttons". Oh and SA, you now have the communities attention on this matter, so I suggest you shut up, sit back and let us discuss it. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll shut up. Thanks for being civil and all. I'll remember to use that one later. I'm out of here. Sorry that you had to see me so mad. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the sequence of edits. SA apparently believed he was deleting the remarks of a banned user.
  • SA: 00:45, June 23, 2008 [4] Undid revision 221091176 by Ludwigs2 (talk) sorry: BANNED users don't get to post.
  • Jossi: 00:47, June 23, 2008 [5] [no edit summary]
  • SA: 00:49, June 23, 2008 [6] Reverted good faith edits by Jossi; Jossi, we're trying to clear the air about WP:SOCKs of User:Davkal..
  • Jossi: 00:54, June 23, 2008 [7] Second warning: Please do not refactor talk page
  • SA: 00:57, June 23, 2008 [8] Undid revision 221093093 by Jossi (talk) see WP:3RR#Other exceptions. This is a User:Davkal sock.
  • Jossi: 01:03, June 23, 2008 [9] last warning
  • SA: 01:11, June 23, 2008 [10] Undid revision 221094604 by Jossi (talk) WP:3RR#Other exceptions. Also, you removed my post.
• It appears that Jossi reverted SA three times, then blocked him for violating 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I appears that (again) you miss the context. SA filled an SPS report, and while the report was still opened, he decided that it was a SP and refactored the comments. This despite the fact that there is no policy that calls for refactoring talk page comments for such SPs. I warned him not to refactor talk pages, on that basis. But he "knew" better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned users may not edit any part of Wikipedia, and their contributions may be removed. See WP:BAN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the SPS report came back positive, so SA was correct in regarding the IP as a sock of a banned user. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you have cared to do some due diligence before these accusations, Will, you should have noted that the block was not for 3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What policy did SA violate that justified a block, if not 3RR? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, if you don't mind, Will, let other admins comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once my questions are answered I'll be done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Your questions"? or your questioning of me? I do not see it appropriate that you get to try to impeach my character here, given the massive content disputes you and I are engaged in. Leave it to others, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SA's unimpressive conduct of labeling an editor as a sockpuppet to amp up an edit war aside, Jossi's choice to edit war with somebody he'd blocked shortly before is frankly disappointing. Was there any reason he simply didn't seek the assistance of uninvolved administrators at WP:AN3 or WP:AE and avoided this perception of impropriety? Jossi, I'm hoping that you see the sense in my concerns and pledge to avoid sanctioning SA in the future if you continue to edit against him, opting instead to make a case to a neutral body of administrators rather than engaging in such behavior. Anyway, this specific block is in the past, and I will reserve opinion on a pattern of mutual combativeness for now. east.718 at 00:03, July 2, 2008

It was a sockpuppet Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149. Hal peridol (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement

Clearly SA is pissed off, and a week-long break did not helped him. So, sure, I will not block him in the future directly, but if I come across any disruption by him, I will dully report it at WP:AN/I. IMO, it is about time that someone stands up for the community and does the right thing regardless of who the user doing the disruption. So, SA: I am not going away, I am here and will be here for as long as I find this project worth of my time. And if I see disruption, I will report it. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what you are supposed to do, if you want. Be careful, though.--Abd (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Davkal was banned for disruption. How does re-instating comments from a banned user count as standing up for the community? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When the refactor happened, the SSP report that SA filed was not closed. SA could have simply waited, but he did not. And even if the SP was of a banned user, there is no policy that calls for refactoring of talk page comments, which is done only in extreme circumstances. Learn the policy pages, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am familair with the policy. It says: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. That is what SA was doing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how this comment is so disruptive as to warrant removal? It does not. See also Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits which basically speaks of edits to articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So you edit-warred and then blocked a user who you have a known history with because he was removing the comments of a banned user? and you didn't think that someone uninvolved should have taken that action? --Allemandtando (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not met you before, so I am not sure you are aware of this incident. You may want to read User_talk:ScienceApologist#Unblock including the comment of the admin that reviewed the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BAN does not require that the edits be disruptive. It says "any edits". I also see what it says about those who reinstate edits by banned users:
  • Users may reinstate edits that were reverted due to being made in defiance of a ban, if they sincerely believe the edits are beneficial to the encyclopedia and compliant with policy. Users who reinstate such edits take complete personal responsibility for the content by so doing. Note that editing on behalf of a banned user is strongly discouraged, and may in some cases be viewed as meatpuppetry, especially if the edits in question are similar to those that led to the ban in the first place. If in doubt, think twice and consult others more familiar with the situation first.
• Why was Jossi so confident that the IP was not a banned user that he blocked another user who'd already made a case? Jossi has said he didn't block SA for 3RR. What policy did SA violate to justify the block? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All that SA had to do was to be patient. And your insistence, Will, it is most unwelcome. Should I make a case for retaliation from you? Leave it to others, please. The admin that reviewed the block could have unblock him, but he did not. Stay out of this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, an active admin can (will?) have its lapses of judgment, and with hindsight, I should have let it be and not block SA for that behavior. At the time, I saw it to be necessary, but I may have been wrong although the admin that reviewed the block did not see it that way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you blocked the user. You did say it wasn't for 3RR. Is it too much to ask why you felt it was necessary for you to block the user, despite having edit-warred with him? The two admins who approved the block appear to have (incorrectly?) assumed that SA was blocked for 3RR, and two others who reviewed the block said that it was inappropriate. As for pursuing this matter, you posted a statement above basically saying that you are acting on behalf of the community by standing up to disruption. That's a big claim, especially when you're restoring postings by a banned user. If you aren't following the blocking or banning policies then that's a legitimate cause for concern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you twice to stay out of this, clearly you are attempting retaliation for our current disputes between you and I. I have already made a statement that I will post an AN/I any behavior I see as disruptive rather that action it myself. I have already admitted that I may have been mistaken, so what is your intention with these comments, Will? Do you want three nails and a cross? Please stay out of this, it is most unbecoming of you to keep pressing these points after what I have said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, FYI that SA was already in breach of 3RR in WP:FRINGE: [11] before the incident with the page refactoring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

May have been mistaken? You're not sure? You're apparently not even sure why you blocked the user. SA has questioned your judgment as an admin. So far you haven't given shown that you correctly understand two core key policies, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Do you now understand that it is correct to remove postings from banned users, that admins may not block users with whom they're involved, and that they need to be able to justify their blocks? I won't ask again, but this is a very poor example of admin responsibility, in my opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep pressing the point, but you do not see your own fallacies, Will. The user was blocked for what I assessed at the time to be disruptive behavior. The user comments that SA refactored where not assessed to be of a banned user at the time. SA was also edit warring in the policy page itself. So, yes, I admit may have made a mistake at the time. What else do you want, Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, and also it appears that Davkal has himself a third enabler, and an admin to boot. Shot info (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an "enabler" of anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I reports have a nasty habit of getting derailed. User:ScienceApologist came here with a totally reasonable request, one so reasonable that the community should have immediately said, "Of course. User:Jossi shouldn't be dealing with you using admin tools, because of the history, and if he does, he could be sanctioned." And Jossi should have responded as well, "Of course." But we end up discussing everything and the kitchen sink, and the plumber who installed the kitchen sink, and whose fault it was that it overflowed. If the original block was right or wrong, that doesn't matter, there is process for dealing with that, and AN/I is not that process. We don't have to decide who was right, SA or Jossi. Administrators are not judges, they are police, and their job is to keep order. Want judges? Ask the community with an RfC, or go to mediation or ArbComm. We definitely need to start restricting AN/I to its proper function: dealing with situations which need immediate administrative assistance. SA came here for that, and he should have been given the assurances he sought, and this report promptly closed. Period. Because we don't have the discipline to do that, and to enforce that, AN/I has become seriously dysfunctional. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I need to add a comment here. shortly before ScienceApologist was blocked, he was edit warring on my talk page with a user whom he suspected to be a sockpuppet (and as of now is still only suspected, though the user page has an uncontested indef block). near the end of that nonsense he began accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Davkal as well (see this diff, which covers 6 reversions and the sockpuppetry accusation), and if he had not been blocked at just about that moment I feel confident that he would have begun tearing through all of my edits without any regard for the truth of the matter. he was out of control, and needed a time out, and I for one am glad that jossi was paying attention.

I will agree with Abd, above, to the extent that AN/I needs a refocus - even as a novice, I can see that way too much space here is devoted to spitting at each other over long-term beefs. I will disagree with his comment about the reasonableness of SA's request. allowing users to ask for exemptions from administrators they think might be tough on them can only lead to users who have carte-blanche to act as unpleasantly as they like - all they need to do is find one admin who puts up with them, and then actively alienate other admins who work on their topics to exclude them, and there will no longer be any consequences for bad behavior.

honestly, every wikipedian ought to act as though he has to live up to the expectations of his worst opponent; that's really the only way to guarantee civil interaction in a place like this. if that makes it hard on ScienceApologist (or anyone else) because he suddenly has to be careful not to tick off someone who doesn't like him, well... that's sad, but it can only result in a more polite and civil wikipedia. frankly, I already think that Wikipedia is far too lenient on hissy fits; I can't tell you how many times I have seen wp:civility used to bash someone else over the head in a fit of temper. let's not encourage them more by rewarding them. --Ludwigs2 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word: Bullshit. That sort of 'worst enemy's standard' is the crux of the Civil POV Push. If that sort of pollyanna mindset were made the core value of civility, no one would accomplish anything, WP:BOLD would be in ruin, and we'd have two million articles full of bullshit. ScienceApologist and Jossi have a problem with each other that is well known to experienced editors and admins. They should NOT be in the same room with each other. Think Golda Meir and Eva Braun, or a drunk Ted Kennedy and a handcuffed Sirhan Sirhan. the results are always bad. BAD. all caps, no exaggeration. The community clearly supports them being kept apart. Adults who cannot be around each other, in the real world, avoid each other. On Wikipedia, some like to stir drama, and don't do their half of staying apart, though they should. We, the community, have to be parents. That you can't see this, and make provocative (at best) and inciting (at worst) comments as an involved person shows that you're not as novice as you think, or at least not as mature as you want us to see.

As for the main issue, I think the consensus is there. Jossi needs to get an uninvolved admin for his problems with SA. My only other concern in this thread is Jossi's continuous 'go away i don't like you and don't have to answer' attitude towards Will. Should Jossi also get a 'get an admin' tag for dealing with Will? When an admin can't clearly and concisely explain their actions in a few AN/I lines, it says to me that they can't explain it ata ll ,and made a bad call. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo ThuranX's comment, but without the bovine fecal part. SA, having been blocked by Jossi, possibly improperly, asked for assurances that it wouldn't happen again, and since what he is asking for is under the circumstances something he should not even have to ask for, it is policy, the answer should have been very, very simple, and SA's alleged incivility is irrelevant. SA isn't asking for special exemption, he is asking for policy to be enforced, and, specifically, for assurance that it will be enforced. So, putting my time where my mouth is, if *Jossi* blocks SA, for anything, aside from a true emergency, where WP:IAR would apply and can be shown, I would support sanctions against Jossi. But he's not going to do that, and by not doing that, he is not going to cause us to become distracted from the underlying issue, which is alleged incivility or edit warring by SA. This AN/I report is not about that underlying issue, and so attempting to address it here, alleging it, and all that, is utterly improper, and I'm saying that this impropriety, the distraction of AN/I reports from their purpose, is seriously damaging Wikipedia, and we will need to address that. It's not personal, it is not about SA and Jossi, it is about us, and our lack of discipline here, i.e., focus. We need better process, badly. --Abd (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd - you're right. I'm pissed off already this evening by other WP:S%#T, and I should have known better than to open my mouth tonight. my apologies, and I'll bow out now. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, and thank you for the feedback. As I said before, with hindsight I should have avoided intervening in that incident. I will leave it to others to address any other such incidents in the future with the hope they act upon them if necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It did not take long, did it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And I note that after a month off from that page, you sure enjoyed jumping in, didn't you? Can't you read? ThuranX (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, if you've answered the question above for why you blocked SA (if not for 3RR), I can't seem to find it. You and I have no history that I'm aware of, so I hope that you'll be able to fulfill this request. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever looked at ScienceApologist's editing, I think. I can't speak for Jossi, but I would have blocked ScienceApologist for edits such as these:

• [12] - uses Twinkle to revert a fairly innocuous and referenced statement that Atropa Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is used in homeopathy (true), labelling it as "Most disruptive editing".
• Edit-warring, again with Twinkle, on Quackwatch [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], chiefly to remove criticism of Quackwatch (and then accuses others of POV-pushing: ([18], and is rude [19])

  User:QuackGuru [20] [21], User:Shot info [22], User:Levine2112 [23] [24], User:ImperfectlyInformed [25] [26], User:Itsmejudith [27] [28], and User:Jossi [29] were all guilty of edit warring on the article to some extent, also, but not to the extent of SA.

• "Remove lie" - no, if an article is tagged for a balance concern, discuss it on the talk page.

Based on all that, a block was probably appropriate. Based on ScienceApologist's prior history of edit warring blocks, a week was also probably appropriate. It really, really, should not have been Jossi making the block, though. Neıl 龱 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to know the history, the belladonna edit is very typical of the homeopathy dispute. The logic is that mentioning quack uses of plants in every plant article creates an undue impression of legitimacy for the quackery. SA is quite right and justified in removing all such references, even if his edit summary is a bit hyperbolic. I also find your logic that one editor struggling against a gang is a worse edit warrior that the gang itself a bit strange ... block SA, then then block Itsmejudith, Levine2112, ImperfectlyInformed, and Jossi as well. I don't much like either version of the article ... SA's is sanitized, but the other one tries to present criticisms of prose style as if they cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the information presented.
Kww (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww, it was three editors (SA, Shot info, and QuackGuru), not one editor. You seemed to have missed that. Neıl 龱 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kww. The homeopathy thing's been round and round and round. SA opposes the inclusion of homeo-cruftish additions, like 'some homeopaths use this plant for homeopathy' as if that makes it legit. I've also seen SA agree to the inclusion of such material where it's fully supported and relevant. The problem there is well discussed in other areas; I'm sure SA can point you to the important discussions. The upshot of it all was that homeopathy ought only be included where it really is relevant, not just the 'is used in' crap that advocates try to get onto about every single plant article on WP. Further, while I'm not as sure as Kww about the line-up on each side, I did already note that Jossi ran to get involved in a dispute with SA after being told in this thread to get out of each other's hair. Jossi, by that action alone, looks to be acting in bad faith where SA is concerned. ThuranX (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's ignore that one edit on the plant article, then (I do not know the background, you're right, even though it seems reasonable to me to add anything citable given how sparse the article is at present). Irrespective, the edit warring alone would be good for a 24 hour block, and coupled with the previous history, 48 hours is not particularly harsh. I have the distinct impression ScienceApologist is still around because a lot of people tacitly agree with many of his intentions - I'm pretty sure I, like most, want our science articles to be accurate and not mixed up with fringe mumbo jumbo - but his methods are not right. Don't make excuses for him - ScienceApologist is no martyr, he's an edit warrior, and he needs to change his ways, grit his teeth, and make an effort work constructively with others (yes, even those he considers to be POV-pushers). Neıl 龱 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And Jossi isn't much the same? I'm no big fan of SA myself (his "help" on What the Bleep Do We Know frequently backfired into making the article worse than it was before he edited it), but it does always surprise me that he gets blocked so often and the people that work against him do not.
Kww (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, Kww and I continue to ask: What about Jossi's actions? ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What about them? What would you like to happen? I could urge Jossi to stay away from ScienceApologist, but there's no guarantee he would listen. Neıl 龱 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already made a #Statement about this. I will stay away and let other deal with it. Anything else? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see Jossi blocked. Immediately after his grand statement, he ran off to another article to deliberately conflict with SA. This shows that his word cannot be trusted, and that he needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. ThuranX (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet✽ 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet✽ 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008

Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet✽ 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 龱 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 龱 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[30] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 龱 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 龱 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been at least that generous to accounts much worse than Poupon, so why not? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we let him comment further, he might tell it as it is and plain talk jus aint allowed around these here parts nomore. If I had a dollar for all the spurious accounts that come to some areas and troll about the virtues of nonvirtuous websites, I could finally afford to fill up may gas tank every week. But nah...we need not make a fuss about them, they are surely here for the benefit of this website. I'd be happy to mentor Poupon...my advice up front is to simply stick to one account and keep sticking it to those that seem to relish in demanding we link to garbage websites that are as notable as my pet rock. Nay, only anti-WR and anti-ED folks are disruptive...the opposite could never be the case.--MONGO 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb off the Reichstag, MONGO, considering one of the folks that post regularly on WR is the one who's pointed out that while PoT's other accounts have disrupted Wikipedia's processes (specifically the Attack Sites ArbCom case, amongst others), they've never vandalized a Wikipedia ARTICLE. Even considering my past history with him, I am also willing to see PoT unblocked, as long as he's restricted to one account, without even a topic ban. And to be quite blunt, I think having you as a mentor would not be at all a good idea. When you look for someone to be a mentor, you look for someone who is reasonable, and moderate, not an echo chamber for his own ideas, "turned up to 11", as you would be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view and in this case Neil/SirFozzie's proposal has merit. Orderinchaos 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, indeed you are so correct once again...the BEST mentoring would surely come from someone that uses offsite venues to post links to userpage vandalism that happens here and call it "funny". Poupon, in his way, tried to encourage yourself and at least one other to not feed the offsite trolls by giving them an audience or sounding board and to not collaborate in furthering axe grinding via such participation. The question is though as to why this matter IS being discussed offsite and if any decision making is happening based on these discussions, what power do such offsite venues have in formatting decision making here. When we start bowing to the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia and or its editors, then we have a serious problem.--MONGO 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one listened to "the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia or its editors", then Mantanmoreland's serial socking would still be "a WordBomb false theory spread by trolls and meatpppets". There are times when they are wrong. Spectacularly so. But they have been right, almost as much as they've been wrong. I know you have a history of issues (and I understand why you would, considering what happened) with off-site attacks upon you. And as for why its being discussed, gee, I wonder why.. Someone who accuses others of socking, disruption and bad faith is caught disrupting, socking, and acting in bad faith. The irony is so delicious, I expect it to be a dish on Iron Chef. PoT had moderated his activities in the last few weeks, which is why I'm calling for an unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular problem with unblocking and restricting, I'd like to point out that disruption isn't limited entirely to article-space. One can disrupt the encyclopedia just as effective from other namespaces as from article space, so I'm not really sure that the delimiter "he's never vandallized a wikipedia ARTICLE..." is important. It takes no less time for us to clean it up if it's in another namespace. - Philippe 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Chinese government website notable source?

Hi, I have once again seen what I believe to be neutural, factual edit, removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=222969997&oldid=222929185

The reason given is "inserting Xinhua", however both citations are from Chinese Foreign Ministry.

I've undo the rm. Please let me know if I have done something wrong to garner the rm, or my undo is wrong in any way. Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be considered that Xinhua or the Foreign Ministry are not neutral sources with regard to Falun Gong, in which case they might need to be used carefully and in appropriate context; however, there can be no basis for objecting to their use in citing the claim that the Chinese government considers Falun Gong a cult. Indeed, the Chinese government is the best possible source for the Chinese government's official position on Falun Gong (or anything). Everyking (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The removed edit looks fine to me, but the sourcing isn't so good. For the record, the removed statement was:

The Chinese government considers Falun Gong to be a cult while other countries do not.

and the reference was to http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cese/eng/zt/xjflg/default.htm , however, and this contains rather crude propaganda rather than official government statements.

This is better: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceat/det/zt/jpflg/t105141.htm

It is in a fairly sober tone and quotes the Chinese ambassador to Austria outlining his government's views on the nature of Falun Gong, thus supporting your statement. The Xinhua news agency is a perfectly reliable source on the statements of Chinese government officials.

Obviously the attitude of the Chinese government towards Falun Gong is highly relevant to Falun Gong so in my opinion the statement probably does belong in the lead.

This isn't really the right place to bring such a query, by the way, but it's okay. I'll make a note on your talk page on the best way to get help and advice in future. --Jenny 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that basically all mainstream western newspapers and academics who have researched this topic state that the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) statements about Falun Gong, (whether on their websites or through state-media mouthpieces) post 1999, are purely propagandistic. As far as I understand, wikipedia can make it clear that the CCP holds these views and has made these statements, but it is not a vehicle for promoting them in their own right. These statements, according to the sources I refer to above, are all made within their context of the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. Given that, specifically in terms of the lede, there kind of isn't enough space to give this context, so the media-campaign against Falun Gong is treated in its own section on the persecution of Falun Gong page. If editors think this particular point ought to be hashed out in the lede though, I guess that's another thing.--Asdfg12345 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the statement is fine, and should be in the lead. As a great deal about Falun Gong is the controversy with the Chinese government. And Jenny is on the spot about the sources two. The second one looks much better. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys really might want to look at what academics and mainstream newspapers have said about all this. I won't repeat what I've just said in the paragraph above, but there could be a bit of recommended reading for those unfamiliar with the subject. There is much of this information on the persecution of Falun Gong page. Might also refer to the part from what wikipedia is not: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." -- I interpret this to mean that we are to make clear that the CCP has made these statements, but to qualify them within the context of what academics and journalists have said. As the sources themselves say, that is within the context of a cultural-revolution style propaganda campaign to vilify the discipline, as an element in orchestrating a successful persecution against those who practiced it in China at that time.--Asdfg12345 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What you said about use of Falun Gong's newspaper is exactley what the admins are saying. Epoch Times is paid for by Falun Gong, and is purely propagandic and political - but you insist it can be used for Falun Gong's view.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are significant differences, in that the thrust of the "Falun Gong view" here is essentially human rights and freedom of belief. That happens to align with the whole ideological foundation of western civilisation, and therefore basically all western media and academia too--generally speaking, people value these ideals. It means, broadly speaking, that it has turned out that western institutions have come down "on the Falun Gong side" in terms of freedom of belief and human rights. Or you can read the Holocaust page--do you see a "well, Hitler said this... and other people said this...", a kind of evenhanded weighing up of the two sides? WP:UNDUE requires taking the overall context into account, and that's why I had made reference to the persecution of Falun Gong page for a large number of high-quality sources who clearly put forward these views. I'm just explaining, in my understanding, the differences in the situation. Falun Gong sources are still not reliable sources when it comes to this subject, and they merely present the Falun Gong view, whatever that means. But I think ignoring the wider context that certain statements were made in is ignoring WP:NPOV. These are just some thoughts I had, they may not necessarily be correct. If you have a different understanding I may be enriched by it.--Asdfg12345 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Wikipedia is not a democracy or human rights organization to begin with, and your moralizing and comparisons with the Holocaust is invalid, considering that's a widely accepted fact proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the extent of FLG's crackdown is still very much disputed and up to debate.--PCPP (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

other thing about this might best be demonstrated by a rhetorical question: "would it be normal to have on the Chinese Communist Party page, something in the lede about how Falun Gong practitioners actually believe that the CCP itself is an evil cult?" -- I assume the answer is no. The CCP isn't a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong, though it can comment on what its "position" on Falun Gong is. The Falun Gong pages are about Falun Gong, not about what the CCP says about Falun Gong. It gives far too much emphasis to their view to put it in the lede. What the CCP has said about Falun Gong is an element of the persecution of Falun Gong; its comments do not constitute remarks about the nature of Falun Gong independent of that. I'm making the same point, but trying to illuminate it differently. What is the subject of the page? Falun Gong. What if there was no persecution? Would it matter what the Chinese Communist Party says about Falun Gong? What about comments from other governments, political parties, or whatever, shouldn't they also be included? The lede should basically be about the subject of the article, and the CCP is not a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong. Its remarks ought to be treated within the context of the actions they have taken against Falun Gong practitioners. Or do we start the article on Judaism with...--Asdfg12345 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look Asdfg12345, the most important thing about Falun Gong, for us totally unaware of its practice is the controversy with the CCP. One single statement about it on the article, does not fail WP:UNDUE, specially, as I said on your talk page, for THIS specifically piece of information they are a WP:RS. And about your bit about propaganda. I read that article almost as an altar and a praise to Falun Gong practices. It totally fails WP:NPOV, and I'm deeply worried about a possible WP:COI from you, since the only contributions I could see on your history are related to Falun Gong. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm most interested in this particular topic. I'm interested in Chinese culture generally too, though I have prioritised contributing to the Falun Gong pages. I think possible NPOV problems should definitely be addressed on the relevant pages. About the other things, I won't repeat what I have said, but since the arguments have not been responded to, I think they are outstanding. Forgive me for asking, but is it professional to play the man and not the ball?--Asdfg12345 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing as an onlooker who has no dog in this fight, Asdfg12345, your argument against using CCP or Xinhua here strikes me as an act of wikilawyering. While these websites are not considered neutral or accurate about the Falun Gong itself, as Everyking pointed out above they are reliable about what the Chinese government thinks. And since no one here (as far as I can see) denies that the Chinese government is acting in a hostile fashion against the Falun Gong, inclusion of their opinion is relevant (as opposed to, say, the Larouchies or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). The only gain I can see here if these sources are excluded from this article is to suppress mentioning what the Chinese position is at all -- which does not help our users. Suppose a user wants to know what the Chinese POV is in order to debate & refute it: by not including a link to this source, we have made it more difficult for this person to prepare for this debate. I believe this responds to all of your objections, even the ones you do not want to repeat. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please allow me to clarify. Of course I believe that the CCP's stated views on Falun Gong are relevant to these articles, and ought to be included in a fashion. However, I was questioning the reasoning behind putting them in the lede. Since the CCP is in this context a reliable source only for its own views, not for Falun Gong itself, I don't see how they should be accorded a place in the lede, (they are not representative of mainstream academic opinion, for example) given the context etc.. I have just read about wikilawyering, and that is really not my intention. In all these difficult discussions over edits, I do not believe I have ever turned the discussion personal, or engaged in any personal attacks. I am not just cooking up arguments and throwing up roadblocks, that is not how I operate. In my view, I had raised legitimate concerns as to putting the CCP's view in the lede, and they weren't addressed. I apologise for not explaining more clearly what my problem was.--Asdfg12345 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quote they are not representative of mainstream academic opinion, for example, you have any proof of this?--PCPP (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are you asking me to provide a source to prove that the Chinese Communist Party is not representative of mainstream academic opinion on Falun Gong?--Asdfg12345 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins, I'm sorry to bother you like this, but another editor has deleted the Chinese government source, again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223364394&oldid=223363516

There has been a patttern of circling the wagon with certain editors, and individual editor wishing to edit this page for a balanced POV has been bullied, harrased, blanked and hacked to the point many editors have given up.

What should I do? Most of my edit are being systematically removed like this, and these FLG pages are essentially FLG promotional material, as admin Samuel Sol has noticed.

There's also concern with organized abuse of Wikipedia. I'm glad admin Samuel Sol also noticed possible COI. If the Admins have the time to investigate, I'll provide my evidence of possible journalist from Falun Gong funded publication posting their own work here.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you contribute to the ongoing discussion about that material? You cannot simply ignore the arguments being raised that the edit was problematic in x number of ways, and complain that you have been "bulled, harassed, blanked and hacked." There really is discussion that needs to be engaged with about how the page ought to be edited.--Asdfg12345 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Main Page?

Image:Ingrid-Betancourt cropped.jpg, currently on the Main Page, is possibly unfree. Although Agencia Brasil photos are indeed CC-licensed, the image source credits the Columbian Colombian Thanks, Neil! government, which I don't believe releases its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've found indicates that the Colombian (not Columbian!!) government copyrights everything. Um, this may be a copyvio. Neıl 龱 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it of the main page for now. I think it's a copyvio, too, and have tagged it as such, but no doubt someone more expert will come along and let us know. Good catch, I think ... Neıl 龱 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's copyright is an issue (On the bottom this is what it translates to The content of this site is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Brasil.). Agencia Brasil is a Brasil Government site but maybe best to contact them. Bidgee (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agencia Brasil works are CC-licensed, the problem was that this was not AB's work, they were just hosting a copy of it. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Take this random article for example - [31]. The BBC may have published the article, but the image is still owned by AP (the Associated Press). Neıl 龱 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see! Thank you for informing me! I'll note that incase I see of any other articles with the same sort of issue and take extra care if I find an image which is CC-licensed. :) Bidgee (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If any Commons admin is reading this, the copyvio image is still on Commons ([32]). Neıl 龱 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons who? I'm the law! Congratulations Neil! Leandromartinez (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password

Resolved

 – Par for the course, unfortunately - make sure you have a decent password and ignore them.

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address 71.115.153.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Wikipedia. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)

for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow view of the possibilities. While most of these attempts may be harmless, this issue goes far beyond Wikipedia. There's something called Social Engineering which may allow hackers to gain entry to your e-mail without changing any passwords, and then they can come here and click e-mail new password and the account has been breached. Sounds far fetched? It happens all of the time. I don't think blowing it off as "impossible" is the right answer. The U.S. Gov't can't avoid being hacked, but somehow Wikipedia has it figured out? The right answer would be to ensure that you have full control of your e-mail and wiki account, and to change your passwords if you deem it necessary to a strong password scheme. Also advise not to use the same passwords for your e-mail and wiki account. Angrymansr (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the techniques of social engineering, and asking for new passwords has nothing to do with it. For more information, visit this site and log in with your Wikipedia username and password. --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the user's e-mail has been hacked via social engineering or by any other means then their wikipedia account can easily be breached using this tool. It's not impossible. Angrymansr (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying...so basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 龱 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these e-mails too, and I've been avoiding anything remotely contentious on Wikipedia, so I don't think it has to do with editing disputes spilling over into retribution through hacking, or even a deliberate attempt to annoy. I notice that Neil, Kelly, Sarah, and Daniel all have common first names as user names. It would not be surprising if new editors registering accounts for the first time often try to choose these same user names, without knowing that they are already taken. When that doesn't work, the software presents several options, one of which is a password reset over e-mail. And the most universal approach to solving computer problems is to try every available option and see what happens. They may click on the button without really understanding what it means. Rather than malice or hacking, I think a simpler explanation is a bit of confusion in signing up for an account. So I don't worry about it. --Reuben (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism of Afds

A few editors have been engaging in some problematic edits on certain pages.

User 194.126.21.5 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [33] and vandalized the Afd tag on Jean Riachi [34] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi twice [35] [36]. They blanked Emile Riachi twice [37] [38], then vandalized the Afd tag [39], then vandalized the page. [40]. This user has also made personal attacks agains Damien.rf in an edit summary. [41]

User 206.53.154.135 has also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [42] [43] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi four times. [44] [45] [46] [47] and vandalized Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in a way to falsely accuse user Damien.rf of vandalism. [48]

User 83.229.109.156 deleted the Afd tag from Jean Riachi [49], then blanked the page [50], then deleted the Afd tag again [51] They also blanked Emile Riachi [52], then blanked everything but the Afd tag [53], then blanked it again [54], then removed the Afd tag [55]

User Lebprofiler has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi [56]. He also made personal attacks against user Damiens.rf in comments [57] [58] [59] [60] and in an edit summary. [61].

User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. [62], claimed ownership of an associated page in his edit summary [63] [64] and made personal attacks against Damien.rf [65]

User Nabuchodonozor has not assumed good faith about Damiens.rf’s edits and has called for that user to be banned. [66] Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism has continued unabated since last night. Just on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized [67] [v] , User Vikser has pretended to be User Vickser and vandalized [68] [69] [70]. User Teresa knott has pretended to be User Theresa knott and vandalized [71] . Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And it doesn't stop. User Lebprofiler has removed the Afd message from Emile Riachi as has user 194.126.21.5, falsely staing in the edit summary that the article closed as keep. [72]. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • User Lebprofiler has also falsely listed the Emile Riachi article as Keep on its talk page. [73]. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As a further update, User Lebprofiler has claimed ownership of Emile Riachi [74], vandalized the page while falsely stating the Afd is closed [75], falsely accused Damiens.rf of being a vandal [76] [77], and engaged in personal attacks against Damiens.rf in comments [78] and edit summaries. [79]

User Nabuchodonozor has vandalized Emile Riachi by removing the Afd tag again [80], falsely accused Damien.rf of vandalism and made personal attacks [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

So we’ve got multiple nicks (possibly sock or meatpuppets) vandalizing articles, Afds, and the associated talk pages; harassing, insulting, impersonating, and making personal attacks against other users. And this has been going on for several days. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a disruptive WP:SPA and likely WP:SOCK editor, has returned from a 3-day block for edit-warring on a Barack Obama-related article,[90] to provoke editors on the Barack Obama talk page. In the first five edits since the block expired[91][92][93][94][95] the user taunts, accuses other editors of bad faith, invokes support of banned and blocked editors, etc. The page, after a month of contention had been edging close to consensus. If this disruption is allowed to continue I suspect efforts will fall apart. We need help here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to the a.n./i. stuff but would like to ask, before the bee would be shooed away, that it be noted that WB74's complained-of contributions are on a discussion-page as components of, yes, his advocacy for his point of view about how the article should be edited (and that's a pov that doesn't really devaiate all so much from the norm). Is WP really just about shooing away dissent, via labeling such entirely non-concretely unsanctionable actions of opponents as disruptive? Maybe so----I'm pretty new here----and maybe such "I-shot-the-sheriff" stuff is the only way to maintain decorum in this Wild West-type of environment but I'm just saying it smacks of being less than idealistic toward a free interchange of ideas. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, behavior. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74. Wikidemo (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The sheer quantity of your whining exaggerated reports, Wikidemo, is absolutely not to be taken as any indication of their quality. They are whining, exaggerated reports. Die4Dixie is correct. There should be a separate ANI page, so that admins can spot this troubling pattern of disagree/ provoke/ report. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best to ignore the above personal attack. Kossack4Truth appears to have just returned to the article himself [96][97] and we'll see what happens there. But let's not get distracted from the issue at hand - we probably need some help with the article to make sure the consensus process stays on track. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not good...revert warring seems to have resumed on the main page.[98][99][100][101]. Wikidemo (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleven hours since this report was posted, Wikidemo, and the number of admins who have raced to defend you is, once again, exactly zero. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not part of this and don't need "defending". This is simply an article in need of help. Administratos have in the past dealt with trouble here, issuing a number of blocks, check-users, socks discovered, and attempts to mediate - as well as this new one.[102] Also, editors' awareness that administrators are paying attention has kept them in line more than they were previously. I come to this place reasonably often to report abusive editing, and in most cases it's straightforward gets quickly dealt with. This is a much more tangled situation, with the editors accused of abuse making counterclaims and personal attacks in response. It's a lot of often thankless work for admins to clean up messes they didn't create, and nobody is getting paid. We just seem to need a bit more of that. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 doesn't seem to have realized he blanked the page, at least according to this message posted on another user's talk page. He's said in the past he's contributed using a cell phone. I don't know if that explains it. He's just come off a 3-day block which I'm still looking into, but which seems to have been quite an injustice (although not on the part of the admins who dealt with it). If I were coming off a 3-day block that I knew was unjustified, I'd be spitting mad. I've asked WorkerBee to enjoy the 4th elsewhere, and his most recent edits have been constructive. Noroton (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions by User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:Folantin

Over the past two days I saw in front of my eyes how all of my contribution to Chechen people disappear by the two editors with clear WP:MEATpuppetry engaged. Neither has provided any real explanation, and reverted to a heavy POV version that was semi-plagiarised from an amateurish source. Despite my attempts ([103],[104]) to get a discussion going, both editors have clearly expressed ([105],[106])their non-willingness in doing so. After the [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], sixth revert of my work, which included removal of disputed tags and the like, I have no option but to raise the issue here and request admin intervention and to explain to these users the principle of WP:OWN.
On a separate note, if one checks the history of the article or other articles the former user is editing, one can clearly see an attempt to have an edit stack. I do hope that if he chooses to have an RfA in the near future this record is kept for refrence. --Kuban Cossack 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BAM, did not have time to finish writing this already a SEVENTH revert. --Kuban Cossack 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats true. He aslo had a revert war yestarday on the Russians page, and here you can see he started a discussion which he turned into a political debate and started arguing about things not even in the article. For a few times he was explained Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, explanations he have ignored. Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring exclusively to the Chechen people page): User:Kuban kazak is a soapboxing nightmare. I watchlisted the Chechen people page because I had made some contributions to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then, last week, KK arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [112]. When he finally added references for his material (mostly in Russian), I checked out one of them and it did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify (see talk page for details [113]). Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). When challenged about this misuse of sources, he tried to change the subject, then offered another source in Russian which again failed to back the fact cited. He has refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself: "So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not?". I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [114]. This morning, he completely reverted this and reinstated his own material, including the completely unverified "facts" I had challenged on the talk page [115]. It's pretty obvious that this editor is pushing some kind of agenda (see his user page) and is completely untrustworthy as far as following WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. He probably thought he could get away with inserting some vague references in the Russian language and nobody would be able to check up on him. He should be topic-banned from editing this page and other Chechen-related articles. I'm neither Chechen nor Russian. I merely want a factually accurate page. As it happens I've also challenged User:Captain Obvious about material he added [[116]], so we're hardly "meat puppets" (and I haven't been involved in any of the disputes on the other pages). --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not a soapbox! You are! Second, what right have you got to remove the whole edit? Yes I admit that I've made a mistake on a small segment of it, and yes I encouraged Folantin to correct the parts he deemed incorrect, or re-write that particular part affected in light of his "better" refrences. Also the version he has reverted to five times now (slipping away from a 3rr by a very small margin) included material based on an non-professional source, parts of which were clearly copypasted and plagiarised! Once again I remind him that he does not WP:OWN the article, and that wikipedia goes by consensus not by reverts, so far he has made NO attempt at bridging our disagreements. Yet he already is demanding that I am banned. Talk about being agressive I've not even tried to ask for a sanction on the user. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you've provided no explanation for your flagrant abuse of referencing, your reinstatement of challenged material (which you know is dubious), your adding "citation needed" templates to referenced material (I had to spell this out to you at least twice in edit summaries) and your deletion of cited content. I do not have time to waste on national chauvinist POV-pushers. You are clearly untrustworthy and I have no faith in any content you might add. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all how dare you insult me? I hope the admin are watching this personal attack and will react, I've not set a word of your personal habit and views and opinions yet you are biting away aleady. Second I now know its dubious because you've pointed it out to me, ok a section is wrong, in a normal case you settle down on it and work at it improving it and expanding it, no you instead revert everything along with other parts that you did not challenge, and with the tags as well. FYI I did not remove the material that was there before but incorporated it into my large edit. Yet as you said above you have no interest in even looking for consensus, which means you have got a lesson to learn in manners and good faith and etiquette. --Kuban Cossack 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already referred to me as "arrogant" on an admin's talk page behind my back yesterday[117], so it's a bit late to be talking about "personal attacks". All of which is a sidetrack anyway. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and your refusal to seek consensus, and persistant reverting is exactly the reason why I called you arrogant. Or is the culprit of the problem that the original text was heavily POVed which you endorsed now give times, particularly relating to the post-1956 events and the events of 1800-1930s, copied from a very dubious and no-reknown publisher Joana Nichols, and it suited your version to make WP:POINT that the Chechens for the past 2 centuries have been nothing but victims to the evil evil Russians (despite ethnically cleansing 250 thousand of them in 1990-1994). --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Nichols is a professor at Berkeley. She's published an English-Ingush dictionary. I even replaced the reference sourced to her with one from Jaimoukha's book, which said exactly the same thing. Now are you going to explain your abuse of sources? --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She published a dictionary. Great. That still doesnt mean she knows history. And just for the record, there are proffesors who deny Gas Chambers at Nazi territores, and...? She's not enough known, she's not neutral, she's biased. You need a completely neutral reference of an author who doesn't try to make a point. Log in, log out (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, she is a linguist not a historian and on that paper in the intro she states black on white that this is not a professional history refrence but more of a public outcry to side her opinion. For example the post 1956 events with Chechens being repressed is pure bullshit, considering that by 1970s the whole administration of the republic was made entirely of Chechens who held all key cabinet roles. The original passage implies some colonial/labour camp administration. I have no idea what your Jaimoukha said, but I for one try not to limit myself to one source. --Kuban Cossack 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the preview of Jaimoukha's book at google, on the whole can't say I am impressed with it, again same one-sided history written from a clear non-neutral perspective. For example it ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book "The Great Game". Of course it does not even mention what happened to the Russian minority at the hands of the Chechens in early 90s nor will it bother to mention the even the name of the insurgent leaders. So in short good for political propaganda of like minders, but for encyclopedia... :( --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, Do you know that if the source is not reliable you can delete it and out a citation needed? Your sources were not reliable, thats why Kuban Cossack challenged them. Bring references from nutral sources who dont have i bias. And you cant denie this user Captian loves edit wars. He came to the Russians page, started a revert war with a few users, then started a political discussion not having to do anything with the article. Log in, log out (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My source was The Chechens: A Handbook, by Amjad Jaimoukha, London, New York: Routledge, 2005. In other words, a book in English from a renowned academic publisher, not some Russian source off the Net. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaimouka is not excepted by anyone but Chechen Nationalists. He's known primary for using more imagination then truth. Log in, log out (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not acceptable to National Bolsheviks, of which you are a supporter. Check their flag [118] - what a great way to combine Nazi and Soviet imagery. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind Folantin to Comment on content, not on the contributor. I could not care less what you stand for and here you go insulting a user who is not even involved in our dispute. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across Folantin, but from the tone of his comments I can clearly see who is in the wrong here. I had a look at the edits and reverts, and although Kuban kazak's is far from perfect the old version that Folantin and Captain Obvious are sterily reverting to is much worse in terms of neutrality and accuracy. Some parts of Kuban's additions are clearly correct. I would recommend you to follow a WP:DR process, and Folantin to cease reverting. Log in, log out (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that just by tone, can you? What an amazing gift. But here's another explanation: Folantin is an editor who is sick to the back teeth with rampant national and ethnic POV-pushing on Wikipedia, which might account for the note of frustration and weariness at yet another attempt to mess with content. Obviously, your sympathy for Kuban Kazak has nothing to do with the fact you are Russian. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Folantin the fact that you are not Russian is not something that bothers me, I deal every day on wikipedia with people of different scope. In other words no only do you have problems with political views you now have problems with nationlities of the editors. Well I do apologise for us resisting the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler and other times when Russia fought for her independence, obviously it made your life a lot difficult. --Kuban Cossack 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny, because that's what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV. Log in, log out (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep sidetracking. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You were brought certain claims. You were brought certain facts. You ignore them and go into personal. That doesnt work in your favour here. Log in, log out (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've said. Jaimoukha is a reliable source (he's published by Routledge). Your friend KK wanted to add material which claimed " In some areas up to 80% of the [Chechen] populations backed the [pro-German] insurgency [during World War Two]". He referenced it to this online source [119]. No such "fact" occurs in the article. Moreover, the page is written by Alexander Uralov, who's kind of pro-Chechen, and is entitled "Murder of the Chechen-Ingush People. Genocide in the USSR". Uralov completely rejects the idea of mass Chechen-German collaboration, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...[and so on]". In other words, it makes the exact opposite point from the one KK wanted to push. I had to spend my available free time yesterday afternoon reading that page in my rusty Russian. I doubt if KK even bothered read it in the first place. You could have checked up on this by following the links I provided in my first statement here. You obviously couldn't be bothered either. This is why I object to wasting my time checking up on obviously untrustworthy POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I trusted the article 1940-1944 Insurgency in Chechnya, however the original version of the Chechen people article did not even cite that as the reason for the deportation, only the POV statement: Moscow's repressions reached the apogee. Now how is that not being biased. Whether or not the scale of insurgency was as large as claimed is not of my concern, there is evidence for it (fact one; Khasan Israilov did exist) and there is evidence that Germans dropped paratroopers into Chechnya (fact two). That is of course sidetrack and maybe WP:UNDUE for the article, but omitting compleately along with other parts such as the post-war and pre-war events that I have added is worse. Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached? --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's all my fault. You've got a nerve. I'll give you that.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again. Look. It was deleted and he recived a second warning. There won't be a third. Log in, log out (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" being "Captain Obvious". --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has been engaged in a slow-scale nationalist edit war with User:Riwnodennyk on European ethnic groups. WP editors have clear problems if they reject as recognized sources books written by reputed academics and published by long-established publishing houses. Johanna Nichols and Amjad Jaimoukha have respectable academic credentials. She is Professor of slavic languages and literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, in charge of a Chechen project partially funded by the NSF. He was educated in England, and is now Assistant President of the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan and member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not nationalistic edit warring, but more of fixing the incorrectly drawn map. WRT editors, again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust, I take it most of them never even set foot in Chechnya. Nichols srticle is out of date by more than a decade. Yes I reject that as reliable source, Jaimoukha's can pass wrt culture and tradition, history reject again because its laden with opinions, that were copied into the article. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" obviously trumps reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is they are not reliable in presense of contradicting material awailable and the POV the authors carry. --Kuban Cossack 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evaluations of writers cannot be made in this way on WP; academic book reviews can of course be cited when relevant. Some details of Nichols' field trips to Chechnya can be found on her home page. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already established Kuban Kazak's "reliability" as a source anyway, so I don't think we can have him going round dismissing scholars who don't fit in with his POV. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those scholars are controversial and push their POV in their text. I'll give you an example. If a scholar, and there are many like that, will write that the Germans haven't built gas chembers, would you belive him even thought he's a scholar? I really hope not. The sources shouldn't be just of a "dud with a deploma", but from someone known as nutral. Log in, log out (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those credentialed scholars are clearly just like Neo-Nazis - and this is coming from someone who sports imagery derived from the Third Reich on his user page. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know going into personal will get you blocked. You ignored a claim by going into personal. Thats a behaviour of someone who lost an argument. Log in, log out (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP by libelling accredited scholars by comparing them to Holocaust deniers will get you blocked a lot sooner. As for the "Third Reich imagery", Compare [120] and contrast [121]. Your user page as of this writing contains the latter image [122]. We've already had trouble with one notorious "National Bolshevik" editor (User:M.V.E.i.). We don't need another. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Action required

Appeal: could an uninvolved admin please deal with the essential issues here to stop this discussion sliding into irrelevance and obfuscation. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Nichols' work involves compiling Chechen and Ingush dictionaries. There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich. There is a direct link with the NSF which has funded some of her projects. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich". Well, I don't think any ever expected there would be. It was just User:Log In Log Out engaging in diversionary smear tactics. More importantly, the question of User:Kuban Kazak and his abuse of sources and tendentious editing has not been dealt with. Yet again he's removed sourced content and added unsourced material of his own [123]. I really want some action to stop this, please. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had enough of this. I'm simply going to revert this guy's edits as vandalism from now on. --Folantin (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck explaining this to the 3RR patrol. --Kuban Cossack 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system as a last resort (without issuing warnings for behaviour you are guilty of yourself). Any admins on the 3RR patrol would have to explain why they weren't aware of this incident which has been on ANI for seven hours or so now. --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no last resorts, don't think that I am just going to abandon the article by your revert war efforts, I'll be here tomorrow the day after that and the year after that. But you are right the admin do have to explain for the lack of attention this problem gained. --Kuban Cossack 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a response

I've been very slightly involved here, but this has gone on long enough so I'll take temporary admin action to stabilise the situation until an uninvolved admin can take over. Most of this is a content dispute, focused on reliability of sources. Consider options for dispute resolution instead of arguing about content here. Per WP:PROTECT and WP:EW, I will temporarily fully protect the page to stop the reverts, revert it to the last stable version and investigate whether any 3RR violations have taken place. Papa November (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:Kuban kazak and User:Folantin both blocked by User:Scarian for edit warring after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Folantin reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 2x 12 hour blocks) Papa November (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:Folantin, after his request, as the disputed article is protected. However, I have warned him that any further edit warring or incivility will lead to a new, longer block. Papa November (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined User:Kuban kazak's unblock request, as he has received several blocks for similar behaviour previously, and is engaging in similar behaviour in other articles. Note that this does not imply any endorsement of User:Folantin's side of the content dispute. Papa November (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with nationalist editing, or 'cultural and ethnic edit wars'. I've not been very involved and don't plan to be, but I would be very much surprised if Folantin has not been acting in good faith in this or any other dispute. What I see happening (and this is a very personal observation over a small number of articles so may not be represenative) is a very small number of people trying to stop nationalism from prevailing on a number of articles, and a large number of nationalists either taking over articles or edit warring on articles. Right now its a losing battle and it is pretty bad if any of the casualties are those trying to solve the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What Doug said. I've effectively been blocked for adding properly referenced material in line with Wikipedia policy and removing blatantly bad faith content. That's my reward after 10,000 edits and two years here. For five months I have been asking for a report from the working group on national, ethnic and cultural edit wars which is supposed to deal with this sort of thing. Look at the talk page for my requests and the answers I got. The only member of the group who's actually done anything in response is User:Elonka. It's extremely easy for agenda-driven tag teams to bulldoze through dubious content in the face of lone users trying to follow policy. Admins are supposed to stop this. This is an encyclopaedia. The only thing people judge us by is our content. I've long harboured the suspicion that certain "national" editors have been playing fast and loose with references in foreign languages, effectively using them to hoodwink anglophone editors. I have given an example of this in this thread and tomorrow I will try to offer a translation of the Russian material Kuban Kazak used as his source so others can judge for themselves. I'm forced to conclude from today's proceedings that Wikipedia is badly broken. Admins need to stop hiding their heads in the sand and start trying to fix it. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, although I know it's frustrating that so few admins are getting involved here, this is a huge task, and rather daunting for admins. It's hard for us, as non-experts on the content to judge what is nationalistic propaganda and what is good encyclopaedic content. It's unfortunate that you were blocked for a 3RR violation, but the complex circumstances make it very difficult for admins to decide who, if anyone, is breaking the rules here. You're right that Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress and your suggestion of forming a purpose made working group may be a good way of improving things. Why not put together a draft policy page, and take it to WP:VPP? Papa November (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 1500 of you. You had eight hours for one of you to do something about this. You have failed to enforce basic policies WP:V and WP:RS. The content I added was referenced to reliable sources. The content Kuban Kazak added was mostly unsourced and demonstrably falsified in at least one instance. I did the research (including reading Russian) to prove this and presented the evidence here. Nothing happened. I was then blocked for reinstating referenced material. I had no warning and the blocking admin couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic research into the issue or distinguish between me, a user in good faith with over 10,000 edits and a clean block log, and a user with a reputation for agenda-driven editing. I've spent a good deal of my time checking up on sources - I busted a hoax article on Illyrian mythology written by an Albanian nationalist which had been allowed to remain unchallenged on Wikipedia for two whole years [124]. In return, I expect to see admin support for such efforts to ensure content is reliable. If you admins can't enforce core policies then we might as well all go home now. --Folantin (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's true that it's sometimes difficult to judge the quality of source if you're not familiar with a topic, and that can make it hard to see who's working to make the encyclopedia better. However, I would think that when editors suggest that the work of a a tenured professor at UC Berkeley isn't a good source because "there are professors" who are Holocaust deniers, and reject sources published by prominent academic presses as "biased", that suggests that one "side" of the dispute has a severely deficient understanding of how we're supposed to use sources on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that gets defined as a "content dispute" rather than being seen as a case of tendentious editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or shunted off to "civility", something the kid admins can understand. There's always been something suspect about the Russian articles with regard to Chechnya. Get this: the main History of Russia article was passed for FA when it contained three longish paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia with not one single reference to the Chechen Wars of the 1990s. Would you trust a History of the USA article with no mention of the Vietnam War? (Actually, the Russian example is far, far worse than that). --Folantin (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a red flag when someone is calling academic sources 'biased'. It may be that it has a POV and other sources with different POVs need to be added, but a clearly reliable source should never be removed simply because an editor thinks it's wrong. I've had a similar problem, a quote from an academic press book was deleted because the editor didn't believe it and insisted on another citation backing that one. As for FA articles, that isn't the only one that has been passed where I couldn't understand the rationale for it being FA.

One of the problems with nationalist editors is that their motivations are often extremely strong, and it only takes one or two such editors on a page to tire anyone else out, and you end up with a 'no-go' article. Something needs to be done, perhaps at a pretty high level, to stop this from happening. Doug Weller (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what the funniest thing about this affair is? Kuban Kazak was the one who insisted on re-adding material by a well-known Chechen nationalist. I'm referring to an author who used the pseudonym Aleksandr Uralov, though his real name was Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. We even have a page on him on Wikipedia (reliability uncertain). Of course, Uralov's article did not support the claim Kuban Kazak said it did. I will try to provide a translation later on so you can judge for yourselves. This makes total nonsense of User:Log In Log Out's claim: "what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV". Turns out KK was adding the "Chechen nationalist" source! Of course, had he bothered to read the page (in his own native language, I presume) he might have noticed that. Instead he kept edit-warring to reinsert it. And I'm expected to waste my time on such nonsense? --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If recently arrived editor Kuban kazak is consistently dismissing sources which easily meet WP:V and WP:RS and consistently adding material from sources which fail these tests, he is editing tendentiously as Akhilleus has said. His editing should be examined more closely. From comments on his talk page, this kind of tendentious editing/ edit warring is not restricted to one article. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, and someone seriously needs to mentor the guy. EE is bad enough without this. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can I offer a personal apology to Folantin for a lack of courage on my part. I did read this thread yesterday, and even went and looked at the unblock requests, but decided that I did not want to get involved. It seemed to me that Folantin, an editor in good standing, was indeed fighting a lonely battle on Wikipedia's behalf and had been blocked only due to his frustration at getting no help. However, I bottled out - as a relatively new admin, I was unsure of my assessment, and frankly was not hugely enamoured of diving into a nationalist POV dispute and making things worse. However, given my acceptance of the mop in the first place, that was no excuse. Sorry Folantin, and thank you for your efforts to keep POV under control.

Secondly, I agree that mentoring at the very least would be a good idea, though it's not a task I personally would relish. I think we should be showing far less tolerance of POV pushers than we currently seem to. KK does seem to be on a mission; perhaps the blurb on his user page re 'avenging thousands of ethnic Russian victims' should have set the warning bells ringing. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't take it personally, it's a system failure. Frankly, I'm not surprised hardly anybody wants to get involved in these problem pages given the endless grief involved. On the other hand, I'm far from impressed by the conduct of the blocking admin. I'd expect a little more background research before that kind of action. I was not even issued a warning. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW This is my rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions (with some commentary by me). It didn't and he didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide. Just one example of how foreign-language sources have been used to hoodwink anglophone editors. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, you missed the whole case

You ignored the facts that Captain obvious did have revert wars, and not only that, he provocated political discussions on talk pages which are not connected with the article. Ask user Papa November, who is an administrator who warned him about that.

All Kuban Kazak wanted was real sources, reliable sources by nutral people. The sources Captain Obvious and Folantin supporte are maybe by people with a degree, but those people have a clear political agenda. For example. A man can denie a holocaust, and have a degree in History, would you use him as a reliable source? I hope not.

Folantin wasn't blocked even thought he violated the law when he atacked me a few times for being a National Bolshevik. Thats against the policy of not going to personal level, whatever more we weren't arguing about a National Bolshevik topic. Can a Wikipedian who once out of arguments goes to personal be here? Kuban Kazak had never went to personal level here.

Administrators, you can't decide who to block and who not to by the political standing of the editor. Kuban Cossack had a solo-war against people who clearly try to push a political agenda. That doesn't matter if the opinion meets with your western views, or not. While it's not nutral, it's wrong. Kuban Cossack haven't searched to insert his views, but to insert a referenced nutral view that can't be argued.

Lets say Folantin and Captain Obvious entered reliable sources, but Kuban had brought other sources which are reliable to, but contrast Folantin's and Captain Obvious's sources, why should Kuban be blocked? The administrators clearly failed in this case when they let Folantin to get unharmed after he went to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. We do not need a repetition of this.[125] Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uuu, threats. Scary. I admit i did a mistake by writting it, but once it was deleted once, i haven't returned it because i understood it. By the way, the one who reverted me was Kuban Cossack, who you blame for nationalism and being not nutral. I would better be explained why it was returned (do is mell provocation?). I understood i did a mistake there, and haven't repeated it. Your threat has nothing to do with what a wrote above. Log in, log out (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Half of your [Ukrainian] lands are not yours by right (Crimea and Donbass, New Russia, were opened by Russia for Russia, Odessa to. Lviv and the whole West were Polish), and instead of thanking us you act like pigs". Unbelievable. I hadn't seen that link before. And this from a user whose page says he is a member of the National Bolsheviks, an extreme Russian nationalist party whose flag clearly shows totalitarian imagery (both Nazi and Soviet). This is the kind of editor we have to deal with on these problem pages. --Folantin (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You do it again. You try to move the discussion to an off-topic to make people forget what you were blamed in. Once Kuban Cossack deleted what i said there and explained me Wikipedia pages are not forums. i, unlike you and Captain, have never returned to it. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support block. G-Dett is under civility restrictions from the ArbCom case, and was repeatedly using uncivil terms ("troll") to refer to another editor, despite repeated requests from administrators to stop. Further, she was using this kind of inflammatory language in relation to articles that are already powderkegs, in the Palestine-Israel topic area. If G-Dett would like to point out concerns with an edit, or editor, she has the right to do so, but she must do this without the incivility and name-calling. --Elonka 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at AE? Not to mention that truth is always a defence, even in "powder-kegs". Elonka, you've already made at least one article worse through over-application of discretionary sanctions, please don't do so with others. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is indeed a defence, but if it's expressed in an aggressive fashion that raises genuine issues with civility. I'm sorry to see G-Dett get blocked for this, since in my (admittedly limited) experience of her she's been a productive and very lucid editor, but I can understand the reasons for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think Khoikhoi and Elonka acted very decently here, and I agree with Chris' comments above. I do hope that people will look into the situation that sparked this, as it will need to be addressed at some point, with or without my dulcet-toned reminders.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Breadandsocks on a rampage trying to promote William Morris Agency

This user has created a dozen new articles in the past two hours of nonnotable and purely promotional advertisements for executives within the William Morris Agency and has rewritten the main article in the same manner. User should be temporarily blocked so page creation can be halted and user's contribs can be evaluated at COIN. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. You've probably averted a serious mess. I think the editor is trying to edit in good faith. I've made some comments on the William Morris talk page and removed the speedy tag there. I think we should discourage the editor from creating child articles faster than people can evaluate them, but consider the possibility that they can overcome the COI issue to create proper articles - at least that it's a debatable point for COIN. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? In what possible way could their edits not be construed as a major conflict of interest? They created a dozen spam articles in a small amount of time centered around promoting one company and you're telling me that they're doing it in good faith? AGF has never been a good reason to bury our heads in the sand and I think the distance between good faith and naivety here is enormous. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cumulus Clouds, are you saying that concentrating my efforts on one article is discouraged? My COI is that i'm doing a paper on this company and if you find that unacceptable I'd like an explanation. I'm doing a paper on this company and i find it rather significant at least in relation to other companies that are very much elaborated on wiki. so i set out in good faith to expand the stub that was originally in place. Could someone please review the history and explain if i'm wrong? Breadandsocks (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, as i said i've followed the format and content for other companies in the same industry while editing this page, except for one area: 2 or more companies also have detailed sections on their headquarters buildings. i haven't done that but plan to as i have information on it. this particular company in question is building a new struction that is one of few pollution-safe buildings in LA. Does that mean i'm promoting it just becasue its main feature is a positive one?Breadandsocks (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon related afds

Hi, there are some Lebanon related afds running that would benefit from the attention of some admin. They are being target for vandalism (just as well as the articles) and had recently even been closed by one of the editors involved (non-adminm, of course). The afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiing in Lebanon, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi. See the history of these afds and their respective articles for knowing the users (and anons) involved. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a related dispute seems to be taking place at Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Damiens.rf 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps take to WP:AIV? If editor has removed any more AfD tags after this diff Although it appears stale per this diff on my talkpage. . Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User;CarolSpears

Due to recent discussion at WP:AN/I diff the editor was advised that they had been banned from editing. I have a couple of issues with the conclusion;

1. the discussion had comments from editors opposing the action, including an editor who has had extensive contact with the editor, including content disputes.
2. the discussion focused on wikilawyering over how a series information should be labeled PD rather than PD.
3. the most significant issue that the discussion only took place over 2 days, noting that XfD's have 5 days and RfA/RfB run for 7 days

I have some concerns over this though agree that a block was an appropriate action in the short term. What I see is the issue of calling it a ban, especially as one of the issue raised was the lack of response to the RfCU despite being told not to respond[126] go do something else for a while yet in doing just that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits. I'm inclined to unblock now when looking at the way these event have transpired, though I do recognise that there are some legitimate concerns so suggest consideration resetting the block to a specific period. Gnangarra 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I come at this from a Commons perspective where I have interacted with the user for some time now. They are a little unusual. Force/bullying/threats really do not work. Interaction has been successful there despite the odd call for a block. A challenge - yes, indef block or whatever - not in my mind. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right - the consensus was for an indefblock, not a ban, and I hope that has now been clarified. Please see my rather long comment on her talk page. I've tried to give her a full explanation of what happened and why - ongoing copyright violations are not a trivial concern, and action had to be taken. However, despite being willing to unblock her myself, I would strongly object to resetting the block until we've had some assurances from her regarding editing and behaviour (preferably including accepting mentoring). EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an unblock or a reset until a consensus can be achieved here regarding the matter. We can't keep the charades going for much longer; blatant and ongoing copyright violations are a serious matter, and she has so far refused to modify her behaviour. I would feel comfortable with a reset on a block if she accepts mentoring. seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop accusing me of stalking Carol Spears based on her say so and no diffs ("that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits"). I reverted 5-6 of her edits on new plant articles she created based upon the discussion on the RFC talk page. I told her this. Her edit history shows clearly that these were the only articles of hers I reverted. I did not follow her around to do this, and, in fact, only looked at her edit history after being accused of doing so. I found the articles from the new plant articles, which I monitor and sometimes banner talk pages.
• If the basis for the desire to revert the community ban is solely that she was stalked, provide some evidence. Carol provided none, because there was none.
• Please remember the plagiarisms are a minor issue in comparison to the fact that most of the information she has inserted into articles appears to be factually wrong, except for the taxoboxes. All of this information should be corrected before she is allowed to edit again. She not only refuses to help, but she added these new articles, including one which was a major misinterpretation of the article she referenced. I don't think Wikipedia readers deserve to be given wrong information. This is particularly problematic in the case of plant articles because Wikipedia is a main source on internet source engine returns for plant species articles. All of her wrong information must be removed before she's allowed to add new wrong information. This request is what led up to the ban. --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Block", old bean, block... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, Gnangarra. I'm rather stunned by this and I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the fact that you previously blocked Carol for one week for this comment. I certainly wish you would look at some of her more recent comments with a similarly critical eye. You say you feel "inclined to unblock now" because you don't agree with "calling it a ban". This makes no sense to me and even less when I see you saying that you agree a block was warranted. You made this statement some two hours after I had already corrected the incorrect non-admin closure and had removed her name from the ban list. If you think it's been closed too early and should stay open for another couple of days, then by all means remove the tags and reopen it but to use a mistake by a non-admin as a basis to lobby for overturning a clear consensus discussion seems like the very definition of wiki-lawyering to me. If such a thing warranted overturning a block in the face of strong consensus, then we're screwed. You compare the discussion length to XfDs. Consider also that an incorrectly closed XfD simply gets corrected and a closing mistake by a non-admin closer does not corrupt the entire process. You say that there was wiki-lawyering in the block discussion but it feels to me like your argument is wiki-lawyering because the issue of the incorrect closure was already fixed. I do believe that there was a consensus for an indefinite block with *only one* person opposing the block. I opposed the initial proposal two weeks ago because I felt that she just needed mentoring and education but she has been resistant to both and I feel this is our last option. The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed. I do not support unblocking now and I would not support a fixed term or unblocking until there was some undertakings from this user, including the acceptance of a mentor. The discussion regarding this user and the extent of her damage to the mainspace took place through at least three separate ANI sections, an RfC and over a period of 16 days; it wasn't simply a two day discussion. Carol needs to be blocked until we have undertakings from her about her future editing and an agreement to accept the mentor, whether that means that she remains blocked for one hour or one year is entirely in her hands but I will not support an unblock without such undertakings. Please consider, instead of doing this, helping carol by helping her see how a mentor like LessHeard could help her and the importance of our copyright, verifiability and other content and behavioural policies. Sarah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. We're dealing with chronic disruption that is going to take weeks to fix, and if the user had had a better attitude about helping to rectify it, we wouldn't be here. If we saw a major change in attitude and a willingness to help fix past matters, then I'd be minded to support an unblock, but I think it will need some fairly solid (and enforceable) undertakings. Orderinchaos 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue -- ban template on her talk page

I disagree with a ban template being put on her user page, though, and would like this to be discussed, since so many uninvolved editors feel strongly about templating her page. Is this necessary under the circumstances of this particular ban? --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back in by error by misreading the talkpage, I have no strong feels about the use of the template otherwise. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the Userpage; the editor has now retired, is indefinitely blocked, and is therefore no longer contributing in any way to the encyclopedia. There is therefore no need to cause any further distress to the departing individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, she has said she is considering coming back as a sock [127], but hopefully won't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the piss

see here, lock it down, let her email someone if she has a valid reason for unblock. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ignore it, if it irritates you. Perhaps a decreasing audience may encourage her to address the communities concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows the utter contempt she has for the community. She posts nonsensical ramblings in response to the clear, well thought out explanation to her block. I can't believe anyone still thinks she will ever work within the community standards. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down the page is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia. If you dislike what you see when you go there, then I suggest you take the advice of a doctor who replied, when told "It really hurts when I do this!", "Then stop doing it." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's helpful to give this troll a forum? At this point that is all that she is. People keep going to that page to keep an eye on the situation. There are, evidently, people that think that her feelings are much more important than policy and will unblock her as long as she promises not to do it again, but they won't bother to actually follow her and check her work because that would be insulting to the poor abused editor. This is a symptom of a bigger issue on WP. People who operate in contravention of community standards and WP policies are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "doing important work". So go ahead and unblock her, but be sure to warn the foundations legal team because you can be certain that she will continue to pass off other people's work as her own because she simply refuses to accept that it's wrong. We'll have lots of pretty plant articles with stolen passages and incorrect information, but Carol's feelings will not be hurt so everything is good. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is blocked, they're only supposed to use their talk pages for requests for unblock, or non-controversial stuff. If not, then typically the talk page will be protected, to shut up the whiner. But if the talk page in this case is to remain unprotected, anyone going there should forget about being upset, and simply consider the entertainment value of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see the entertainment value, I mean I haven't heard such disjointed rambling in quite some time. However, as I said, there are some of us here to keep others honest and keep her from being unblocked while she continues to rant and refuses to (or simply is incapable) of seeing what she is doing is wrong. Why does she have so many defenders is my question. She's rude, sarcastic, and obstinate, not the qualities we'd like in a member of a collaborative community. I don't understand how anyone can read the myriad threads about her and still think we can redeem her? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

enough is enough

some days ago I spotted a sock circus: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove and user:Romaioi was, because of the edits he made, a suspect in the case. He resorted to attack me personally, accusing me of lying, threatening legal action and so on [128] [129]. I choose to ignore him, as his heated defence heightened the suspicion that he might be the sock master. Additionally I do not answer to people that choose not adhere to WP:NPA. As per checkuser result he was not part of the sock circus and therefore I thought the matter closed, but the individual in question has now chosen to go to my talk page and to continue demanding an apology, instead of constructive work in wikipedia: his first this edit to which I did not respond and now this: "A person who cannot be "man" enough to acknowledge their errors loses credibility" "you clearly have no idea." "your inability to acknowledge your own mistake(s)". I do not appreciate someone bullying me on my talk page and I definitly do not appreciate it when said individual reinserts an insulting comment I deleted from my talk page and calling me "petty" for doing so. I think some hours of cooling off would do him good and I would appreciate a stern advice to this "30+ times over" published author to adhere to WP:NPA. --noclador (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just apologize? Not saying he's not acted wrongly but what harm can it do- you said he was a sock and he wasn't- apologize, then you have the moral high ground to an even greater extent. Sticky Parkin 22:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with my troll?

OK, so a couple weeks ago while patrolling recent changes, I reverted a simple NN edit to List of computer scientists [130]. I gave the user a basic test1 warning. He then undid my revert. I reverted again, with a more descriptive edit summary [131], and gave him a test2. He then signed out of his account and undid my edit again as an IP user [132]. After that, he began trolling pages that I created or had recently edited, sometime blanketly undo'ing perfectly reasonable edits of mine [133], [134].

I asked him to stop trolling my edits, and that I felt he was harassing me [135]. After this he seemed to stop editing, and I thought everything was over. Until today. He started off his editing today with a pointless edit just to revert something I had fixed [136]. Recognizing my troll's IP, I reverted this edit, and left him a test2 on his talk page [137]. He then proceded to make bad faith edits to articles that I had created [138]. His only edits today have been to articles I created. All of this had been done with absolutely no dialogue from the user.

Attempting to remain civil, I even offered to let him put his name back on the List of computer scientists article if he would just quit harassing me [139]. And now for the first time he's posted something on a talk page, apparently just to further mock/harass me [140].

I'm about to run out of civility with this guy, and I don't know what to do. Could someone please let me know what to do in this situation? A third party's neutral POV would be greatly appreciated, even if the response is that I could have handled the situation better.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's hard to block for long since it's shared and belongs to a US gov agency. It's sad but true that when this kind of thing happens, the most helpful way to get rid of it is to edit as if it doesn't nettle you at all (pay it no heed) and maybe quietly revert a day or so after the vandalism. This will tend to be highly boring for whomever's behind it and you'll likely see less of them soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ato Bolden letter

I added this to the Ato Bolden article a few months ago: "On April 20, 2008, The Guardian published the contents of a letter believed to be by Boldon to John Smith, his former coach, accusing Smith, Maurice Greene and his former agent, Emmanuel Hudson, of betraying him by obtaining banned drugs without his knowledge, lying about Greene competing without drugs and damaging his own career" This is cited, and is now being removed by a user who claims to be from Bolden's website. The user outlines their rationale here [141], which aludes to legal action. The user is incorrect in describing the Guardian as a tabloid, it is a highly reputable broadsheet. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but in my opinion, FWIW, this is a content dispute. In view of the COI of the other editor, you are perfectly entitled to add it back and explain why on the article's talk page, the appropriate place for this stage of a content dispute. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Left a note for the user encouraging dialogue and discouraging legal threats ([142]). Can this be closed? EyeSerene^talk 19:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsmen Committee formal proposal

Located here. Please comment at the VP. Thanks!!! Bstone (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

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

Per the growing consensus below, Giovanni33 has been banned by the community, in accordance with the banning policy. No need to continue this discussion. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I've just blocked Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 month for a 6th infringement of his 1 revert per week editing striction. This time, he used socks to revert twice on socks to revert twice on Glenn Beck. Here as Giovanni, and here with a sock (confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). I've just realised as I've been writing this that the report is completely stale - It's from June which has suddenly given me huge doubts about the appropriateness of the block. But..... Do we really need this here. Giovanni has a huge history of using socks and/or meat puppets, as documented by his latest arbcom case, which he's set to be banned in. Can't we just ban him as a community? I think our patience is used up. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think he's either got sloppy, or was too clever for his own half. In regards to the latter explanation, Giovanni seems to be arguing that because he would never openly allow a puppet to be linked to his account, this can't be him. So having been exposed to what I would term "Giovanni logic" this would be the perfect ruse to try to deflect evidence of his puppetry at the pending arb-comm case. If these supposed conspirators who are trying to get Giovanni blocked could avoid linking Supergreenred to him, they could have done the same with Ratatoui. Equally if they wanted to get Giovanni banned by linking accounts to him, they could have done that with supergreenred. This scenario is just barmy.

I think Giovanni is taking the biscuit now, but faced with a 1 year renewing ban I think he would try almost anything. I have noted that in the past abusers of puppets have been indef-blocked even with a pending arb-comm case - the arb-comm just ensures that if they're ever given another chance they still have to face at least that 1 year ban. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse an indefinite ban. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban Just look at his block log, it's appalling. You actually have to expand the log to 100 items to see the entire thing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom have very nearly given him a year ban - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Proposed decision#Giovanni33 banned - I would just leave the month block, and then let the ban take effect. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's foregone by now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are only 6 entries beyond it fitting within 50 and given that about 20 of the entries are unblocks, I'm not sure the description above is completely accurate. That said, it is certainly one of the longest block logs I've ever seen. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban in view of that block log. Any ban ArbCom may impose would just run concurrently to the community-imposed one.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) — Clarifying on request: I endorse a community ban of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban indef ban - in light of appaling POV pushing, rampant sockpuppetry, etc. Enough kiddy glove treatment - the only people not supporting a ban on Giovanni anymore are people who have been supporting his edit wars. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban and extend to indef Enough is enough. G33 has shown on numerous occasions that he has no respect whatsoever for this community and it's policies. Jtrainor (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of these comments could be a bit clearer. Are people endorsing the one-month ban or the suggestion of an indef-ban? For the record I will check, but from now onwards it might help if people specified. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if users don't clarify the ban length, it's safe to say that they are endorsing an indefinite ban. The one-month "ban" is not a ban. It is a block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• endorse ban Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that this has taken this long to deal with. Even without the latest behavior I would have likely endorsed a community ban. Giovanni's continued presence is a net negative for the encyclopedia. The most recent edits I can find from him in article space that were productive and not edit warring date to almost a month ago. Giovanni at a fundamental level does not understand that NPOV is not HisPOV and moreover, seems to be consistently unwilling to try to learn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. For those who are concerned about process, User:Bluemarine was community-banned while his RFAr was in progress, and the arbcom's one-year ban was added in addition to the community ban which was in place. It appears that a similar situation has occurred here. G33 has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban as per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Probably holds the record for the biggest time-waster in the project's history (after Mantanmoreland of course). His article productivity is almost zero, and the most frequent argument I encounter against his banning is variations of "his POV needs to be represented". Unfortunately, that's not at argument for ignoring massive sockpuppetry and edit-warring. The 4 ArbCom votes so far to put him under a 1-year self-renewing ban (the first ever) are a big hint what to do here, folks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: one, I think it is time that Wikipedia and Giovanni33 (and related socks) part company, and two, leave the thread open, because this place will tolerate disruptive editors endlessly, but close a ban discussion "too quickly" and there will be hell to pay. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of nonse. ArbCom's considering this very matter, and Ryan decides to step in, guns blazing? Just back off slowly, everyone, the people we elected to handle this are already on the case. Obviously do not endorse ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you objecting to Giovanni being indefinitely banned, or being indefinitely banned prior to the result of an arbitration case? There is precedent for this - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Bluemarine_banned is an example. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• comment the vast majority of editor endorsing the ban are those editors who vehemently oppose the content that G33 has added to articles. If you remove their (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan - just from the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) predictable endorsement of the ban, there are only about 5 non-involved editors endorsing the ban and about 3 non-involved editors questioning the ban.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. As far as I can see only Relato refero actively opposes a ban and he always sides with Giovanni - he is far from being "non-involved". Gwen did not opppose the ban, only saying that it was a foregone conclusion the arb-committee will ban him for a year. Phil said that he would keep the month block, but he didn't say he opposed a ban (there's a difference between opposing something and not supporting it). John Smith's (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's a load of horseshit. I don't "always side with Giovanni", I merely think that sockpuppetry is unlikely here. For the record, I believe the article he most focuses on, State Terrorism, needs to be stubified and rewritten from scratch, focusing only on the highest-quality, directly relevant sources, which is the same approach that WMC is taking, who is hardly on Giovanni's "side". Attempt to avoid misrepresenting people for momentary gain in a trivial argument, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I was talking about when Giovanni has been blocked - not editing. From my memory you have objected to him being sanctioned in the past, and I cannot remember a time where you supported sanctions against him. If that is not the case I invite you to set the record straight with circumstances where you did support them. But certainly on the arb-case you opposed the proposed sanctions on Giovanni.

Maybe you could let me know the answer to my earlier question. Are you opposing the indef-blocking of Giovanni period, or simply before the arbitration case has concluded? John Smith's (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not votes for banning. We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If this isn't a classic illustration of what Jimbo meant when he said we're too nice to the disruptors I don't know what is. Enough is enough. He's had multipile chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Giovanni33

I called it a mistake because I thought it was just a hasty error by Ryan per the RFCU, which confirms user Rataoui as the puppet of banned SuperRedGreen - not me. The arbcom case is currently considering the evidence and arguments of these claims. Since one would think that when an arbcom case is opened to look at the evidence of the claim that one account as likely being another, this supersedes subsequent punitive actions possibly taken by other admins, pending that investigative process and determination of fact by the arbcom proceedings. Otherwise what it the point of the arbcom case?

What seems to have happened in this case is that an admin may have made a mistake but is now saying that it's "likely anyways" that arbcom is going to decide against me so the block should stay anyway, effectively superseding the arbcom process that is charged with making this exact determination. This is procedurally wrong and a previous ANI thread concluded that it would only muddy the waters of the arbcom case. Ryan has said that Arbcom is going to ban me anyway, so it does not matter. I disagree. In practice this just prevents me from even responding in my defense on the talk pages of my arbcom with important counter arguments to the comments of others against me. Yes, there are reasons to believe and not to believe that I have any real connection to this account (SGR), but that is what arbcom is deciding on: Until they do, admins should not jump the gun, and make the determination on their on and block me for it hoping that arbcom will back them up in the end, and that it will be moot if I'm blocked or not. This is not fair, and a violation of due process.

For the record, I've held that SuperRedGreen is an impersonator, and has wikistalked and copied not just me but other editors. I had no problem when that account being indef blocked. Now they come back with a puppet, and once that is confirmed, they should be blocked -- not me! This is obviously a transparent attempt by someone to make me look bad. The user checks confirms the connection of these two accounts, and there is no connection to meGiovanni33 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checkuser (technical) evidence has suggested that you are likely Rataoui. It isn't the result of any human error. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The human error is Ryan claiming it was confirmed when it was not. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that this thread was closed with the result that Giovanni33 is banned, and then was re-opened. FWIW, I think that it should remain open at least over the weekend because (1) it is currently 4th of July weekend, so admins/editors in the USA may not be able to comment until the end of weekend (or later...) and (2) the thread was closed after being open for under five hours. --Iamunknown 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that some people have thrown a wobbler over the fact Ryan started the discussion when he did, implying that he did it deliberately to limit the discussion. Well, guys, from his profile it looks like he's English, not American - so he had no reason to know about US holidays.

I don't disagree with the thread being re-opened for a short while, but unless it now becomes an informal rule to not close threads for community bans over the holiday period of any English-speaking country, I think having to keep the thread open for longer than the weekend is a bit much. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time Gio supporter and "give Gio the benefit of the doubt"er, I'd like to suggest that too much mercy is as bad as too much severity. Ban him. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It has been my observation that, over the past year or two, User:Giovanni33 has frequently clashed with User:John Smith's, particularly at pages such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, in which Giovanni would attempt to skew the article toward portraying U.S. actions in a more negative light, then John Smith's would revert the article to portray the same actions in a positive light. In this case, I'm actually shocked that the very same editor on the other end of the revert warring (whom in many cases was reverting to worse versions) is the one pushing hardest for Giovanni's block. If there is anything political to do with this push (I believe there is), the block should not take place. The pot is equally as black, if not blacker, than the kettle in this case, and I cannot believe that no one has as yet pointed this out. I recommend a look through the archives on this matter to all making their opinions known here. Badagnani (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I have reverted that particular article a total of 5 times this year. 3 times against an anon-IP that was making poor changes (and may well have been a sockpuppet) and only twice against Giovanni. Now compare that with Giovanni's edit-warring on the page wth multiple users and his repeated use of puppets (I have never used them myself). He has also been blocked 6 times for violating his revert parole - I haven't been a single time. Yet you still accuse me of being as bad or worse than him? That is not credible. The facts speak for themselves. John Smith's (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Badangani - Yes, his opponents are going to be the first to notice this chink in his armour. But the fact is, the people who would like to support him based on his arguments, can't because of his behaviour. Too bad. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I had a similar reaction to Badagnani on seeing John Smiths' lobbying on this page and I just reverted his addition of Giovanni to the banned user list. I don't really care if there is consensus to ban Giovanni as I have been watching the problems with his behaviour and his blatant socking and lying when caught out for the last few years and like other longterm editors I've basically had enough but it's absolutely unacceptable for Giovanni's editorial adversary to have any involvement in determining the consensus and then restoring his name to the banned user list. Sarah 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm hardly his "editoral adversary". He may have bullied me in the past, but I couldn't care less about his views or editing interests. I would say that people who have suffered from his behaviour in the past have as much as a right to express their opinions as someone who has never come across him, though I have never suggested my views should be taken as a means of establishing consensus. If people wish to oppose a ban they can do so, but I have a right to query their views - I don't see that as lobbying.

As for the list, as an administrator surely you know it's for logging bans. He is banned so I restored the name. Until he is unbanned it should be there. What is more important - waiting for an "uninvolved editor" to put it there, or having it there as a record of the fact he is under an indefinite ban? I guess you would say the first, but I would say the second. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Subtle vandal

A few minutes ago I noticed this edit to the backgammon article. I googled Patrick Nikodem to see if I could find any evidence of notability. I didn't, but I did find the same name mentioned in completely unrelated articles.[143] [144]. I'm looking through histories as I'm writing this and have found two IP's adding the name to a lot of articles, 128.91.97.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 202.72.240.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I also found the name mentioned at this Wikipedia mirror site entry. I haven't tracked down the IP responsible for that one yet. I suppose I can search for the text string and revert other instances I find, so perhaps no admin action necessary except a heads up.

On a related note, has there been any talk of banning certain text strings from Wikipedia? I know there's been a problem with vandals adding an unlinked URL to a large number of pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Grouphappy (talk · contribs) and this edit, which adds "Pat Nikodem" to a list of sea captains. The IP used to add Pat Nikodem to that article is owned by the University of Pennsylvania, where there is a Patrick Nikodem majoring in Finance (email included in Google results). Not sure there's much we can do, but you could always send him an email. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone check if Phil Jagielka's middle name is really Nikodem? (added here by IP) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see (un)reliable sources stating his middle name is "Nikodem", quite a lot, actually. There's also a Polish tabloid Super Express which uses it: [145]. But nothing reliable - not even Everton's site nor UEFA's. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Phil Jagielka's meddle name might be Nikoden, Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)???

I don't know if it's right or wrong, just that there seem to be many places that use "Nikodem" as his middle name. He does have a Polish ancestry, apparently ([146]) and Nikodem doesn't sound English - perhaps his middle name is Polish? x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask, Smith Jones, is that Patrick Nikodem is the name that a few IPs have been subtly vandalizing with, as you can see by looking at my first post in this thread. Since that middle name was added to the Jagielka article by an IP, I thought that might be vandalism, too. But now that I've looked into it, it seems quite plausible that someone from that part of the world, might have that middle name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Dallas spam

New "article" Mosaic Dallas by a single user looks somewhat like spam. --Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (albeit unreferenced). Will clean it up a bit. – ırıdescent 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cool article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

neat picture! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows anything about Dallas, can they have a look at this one? My cleanup of it has left it with more issues tags than article at present. – ırıdescent 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that, all it needs are some references and expansion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat

What should be done about this. The title says it all, but it was one of a number of foul pages introduced by Volapuks (talk · contribs). Should this threat be acted upon? I have asked for oversight for a number of the pages, but suggest that someone else also sends one as my e-mail can be temperamental. Woody (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this (admin only) its apparent he knows this place. RBI. Right thing has been done and he'll probably return again one day doing exactly the same. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one that deleted them all, I presume oversight don't deem them to be personal information worth deleting then. Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page:

":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [147][148] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page

User:Kossack4Truth is someone I've generally agreed with on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but this behavior is now more of a hindrance to all of us.

A little while ago, LotLE added a comment on the talk page that attacked me. [149]

I ignored it, and other editors asked him to remove it. [150] and [151]

Wisely, he did. [152]

Today, Kossack4Truth took LotLE's removed comment and added it back to the page, then posted K4T's own message condemning it. [[153]]. Touching LotLE's comments on the talk page violates WP:CIVIL as pointed out here and this kind of behavior is so over the top that the relevant WP:TALK section doesn't even contemplate it.

LotLE then removed his own comment again. [154]

One might get the impression that K4T is simultaneously trying to provoke two editors into a fight. When you think about it, it's actually pretty creative. Also destructive, disruptive and pretty damn far from encyclopedia building. I thought about leaving a note on his talk page, but I'm not going to bother. I'll notify him, and LotLE, that I've left a note here. Admins, please do something about this. If we had administrators continuing to watch the shenanigans going on at the Barack Obama and related articles, this would already have been dealt with. Noroton (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

I'm inclined to block for at least 48+ hours for this kind of provocation, especially as the editor already has two blocks (both for edit warring -24 hrs, and 48 hrs) and the ongoing problems surrounding the Obama article. But I would prefer to get a sense of the community for how long it should be. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time he has appeared on ANI and elsewhere, and given this is more of a longer-term abuse issue, I would recommend at a minimum, a 55-hour block that would increase with each offence. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking it should be higher myself, but given the lack of admins/editors who want to deal with this stuff so far, I'm not sure what the level of community support is. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm uninvolved with the situation -- outside of reading the comments here at ANI and at the talk pages, and wouldn't mind watching the pages when I am back at home. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I've seen (and been a part of) a heated discussion in my short time here, but this really surpasses anything I've seen. I agree with the initial post that it appears he was trying to provoke two editors into a fight. This is extremely disruptive, and counterproductive to the mission of the project, which is creating good content. As I'm just dipping my toe into thinking about these kind of issues, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I would think a much longer block (on the order of 1 week or so) would be in order. This prevents both further disruption, and would (hopefully) allow the conversation at the page in question to proceed more productively. In the alternative, perhaps a total topic ban might be in order, which would at least accomplish the latter of the two objectives. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 5 July 200
• Mastcell already blocked for 72 hours. Beat me to it. I'd suggest the next incident results in an immediate page ban of at least one month. Any support for this?. Barak Obama now on my watch list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Per my above comment, I'd definitely support a long page ban for this editor. S. Dean Jameson 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth per MastCell and FCYTravis below. R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

• The other Barack Obama article-related thread on this page is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. It links to some previous ones. I think there have been about six over the past six weeks. I welcome seicer's eyes, but the talk page generates an enormous amount of volume and the bad behavior has sometimes spread to related pages. I've suggested in the past that a group of admins watch it because the page is crazy and big. Noroton (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Noroton and I don't agree on some Obama content issues, but I completely agree with his bringing this here, and with his request for an increase in admin involvement in dealing with disruption on the Talk page which has also included possible vote-stacking. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything, I would advocate for a longer term topic ban—e.g. for three months —instead of any outright block. This duration seemed to be rough consensus of admins on an earlier AN/I report (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). K4T has predominantly edited Obama related article, and mostly been disruptive doing so. However, his/her contributions to other areas seem to be productive and reasonable. Ideally, s/he could continue to do useful things elsewhere on WP. LotLE×talk 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since I've looked in on behavioral issues on this page in the past, I've blocked Kossack4Truth for 72 hours, essentially for the reasons outlined by Noroton in the initial post in this thread. In doing so, I note a long history of focused advocacy-driven and disruptive editing by Kossack4Truth on pages relating to Barack Obama. I had previously proposed a topic ban for this editor, and he apparently took a voluntary, though relatively brief, break from Obama-related pages. I would support a formal 3- to 6-month topic ban as well-earned at this point, but will leave that for further discussion and for another admin to implement if there's consensus for it. MastCell ^Talk 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with topic ban proposal. The user has shown that he/she is fundamentally incapable of editing articles relating to Barack Obama in a collegial manner. FCYTravis (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This witch hunt is unbelievable. With the exception of this one incident, there is exactly zero indication that since returning from his 22-day "relatively brief" Wikibreak, K4T has done anything except demonstrate exemplary collegial conduct. Here is what actually happened, without the spin-doctoring:

1. K4T takes a Wikibreak from Obama related articles.

2. LotLE posts an endless series of snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations against Noroton and WB74.

3. Noroton approaches LotLE and requests removal of the false accusation against Noroton. LotLE complies, but he leaves his personal attacks and false accusations against WB74 intact.

4. Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3.

5. Upon his return, K4T notices LotLE's attacks against WB74 and starts going through LotLE's diffs on the page, copying all of his snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations, including the one against Noroton that had been refactored.

6. K4T posts all of these excerpts as part of a warning to LotLE to stop making such offensive remarks or he will be reported.

7. And MastCell blocks ... K4T ?!?!?

That was the last straw. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, you're absolutely right that other editors on that page have been responsible for some bad behavior. But K4T's response was essentially to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since some admins have shown a willingness to watch the page and get some perspective, the thing to do is present problems to them and bring along some diffs for evidence. The thing not to do is respond in kind and worse. The Talk:Barack Obama page doesn't function well as a behavior-changing noticeboard, and its function as an article-changing forum is hurt when we use it that way. I blame myself for responding to some bad behavior by occasionally scolding the parties on that talk page in the heat of argument, and I hope that bad example didn't influence K4T. I've apologized for doing that. Wikipedia has a system for dealing with bad behavior. Either deal with the frustrations of Wikipedia's barely navigable, clunky, stalling, backfiring, inefficient, inadequate, bruising, exhausting, often rude and sometimes perverse dispute resolution system or put up with some of the abuse or walk away. Lowering the tone of the page even further is a worse option. Noroton (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::During K4T's self-declared break from the Obama article he filed a bogus AN/I report to try to get one editor blocked / banned on a false accusation of lying and edit warring on the Obama page,[155], left an uncivil notice about the foregoing on the editor's page[156] and another involved editor's page,[157], defended an apparent sockpuppet against evidence of sockpuppetry on the pages by repeating an odd hypothetical having to do with racism and rape,[158][159] repeated his taunt that people he opposed on the Obama pages were "Obama fanboys" and accused one of "false allegations" while accusing administrators dealing with the matter of "censorship",[160] accused them of POV pushing, "revenge", and again of lying,[161] asked another editor to represent his interests on the page,[162] agitated on an administrator's talk page over the issue[163] accused then of "whining", holding discussions hostage, bad faith, and lying yet again,[164], and again[165] and again,[166] jumped into an edit war on a related article to support edits for which WorkerBee74 had just been blocked,[167] filed an inaccurate[168] and apparently retaliatory[169] 3RR report against one of the editors WorkerBee74 had been edit warring against leading to that block, got into some kind of edit war in another politics-related article and was referred to AN/I for that,[170] made uncivil accusations and began meatpuppeting yet another tendentious editor,[171] As soon as he did return to the Obama article he immediately began baiting and accusing other editors on the talk page,[172] initiated another edit war (see WorkerBee74 AN/I rerpot above) by breaking the agreement to avoid making changes to a particular section until consensus was reached,[173] then made the edits for which he was just blocked. The "break" from the Obama talk page was in name and form only - he continued the pattern of aggressiveness on the matter of Obama, just on different pages. The time on other articles does not seem to have changed his outlook or behavior on the matter. When he (and WorkerBee74) returned the tone of the page rapidly deteriorated, and the consensus that was building seemed at least for the moment was jeopardized.Wikidemo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3"

K4T was not on a Wikibreak. He has clearly been monitoring the discussion and contributing by proxy (just 8 days into the "break") so it is not unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. Also, these comments were not aimed at K4T in the first place, so I'm not sure why he felt it was necessary to re-light a fire which had already been put out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the comments occurred on LotLE's User Talk page rather than Talk:Barack Obama, it is most definitely unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. But I see that all of the Obama campaign volunteers have arrived to ensure that any admin reviewing the block is deceived into believing it has "broad community support." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that would seem to be a pretty blatant personal attack. Not everyone who disagrees with you (and Kossack) is an "Obama campaign volunteer." We're just editors who happen to find Kossack's action in this case (and previous ones) completely unacceptable. Before noticing this thread, I was completely uninvolved, just for the record. S. Dean Jameson 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that LotLE was the one posting personal attacks and false accusations, but K4T was the one who was blocked 72 hours for warning LotLE to stop. No good deed goes unpunished. And LotLE is still here unblocked, urging admins to take even more draconian action against K4T for warning LotLE to stop making personal attacks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reporting possible vandlaism, WP:CANVASSING, or other vioatlion of WP: policy???

Resolved

 – Straightforward vandalism, already blocked 24 hours

8 (UTC) User:68.248.74.14 has ben making a handful of wierd and offensive posts to myslef [174] and [175] <--- dozens of other users with schauch speed that her posts seem tobe automated. I am not sure twer this report should go since i am not sure wehther or not this is a result of some sort of edit dispute i was invovled in the past or some sort of vandalism/spamming atempt or a WP:CANVASS scheeme. Any help rendered here wil be appreciated and thasnk you for reading. Smith Jones (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do IP's not require warnings before being blocked (even if it is blatant vandalism)? Angrymansr (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting specifically on anything, but as this section of the blocking policy states, warnings are not an absolute requirement for any blocks, of any users. Although, most people (including myself) find it courteous to make sure the users know what they're doing wrong, and to inform those users by means of a warning or warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided seems to highly urge warnings but not require it. I was confused because back in my vandal fighting days I would report IP's to AIV and a few times the responses from admins were the user did not have sufficient warnings recently, though many times the page was filled with them over a long period of time and no action would be taken until many warnings were issued within a few days. Thanks for the information. Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That range does not require a warning, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal information. They have been at it a while now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp ignoring policy

User:Andycjp knowingly disregards Wikipedia's overlinking guideline, and to a far less problematic extent, that on red links. When other users ask him to reconsider his modus, he merely argues. My interaction with him consists of User talk:Andycjp#Overlinking and his replies on my talk page. I don't know what to do; the reason I seek intervention is that it seems easier than reverting the massive numbers of unconstructive edits he makes on a daily basis. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request to his talk page, asking that he read the WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED pages. He's replied to my message, saying that he will read them. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CPP

Please keep an eye on the article Communist Party of Pakistan. Jamco (talk · contribs) repeatedly fill the article with promotional coi material, and possibly hoaxing. Except for perhaps seeking to make the user understand wiki norms (a previous posting by another user on his talk page hasn't resulted in any change so far), perhaps some disciplinary action is suitable. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The content is not appropriate and his edit warring to try to force it in and then claiming some kind of special privilege as the "spokesman" of CPP is not acceptable. Sarah 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Resolved

 – Range softblocked one month, hopefully this stems the tide of vandalism.

68.248.74.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted someone's phone number in a bunch of talk pages. Should this be taken out of the history, or just reverted? (Note:similar vandalism has come from similar IPs) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an Anon IP with nothing better to do. If the number is a issue an Admin will remove it from the history. Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem from this IP range. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Friendly IP and the history. They have been hitting several pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to force the IP range to edit with an account and not via an Anon IP? Then again we may still have the same issue. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked that range for one month. That range is in Southfield, Michigan, on AT&T's DSL network--has anyone contacted them yet? Might not do much good, since we've got a lot of abuse from anons on that network (most notably Mmbabies)--but it's worth a try. Blueboy96 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted them twice over the past week but nothing seems to have happened. I think they had a few accounts, Blackbeltpussy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 Ceedjee is claiming that the article is AfD while making incorrect allegations. The events occurred as referenced. Secondary sources have been used. Exodus does not imply war. also he has not notified me by placing the tag on my talk page and I can't find it on the AfD log page. So where do I get to argue my case?

The Afd page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am me93 (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please see here here, I'm not suggesting they are, but they seem similar and I am just putting this here to your attention if nessecary and to see if you think that they are similar enough or not so that if nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112

I suggest a topic ban for User:Levine2112 from articles having to do with alternative medicine. This user has exhausted community patience. See the incessant disruption at Talk:Quackwatch, Talk:Atropa belladonna, and Talk:Chiropractic. He seriously prevents discussions from moving forward, is tendentious, and generally one of the worst examples of an editor we have. We've discussed this option before, but Levine2112 has just gotten worse. Please, someone needs to do something. He's driving good editors away. Also note that many of the article talk pages that Levine2112 has been disrupting are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)