Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.

I could provide a list of diffs. But it is easier if I just direct you to the current problem page: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Use the find command of your browser to look for "Humus" on the page, and check each occurrence until you find his replies to me or "Bless sins." Start with the section titled "Proposal to rename" and go down the page. It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user "Bless Sins." Here is a link to the last revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada&oldid=121777542 --Timeshifter 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite the community to take a look at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada#Proposal to rename and below. Note how 2 problem users: Timeshifter and Bless sins are trying to impose their POV against the results of survey and against scholarly research. Using WP as a soapbox didn't help, so here we see another attempt to intimidate an opponent in content dispute. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I don't have a POV. And there was no survey or poll. Trying to follow wikipedia guidelines is not using WP as a soapbox. You have now amply proven my point about your method of personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. And I proposed using both article names in the title in the last section of the talk page before making the incident report here. "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)." So how does that fit into your POV-smearing attempts? --Timeshifter 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Girls, girls, calm down. Keep it polite. HalfShadow 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is trolling allowed on incident boards? Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong section is it? Fail to see why this requires any admin attention. Obviously a dispute. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is both a naming dispute and this incident report here concerning an admin's personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be giving as good as you get there, and this is obviously a content/naming dispute. Please don't clutter the admin board with frivolous complaints. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others commented on an incident reported here earlier involving you and ChrisO. So there is an obvious conflict of interest in you commenting on this incident report here involving me. Please let other admins do the commenting on this. I have not attacked the character of Humus sapiens. I have commented on the content of his remarks. Whereas Humus sapiens has attacked my character and the character of other editors on that talk page. --Timeshifter 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't compound your error by failing to assume good faith. I don't recall what you're talking about, and it's not relevant anyway. This alleged incident is a content dispute, and you are wasting the board's time. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of not assuming good faith. You have nothing to base that on. Let me refresh your memory. Here is a link to the incident report in the archives: Blatant abuse of speedy deletion by Jayjg. I did not bring up the naming dispute in my initial incident report. I reported on the treatment by Humus of me and another editor: "It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user 'Bless Sins'." Humus, you, and KZ focussed on the naming dispute. I did not. --Timeshifter 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay, pick your fights. Let someone else handle this one, OK? Over-reach is a terrible thing. Hornplease 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, but the irony of your statements in this section should be obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is the fact that attacking someone using this board to complain about an admin's behaviour as 'time-wasting' is not very useful; and an attack on someone complaining about Humus might be more carefully read if it didnt come from you.

The irony is not obvious, possibly because it's been dead for years. Hornplease 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and nothing else. There is a "formal" RFM process underway. I think that additional discussion here will just confuse the issue. 6SJ7 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that a request for mediation is taking place. The participation of other editors and admins has already ameliorated the attacks on character somewhat. All I really wanted anyway with this incident report was to get some help from additional moderating elements. --Timeshifter 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of block

Quick links: Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice as requested by WP:Probation. I am blocking Zeq for 48 hours for openly defying an article ban imposed in accordance with his Arbitration ruling. More details at that page (at the end). --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. If he wishes to challenge an article ban, obviously editing the article is not effective as an appeal. And that log keeps growing... El_C 10:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge whatsoever of this dispute (that arbcom case is before I even joined Wikipedia), but arbcom found that you were edit warring in a dispute with Zeq (finding of fact #4). Is it appropriate for you to ban him from an article and block him for violating the same? Shouldn't an uninvolved admin make that determination? (And just to clarify, unless there is something pressing that I am missing, I don't endorse the block nor the ban and believe that you should remove both and allow an uninvolved administrator to deal with both issues.)--BigDT 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that I didn't notice. There's your challenge, then: find an uninvolved admin which has knowledge of the dispute. I, arguably, am one. El_C 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the article history [1]. It seems that Zero0000 is in a content dispute with Isarig and Zeq. No effort whatsoever has been made to discuss the issue on the talk page. My suggestion is that (1) the block and article ban both be lifted, but Zeq be cautioned to discuss changes on the talk page rather than revert war, (2) Zero0000 be cautioned not to block or ban people with whom he is in a dispute, and (3) if desired, the article can be protected to facilitate discussion on the talk page. Any thoughts? --BigDT 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq has been here long enough; the quality of edits such as this is too low. El_C 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Been here long enough? Are we talking about an article ban+2 day block or are we talking about an indefinite ban from the project? I think we're talking about the former. At any rate, regardless of anything else, no admin can block/ban a user with whom they are in a content dispute. Administrative privileges cannot be used in that fashion. Unless someone wants to make the case that Zero0000 is not an involved admin, the article ban is invalid and thus, so is any block arising from it. Any uninvolved admin is free to ban Zeq from that article if they have a good faith reason to, however, I would suggest that an attempt to resolve the issue should come before such an action. --BigDT 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the former. But I felt we've already passed the point where the latter could be applied months ago. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Zero0000 here, "the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator." Which, I gather, includes Zero0000. Regards, Huldra 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine that they intended for that to include someone actively involved in a dispute over the article. You can't ban someone you are currently in a dispute with from the article you are in a dispute over. That's just silly. --BigDT 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While endorsing the block, it really needs to be someone other then Zero. When someone involved in a content dispute lays down the block, its a MeatBall:PowerAnswer that just breeds resentment. El_C, why dont you lay the block on him? -M^ask? 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the block would be enforcing an invalid ban and is thus inappropriate. The user should be immediately unblocked with any administrator free to impose the article ban. HOWEVER, given that no attempt has actually been made to resolve the content dispute, I think an article ban is premature. --BigDT 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it an English course, and if Zeq's continues to introduce & edit war over edits which are consistently of too low a quality, then imposing the arbitration remedies will continue. Sure, hopefuly not by someone cited in the RfAr, so next time, Zero should drop myself a line. For my part, I have long suggested that perhaps he tries the simple Wikipedia for a while. It is unfair of him to expect others to so extensively reconstrct his edits, which he continues to revert. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the general quality of Zeq's edits (sorry, I'm too lazy to study hundreds of contributions), but there is no policy basis for a block for low-quality editing. If the opposite were the case, most Wikipedians would suffer regular blocks for poor editing. Beit Or 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a tendencious pattern of revert warring over low-quality additions, it should not be others' responsibility to reconstruct these. His exhuasting carelessness on that front has long reached the stage of disruptiveness. El_C 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) On what basis would you reblock? Zero's ban is invalid because Zero was in a revert war with Zeq at the time he issued the ban. To allow such a thing is silly. If the ban is invalid, then there is no cause for anyone to block based on that ban. --BigDT 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already answered that question above and am not inclined to repeat myself. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The original ban at 1929 Hebron massacre should have been announced here, logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and posted on Talk:1929 Hebron massacre. While the arbitration case says He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing., good practice would require that the ban at least be reviewed here, or even better requested at WP:AE much like admins should request protection at RFPP when they have edited the article. I suggest that the correct course would be to unblock and then request an article ban at WP:AE. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's being reviewed. No point in unblocking if he'll just go back to inserting that poorly-written bit. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a generally accepted principle that any administrative action, including a ban, must be made only by an uninvolved admin; thus, the original ban was absolutely inappropriate and the subsequent block only compounded the breach of WP:ADMIN. Furthermore, I believe the probation has expired by now. Usually users are placed on probation for one year; at least, this seems to have been the understanding of the original ArbCom ruling when Zeq was banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid: the ban was set to expire on March 5, 2006, one year after the arbitration decision.[2] If the original intent of the arbitrators regarding the length of Zeq's probation is unclear, let's make a request for clarification. Beit Or 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The probation has not expired, nor is there evidence that Zeq's editing practices improved. El_C 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, that in light of objections, neither this block nor the article ban (per AC clarification a few months ago) should not count toward the 5-block-one-year-ban but any additional blocks should count it. Simply, Wikipedia is not therapy. El_C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that in such a situation a block must be overturned. A block by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. Beit Or 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can unblock and reblock for the sakes of procedure. El_C 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that a block enforcing an existing arbitration ruling (article edit ban) has to be done by an "uninvolved admin". - Crockspot 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better, nonetheless. El_C 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The block may or may not be valid; but I think it's extremely poor form for an admin involved in a content dispute to resort to his/her admin tools. The term "any" surely does not mean that the editor in question is an outlaw. --Leifern 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't enforcing an article ban imposed by the arbitration committee. If he were, this wouldn't be an issue. Rather, he was enforcing an article ban that HE HIMSELF imposed during a revert war over that very same article. I'm going to be bold here. I have a meeting coming up right now. It will be over in an hour or an hour and a half or so (so around 22:00-22:30). If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by then, I intend to unblock Zeq. The article ban was imposed by an admin in a content dispute and the block was made enforcing that improper article ban. If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by the time I get out of my meeting, I intend to undo the block as it is patently improper. I consider myself neutral and uninvolved. I have never edited articles in this topic area nor, that I can recall off hand, interacted with Zeq, Zero0000, nor El C. As such, I consider myself uninvolved in the dispute and have seen no justification for the article ban and ensuing block. If any uninvolved admin objects, I will, of course, defer to their judgment. --BigDT 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I object. El_C 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturn the block if you want but there should also be an independent review of the article ban, which should be reimposed if it is justified. Then if Zeq violates the article ban imposed by a neutral admin, he gets blocked again. I will do this myself after I get back from an errand. Thatcher131 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, disregard that; don't overturn it. I object. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may chime in for a moment, does the fact that Zeq is alleging that Zero's motives are racially motivated (see this section ("most likley based on discrimination") of the talk page, as well as his revert of my comment on the matter) have any bearing here? Seems like a rather serious accusation to level at someone, esp an admin. Tarc 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To echo the section above, it is a serious accusation, regardless of the accused in an admin or not. But I'm not seeing it. Can you quote? El_C 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I will raise it with Zeq. El_C 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that Thatcher131 ignored my objection and unblocked. It looks like a questionable unblock (certainly as much as the preceding block). El_C 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like he read Tarc's comment above, so I'll strike that bit out. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Crossposted from my talk page) :I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree, but it is within your discetion. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Tarc's comment, I did see it briefly, but comments are flying all over the place faster than I can keep up. I view the original block as improper as stated above. If, in responding to the block, Zeq made inappropriate comments or allegations that deserve a block for civility or something, then do so. As I said above, this may strike some as overly procedural, but I believe it is the best way to proceed. Thatcher131 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't look like there's been five blocks, so I would not be blocking for a year as noting on Zeq's talk page. I'll still give him one last chance to respond (so far it dosen't look promising). If there is a block, it will count toward the one year ban, however. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

El C, with all due respect, I don't believe that you should be the one to impose a block of Zeq other than for obvious situations. From your comments on his talk page, you seem to have significant history there. I just got out of my meeting. Had Thatcher131 not already unblocked him, I would have. Please understand that it is important to stay well away from the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you or Zero have an issue with something Zeq does, the best response is to bring the issue here and allow it to be reviewed by a completely uninvolved admin. I am well aware that purely taking an administrative action doesn't make you involved, but even if you in good faith consider yourself uninvolved, it doesn't look that way from the outside. --BigDT 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the AC about this last time and they deemed me uninvolved, administrative history notwithstanding. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an accusation of discrimination —unless retracted— goes beyond mere civility. El_C 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I say what if the accusations are true? IF somebody makes an accusation that is then substantiated but was originally had up for making the accusation isn't that allowing the problem through blind cover?--Lucy-marie 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq was invited to substantiate the accusation. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion to offer on the rightness or wrongness of Zeq's edits, but I'm disappointed that the conversation seems to have veered away from an administrator blocking an editor he was in a revert war with (in order, perhaps, to cut down on the number of editors on the page he had to revert). This is precisely what admins are not supposed to do with their powers. Was the block of Zeq justified? Let's say, for argument's sake, it was. It's a simple matter to come to this board and ask if any admins out there agree. If the case is so obvious, the block would be in place within minutes. That Zero failed to do this is extraordinarily troubling. More troubling still is that there are so few admins in his thread troubled by it. IronDuke 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for these comments and observations. I entirely agree that it would have been preferable for someone completely uninvolved, rather than me, to have taken action against Zeq. My feeling about it, right or wrong, is that it is not a "content dispute" as usually defined but rather a serious behavior problem on the part of Zeq. Nor is it, really, just a matter concerning this one article. The fact is, as anyone can verify with a few clicks, that a very large fraction of Zeq's edits are tendentious, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, he has been here a long time and knows perfectly well what is allowed and what isn't. He knows that it is not permitted to insert the claim of one side of a historical dispute into the second sentence of an article without qualification as if it is an accepted fact. He knows it, yet he did it repeatedly. That is how he usually behaves and it has to stop. Concerning this particular article: I just now reconnected to WP to see all this discussion and am confused about who is banned or not or blocked or not, but if other admins are willing to take over the resolution of this problem that would make me happy indeed. Undoing the block and reimposing the article ban, as Thatcher131 suggested (already did?) is fine with me. The only thing that would not be fine is for Zeq's disruption to continue. --Zero^talk 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I banned him for one month. I watch WP:AE and am certainly prepared to reblock if needed, or reimpose the ban if he resumes disruption after the month is up. As I told somone else regarding Ombudsman, with a user already found to be disruptive, you don't have to wait for the situation to become intolerable before requesting an article ban. There are still 1.5 million plus articles he can edit. Thatcher131 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. El C has reimposed the block. I'm sick of dealing with this garbage. We don't block people with whom we are in a dispute. We don't make punative blocks. If that's not a concept we can all agree on, then I'm done here. --BigDT 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BigDT seems to be taking too lightly the fact that I've given Zeq many hours to either retract or substantiate the charges of "discrimintaion." El_C 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So? You should not have blocked Zeq because you are in a personal dispute with him/her. If you have an issue that you think merits blocking, bring it here for an uninvolved administrator review and execute. --Iamunknown 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This board seems to be losing from its usefulness in this case, so I'd rather defer to the AC (the block was noted in Rfar log). I am not in a dispute with Zeq, although he wishes to present it that way. He could have even said, 'let me collect the evidence and get back to you in a few days,' but no, he said "that is my answer" and to this BigDT says "this is a joke. He complains about a patently incorrect block and then you block him for it?" as if I blocked him for merely 'complaining' ("excuse," he says) against a block, which although I felt should have stayed in place (for other reasons), I too took issue with. How is that helpful? I also note that the unblocking admin was aware of this situation and left it to my discretion. I don't have much to say beyond this. Thanks. El_C 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, BigDT, and Iamunknown have all accused El C of involvement in the dispute, but have provided no reasoning at all for this strong accusation. Clearly, he was not part of the edit war. If it's about what he has said in this thread, that's not involvement, any more than yours or mine. Please offer some reasoning, as it's not immediately obvious to me at all. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, deserves more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page [3]. Note also the same behavior at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.

At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are meant to uphold policy, not violate it. Based on this presentation, it is difficult not to conclude that Zero0000 should be desysoped.

What has happened? Zero's ban of Zeq has stuck, and his block has been restored. I have no strong opinion about Zeq's editing, but there is the strong appearance of a double standard. To wit:

Zero2000 1) has edit warred, and 2) abused blocks and admin rollback to prosecute this edit war.

Zeq 1) has edit warred and 2) um...well, that's it.Proabivouac 09:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's it? Er, that's quite enough. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with what Dmcdevit writes regarding Zeq, and I thank him for both his research and level-headedness. I also concur with him, having examined the full array of evidence he provides, that Zero's conduct as an admin has certainly been problematic. While I'm inclined to give him one last chance (perhaps impose some immediate restrictions), I'll state my bias upfront, having had a positive editing relationship with him for nearly three years, as well as a great admiration for his skills as a ME scholar whom I share many views with. El_C 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the light of his comment, I must agree with Dmcdevit on Zero. In terms of the procedure, the only way of forcibly desysopping someone is to go to the ArbCom; however, as a community, we can ask Zero to voluntarily surrender his admin privileges in order to spare the trouble of an arbitration. Based on his comments above, I believe that he understands that his actions were not right. Beit Or 10:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq. I have admitted above that it would have been better to ask someone else to take the action that the ruling permits "any administrator" to take, but that is the limit of what I admit. Throughout this affair I have acted in absolute good faith. Thank you for the suggestion that I fall on my sword without sufficient reason, but I'll pass. --Zero^talk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not regard the criticism of my behaviour here to be justified. (1) I use Talk pages more than most editors: 37% of my last 200 edits were in talk pages and I'll be happy to have my use of talk pages compared to any other editor. (2) The list of reverts which Dmcdevit gives are not a counterexample. In each case the issue is very simple and my long edit summaries are quite sufficient to explain why I was making the edit. This might not have been the case if Zeq was a newbie or good-faith editor, but he is not. That's the whole point: when edits are being deliberately made in order to disrupt and destroy an article, the obligation to start a long discussion over it is questionable. And I mean long: Take the example of this edit and the following 14 edits (notice how Zeq produced a single web link that contains one sentence on an irrelevant subject, while Doron and I produced academic sources to show how he is mistaken); then started again by Zeq as if nothing had been said at this edit and 10 of the following 12 edits, plus a whole article on the subject written by Doron and I from the latest archaelogical sources. After all this effort, Zeq comes back weeks later with exactly the same claim, still totally ignoring the sources presented. This is what it means to "discuss the issue on the Talk page with Zeq"; I submit that it is well beyond the call of duty. (3) I dispute that this incident is similar to two similar incidents. In those cases the Arbitration Committee had not put the other user on probation and provided a remedy that "any administrator" can use to prevent further disruption. This makes the present case fundamentally different. --Zero^talk 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with the position Zero found himself in. He should definitely follow my advise and agree to immediately adhere to the following restriction: no use of sysop tools on Zeq under any circumstance. I don't agree with desysoping over this (at least not if recent issues are limited to Zeq), but in fairness to Dcmdevit, at least he's also arging to ban Zeq. Whereas Beit-Or, BigDT, IronDuke, and Leifern all found reasons to ignore Zeq's role and only comment on Zero, which does not seem even-handed on their part. El_C 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to not use blocks or bans against Zeq again. That's for sure. But the issue may become moot as I am probably going to leave altogether. The task that I really enjoy, writing articles on the basis of the very best sources, is nearly impossible in the mideast section of Wikipedia. As you know from your own experience, very few good editors last there more than a few months before they can't take it any more. It is bad for my health and I've forgotten what the point is. --Zero^talk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero, the prohibition against admin action when involved is absolute. ArbCom often doesn't feel the need to specify that, just like WP:BP doesn't add that it is only for uninvolved admins in every sentence. Your claims about Zeq's poor behavior, even if correct, merely demonstrate that you chose to respond in kind with sterile revert warring rather than to seek a resolution, it seems. Dmcdevit·t 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But I did try to seek a resolution - the one that the ArbCom prescribed. I didn't do a good job of it, for sure, but I did try. --Zero^talk 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to expand on this. The problem is, Dmc, if the arbcom ruling didn't actually mean that any admin could issue the block, then what was the ruling trying to say? I read this ruling some weeks ago via AoIa, and have to say I distinctly remember sharing Zero's reading. You may think this is incorrect, but there are in fact two very important reasons why: 1.) If the ruling was not actually to expedite the blocking process with Zeq, then what was it trying to do? I thought this was the whole point: while normally bad behavior has to be taken to an outside admin for action, due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him. Basically saying to Zeq: we'll let you go, but even if you're off editing in some far-off obscure corner of Wikipedia with just one admin around, if you get out of hand, that admin can block you, and without going for outside help. And why did I think that? Because 2.) If that's not what the policy was saying, then why did it specifically use the phrase "any admin"? While you're right, of course, that every comment in every rule doesn't state every caveat every time, that's rather different from language specifically going out of its way to say "any admin." That language sticks out like a sore thumb. Honestly, if you saw that in a policy, would you not immediately add "any uninvolved admin" or "any admin not involved in the dispute?" Clearly one would, since that is exactly what the general probation policy does. My understanding, then, by the failure of this to do so, was that it was specifically stating that this general rule did not apply in this case, for the reason stated above.

Should Zero have consulted another admin? Yes, at this point, that seems pretty clear. Was his reading of the ruling unfounded? No, I don't think it was. Is this the case for some type of harsh sanction? I really don't think so. Mackan79 04:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, on the basis of past experience, ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct. It is a substantial misrepresentation to say it is going out of its way to specify that involved admins may act; it uses that language because it is an admin action not specified in general policy. Also, "due to Zeq's intransigence, this was no longer required with him" makes no sense whatsoever: blocking while involved is prohibited because admins acting out of a conflict of interest will always be acting under judgment impaired by personal and content concerns. That doesn't change because of the other editors' intransigence. Probation is not "to expedite the blocking process" but to allow an editor who is otherwise productive to remain as long as they remain within certain bounds. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Dmc. At the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we see a note from Will Beback that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." Perhaps ArbCom could clarify this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the point isn't that the CoI goes away, but that Zeq has lost his right to this safeguard. While you suggest probation isn't to expedite the blocking process, I think this also misses that arbcom was presumably doing something special in this case beyond ordinary probation. In that regard, expediting the process seems like a very reasonable purpose to me, considering the stress and disruption that seem to have instigated the case (and seemed likely to possibly continue).

This is all really ancillary, though, to what the ruling said, which clearly was that "any admin" could encorce it. I'm simply saying, Zero may well have reasonably taken this at face value, and there are reasons why he would have done so. I agree with Sjakkalle that a clarification seems most appropriate. Mackan79 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't special; as I said, it's the norm. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'll put it more simply. Did no one notice that I was one of the arbitrators that came to that decision? When I say "ArbCom uses the words "any administrator" almost always, as convention, because it goes without saying that involved administrators should never use their tools in the conflict. It is not intended to give permission for such misconduct" it is on the basis of the fact that I wrote many such rulings myself as an arbitraor, and that's what it means. And that's what the vast majority of administrators for years have understood it as. That is your clarification. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you should have alerted the ArbCom that you have a personal interest in defending the wording of Zeq's ruling? I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but the principle of full disclosure is there for a reason. Will you alert them now? As for your "clarification", I read it like this: "there is an unwritten shared understanding that everyone is supposed to have, and anyone who somehow misses out on this shared understanding deserves to be beaten up." --Zero^talk 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an uninvolved admin I have come to the conclusion that Zeq has edited the article disruptively as specified by his probation; I have banned him from editing the article for one month. He is not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims by User:Vlad fedorov

Can someone take a look here: [11]? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison^☺ 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of false translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_brigades&diff=122006717&oldid=122004017

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You also may take a look here: [12]Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison^☺ 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: [13]. I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Wikipedia should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government [14], his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation [15] and [16] and [17] and [18]? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit [19] sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation/Requests#E104421_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_Tajik_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree on Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.

As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.

Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.

I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. Durova^Charge! 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.

If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Wikipedia runs on California servers, Wikipedia should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Wikipedia, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin#How_can_we_move_forward. Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Wikipedia WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Wikipedia community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

• (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
• (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
• (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
• (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
• (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
• (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
• (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

• (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
• (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Wikipedia definitions)
• (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
• (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
• (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see [20]) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: [21].Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [22]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Wikipedia would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [23]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see:[24] It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". [references].Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

• 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
• 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
• 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
• 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
• 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
• 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
• 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of sourced text is vandalism)
• 18:44, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv to version of Rich Farmbrough (Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism),)
• 18:42, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 18:40, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 03:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 20:02, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page (the text was supported by reliable sources)))
• 20:01, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:48, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:26, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page)
• 22:15, 31 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism, see talk page)
• 19:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism)
• 19:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (Vandalism again)
• 18:41, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:40, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:39, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:38, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (→Biophys false translation and personal attacks)
• 18:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Vlad fedorov (Vandalism warning)
• 14:57, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alison (Vandalism report)
• 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Active measures (Alledged vandalism)
• 04:32, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring well sourced text about BLOGGERS - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv well sourced text - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:30, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv - restoring sourced text (I warn you: what you are doing is vandalism))
• 05:35, 1 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group (←Created page with '==Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov== Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his arti...')
• 22:49, 21 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalging - see discussion)
• 22:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism and POV editing of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:36, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:35, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv vandalism (each cited statement was supported by a reference))
• 16:40, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:04, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Galina Starovoitova (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 16:00, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:55, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:50, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 05:22, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion; he also removed links to reviews of the book)
• 05:18, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links)
• 05:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of Vlad Fedorov - correctly describing ideas of author is not violation of BLP policy; this is quite the opposite)
• 22:50, 16 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv to last version by Biophys (BLP and reverting vandalism) - see discussion)
• 05:05, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion. The source are the books.)
• 05:07, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv - vandalism; she does NOT work now for Izvestia; she was fired)
• 21:39, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism (reliable and notable source - see discussion))
• 20:11, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism)
• 06:24, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 04:54, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv - vandalism (deleting valid reference to a notable person); there are no BLP issues here)
• 05:47, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - vandalism)
• 00:52, 9 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Disinformation (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov. I did not remove anything. I made this more clear and added more text.)
• 06:42, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Boris Stomakhin (rv - "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" is falsification by Vlad Fedorov - see my comments in Litvinenko talk page)
• 05:46, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (rv vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov)
• 02:54, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted - 3rd time. This is statement by directer of a notable human rights organization.)
• 18:20, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 18:16, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 15:54, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Alexander Litvinenko (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted.)
• 15:49, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverterd. Naftalin and others (not me!) are talking about suppression of a dissident.)
• 15:45, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted. Naftalin is talking about ethnic problems here.)

Reply. Could anyone trace my recent edits of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Ramzan Kadyrov, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, Human rights in Russia, Persecution of political bloggers and others (with their talk pages where I explained my position) and check if editing by Vlad was actually a vandalism? What he always did was deletion of texts supported by perfect references! He even did not want to recognize such sources as Nature (journal) Review Genetics (article Nikolai Koltsov). I openly warned him about vandalism twice in his talk pages (he deleted this) and openly asked advice of administrators twice (see my talk page). But if I was uncivil, then yes, please do whatever is appropriate. Biophys 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please note how different your to texts: Text that I disputed initially and text which became the result of my dispute. So you claim this was vandalism?Vlad fedorov 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other instances of Biophys personal attacks against me

1) User Biophys on his User page put the following: attack on me.

2) Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Another cover-up of personal attacks.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

4) Calling me a troll.

5) Calling me vandal.

6) Calling me a stalker and vandal again

7) And again I am vandal

You know guys, I am actually tired of putting here all the links where Biophys attacked me, because these are of enormous quantity and would just clogg all the board.

At the top of it is the creation of attack page against me titled Internet troll squads. Just in order to call a troll all those who dared to defend not even Putin's policy, but him as an ordinary man.Vlad fedorov 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of death wish by Biophys

First of all, here is the complete context for your claims that I wished you to die:

---

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog [25] because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

After putting the relevant context, I would like to note that there is no actually death wish, because I am replying to death suggestion by Biophys. He tell imagine if Putin dies. I replied the same would be. In this context if I made personal attack, Biophys also made personal attack against Putin. I just defended him as an ordinary man who deserves the same kind of respect as other individuals, despite all his wrong, bad an so on sides, features and so on.

Second, I was punished for this By Alex Bakharev. So I can't be punished twice for one and same thing. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also apoligoze if Biophys accepted this a personal attack. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of attack with Phallus

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person - Putin. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV. Vlad fedorov 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking about your continuous insertion of Putin phallus allegations into the Phallus and other articles. Most outrageous was your insertion of "Putin Phallus" into Persecution of political bloggers article, despite the fact that the author of this article is a journalist and it was published in internet newspaper, not blog. Considering that you have so many times inserted this into many articles, it would be logic to conclude that you love that topic. By the way this was the only my such post and it was because you have contacted the users with whom I had conversation on Freedom House article. You began to contact them posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. It was a case of wikistalking by you, since no one of these users have ever crossed your article and you never was participating in Freedom House. Moreover in all these "requests for help" you was attacking me too, you said I "wikistalkied" you and all your usual stuff.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is your repeated insertion of Putin Phallus into Persecution of political bloggers article insertion, although Kursiv is not a blog, but registered internet newspaper, having registration number in Ministry of Mass Media.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here just notice from your talkpage: I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Defamation of me by Biophys

Biophys also began to contact different users by posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. In these messages he called me wikistalker. Vlad fedorov 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I called you "wikistalker" because User:Colchicum officially filed an RfC about your alleged wikistalking of him and me (sorry, I did not write "alleged").Biophys 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-reply. You called me wikistalker, after adminstrators on RfC declined to acknowledge wikistalking. Moreover, it happened exactly when I decided to step aside from mine articles. I decide to tackle with Freedom House and see the talk page. I have pretty nice discussion with these guys. But you have followed me and began you witch hunt by posting these defamatory statements, knowing already that Bakharev and others didn't shared you accusations of wikistalking, violations of BLP and so on.

User Swatjester already said that you just can't leave without "your victory". I should add that you also couldn't leave without defaming me. You want harass me and to abuse me. This is exactly what you did posting these messages to other users. You just want to "cause me pain" right by blocking me?

Reply. What victory? This is nonsense. I only wanted to keep well referenced text that you simply deleted. A lot of people edited my articles after me and I never had complaints because they did good faith editing. I also objected inserting poorly sourced defamatory claims in biographies of living people that you did. Biophys 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you never had complaints because you was shamelessly reverting and deleting their contributions in case you didn't like them labelling it as "anonymous vandalism", "unrealible sources", "defamation" and so on.Vlad fedorov 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I note, that your poorly defamatory claims in biographies and other articles are objectionable too? Why I don't delete your insertions though? I would tell you, because I always was acknowledging my mistakes and I never crossed the line by deleting sourced text, although objectionable but somehow referenced. Tha is my difference from you. You sterilize texts of your opponents shamelessly. You claim violations of BLP everywhere when it fits you political views, the same is with reliability of sources. Vlad fedorov 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You excuses for "alleged" are of no avail. I never was writing to every editor of the articles which you have edited, that RfC was also filed against you. Vlad fedorov 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New attempts to eliminate others POV by Biophys

Please look there how Biophys again censures and deletes other work without credible explanations. Here is the diff. He creates an article where he inserts only his POV sources and then eliminates any attempts to insert all the POV's. It is he who sterilizes the articles. Vlad fedorov 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New personal attacks by Biophys

Please see that Biophys calls me vandal even at AfD for Internet brigades. He claims that he accused me of vandalism at my RfC [26], but this is lies. Just go and see that he never brought charges of vandalism against me. This is again a personal attack just to get more score at AfD. Note that Biophys doesn't stop his personal attacks while he reports to this noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just an example of you trying to misinterpret evidence. In the working diff, Biophys does not call you a vandal, he only refers the readers to RfC where such accusation was made. All of your above 'evidence' of personal attacks on you is in fact misinterpretation and an attempt to deflect discussion of your evident incivility to discussion of alleged incivility by one of those you have offended and who reported you here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you, Piotrus, provide diffs in support of your statement, that Biophys has accused me of vandalism in my RfC? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And please respond directly to my links that show Biophys calling me vandal, troll and wikistalker. If calling me "vandal", "troll" and "wikistalker" is civil? How many times Biophys mad personal attacks on me? Why no one has ever stopped Biophys from personal attacks on me?Vlad fedorov 07:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary by a Third Party

After reading over the thread, I recommend to the administrator(s) addressing this thread that Vlad be blocked for five to seven days, because:

• His edits suggest a major problem with edit warring.
• He's been blocked multiple times in the past, once for block evasion.
• He's already been blocked once this week for edit warring.
• He's also committed a number of obvious WP:NPA violations, some of them on this page. Not the least of these was the implication that Wikipedia users would like to see Biophys dead (see above). Rather than apologize, he has tried to pass these comments off as legitimate, honest commentary, despite their obviously mean-spirited nature and the unusal harshness of his accusations.

It's clear to me that this user has a history and hasn't learned much from it. I invite Vlad to read over WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Also, I would like to point out to Vlad that while Biophys' addition to Phallus may not have been appropriate, it was indeed satire. Just because the author was convicted of a crime under (I assume) Russian laws does not mean that 1) his commentary is not satire or 2) that his commentary would necessarily be considered defamation under Wikipedia policy, which obviously has a substantially different position on both Putin and satire.

Here I would like to note that journalist who wrote "Putin Phallus" was convicted and sentenced for defamation in Russian courts, therefore reproduction of a defamation texts is forbidden in Wikipedia. Mister Moralis should familiarize himself with the context and stuation first. Biophys used "satire" labelling just to insert defamatory statements of convicted and sentenced for defamation journalist. Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I feel, should be treated with more leniency- while his actions have certainly been disruptive, he has not been as persistently disruptive as Vlad. While I feel it is fair to be harsh on Vlad because of his history, Biophys' block log is clean.

See how many attacks were done by Biophys in his contributions! Is it not disruptive? Vlad fedorov 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is just a discrimination. I have disputed my first block which was done by English speaking guy William Connely who coudn't ascertain whether the texts where supported by references. It is discrimination. Biophys so many times abused me, and in the end I got "just" and "discriminate" sentence by mister Moralis who isn't even administrator? Why so many evident Biophys violations are considered as light? Shouldn't sanctions be equal to everyone? Isn't everyone is equal here? Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also see here that mediator disagrees with one of my block too, I always disputed this block. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin&diff=110220318&oldid=110217877. Vlad fedorov 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like also everyone to see the bias in relation to me. Biophys has violated 3RR rule recently on Boris Stomakhin. I have reported him on noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_Warning.29 3.114 User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning) And what? User Biophys received only warning!!! This is so unjust. Sorry, but I can't name it otherwise than bias. I was blocked without warnings momentarily when Pioutrus and his team were reverting Internet brigades incorrect translations. Vlad fedorov 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a 36-hour block for disruptive editing, and that he be watched carefully for a little while. I don't think we have -too- much to worry about from Biophys beyond addressing the above, versus Vlad who has already demonstrated that he will be a persistent problem.

The content removed from Phallus (among other pages) should be evaluated for potential inclusion in Vladimir Putin, under "Putin in humour and fiction." --Moralis (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question. My another article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked for AfD. Can I at least finish this article before you block me? At least tell me please how much time do I have.Biophys 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) O'K, I finished this edit. Now you can block me.Biophys 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I have observed Vlad's behavior here and at Internet brigades and its vfd. For the most part I have tried to stay out of his way, but the two instances where I stepped in were unpleasant. I think a cooling-off period is in order. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User G-Man sizing images for for his own display settings

User G-Man insists on styling pages, to suit his display, [27], [28], using sizes on thumbnail images, despite an explanation of why this is a bad thing and a request to stop being placed on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of other editors contacted him about this after that last edit. Let's see if the message sticks.--Isotope23 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his talk page it hasn't. He's persisting and now appears to have breached 3RR. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Naconkantari 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it... yeah he needs to get the clue.--Isotope23 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't give a damn what happens to G-Man, I thank you for starting this thread. I have added sizes to thumbnails I have entered, simply because I thought it was required. Now I know better. I actually learned something here today! :-) Jeffpw 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I occasionally abuse the thumb option and then resize the image, it seems to be the only way to add a caption. --Edokter (Talk) 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So, wait, what are editors supposed to do with infoboxes? Those always ask for an image size. — coelacan — 06:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which they should not per WP:IUP (Rules of thumb #11). Images should be thumbed, not sized and then everyone can be happy by setting their own Special:Preferences. --Iamunknown 06:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately size preferences cannot be referenced in infoboxes, which do not use the "thumb" parameter. --NE2 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too had not heard this rule, but now I have found out about the preferences setting it makes sense. However, I should point out that at least some featured articles do not comply with this rule. The current one, Scooby-Doo, doesn't; I checked two more at random (Cochineal and El Lissitzky) and both had non-compliant images. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

News to me too, as it would probably be to most other folks who ever frequent FAC. I've never seen it mentioned there. --kingboyk 20:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think allowing for specific image size shouldn't be frowned upon. Sometimes it can help fix styling issues with the pages (or sometimes create some), and it also gets rid of the ugly thumb notification image at the bottom. ~ UBeR 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't appear the norm either. As someone else pointed out, many articles, including featured ones, don't seem to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I didn't even know this option existed, and I doubt many editors do, let alone readers, who don't even have that option and see all thumbs in 180px (which I think is too small). So I'm not surprised everyone uses the size tag. A default thumb size of 200px would be better, and could even be scaled depending on readers' screen DPI setting. --Edokter (Talk) 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University

As to be expected, the entry on Capella University is currently being vandalized again after having been locked due to edit wars caused by Capella University users in the past. At the moment, Capella University's Financial Aid Director is being investigated for received kickbacks from a student loan company for which he served on the board, in addition to his employment by the university. It appears as if the same user (who uses the name "Pizzaman" and involved in previous edit wars is now vandalizing the current entry. Pizzaman and other users from Capella University have been previously warned for TOS violations. It might be wise to restrict edits again in light of this individual's past.

No sooner had I corrected [Pizzaman0000] and [Pizzaman6233] vandalism (while I was creating this post) and he has again vandalized the page and continues to engage in name calling and personal attacks.Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be better off posting this to AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article though... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll post this request on AIV too. Shac1 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A new user [ElKevbo] is now blanking the article. In addition, take a look at bottom of ElKevbo Talk Page - note the personal attacks by an annonymous user - more than likely [Pizzaman0000] or [Pizzaman6233]? Shac1 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo (talk · contribs) is hardly a "new user". Corvus cornix 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Shac1 for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on this article, but it seems that other editors are also editing in an unproductive way. User:Shac1 has asked for an unblock. I invite review of thsi block, note the report on WP:AN/3. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Shac1 has evaded his/her block as ShacOne (talk · contribs). Corvus cornix 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have posted elsewhere, i don't think that ShacOne is a puppet of Shac1. ShacOne deleted content that Shac1 have been reinserting as part of his 3RR violation. However, i do rather suspect that Arla364 (talk · contribs) is a puppet of Shac1. Anothe admin has blocked ShacOne (talk · contribs). This is gettign messy. DES ^(talk) 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

Link: George Galloway

The above article has been fully protected (by myself) since 22nd February 2007. The dispute revolves around a section about charges of anti-Zionism, Galloway's criticism of Israel, etc - a section which I removed from the article after protection, hoping that it would faciliate better communication on the talkpage. Quite apart from WP:BLP, Galloway is, as one editor puts it, 'notoriously litigatious', and there's a fairly real chance for the subject to bring charges against Wikipedia.

All unofficial attempts at mediation have been roundly rejected due in part to the nature of the above noted accusation, and in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be

• The use of potentially questionable sources
• The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words
• The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV.

This is a request for an impartial admin or experienced user to take part in the ongoing debate, and attempt to cool the flames, because an editor has asked me for help and I'm, quite frankly, out of my depth. The page has been locked for far too long, and consensus is nowhere in sight, mainly due to the fact that it's the same editors spinning out the same arguments. An editor new to the page and not party to the prior debates attempted to mediate with little progress. Some fresh insight into the matter would be great. After that the next step will have to be mediation (which has been rejected by some of the users), or an RfC.

Thanks, – Riana ^ऋ (with help from Jackbirdsong) 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It seems to be an unfortunate rule that Religion+Wikipedia=really, really sucky articles. Grr. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'll have to rule me out of this one. I'm come across one of the main editors involved in this before: we spent a couple merry hours revert-warring. The person he was revert-warring on behalf of quickly turned out to be a sockpuppeting troll who quickly got permabanned, and the page stayed at the Right BLP-compliant Version. Hence, I don't think he'll be very pleased to see me after our last encounter, or at least not on something as contentious as this. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. Baristarim 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is not whether George Galloway is anti-zionist (because he is openly supportive of Palestinians) but whether he is anti-semitic. This is quite a different issue and needs to be handled extremely sensitively, even if the subject were not inclined to take legal action we have a duty to be fair. Sam Blacketer 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious. It's not just religion, look at alternative medicine etc etc. Are there any projects that help people maintain calm? Dan Beale 11:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've just eloquently said something I've been trying to figure out how to express into words for over a year now. Controversial people who litigate easily have plenty of unsuitable sources, but not many usable sources. Some editors want wikipedia to "expose" "The Truth". Newbie editors can get frustrated that Verifiability and BLP and NOR mean that they cannot say some things which appear obvious.. That should be policy or something. Thanks for brightening my day Dan Beale! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The passage has gone through numerous revisions already. All arguments were considered. I will go step by step.

• "The use of potentially questionable sources"
  • All sources that say what Galloway has said are perfectly reliable, and there are several of them. Furthermore, a video of the interview is available online. The criticism of Galloway's comment appears either on news sites or the official websites of the critics.
• "The use of suggestive and possibly weasel words"
  • This has already been taken care of during revisions. The passage either writes Galloway's words verbatim, or the new sources's words verbatim.
• "The inclusion of possibly out-of-context material to further a particular POV."
  • Every single statement relates. Every single one. --Shamir1 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Riana, you wrote, "in part due to an unwillingness to compromise. Possible violations of policy may be..." You are mostly correct. I have been active in the discussion, listening to others, while they all smeared me as "biased" without telling me what is wrong with the passage. I continuously asked for compromise and never stopped asking what should be done before requesting mediation. They did not reply politely and rejected any mediation, although I myself had nothing to fear in it.

Riana, most editors hardly stated any violation of policy. They simply said why they dont agree with the criticism. They said "my" sources are "driven by the agenda of demonizing critics of Israeli policy like Galloway," a smear which he has no basis for, to which I replied, "Who do you expect to criticize it? The Sierra Club? A women's rights organization?" In actuality, members of Engage are harshly critical of Israeli policy themselves. Most, if not all, of Galloway's cited comments are not critical of Israeli policies but rather of Israel. This editor further talks about Jewish critics of Israel, trying to argue why he believes the criticism is wrong rather than arguing for any WP policy. Many of them jumped to conclusions, saying that the sources labeled him an antisemite, which not a single one of them did.

As for any "violations" of policy, this is what User:Halaqah had to say: "'South African white citizens are settler in African lands' . U define the term to fit the people. U have such a narrow definition that if i said 'jews own Hollywood' i am antisemitic. Jews were part of the slave trade. Israel is a neocolonial state. Jews control the central lobbying powers in America. Now if i said this about another group it isnt necessarly racism. White people control America. Isnt racist."

I was being attacked by numerous editors, by people who refused to even discuss it or have a mediation. I could not believe the comments by Halaqah who just began an attack campaign using some of the most irrelevant and disproven myths (slave trade) about Jews in the discussion, hardly even mentioning Galloway. This is of course the same pattern of just saying why they think the criticism is wrong, without saying why it is worthy of mention. I repeat that I still asked for mediation, even from these people, but they would not participate. I was talking to a wall until User:Jackbirdsong came along. Finally someone who did not attack me or the criticisms. We did not always agree, but we often did and we certainly moved along more in those 1-2 days than in the weeks with the other editors. I wouldnt say this last passage is in need of any more heavy-duty revision. --Shamir1 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamir1, it was actually me who wrote the part about an "unwillingness to compromise", and I feel it applies to all parties involved. I appreciate that you feel as though you were attacked for putting what you clearly see as noteworthy and legit info into an article, and I agree that some of the other editors were less than cordial with you, but you must have been aware that this info would stir up heated opinions, right? I am glad that we were able to perhaps at least get the compromise ball rolling together, but I would strongly disagree with your assertion that no more "heavy-duty revision" is needed. On the contrary, I came to Riana for help in part because I believe a revision, mediated and furthered by an objective party(s), is the only solution that resembles any form of compromise here- something that has yet to be accomplished.--Jackbirdsong 22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it has yet to be accomplished. Both times I requested mediation other editors rejected. --Shamir1 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how a request for mediation works, but if you like I will try to contact other involved editors and get them to participate in the discussion here.--Jackbirdsong 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The ridiculuous "anti-semitism" section that User:Shamir1 is desperate to get back into the article is one that I oppose absolutely, cheifly, as I and others have stated before it is an egregious violation of BLP (and, as I've said before as well, Galloway is famously litiginous). It also fails notability (why are the musings of Engage or a single obscure resolution by the NUS executive encyclopedic?), and appears to have been orginally included to smear Galloway. Mediation will not change either of these points.FelixFelix ^talk 07:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy and The Behnam Trolling ISTIA

This is unbelievable, that Irishguy is doing this again (reference no. 62 on this board, re: Mukhtar Mai deletions. Irishguy is trolling ISTIA to try to provoke a fight, after I had a dispute with some men and he blocked me.

Considering his inordinate pursual of the page created by me in my professional scope,Irishguy is considered to be a troll on this board, pursuing a vendetta. This was already reported to the Business and Economics Wikiproject board. The Business and Economics Wikiproject board invited ISTIA as a Wikiproject, after which I joined them as a member. In other words, I am not the person that made it a wikiproject. Other experts did. ISTIA is a specialized international agency which is funded by, and works with, governments particularly to help poor governments. It is also a world competence center for globalization data and globalization data capacity building.

Unless Irishguy has sufficient experience with economics, trade policy and international statistics to debate the entry of this board with Wikiproject he is invited to leave this board alone. Thanks in advance. istia 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam is also trolling. He is is pursuing a vendetta for a disagreement over another page. The Behnam is invited to discuss this page with the Business and Economics Wikiproject, which invited ISTIA to be one of their projects. If TheBehnam wants to have an offline discussion about why ISTIA is an important source of information for globalization data (which is why it is listed on the UN Development Gateway capacity building webpage as a partner, why it is a partner to the OECD, and to see the list of governments supporting ISTIA, he is invited to contact me offline. Thank you. istia 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to posting on WikiProject Business and Economics istia 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Istia, you have not been blocked as you claim. If you had been blocked you would not be able to post here. Please understand that Wikipedia does not allow people involved in organizations to write articles about those organizations. Please read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Rash accusations of trolling and bad faith against long standing members of the Wikipedia community do not help your case. Gwernol 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. istia did not post this, Jenniferpowell did. Note that Jenniferpowell has already posted this further up the page, and User:Istia clearly identifies herself as "Ms. Jennifer Marie POWELL". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[29] This may be useful to people reviewing this situation. The Behnam 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

She also continues to use her sock, Istia, to remove maintenance and 'prod' tag from her own organization's article. The Behnam 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see if I can sort this out... Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs) had 2 accounts and posted this from JP, but signed it Istia (talk · contribs) which is her other account. Confusing, but not a big deal. Jennifer Powell's eponymous account was blocked for personal attacks and then the block was extended when she continued to edit around it from an IP. So what exactly is the problem being asserted in the original post? Irishguy (talk · contribs) has almost no edits in regards to the International Services Trade Information Agency beyond the fact that he PROD'd it yesterday which has now been changed to an AfD. He removed content from Mukhtaran Bibi, which has been removed by several editors and keeps being added back by Ms. Powell. He also unprotected Powell's talkpage today. I don't see any evidence of "trolling" by Irishguy (talk · contribs). Nothing to see here; move along.--Isotope23 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not nothing, there is a pressing problem with Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs) / Istia (talk · contribs) in that the user was editing using another account and an IP_ to get around a block; the editor is also taking very personally the debate over inclusion of her organisation, which she freely admits is very new and has no real independent sources. So somebody needs to go over there and wield the iron hand in the velvet glove. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I meant in regards to the claim that Irishguy had somehow acted inappropriately. The issues you bring up JzG are a whole different can of worms I'm just starting to look into.--Isotope23 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that both accounts have been edit warring on the ISTIA article in violation of WP:3RR. I blocked User:istia for 3 hours for canvassing for support for the AfD after being politely warned not to. This user clearly misunderstands the core mision of Wikipedia and its policies despite extended efforts by many editors to help her. She has also resorted to some borderline personal attacks. Gwernol 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now she is promising meatpuppetry [30]. The Behnam 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

is english her second language? She seems to struggle to follow basic conversations which makes me think this might be the case. In addition, shouldn't we block one of her accounts? as she's currently repeating content between the two. --Fredrick day 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course her sock should be blocked. And she is still continuing with personal attacks [31]. Most of the people who get indef'd at AIV haven't been this disruptive; I have no idea why her behavior has been tolerated as much as it has. The Behnam 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

29 November 2005 Istia edited General Agreement on Trade in Services which is an article that Get-back-world-respect had edited earlier. 16 February 2006 Get-back-world-respect stopped editing and demanded that his/her pages be blanked...behavior that JenniferPowell later does when she gets blocked. On 17 February 2007, one day later, Istia recreated Get-back-world-respect's user page with an advertisement for her company (which I deleted so you can't see it). I believe she has been using numerous names and will continue to do so. In fact, on the 9th Jennifermpowell was created. This was done while she was still blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone keep an eye on the AFD - she is just dropping massives of stuff in all over the place - wreaking the formating and the flow. --Fredrick day 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

another account - not used yet, but needs blocking. --Fredrick day 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is not a sock account, I'll eat my hat. --Fredrick day 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Add to the endless list of sockpuppets of Jenniferpowell/Istia ... this one too --Ragib 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Add yet another sock: Angelfire2222, with attempts to spam huge number of talk pages with call to action (vote in afd). Shouldn't this result in an indefblock? --Ragib 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And another sock: JoergW. --Ragib 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of (suspected) socks of Istia

• Jenniferpowell (talk · contribs)
• Jennifermpowell (talk · contribs)
• Appelsinsaft (talk · contribs)
• Angelfire2222 (talk · contribs)
• JoergW (talk · contribs)
• Michaela1970 (talk · contribs)
• MarkusJens (talk · contribs)

I request blocking of all but one of the sock accounts. --Ragib 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

More sockpuppets:

• Socky_p (talk · contribs) . Has identified herself as Jennifer Powell. I've blocked the account indefinitely. --Ragib 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rampant sockpuppetry

I have already linked at least 7 socks of the user:Istia above. She has clearly mentioned that she has and will create more sockpuppets to evade any blocks. I think she has by now exhausted everyone's patience, and an indef block on all sock accounts is in order. --Ragib 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, the user name of the latest sock is socky p (talk · contribs)!!! --Ragib 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I frankly find this all very bizzare, she's a self-identified professional figure working at what appears to be a high level (I say "appears" as titles can be misleading), she's been involved in spamming (after she's been told to stop, she even say herself admits to spamming), she's used multiple sockpuppets and she attacks the personal motivations of editors in a fashion that would make me think she was 15 not a serious professional figure, this is a good example of her a) spamming b) using a sockpuppet and c) attacking other edits. The only semi-logical scenario I can think of is that this is a "false flag" op and someone with a grudge is doing this to discredit her. I find this all very odd. --Fredrick day 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now attacking the AFD with IP address - beyond bizzare. --Fredrick day 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now claiming "right to disappear" allows her to remove comments from others - I don't know very much about the ins and out of that policy and admin intervention is requested. --Fredrick day 23:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazing indeed, from the purported executive director of an International agency!! To summarize her actions:

• Repeated racist personal attacks against other users
• Advertisement / promotion of her own organization in violation of WP:COI
• Rampant sockpuppetry (as shown above)
• Blanking/vandalism
• AFD disruption by using the socks to post long monologues
• AFD canvassing

--Ragib 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an urgent community ban is needed to handle her. Shorter blocks on various socks have not succeeded in making her refrain from creating newer socks and repeating the same again. --Ragib 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created a page here where I will comply a case for a community ban, I will then copy it to the relevent community ban page and blank the page. Anyone wishing to add evidence (and there is a lot of it!), can do so there. --Fredrick day 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Add to this:

• Blanking of other people's comments via anon ip. --Ragib 23:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal here --Fredrick day 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone step in with a temporary block while we discuss the community ban this is just getting plain silly. --Fredrick day 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You all need to take time out. She is a stressed and very bitten newbie. Secretlondon 02:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it looks like most of the "biting" is coming from her side. Yes, we do try to be gentle and tolerant of mistakes with newer editors, but there does come a point at which we have to say "You're apparently not going to stop this despite being advised to do so repeatedly, and enough is enough." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

actually looking into the history, she's had accounts on and off since at least 2005 (with the history of socks and IP accounts, it's difficult to be spoton) - so I'm not sure "newbie" applies. --Fredrick day 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem remarkably pleased to have got her to vanish though, and have taken such a dedicated interest. If I were her I'd feel harassed by you too. Secretlondon 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Well good for you - if I was that bothered I would have reported the 15 or so personal attacks that she's made today (against various editors) from the IP accounts that she is using to avoid her block, or I could have just reported the IP socks and got her banned that way. After sleeping on the matter, I think that maybe a different approach might be a better way to approach it, after nobody stepped up to the plate, I made an offer (on her her now deleted original user account) to help her get her name removed, if you would stop attacking the AFD page. At this stage, I think she is incapable of thinking about this in a rational manner, she too worked up, she's been editing under multiple account for about four days solid and shows no signs of stopping. If you think some action needs to be taken against me, you start the process, but I don't see a single edit by me that is again wikipedia policy or process. In addition, it's not like this is a vs. situation, mutliple editors and admin have been dragged into this and either warned her off or had to block any number of her various accounts or have been attacked by her. She's operated about 10 sock or ip account and made at least 50 personal attacks in the last four days. That's in regards to that single article and not even getting into the racist abuse she gave another editor on an entirely separate matter but in a parallel timeframe. So no, sorry, I'm not going to be the scapegoat or the badguy here. --Fredrick day 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Darin Fidika has returned as Tathagata Buddha

• Tathagata Buddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darin Fidika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darin Fidika was blocked indefinitely due to repeated blatant copyright violations (see here), and is now back under Tathagata Buddha. As I have already been involved in previous incidents with this user, I'd like someone else to look at it and make the determination on whether or not to block the new account. I found out about it by stumbling across his Wikibooks page. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to look at this one? I appreciate any help. Thanks. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy. I see there are a lot of contributions from the new account. Are there any copyright violations? Mangojuice^talk 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as the articles are in an area of expertise that does not overlap any I have. The basic format of the articles is very similar, though, and the wording is as wonderful as ever. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel: User:Ranapanna (repost)

Ranapanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a likely sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, as the user recreated (more specifically added info very similar) an article created by LuisPlank2X4 (68.37.205.18 was thought as an open proxy for the user and is also an IP sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information). The user also edited List of characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey (an article that Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to vandalise often) adding misinformation similar to to that of confirmed socks. [32], [33]. Not only that, the user edited The Good Ol' Days/Future Lost and Chip Skylark, which are both related to The Fairly OddParents (much of the confirmed socks edit pages related to it).

Note that I reported two likely sockpuppets of Danny Daniel in late March. Squirepants101 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user still hasn't been blocked, yet a case involving a sockpuppet of MagicKirin was looked at.Squirepants101 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reposted this because no one has blocked this vandal and sadly, he's still editing, continuing to add hoaxes and vandalism. I've notified this to User:Irishguy and User:NawlinWiki and they haven't done something about it. I originally reported the user about five days ago. Squirepants101 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it taking so long for someone to respond anyways? It's similar to what happened last time I tried to report a sockpuppet of Danny Daniel. The only reason Choolabuulba got blocked anyways is that I notified Irishguy about it after he responded to my report. That involved User:FictionH. It's almost been a week since I originally posted this. Squirepants101 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to allow use of age-at-death template

Single user, User:Ceoil refusing to allow use of {{death date and age}} on Nick Drake, despite no support for his position on talk page, or in topic he started elsewhere. Discussion has included repeated allusions to supposed collusion (even after apology for same) and exhortation to "buzz off". Andy Mabbett 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No admin intervention is needed. This is primaraly a content dispute, but concensus seems on your side. Please try to resolve this with User:Ceoil on the talk page. Also, as a courtesy, please inform users that they are a subject on WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Edokter (Talk) 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried that, and got the responses described, that's why I came here. Andy Mabbett 00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the article's talk page, that's all I can do. I'll leave it up to you how to interpret the current consensus. --Edokter (Talk) 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No courtesy was extended, however the content dispute has been resolved. Ceoil 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:COFS

I request an administrator look into this Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Added_Dead_File_to_template.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically, with regard to COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) -- DIFF 1, DIFF 2, DIFF 3, DIFF 4.

More discussion and response from previously un-involved editor, at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Smee 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that the several issues raised (see below) that involve Fahrenheit451 be pulled together into one incident with subsections. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uncivil_edit_comments_from_User:Misou ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Same warning 4 times = ?

The suggestion that trouble could result from one's actions is either meant as a genuine warning or an attempt to intimidate the person being warned.

COFS could very well be right, but unless he/she mentions some specifics they could also just be raising the idea to discourage content he/she doesn't "like". The first mention of the warning and the first reiteration could be forgiven for not providing specifics. By the third or fourth they should have realized the warning was not being heeded with the information provided.

• COFS: WP:Fair use warning to Fahreheit451. I am not a lawyer, but I've seen people getting in trouble for less that your two new articles (or better: copy and paste of LRH materials). 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Warning
• COFS:Here I come along, save you legal costs by giving you prior warning and you say what? 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Reiteration of warning without specifics of "I've seen people getting in trouble " aspect of warning.
• COFS: Ok, harm yourself, get toasted. It's your right, who cares. Further reiteration of warning w/o specifics.
• COFS: I am alerting F451 that he is going to harm himself. Third reiteration of warning, essentially COFS is saying "Negative consequences will follow if you don't listen to my warning, I've seen it happen." but isn't saying what happened, when this was, who was involved, etc.

I think the line between helpful warning and ambigous legal threats is crossed by repeating a threat of legal "harm" from unknown parties without an attempt to explain one's concerns. This is especially true when the editor issuing the warning is asked for but does not give said specifics. (Those being items like court cases, diffs from here, or anything showing people getting into trouble as described by COFS in his/her warning.) Anynobody 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS is editing my user page

I think this user is being disruptive. Please see [34].--Fahrenheit451 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he should have asked you first, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he did. Maybe you could make a user subpage for that discussion in order to keep his fingerprints off your primary user page. YechielMan 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may not be aware of the history of this disruptive user, COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu), see also subsection above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User:COFS. Smee 04:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

User Fahrenheit451, several WP:NPA violations, WP:NAM and other WP:PG violations

This is a Scientology story. Fahrenheit451 started putting copyrighted material up in articles. I alerted him that this might exceed fair use which brought him (Fahrenheit451) and Smee to attack me broadly. It ended with the fact that heated accusations flew around and I got very personal attacks and "questions" which were supposed to introvert me and get me out of Wikipedia. I decided not to respond to Fahrenheit451's accusations anymore while on "Smee", well she has a long story of why she does what she does (she tries since about a week to trick me in 3RR and other such incidents, sometimes unfortunately I notice too late). My proposal is to give out a warning to each party not to go in discussion at all anymore but concentrate on editing. This is what I am going to do at least. COFS 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) has been warned multiple times on talk page for violating WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:DE, etc. See also subsections above on this page about this editor, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:COFS_is_editing_my_user_page and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats_from_User:COFS. This disruptive and offensive troubling pattern must stop. Smee 04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

COFS, you are accusing us of the things you have done yourself. As for the questions I asked that you did not like, on both your user page and talk page you post a message that you are a scientologist and "Feel free to ask questions." I did and you got rattled. Then you vandalized my user page.--Fahrenheit451 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are tweaking the truth in your direction, once again, and I am not willing to discuss anything further with you. Your "questions", easy to see, were hidden insult. It is sick that this ended up on this board at all. COFS 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am presenting the facts and if you are not willing to discuss edits with me, then I see just future conflict. That is not good. Whatever "hidden insult" you see in my questions is your own view.--Fahrenheit451 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, COFS you have made several mistakes in this notice. The first is you haven't included any evidence (diffs or links) to:

1. The copyrighted material which ws the origin of your dispute.
2. The "broad attacks" against you.
3. The introverted questions designed to get you off Wikipedia.
4. The accusations from Fahrenheit451 you refuse to answer.

The second is WP:NAM is neither policy nor guideline, it's an essay.

The third is a violation of WP:PG has to be specified (like WP:NPA).

I am curious to know what Fahrenheit451 asked you, so could either of you provide a diff for it?

An admin will want proof, and isn't going to do the research for you because this board is very busy as you can no doubt see. Anynobody 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. My time is up for now and will have to get back to it later. You can find the questions he asked on his user page and on his user talk page (if he did not delete them from there) . Note to anyone watching: I won't have much time to pursue this before Monday. If there is any Admin working on it, please let me know what you need to follow up on the "discussion", thank you. COFS 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Background and diffs

Comment: Actually, Justanother has mixed his opinions in and called them "facts".--Fahrenheit451 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am comfortable with neutral admins/editors evaluating the veracity of my remarks. ps, please do not cut your comments into the body of mine - thanks. --Justanother 16:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some background facts:

1. Fahrenheit451 created Dead File article.
2. I (Justanother) warned him that it likely exceeded WP:Fair use. See Template talk:ScientologySeries#Added Dead File to template, 2nd post in thread. I added that policy says I should blank the page but I would wait and see if the issue was addressed.
3. F451 mis-stated that my following policy and blanking the page would be vandalism and a discussion of copyvio legal liability followed in the thread and the following thread Template talk:ScientologySeries#Legal threat discussion.
4. Rather than simply discuss the problem with the article and ways to improve it, Smee and F451 started attacking COFS.
5. Smee canvasses for a block on COFS; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
6. A number of the admins/editors that Smee canvassed stated they found no blockable offense (see Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Veiled legal threats ???) and at least one came down squarely with COFS diff.
7. Smee continues canvassing for a block on COFS here.

This is what happens when, rather than improve articles, and discuss how to improve articles, and discuss differences of opinion; editors try to avoid that time-consuming and proper process with the tactic of getting their opponents in trouble. Can we just give that a rest, please? It is tired. And in actual fact, the continued use of that tactic is disruptive and grounds for User RfC/ArbCom if the "victim" cares to pursue it. --Justanother 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a witch hunt but I have my share in reacting to provocations. In summary I spent half my time with "postings" rather than "edits" and this was wrong. Thanks for the reality adjustment, I'll heed it. COFS 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And I hope that F451 knocks it off as well, e.g. that. COFS 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 2. Comment:Except that there is no evidence that fair use was violated in that article. That is your view, which seems to be parochial.--Fahrenheit451 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 3. Comment:And the discussion was the proper course of action.--Fahrenheit451 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request block of block-evading user User:Alx 91

Alx 91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 04:26, 8 April 2007 for persistent issues with images after a final warning where I presented several offending diffs and requests to stop. At ~19:00 2007-04-12, Alx 91 uploaded Image:Music Promo Copyright.png (api.php diff) and then, in two diffs, added it to Template:Musicpromo-screenshot. The user was blocked for, among other things, repeatedly changing image copyright tags despite multiple requests to stop (some diffs are scattered across Alx 91's talk page). As an anonymous user, 189.157.64.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Alx 91 has continued this behaviour. Please block 189.157.64.1. --Iamunknown 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone willing to at least respond? --Iamunknown 19:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will warn the user and keep an eye on them. Cheers, A Train^talk 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, that user's last edit was many hours ago. I see that you posted a warning to User:Alx 91's talk page. If we assume good faith then the anon IP may not be Alx, and you never warned the IP directly. Blocking isn't the way to go right now unless the IP returns and continues with the same pattern of edits in spite of the warning. Sorry it took so long for an admin to get on this for you. A Train^talk 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Superdeterminism and Archimedes Plutonium

I'd appreciate very much if some administrators could take a look at the article Archimedes Plutonium and the behaviour of Superdeterminism (talk · contribs). I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I can't research the details, but I think that a few months ago some user vandalised the Jimmy Wales article, inserting into it a request to have the Archimedes Plutonium article deleted (or perhaps corrected — I can't remember). If it had been a request made on Jimbo's talk page, I wouldn't have done anything, but it was a whole pile of irrelevant text inserted into an article about Jimbo, so I reverted. This user came to my talk page to complain, and I told him that he shouldn't have made his request in the text of an article, and told him where to go. (He was claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself.) He went there, and I think someone rolled him back. Anyway, I think he repeatedly vandalised articles by inserting something like "Please deleted the Archimedes Plutonium article" into them. There was an AfD, and I think I voted to delete. I generally feel that articles about living people should be deleted if the subject is not clearly notable, and if the article's existence is causing distress to the subject. (Obviously, if the subject is notable, the article stays.)

I wasn't heavily involved in this, but kept the article on my watchlist. Yesterday, I saw this, and reverted it as vandalism. I don't think the editor in question has the same username as the one I originally encountered, but I'm sure it's the same person. Once again, it's someone claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium. I reverted, as I saw the edit as vandalism. He then did this, which I once again reverted as vandalism. (It also looked very much like a legal threat.)

When I got up this morning, I saw this. I had been thinking about the situation in the meantime, and had seen (and fully agreed with) a post from Jkelly, on a different issue, saying that "If someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly . . . the proper response is to help them out . . . Calling their edit 'vandalism', or reverting them, is just going to escalate the situation."[35] I thought I'd have a look to see what this guy's problem is, and then maybe try to correct the problem while undoing his vandalism, so as to keep him happy and also have an article that didn't damage the appearance of the encyclopaedia. (Obviously, leaving a mainspace article with a whole pile of text about how "Wikipedia is going to be meeting my lawyer" would not be appropriate.) Before I could do that, someone else had reverted.

I don't know who this Archimedes person is, and I don't know if this eccentric editor is the same person. I can't remember what the original editor I encountered was complaining about, exactly, though it was something to do with that article. This editor, who is presumably the same, seems to object to the (sourced) phrase "known as Arky by his fans". My internet access is going to be limited today, so I'd be happy if some administrators keep an eye on the situation. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is the same editor as before, who is claiming to be Archimedes Plutonium himself, and is certainly editing in a style that is very similar to that of M. Plutonium, with the creation of articles such as Earth Planetary Air-Conditioner; solving Global-Warming and edits such as this.

  For the background to the dispute over nicknames, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd), where I and several editors gave an explanation about verifiability, about our desire to avoid having the long list of wholly unsourced nicknames that the article had before, and about how reliably sourced content is the antidote to such things. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive79#Archimedes Plutonium for some further background.

  This editor has already made several on-wiki clear legal threats, such as this (at the bottom), this (where xe states that the legal threat will be lifted when the ability for people to edit Wikipedia is removed), and this, and continues to do so here. (There are also several off-wiki legal threats.) Xe retracted some of xyr direct personal attacks, however.

  I refrained from blocking xem for the legal threats during the AFD discussion period because I weighed the likelyhood of the threat (in light of the off-wiki discussion) against the benefit of having the article's subject involved for the entire period of the AFD discussion. I refrain from blocking xem now because I am one of the major contributors to the article. However, I ask that other uninvolved administrators take a look at the diffs above, Superdeterminism's other contributions to other articles, and the deleted articles, and consider whether allowing an editor either who is Archimedes Plutonium or who is precisely imitating Archimedes Plutonium (the end result being effectively the same as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to continue having editing privileges will be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• ElinorD, this may be what you're trying to recall. I believe these edits are from before User:Superdeterminism created their account. I've also had an entry here on this same topic for a while. Keesiewonder ^talk 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My lunatic brother

My younger brother's recently "discovered" the amusement of vandalising Wikipedia (he registered the account "Vandal100" which Ryulong blocked immediately). Someone may want to pay attention to anonymous edits coming from my IP, as anything which isn't constructive will certainly be him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to know the ip first, before someone blocks. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat embarrassingly, I'm not even sure of my own IP address anymore. That said, the alert's off since he seems to have decided to do something else now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You can probably find your ip address quite easily by going into your internet connection settings, or any website made to display your ip. (Try Google.) - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My favourite trick now: Log out and type Special:Mypage into search. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

www.whatismyip.com --Zamkudi 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could just log out, sign with four tildes and hit preview. That's what I do to find my IP. Grandmasterka 09:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(<---) My IP changes every time I relog in to my ISP. WAS 4.250 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dynamic ip address, but the first and second groups of numbers do not change: a.b.x.y : all the numbers go from 0 to 255, "a" and "b" are costants, they do not change for a given area and subsequent set of users of that provider, the "x" and the "y" change each time. Some hackers can trick their provider and show a faked ip adress (maybe using open proxies, but I guess they have further methods).--Doktor Who 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Haz, if for some reason your account is caught up in a block, when you put the unblock notice, include a link to this post...it should clear things up really easily.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of stalking

False accusation of stalking, with an unacceptable edit summary, in response to a complaint about an earlier unacceptable edit summary. There have been several other recent incidents involving this editor. Andy Mabbett 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Followed up with a false accusation of trolling. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative action is unnecessary at this point. If both you and Captain scarlet make an honest attempt to defuse the situation by allowing for some time to soothe each others' temper, then this conflict might resolve amicably. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but previous experience is that both my and others' efforts to discuss issues rationally and calmly with the editor concerend fall on stony ground; hence my bringing the issue here. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to go if dialog is failing is Requests for comment. --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come here because dialog is failing, I came here because of repeated acts of incivility. Andy Mabbett 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have run into some difficulty in communicating with this user, my point is that there's no dire need for administrative intervention. My advice is to give this dispute some time, and if you still feel aggrieved at a later point, attempt mediation through a different venue than AN/I. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I left a message on his talk page so he'd be aware of this discussion. In it I mentioned that his choice of a couple of words could have been better, but otherwise what Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons did looked like good editing. Andy Mabbett you may be taking his feedback too personally, and I think that's what ^anetode╦╩ is saying. Anynobody 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I take false accusations that I'm a stalker and a troll - and that I'm owned - personally. Good grief! Andy Mabbett 01:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what does that "owned" mean?--Doktor Who 01:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See owned, or better still, pwned - Alison^☺ 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has got to use these pages as his personnal chat room, it is getting tiresome. this is I think the third instance of Pigsonthewing wasting his time on these pages by referring me. Anyone cane accuse anyone of doing anything... Like making a False accusation of stalking apparently. should I take your accusation any harder than you took mine? Look at yourself in a mirror, you don't like me, and all this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard fest won't make you any easier to work with. Damn, if I think you're stalking me, I'll tell you! thank goodness for contributions list or I owuldn't know of yet again more fun on these pages... Waste of your, my and other contributors' time Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can witness that his edits at the WikiProject Pink Floyd and related articles never bring to edit wars or other kind of disruptions or time wasting. Captain Scarlet, why do you think he doesn't like you? Likely he just doesn't agree with some of your edits.Doktor Who 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally, I'm not enrolled in feuds every five minutes, there seems to be a small group of people unwilling to accept comments outside of their clique (I await a referral for that comment, I'm sure it won't be appreciate for its face value), that's Projects confident of their superiority, confident no one could possibly be right and using their WP as a means to gain token voices when a vote is proposed (by the WP off course). If you really want to know what I think, I think Pigsonthewing finds it hard to see that anyone could disagree with his wisdom. My entire edits since I've met him have been a constant argument, to be honnest, I'm not into that and it is boring. No I don't accept most of what Pigsonthewing says, it's nothing against him, it's against the content. I am for an encyclopedia that has content, not tables. Pigsonthewing seems to be specialised in infoboxes and scripts, clearly against what I believe in. I have always, in good faith, removed his contributions were I sincerely deemed it a downgrades of what was already within the article, would the same type of content, or quality of content should I say, be inserted, I'd consider it with the same eyes; no exceptions and no crusade. It saddens me that Pigsonthewing has no other ways of voicing his opinions than constantly referring me (I believe this is the third, yet agian I spotted another one last night, so the tally must be four now). What has he got to gain, get me banned for life and implement his stuff? Childish. I feel stalked because wherever I edit, and articles I have specifically brought from stub to a fully fledged chapter in a book is massacred. I accept be bold and all that, I wouldn't have the contribution list I have now had I not applied that. Simple I know contribution lists and I see that edits by certain, Pigsonthewing, seem to have the purpose of antagonising me and fuelling an argument. That is what I think, explained I hope in plain non aggressive English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Please see [36] and preceding comment; and [37]. Also Talk:Dore railway station. Andy Mabbett 15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• and [38] Andy Mabbett 15:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point [39]. I'm supposed to work with that? I'll be accused of being the reason for global warning next. Just on and on and on Pigsonthewing, do something useful Pigsonthewing, stop wasting everyone's time, I have other things to do than to participate to this charade. You constantly accuse people of Don't be so parochial, Your slippery slope argument is fatuous. and I can make no sense of your comment. I didn't like it the first time you used that, but you're using that on other people's pages too. Now for that stalking, there is no such thing as a false accusation. I did accuse you, there was nothing false about it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I thought you were accusing me of accusing me of accusing you of accusing of stalking? You're not going to report me for breathing are you? I had a bath around 3 this afternoon, do you have a diff dirty+bath+shampoo$clean*15minutes+later. You're making a sad example of yourself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback won't leave me alone

For some time this admin has been following me around the wiki, causing me annoyance and offense. Even as I trying to leave on a wikibreak, he carries on. When I complained multiple types about this pattern of behavior, noting that it had led to an Arbcom case in the past, he accused me of incivility and threatened to block me. I had advocated strongly for an anonymous user whom he had blocked -- and perhaps this bothered him.

I am sorry if I offended him, but I simply cannot take this any more. I feel like he is sitting on my neck. I am willing to do right by the community, even where I may have erred. But right now I feel like this guy watches my every move. I'm a bit spooked, to be frank. Sample diffs: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

He is likely to say he is just trying into to enforce policy, which is normally fine by me, but he shows up too often not to raise concerns that he has broken with required courtesy. I edit in good faith. Any assistance in resolving this would be appreciated. I am willing to make positive action in the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia, Right now, I'm just trying to go on a wikibreak. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make any more personal attacks on other editors. Calling editors who are working in good faith "vandals"[48], "sockpuppets"[49], or "wikistalkers"[50] is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Making accusations in edit summaries is totally inappropriate. If there are actual instances of vandalism, stalking, or other violation then ask for community action in the appropriate venue but do not simply use those charges as attacks. Impugning the motives of other editors is another form of personal attack.[51] You have been warned about incivility many times before.::[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks your account will be blocked. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Copied here by WAS 4.250 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback is misrepresenting me entirely: 1.) The vandalism involved ongoing edit wars by anonIPs who repeatedly blank the same cited facts. 2.) The "impugning motives" post was quickly reverted by myself. 3.) The sockpuppet charges involves another anonIP whom I had gotten blocked for vandalism just a few days before. 4.) The other complaint is about Will Beback, of course. None of the above was a true personal attack; all comments were made in good faith. 5.) The "many times" comes from me having made thousands of edits, many on controversial pages.

Will Beback singled me out, along with the edits I make on Wikipedia, for personal monitoring, deconstruction, and agitation. He closely monitored and followed my editing history to a degree that exceeds reasonable administrative duties. He specifically targeted my edits for subsequent changes, premised not on the subject in question, but due to me having made them. This shows poor etiquette and fosters incivility by subjecting me to undue harassment, plus a level of cross-scrutiny beyond what one experiences through normal, everyday editing practices. I edit in good faith and I am sorry if I offended him. I'm sincerely looking for some assistance here. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You say you want a wikibreak. So take one. And when you come back in a month let me know on my talk page and I'll help you. So bye. See you in a month. I'll help you then. WAS 4.250 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say that the evidence suggests that Will has been very patient with an incivil and disruptive editor who has a long history of calling people "sockpuppets" and "vandals" who don't agree with him, while enabling disruptive behaviour by other editors. Will is doing the thankless task of trying to get a disruptive editor to behave like a member of the community should, and deserves our thanks. Guettarda 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. I seldom raise the issue of sockpuppets, for example, and that mostly in the last few weeks. Right now, I notice an distinctive editing pattern in which one admin intentionally follows me around Wikipedia -- for purposes that, IMHO, are neither constructive to the encyclopedia's content, nor conducive to its collaborative environment. While I make no claim of perfection, I sincerely try to act within civil, rational editing practices. Please be considerate and do not attack me for my honest, good faith effort at seeking resolution in the spirit of fair dealing on Wikipedia. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is specifically designed to allow people to review the contributions of others, and accepting that your work is subject to such review is part and parcel of a collaborative enterprise. Particularly when you are writing on subjects like hot-button racial issues, you should expect your work to be carefully scrutinized and frequently challenged. Such is the nature of the field. If you are unable to deal with this level of scrutiny, feel free to take a break as you say. --Michael Snow 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, of the eight pages that Yakuman accuses me of following him to, four are articles that I've had long experience editing (I suppose I could claim Yakuman followed me, rather than the other way around). One is a talk page comment replying to his own reply to me. One of the pages involves his re-adding a link to an offensive racial blog used as a source for an obscure fact of 18th century history. And one is a straightforward warning to him about his ongoing incivility. I hope that when he returns he brings a less confrontational attitude towards editing. -Will Beback · † · 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed Yakuman's complaints about Will, but they don't sound descriptive of the Will Beback I know. Will's patience and fairness are well-known in the Wikipedia community.

Yakuman, if you are as sincere as you claim, do take that Wikibreak and cool off. Editors can intend well, but if they grew up handicapped with cultural language that encodes, for example, anti-multi-cultural attitudes, then cosmopolitan editors of a global encyclopedia can be reasonably expected to take issue or offense. I suggest that when you return, you should ask for a mentor to look over your edits and suggest changes to avoid future friction with Will and others. Milo 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice on set of articles

I've somehow got entangled in a large set of articles — one for each episode of a couple of Disney situation comedies (for children): That's So Raven and Cory in the House (neither of which I'd heard of before, and both of which I wish I never had). See, for example Ain't Miss Bahavian, on which I've just done a lot of work, reduced from this (not the worst by a long way).

The articles were typically long and sprawling, often with immensely long and poorly written plot "summaries", trivia sections, poor formatting, etc. I did my best to tidy them, and met determined opposition from a few editors, one in particular – Kid1412 (talk · contribs) – getting very emotional and abusive, though calming down after the intervention of a couple of other editors, and being cooperative for now. He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series. There are no online or other sources so far as I can tell.

Now, it's not important in one sense; as with more than half the articles here, the subjects are trivial, and who cares whether the summaries are accurate, well-written, properly formatted, etc.? (The same goes for the pop-music articles that I try to clean up and defend.) From the Wikipedia point of view, though, it presumably does matter. Or does it? Is our position that the guidelines and policies are only really for proper articles, and the fanzine side of things can be safely ignored, and allowed to go its own way? There are countless articles documenting the entire outputs of minor pop singers and bands, every episode and character in minor children's television series, discographies going into obsessive detail, all breaking many if not most of the formatting guidelines in the MoS and the relevant WikoProjects, including the fair use of images.

My specific question is: what should I do about the case that I mentioned at the beginning? In theory the plot summaries should all be removed (in theory, I think, all the articles should go as being insignificant and making no claim to significance).

My general question is: are we going to pay attention to the vast mass of the Wikipedia iceberg which most editors and admins prefer to ignore — the fancruft below Wikipedia's plimsoll line? If so, then I'll just remove all the articles from my Watchlist and breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I'll need a lot more help... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will be resolved unless and until a fork will throw away 99% of Category:Fictional. Compare Category:Episodes by television series and Category:Television characters by series. Another example I recently stumbled upon is our complete (and nearly completely in-universe) coverage of Judge Dredd.

As an alternative you may want o learn German and switch to dewiki.

--Pjacobi 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "keep a lid on the fancruft" Wikiproject? If not, you can start it and we could join en masse. This highlights one of the current issues with the English Wikipedia, in my opinion: The number of articles is outpacing the number of competent users and administrators to maintain them. Eventually I think we'll catch up again, but right now it's too much. I've supported our liberal precedents towards episode articles, but this may get me to rethink that... Grandmasterka 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• You only need to read the "notability" and "article inclusion" pages to see that this is a much trickier discussion than it appears. Part of the problem appears to be projects that aim for "comprehensive" coverage, and pages are being maintained by fans of the subject. Fans have a different calibration for "verifiability" than un-involved people. Here's some examples: List_of_bus_routes_in_London - wikipedia is not a list of bus routes. But, it gets worse. London_buses_route_226. The London Bus Route articles are good articles, but they have no place on wikipedia. But they've survived a few AfD debates, so some of the community wants them here. Well written, interesting, articles aren't so much of a problem as stubs for non famous sports players - Dominique_Dorsey is an example. It's a problem. I search for typos, eg "proffesional" and correct them. This means that I find many poorly written stubs that should really be deleted. I attach them to a few projects and leave them for a wek or so. Then I prod them. As soon as they're prodded someone says the article should be kept, at which point I drop out, leaving the malformed article to sink into the gloom. I don't want to be a deletionist AfD warrior. :-( Dan Beale 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • this is a subject that reflect how wikipedia actually works rather than how it should, my suggestion to you is just to look the other way - it's just too much hassle to do otherwise. Any fancruft filled article will have a special interest group (we call them wikiprojects but SIG is closer to the truth) attached to it. In theory, those SIGs will be involved in keeping the cruft to a minimum and helping to produce well-source, readable articles suitable for a general readers encyclopedia, in practice, the SIGs always act as fans first rather than wikipedians. AFD is a waste of time, because "it will be cleaned up!" will be cited by members of the SIG - then the afd is defeated and the clean-up never occurs. Just look the other way and stick to factual articles, it's better for your nerves. --Fredrick day 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As one who writes "surface transit cruft", London buses route 226 doesn't look that great to me; if that's all there is to the history, it might be better as part of a larger article like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn or List of bus routes in Brooklyn. But many bus routes are "notable" enough for a separate article; two examples are Grand Concourse buses and Myrtle Avenue Line. --NE2 11:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I also recently did a mass merging with List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, starting soon after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 51 Line. Now most of them are part of a list where the history can be detailed; only the ex-streetcar lines and the one bus rapid transit route are not redirects. --NE2 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability again, in particular Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. The choice isn't a straight dichotomy between deleting the article and having individual articles. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well, the problem even exists with factual articles, as was cited above with bus routes. The best thing that could happen here is for more of those who are frustrated with fancruft and permastubs in the name of "comprehensiveness" to get involved with these, involved on AfD, all of that. Grandmasterka is right, we still can catch up-but only if more people get involved, more merges start happening (and firmly made to stick), and more in-universe/original research speculation fiction articles start to get cleaned, stubbed, or deleted (and, again, that gets firmly made to stick). In my experience, one editor coming in and bringing up such issues will be shouted down by a few fans, but several coming in and saying "Look, shall we clean and source it or head for AfD?" will actually get them helping. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several television series that have entire books devoted to detailed episode-by-episode documentation of the series. The problem is not that television episode articles don't belong. It is that only some television episode articles belong, the ones where the episodes have been already documented in depth outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Cargo Cult Article Writing leads to editors seeing one television series with individual articles for each episode, and falsely generalizing that to all television series. The only "trickiness" to the discussion is explaining to such editors that it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article, not a wholly fallacious "Article X therefore article Y." argument, and explaining that recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here.

As such, both positions, that "all articles on fiction don't belong" and that "every episode of every television series deserves an article", are wrong. Adopting the former position as a reaction to the latter position is certainly wrong.

Thus the answers to your questions are questions themselves: Do sources exist documenting the individual episodes in depth? Where did you look for sources and what did you find? Did you ask Kid1412 (talk · contribs) to go and look for sources? If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles. If the episodes are not documented in depth in sources, but are only documented as brief summaries or addressed tangentially, the individual articles should be merged into lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. If the episodes are not documented at all, then the content is unverifiable, and Wikipedia should have neither individual articles nor lists, per Wikipedia:Notability#Deletion. It really is that simple.

I can understand the frustration with editors who simply won't adhere to our content policies, but hyperbolic suggestions that we give up our content policies are not the answer. Nor is nominating "poorly written stubs" for deletion with no attempt to actually do one's homework beforehand. The answer is to look for sources; to encourage other editors to look for sources, educating them on our content policies; to evaluate the depths and provenances of sources; and to remember that there is more than one tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see so much discussion; I'd been afraid that my questions would just move slowly up the page towards the great archive in the sky.

I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research.

Sources are part, but only part of the problem though. I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant, and that all of them are defended against deletion, merging, or even cleaning up by fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil. (Of course, it's true that doing something serious about the porblem would mean that Wikipedia would shrink to well below the million-article mark again — but I don't see that as a problem.)

The bus-routes issue adds another dimension to essentially the same problem, though the pop-music articles are also about factual articles. Normally, though, there is a significant difference between articles on, say, fictional and real people; the deletionists insist on much more stringent notability conditions for real people...

As for doing our homework; well, I do when I can — but really, this is like the often-seen response of editors to a request for sources: "how dare you demand sources? They're easily found on Google, just look". Well, no, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the material to provide the source; I don't work on Wikipedia as a research assistant for editors who can't be bothered to do their own work. (Maxim: If it's not worth the time looking for a source for your edit, then it's not worth making it. If it should be made, then eventually someone who's prepared to spend the time will make it.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting so this won't be as long, and apologies in advance for the length, but there are some points I've really been wanting to express on this issue. What I'm saying actually works out to be similar to what's currently in WP:EPISODE, but not exactly, and I'm also trying to provide a logical basis without reference to it, since it seems to be controversial.) I think part of the problem people have with television episode articles stems from different interpretations of what WP:NOR/WP:A actually mean. Mel, in discussing your problems with some episode articles, you said "He or she has now admitted, though, to writing the plot summaries (or some of them, at least) while watching the series" and "I should say that I do (and in this case did) ask for sources, and the answer was straightforwardly that there aren't any, and that the material was original research." You're making an assumption in those statements that the user's writing of the plot summaries was inappropriate on the grounds that it was a creation of original research. Uncle G's comment makes a similar assumption, and refers to WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR as the basis for it: "...it's the existence of multiple non-trivial published works that already document something outside of Wikipedia that justifies an article [...] recording one's direct experience firsthand into Wikipedia, sans published documentation, is forbidden here." My reading of the policies, though, does not lead to that assumption, and I don't mean this as Wikilawyering -- I genuinely think that what I'm about to describe is both the intent of the policy and the interpretation that's best for the Wikipedia. From WP:NOR, material counts as original research if it:

• introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms;
• introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article;
• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

How does watching a TV show and writing down what happens relate to this? Well, it's clearly not violating the first three, as it doesn't theorize anything, argue any points, or invent any neologisms. But what about the fourth? One could reasonably say that it's an "explanation", and the fourth point says that such things need to be attributed to reliable sources. This leads to Uncle G's point, that "If the episodes are documented in depth in multiple published works, then there is justification for individual articles." For many episodes, this is obviously going to be difficult to do in the sense that we look for such documentation on other subjects -- while the most significant episodes of a show are probably going to have articles briefly describing their plot in newspapers or magazines, many won't have any information in such sources beyond the fact that they aired. This interpretation, though, focuses on the lack of secondary sources and overlooks the fact that we always have a reliable primary source for the plot of a TV show: the show itself. WP:NOR says these three important things about primary sources:

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. [...] Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include [...] and television programs.

• An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

• All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

It appears to me, then, that writing a summary from watching a show is a perfectly valid use of a primary source, as television programs are specifically listed as potential primary sources, and a plot summary is only making descriptive claims that can be easily verified by anyone else by watching the same episode.

As I said before, besides thinking this is the correct interpretation of the intent of the policy on original research, I also think it's the most sensible and practical interpretation for the purposes of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Yes, it's going to be very difficult to find traditional secondary sources for plot summaries in some cases, but those summaries are necessary to write useful articles about episodes of shows. Does that lack of sources imply non-notability? Well, we have one source (the show itself), and we can undoubtedly find a source for details about the show (production info, guests, etc.) I think this is another point where there's argument, though -- some people seem to think that's not sufficient notability. It seems to me, though, that there are good reasons to consider that sufficient/have the notability of the show and its more notable episodes be "inherited" by the others. As I argued in this AfD, for very popular shows, a fair number of episodes will definitely have sufficient secondary sourcing, so we should clearly have articles on those. Having articles for only those, though, may take something away from the usability of the Wikipedia for readers, which I consider important. Imagine that you've just started watching a show, say in season three, and you want to learn what's already happened. Ideally, if there's an article for every episode, then when you go to the main page (or an episode-list page, if it's been split off) for the show, you'll click the link for the first episode, read all about that one, then follow a link in the infobox to the next episode, and in this way you can easily read through the whole history of the show. If only some episodes have articles, though, you'll either have to click each one that exists, and simply do without information about the others, or, if there is information in some sort of summary page, switch back and forth to read everything, which seems like a much less satisfying browsing experience. Having individual pages with infoboxes also provides a nice neat way to present episode-specific factual information about writers, directors, guest stars, etc. Yes, for some less-exciting episodes the pages may be a bit stubby, but the convenience of having all the articles leads me to believe we should accept that stubbiness. In addition, this avoids the inevitable conflicts over what information is worth keeping about an episode when there's a long single page or season pages, and takes the reader directly to the information about a particular episode when searching on the name of that episode instead of nowhere, or to a redirect.

No, I don't think every TV show should have a page for every episode. Shows that are over and never had many episodes may be well served by one or a few pages. Shows for which we don't currently have much information can stay in a summary page or pages until we have enough material that most will be more than stubs and someone makes the effort to create all the episode pages with appropriate infoboxes. If we go by my interpretation of TV shows as appropriate primary sources for themselves, it shouldn't be hard to create such pages for any fairly popular show. While there are people here who are "fanatical editors whose knowledge of and interest in the Wikiproject is nil" who will write, and defend, bad articles on TV shows, there are also many fanatical editors who, while only interested in a limited subject, are willing to put in the effort to make genuinely well-written, encyclopedic articles on that subject. Editors who aren't interested in that subject, but who are knowledgeable of and interested in the Wikipedia as a whole, should be happy that such people exist and are expanding coverage in areas that might otherwise go ignored. Mel, you said "I expect that every one of the thousands of articles on pop singles and albums, fictional characters, television-series episodes, minor football teams, etc., could be given sources to demonstrate existence and to back up what's said. The bigger problem is that most of them are still utterly insignificant...." I think that's too limited of a view of what we're doing here... remember, this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Those articles aren't taking anything away from articles you care about simply by existing. Now, they could be taking something away from the project as a whole if they're badly written, but there are plenty of bad articles about historical or scientific topics and plenty of great, well-sourced articles about pop culture topics. This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value.

Ok, that probably went on longer than it should have, but I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say about this.Pinball22 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for writing on every episode is continuity-- these series usually have running plot lines. As one who rarely watches most of them, when I need to understand a reference to some notable episode, I need the context. The way of doing it for WP, of course, is to have articles for chunks of the series, usually seasons, with the individual ones broken out into detail if justified (for example, if they become more than 1 or 2 paragraphs long) But is is much easier setting up such a group of articles by having a stub for each; and it is not all that easy moving the less notable ones back into articles for the season. So I see the temptation. I think the only way is to try to get them back, group by group. Some of the people at schools are trying that with respect to school districts. It might also work with radio stations. There are intermediate stages between a nondescriptive list and a separate article. But organizing the disorganized take work, and the editors who could best do the work would -- understandably--rather write new and excessive articles. DGG 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinball22, you say: "This is a general encyclopedia, and any article that's sufficiently encyclopedic to meet the guidelines for notability should be judged on its quality, not on someone's view of its value." That glosses overf my point, though: the vast majority of these articles don't mee the guidelines for notability; they don't meet the relevant WikiProjects' guides for notability; they're utterly insignificant. They all, however, have a flock of fans, whose attitide to editors arriving from the main part of Wikipedia and asking for sources, MoS formatting, notability, etc., is aggressive;ly aggrieved incredulity — they've never heard of the MoS, etc., they don't care about it when it's pointed out to them, "notability" means "I like it", and an adequate and verifiable source is "I know it". For example, I recently speedily deleted Bossa Nova Hotel, an article on an album that consisted of a track listing and an infobox; no claim to significance, and a little investigation suggested that it had none to be claimed. I received this:

Hey, Buddy are you stupid????? I wasn't finished editing the page and what the hell do u do delete it!! You call yourself a editor?? i'd say you need to lay off, next time this happens i will start destroying every page u create just like u did me on this one. Which in my opinion wasn't right at all. Good Day!, Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

That's pretty much par for the course. You see, I'm not talking about articles on ephemeral pop stuff that meet the notability criteria — this isn't an attack on popular culture; I'm talking about the vast amount of stuff that doesn't come near meeting those criteria (singles that sold 350 copies, greatest-hits albums, minor characters in low-audience children's television, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Hapoelhaifa3

This may require the help of a Administrator that can read Hebrew. I noticed a couple of weeks ago that someone is systematically creating pages and links to Yochanan Vollach. The style used in creation of the page led me to believe that the user was someone close to the subject or extremely biased. I started to edit the page and correct English mistakes as well as adding the Template:Infobox Football biography. This user, who changes IP every now and then, started to verbally attack me in Hebrew and in English on my talk page as well as threaten me. He made it perfectly clear that he was in some sort of contact with Yochanan Vollach and that since I didn't know him I had no right to change the page etc. The attacks on my talk page and on User:Hapoelhaifa3's talk page give evidence to the bizarre comments and allegations that he made against me hurling various insults. In the begining I defended myself, but in the end I see that I have someone here who is obviously not going to stop so I need help on the matter. -NYC2TLV 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• The user just did it again, adding more attacks on my talk page. NYC2TLV 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It would be much helpful to the Administrators if you could show direct links to the personal attacks, and translate from Hebrew to English (here perhaps?). --PaxEquilibrium 13:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hapoelhaifa3 has also been abusing me via NYC2TLV's talk page. After I mentioned that he may have a conflict of interest in editing the aforementioned article (he claimed Vollach would not be happy with what's written and asked "do you know them" about Vollach and Englander, implying he does), he replied with "If either of you accuse me of a conflict of interest, I promise you that you will really regret it" (אחת אתה תאשים אותי כבעל אינטרס אני מבטיח לך אתה תצטער על זה מאוד). He followed this with some homophobic abuse, saying that I'm a "typical lefty that... wants to have experiences with men" (שמאלני מובהק ש... רוצה להתנסות עם גברים), possibly as I have the Straight but not narrow userbox on my Userpage, and calling us both anti-semites (אתם כולכם אנטישמים). Number 57 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read most of the talk page statements in Hebrew. User:Number covered what's relevant and translated it correctly. These are repeated personal attacks and should be punished with a temporary block in my opinion, in order to give the plaintiffs some peace and quiet. YechielMan 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. User blocked for 1 week. Note, in most cases I would suggest a final warning before the block, but due to the nature of the personal attack including a threat, I'm blocking immediately. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom injunction violation ("banned" user editing)

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo regarding User:Hipi Zhdripi: 3) Hipi Zhdripi is limited to his one named account, Hipi Zhdripi. All edits by Hipi Zhdripi under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user. unanimously passed at 02:54, 21 October 2006.

..and: 4) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso are banned for one year' from editing articles related to Kosovo. Relation to Kosovo is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming. Either may be banned from any related non-article page for disruptive editing.

As per the the article's history, Hipi Zhdripi has continued violating the injunction repeatedly under his traditional 172.... IP address. However, on 10 April. He also edited under his registered account. Besides this, he has been editing under 172. IP address quite a lot throughout all the past months. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AE. Naconkantari 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no issue here. He is banned from editing the article but he has only edited the talk page. While he could be banned from the talk page under the "disruptive editing" section of the ruling, this has not happened yet. Thatcher131 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cow tipping

So, there was a RFC at Cow tipping about keeping a humorous image of "an unsuspecting cow" in the article. The result was "no consensus". Does that have the same authority as a "keep" vote? I wouldn't think so, but some editors there argue that because of that, no changes can be made. Not a dog 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No consensus generally means revert to keep I'm affraid i.e. take no action. Sorry Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia isn't a democracy, the result of this RfC can (and I think should) be re-examined. It's a pointless picture with a facetious caption, neither being suitable for an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I went over there to boldly remove it, but actually I see no problem. The caption explains succinctly why this practice is likely to be folklore and the image shows us what a cow looks like. It might be a touch trivial but nothing that needs admin action. --kingboyk 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Kingboyk. It's a somewhat silly topic, and it does no harm for us to approach it with a light heart. (Note that the caption has changed since Kingboyk saw it. The caption earlier in the day was "An unsuspecting potential victim"—which might be a little too silly. I might have gone with "Putative victim of this urban myth", or similar.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article only has value as pointing out an urban legend, and that the caption shouldn't be some silly attempt at humor. And, as I point out here, the references cited in it are little more than amateur original research, not reliable sources. All that said, Chowbok (talk · contribs) keeps coming back and reverting the caption, claiming simply it is somehow "better". Not a dog 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:XColonelx

Could somebody figure out what's going on here? Corvus cornix 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And here? Corvus cornix 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Generic page-move vandalism I'd say. Blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The link is that these are all school kids going to Oldenburg Academy Oldenburg, Indiana.

• 64.184.29.18 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) vandalized Oldenburg 10 March
• XColonelx (talk • contribs) created account and reverted the vandalism.
• Coolkristoff (talk • contribs) created account to continue the vandalisma (prob. was 64.184.29.18)
• Patweisbrod (talk • contribs)   a friend     (doing nothing good)
• Lava64 (talk • contribs)   a friend     (doing nothing good)
• Wats69 (talk • contribs)   ? another friend?

• Coolkristoff did nothing but vandalism and was the instigator of this mess.
• XColonelx mixed anti-vandal reverts, stupid retorts on user talk pages, and some weird (uninformed, obviously) move page vandalism (to make a point?)
• Patweisbrod and Lava64 did nothing good here, but nothing 'too' bad.
• Coolkristoff has been blocked and should have been.
• XColonelx has been blocked because of the page moves, and I won't disagree with that. (but consider unblock if asked?)
• The rest of these could stand an additional warning about Wikipedia not being a social site.

Shenme 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice report, Shenme. Thanks. Corvus cornix 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bluefield needs a block

A content dispute over at Colin Cowherd and the show's page The Herd with Colin Cowherd has escalated, with Bluefield's frustrations boiling over and replacing the pages (and User:STS01's talk page) with a Personal Attack. He's admitted his frustration to me and says that he will not protest any block/ban on his account, and while I don't support an indef, I think he needs at least a short-term block to cool off SirFozzie 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This situation appears to be resolved for the time being. Would another admin who isn't about to start cooking dinner care to review this indefinite block? A Train^talk 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While the user was clearly abusing editing priviledges, I erred in see it as a "vandalism only account" and have reduced the indef block I applied to 24 hours. I'll keep a watch on and reblock if necessary. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should you have signed the block notice? I've generally seen them signed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All entries should be signed.Rlevse 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...looking at it more closely, it appears it is signed, but the sig isn't showing up. I fixed it so the sig would show up properly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fecapedian (talk · contribs) blocked, need review

I've blocked Fecapedian (talk · contribs) indefinitely for, in addition to his username, glaring personal attacks, harassment, and incivility at various discussions related to Don Murphy: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], and [74]. Need this one reviewed quickly, particularly given the most recent diff. --Coredesat 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Nothing productive from this user. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also endorse. Question is: whose sock did you block? Bubba hotep 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

AZJustice. --BigDT 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Viktym and RICO lawsuits

User Viktym (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting boilerplate text referencing civil RICO lawsuits claiming illegal pornography distribution and racketeering by companies such as UPS (diff), Movie Gallery ([diff]), etc. The text has obvious NPOV/undue weight/notability/reliable source problems, as I've detailed on the user's Talk page. Their latest action was to remove an old comment from an unrelated Talk page in what I assume is some sort of misguided attempt at tit-for-tat (diff). Could someone visit this user, whether as an admin action, or the sweetness and light "how to be a good Wikipedian" brigade, or adding the articles to watchlists, and take over this for me. - Quietvoice 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note and will monitor (but must shortly sign off for the evening, so someone else should as well). Newyorkbrad 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added another warning. I agree that the material and behavior are inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 05:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maxman24

Somehow i ended up looking at Special:Contributions/Maxman24, in which his first edit leads me to believe he is a sock of some kind. Not sure what/where to go, I'm posting this here. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since he gave away his password on his user page and invited others to use the account, I deleted the user page and blocked him indef as a vandal account. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment and personal attacks by User:DaVoice

After heated debate on Talk:Wikipedia, DaVoice (talk · contribs) has violated WP:CIVIL and personally attacked me ([75], [76], [77] - all with a edit summary of "Refuting CloudNine's absurdities/absurd comments/absurd allegations"). He is now harassing me on my talk page, reverting to the same message each time. [78] [79]. I believe he has violated WP:NPA several times. CloudNine 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you both seem nice editors to me. Sorry for stalking you, Cloudnine, I was reading just a couple of hours ago your talk page, to check whether you replied to my last message regarding your invitation to add info at a WP alternative music page. After reading DaVoice's message, I went through Talk:Wikipedia, and I read the posts by you and him (ehm, I haven't finished yet). I would like to mediate on this matter, too bad when valid contributors waste their time in this way....--Doktor Who 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that some misunderstanding occurred between you and DaVoice: while investigating Wikipedia's policies and philosophy at Talk:Wikipedia, and joining the relevant discussion, he likely was seeking evidence that he had been misrepresented with regard to his famous link in an article. I'm sure that he didn't want to attack just you; you both should have suddenly moved your chats in a proper page. --Doktor Who 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

need someone to watch an archive

An IP has been blanking selective portions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive211 recently. I've been keeping an eye on it, but I'm going out to dinner and won't be able to watch the page during the next several hours, so it would be great if someone could keep an eye on it for awhile. Natalie 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for an archive to be editted, & I find it odd that this page is targetted for repeated editting over the last 24 hours -- after being untouched in over a month. I've put that archive page under semi-protection against anon & new editors changes for a while. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the page has been protected, but shouldn't all the archive pages also be protected? And better than semi? Of course, having been inspected for removals first... Shenme 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No. If we start protecting things that don't needed to be edited, then we're not the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore. Protection is clearly appropriate there... but not in every case of an archive. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay... I didn't mean all archives so much as all (most?) project archives, like the above. If someone goes around altering the history of a dispute, slowly, quietly, and waited awhile, then complained that some past action wasn't 'justified'... That's why I think the history of the project does need substantial protection. I'm actually surprised it isn't automatic! Shenme 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, then I wouldn't be able to maintain the navboxes, and bots (who aren't admins) can't add to the archives. Bad idea, just semi it when need arises, or block in case it's a registred user. --Edokter (Talk) 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Through a somewhat fortuitous coincidence, I have found that this is likely George Reeves Person/BoxingWear and that they also attempted to delete a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive188, which I have restored. Those sections were deleted on March 26th without being noticed (an edit summary was used, so the blanking-detecting bots didn't notice it). The editor also contacted me, obtusely asking me to "do something" without specifying what that was, which is what eventually led me to discover the blanking. Natalie 05:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that closer watch be kept as well. The aforementioned bit deletions or alterations (say to dates of commentary) could occur, and then a user could claim the entire archive was suspect bc adequate protection wasn' provided. Something similar happened in France last year with a telecom firm, who deleted the recorded complaints of a user and then claimed that the user had never complained at all. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The main difference here being that even deleted items are technically still there, though only admins can view them and restore them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm less worried about anything being deleted permanently (they were just blanking, which can be reverted by anyone) then this person trying to convince some new admin (like me!) that they have somehow been framed, and pointing to the archives as proof. I'm relatively sure that's what was attempted here. Natalie 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I think you mean to say that the deleted information on Wikipedia is still viewable in the article histories. Anyone can view those histories -- unless the page itself is deleted. This was one of the reasons why I hesitated a moment before semi-protecting this page: nothing was actually being deleted. However, the fact some anon was willing to edit-war over this, that no one should be forced to spend their time contributing to Wikipedia baby-sitting an archive like Natalie was doing (& that I had an appointment offline to keep, so I had to act) made my mind up. -- llywrch 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I guess my thought got a little jumbled somewhere between my brain and my fingers. Thanks for clarifying that. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection may be needed

Resolved

 – Good call Deskana ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An Admin might want to wander by and put SP on Alan Johnson which was featured on Have I Got News for You tonight in a Colbert report style vandalism comment - diff. Looks like this might be needed for a couple of days until all the juveniles have got bored of it. SFC9394 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined Semi-protection is not to be used pre-emptively. Also, please take further requests to WP:RFPP. Thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2 comments - 1 it isn't pre-emptive, it has already been heavily hit by vandalism. And 2, I was simply letting some folks higher up be aware, I am not jumping through the bureaucratic hoops of an RPP posting for something like this - it is a pretty straightforward case of vandalism that may require some SP for a few days to avoid editors having to waste time reverting it every 5 minutes due to the page having appeared on national TV in the UK. SFC9394 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Steel 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it is repeated tonight so it is probably best left in place until tomorrow. SFC9394 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Dannyg3332 (talk · contribs) is a user with a lengthy history of uncivil behaviour. Has recently lashed out with numerous personal attacks against BertieBasset on that users talk page. User is also blanking any/all warning he has received including past warnings for other policy vios. 156.34.227.198 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

user blocked by dgies.Rlevse 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts appears badly back-logged. Andy Mabbett 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this board needs to be retired as it's not being actively watched anymore. Naconkantari 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Having alerts like this is pretty pointless, and we don't need administrators for every single thing. If someone isn't editing nicely, just pop over to his talk page and politely bring it to his attention. That's all you need to do. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone willing to historify and tag appropriately? Its all part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Iamunknown 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--------Restored--------

From personal experience, I know Wikiquette alerts needs to be promoted or upgraded, not retired, because it fills a gap in the personal dispute process. RFC requires two editors to have had the same problem, and requires a lot of formal effort. Yet "politely bring it to his attention" doesn't work during one-on-one, tendentious, smokescreen-logic disputes.

What I needed and didn't get was one to three editors to say, at the least, 'you can't edit someone else's posts to prevent yourself from being quoted'. But I also wanted to know if this was an admin-type issue; I think it has to be if there is no Wikiquette alerts. (Wikiquette alerts#13 March 2007; #Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics) Milo 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

-------End Restore-------

Done. Let the games commence.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  11:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange place, that. The pseudo-anonymity was a bizarre way of getting someone else to tick someone else off. I don't think this page's decease will be much lamented. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WHOA This issue needs a full community debate. My strongly supportive post restored above was accidentally deleted by Imdanumber1 working on the next section (diff) Milo 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be an administrator who deals with the backlog? Because this looks like a job for WP:ASSIST. Anchoress 21:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All you need, Milo, is a little tact when talking to editors who aren't being nice...anyone, sysop flag or not, can do that. REDVERS, awesome job! You're pretty brave and it looks like you were reverted (all part of the cycle!). Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts. Maybe we can agree on (1) if it should be historified and (2) if so, what the message should be (I think we should educate editors about what their options are when dealing with a tendentious editor). See ya there! --Iamunknown 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Wikiquette alerts deprecated somehow? Is this some zombie? --Kim Bruning 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Milo. The wikiquette page could be an extraordinarily useful part of dispute resolution if there were an admin or three working on it so that issues were addressed with the same speed that they are at AIV. RFC is too heavy-handed and cumbersome; polite notes on a talk page from the victim doesn't work when an editor is on an uncivil tear. And an effective Wikiquette page would eliminate a lot of chaff from AN/I. -- THF 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmacrockets0115 and User:Kobetmacyao

I suspect that Tmacrockets0115 and Kobetmacyao are sockpuppets of one another. The two accounts edit tendentiously and are completely uncommunicative. I think that some blocks are in order. I am not in a content dispute with this user/these users, but in the interests of transparency I think another admin should perform the blocks.

Tmacrockets0115 (talk · contribs) has an editing history going back to January. This user's edits are primarily composed of:

• Adding POV "greatest player" lists to basketball-related articles (nb - these lists never cite sources nor can they; the lists are bottomless argument sinks that boil down to lists of particular editors' favorite players): [80], [81]
• Adding unsourced trivia to articles of basketball players he likes: [82],
• Enforcing a negative POV of basketball players he doesn't like: [83], [84]
• Some useful edits to basketball articles: [85]

Despite my pleas in edits summaries and on talk, Tmac continued. Specifically addressing the habit of adding the POV lists, pages, I communicated with him. As can be seen from his talk page, I went out of my way to avoid biting. Instead of making any effort to communicate with me, Tmac continued with the same editing pattern. When I persisted in reverting him and communicating with him, I believe that he made a sock puppet account, User:Kobetmacyao. In addition to the similar user names and near-identical editing habits, they also make contributions at he same time.

I think this is fairly open and shut, but I hope that another admin will make the blocks so that any appearance of conflict of interest can be avoided. I welcome any criticism. A Train^talk 23:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely disruptive, but I don't see the name similarity and sametime editing. Tma went days without editing when Kobet did edit. Rlevse 02:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about the names. The name similarity is the common "Tmac". Tmacrockets0115 and Kobetmacyao, "Tmac" being the nickname of Houston Rockets player Tracy McGrady. If you're not familiar with the NBA, I can see how you might have missed that.

As for the similar editing times, the most salient only obvious occurance is the most recent occurance:Tmac - 23:16, 13 April 2007 ; Kobetmacyao - 23:13, 13 April 2007. Their entire edits histories if you look at them, are almost identical. A Train^talk 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

not to mention Kobetmacyao= Kobe Bryant Tracy McGrady Yao Ming....⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to have aroused neither controversy nor a great impetus to act on the part of anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and impose some blocks on these two accounts, if only to get their attention. A Train^talk 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was doing a deeper look into this. I note TMAC has a block, but KOBE does not show one in his block log. I think my next move on this would be a checkuser, then I'd be convinced of this sockpuppetry. Your 30-day block (I think you forgot to do KOBE's though), may work. Rlevse 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the heads-up, Rlevse. Let's see if they actually get start talking. A Train^talk 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nowonline

Nowonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gone on self-destruct and applying inappropriate speedy delete tags to all his contributions, after consensus that some of his articles had major problems with WP:CSD, WP:RS and WP:COI. Tearlach 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John C. Autry was already in AfD, so I removed the author requested CSD template, because AFAIK, one WP process (CSD) cannot invalidate another in progress (AfD), unless an admin closes the debate as speedy. I assume if the article is a keep, then CSD will apply, though it is likely the article will be deleted.

As an observation, this is about the third instance of "WP policies don't apply to me, and if you won't let me do what I want, I'm going to behave wholly inappropriately" that I've seen in a week that's COI related. Would there be a way to prevent obvious COIs (and spam, for that matter) through the article creation process or by requiring a certain type of source to be cited in a new article before it is approved? MSJapan 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

141.155.10.116's continuing edit war at William S. Burroughs, etc.

This anonymous user has repeatedly altered the external links of the following articles: William S. Burroughs, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Mohamed Hamri, Bachir Attar, Frank Rynne, and other articles directly of indirectly linked to the Master Musicians of Jajouka and/or Paul Bowles. Said user claims, and I quote his own words here, that "FRANK RYNNE & JOE AMBROSE's article on Brink.com is Libelous against Paul Bowles & Living Persons. KEEP THIS OFF WIKIPEDIA". I left on a message on the user's talk page encouraging said individual to provide evidence in a public forum of said libel so that other editors and administrators can review it and decide if these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. I was ignored. He is well past the point of violating the 3 revert rule, and his continuing actions are vandalism. I gave him a level 4 warning, but it has not dissuaded him. He seems to have a grievance, and I would like, if it is possible, for there to be some kind of discussion of the matter. If this proves impossible, he needs a block to bring the vandalism to a halt. Thanks. ---Charles 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs. I don't have time to revert anything right now, though... Georgewilliamherbert 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:70.83.4.91 blanking vandalism warnings

User:70.83.4.91 has, on about eight occasions, removed vandalism and blankown warnings from his/her own talk page. This IP address has a history of vandalism on multiple pages and is attempting to hide this from others. Administrator intervention is required. Joeldl 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from their own talk page is not against policy. Naconkantari 04:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but:

• 1. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages says that it is "frowned upon". Template:Blankown states that these edits may be viewed as disruptive; and
• 2. More importantly, there is ample evidence that it is being done in order to facilitate further vandalism by preventing scrutiny. Knowing that somebody has previously made edits viewed as vandalism assists other editors in identifying nonsense or other inexplicable errors as vandalism. The majority of this user's edits have been of this kind. Something that is not against policy in general may well require intervention if it is done in the furtherance of something that is, such as vandalism. Joeldl 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• 3. The fact that the warnings have come from multiple, independent editors makes it unlikely that any objections the user has to the warnings are founded. Joeldl 04:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

An administrator can check the block log before blocking to see if there have been problems from the address in the past. Simply removing the warnings from the page may be a bit disruptive in the short term, but in the long run, it's just not worth wasting time over. Naconkantari 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore that guy, by reverting the warnings, you are giving him the attention he wamts. See WP:DENY. Only be concerned if he is really vandalizing articles. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo vandal update

As of this edit, this vandal is now targeting plastic surgery, I assume because drugs and prostitution, hag, Michael Prue and Cheri DiNovo are all sprotected. Natalie 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the link to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, although they might keep vandalizing it a different way. I've been thinking about the wisdom of anonblocking the IPs. Although the vandal claims to have a dynamic IP address, the same dozen addresses have been vandalizing the articles, so I think this claim is unlikely. Thoughts? Natalie 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL Compliant

I'm wondering if this website is following Wikipedia's copyright status, since they have not cited Wikipedia but just copied and pasted the contents in. I don't see them as being a mirror of Wikipedia since they only copied one article, but I think this needs attention. [86] as compared to a part of the Tennis#History history. --KZ ^talk 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see [87] Naconkantari 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Imdanumber1

This user, among other things, has repeatedly refused to clean up double redirects after moving pages. Can someone please advise? Thank you. --NE2 05:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted an notice here, because you are not so great of a character yourself. Admins, let me tell you about NE2. Ugh, this character is really frustrating to deal with. One of my wiki-friends spent the better part of last summer working on bus related nyct articles. He was working for transit, and he spent a lot of time looking around and taking pictures for the articles. He never reallly told people that. Then along came NE2. This character went through and systematically removed my, as well as contributions. He even accused him of becoming upset. He also accused me of nagging him to reach consensus, which is how we work around here.

This character is unreasonable and completely heartless. I can't put it any other way. He needs to be brought down to his place. Rest assured, I'm eagerly hoping that starting here, something can be done about him before it's too late. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to act in a more mature manner in your contacts with each other. WP:CIVIL applies both ways, and WP:AGF also is important. NE2, you know better. Imanumber1, further comments like "unreasonable and completely heartless" are completely inappropriate.

Treat each other like mature adults. And please clean up double redirects if you cause them. Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never meant to fall out of accordance with WP:CIVIL, and I'm sorry if I might have. I've just been caught up in a difficult situation with him for the past month, and it has got worse ever since. So right now, I've asked him to leave me alone. What else should I do? How am I supposed to treat him like a "mature adult" if he keeps on? Can you please help me?

It's not that big a deal on fixing a doub. redir. If he has caused you trouble, just avoid editing things that he edits. --KZ ^talk 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried and failed. Try dealing with him and see how much trouble he can do to any page. I have to keep an eye on him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit involved in this myself, having been the user who spent the better part of the summer working on the bus articles. For what it's worth, I think there's a lot of incivility going both ways. Imdanumber1 filed an RfC, but there really hasn't been any meaningful result. I've been called on to intervene, but I'm a little too busy with other administrative tasks to wade into this quagmire. Coincidentally, in response to your comment, Georgewilliamherbert, not all of the parties here are adults.

To summarize the conflict for others, it is a repeated skirmish across WP:NYCS articles. It's incredibly similar every time. NE2 will implement a change, typically removing sections of an article or renaming that article (naming conventions for subway stations are not agreed upon). Others will challenge him, and he'll respond harshly (such as the comments about me). NE2 will persist, not giving any ground. Eventually the issue will boil over into a more public venue (such as this page) or will die in talk pages. Inevitably, interest will fizzle and the issue will be dormant for a week or so. Then it'll happen again. I can see that happening again now.

I'm not quite sure what the best course for Wikipedia is. Although I admire some of NE2's goals (such as removing every single piece of information without attribution), I strongly question some of the techniques he uses to achieve them. NE2 has basically taken over WP:NYCS since he started editing subway related articles. That isn't bad, but his manner tends to hurt and alienate editors like imdanumber1. I can see that happening right here. I'd really like to see these debates happen without the inevitable hurt feelings I'm seeing from imdanumber1. Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) are both great contributors, and I'd hate to see either of them leave the project.

I think both parties need a cooling off period. I sincerely hope some type of mediation can happen here, and I'm going to suggest it to both of them. Cheers, alphachimp 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I think our interests are best served by them both taking several hours off. Imdanumber1 is hitting the hay, and NE2 does not appear to be editing. I really hope this will cool things off a little. alphachimp 06:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have opened several discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, including compiling Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/station names. I said there that I will not move any stations to what I believe to be the common names while the discussion is ongoing, and suggested that Imdanumber1 do the same. Yet he continues to "revert NE2's move rampage", and also has not fixed any of the double redirects he has created. When do we say "don't move any more pages until you fix your double redirects?" --NE2 07:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Itsnotacase (talk · contribs)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Itsnotacase. The account was created today and only had three edits but it seemed clear to me that this was a single purpose account from the edits it made. [88] [89] I would like to see if fellow Wikipedians agree with my issuing this block or whether it should be reduced. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just have a low tolerance for racism, but I'd have to say I endorse that block. Natalie 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block. That kind of editing can not be tolerated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs)

I would like to know what the proper channels are for filing formal complaints against two editors, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs). The problem started yesterday when ElKevbo (talk · contribs) started blanking the article on Capella University. Until then ElKevbo (talk · contribs) had not previously spent much, if any, time editing that article. I appropriately posted a request for assistance on this board after ElKevbo (talk · contribs) whitewashed the article twice.

The following demonstrate the whitewashing and blanking done by ElKevbo (talk · contribs)

Blanking [example 1 by ElKevbo ]

Blanking [example 2 by ElKevbo ]

Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) then jumped in and blocked me a second time based upon her totally false accusations that I was another user who went by the name of ShacOne (talk · contribs).

Instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, as both Bobak (talk · contribs) and I were attempting to do, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) decided to retailate even though other editors had warned him that his edits were innappropriate. As noted on that link ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was warned

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from controversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it doesn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, others felt the same as I did - ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was removing a significant amount of content without discussing it on the talk page and then lashed out at others because of what he had done.

Had ElKevbo (talk · contribs) bothered to check, especially since he had never edited the [Capella University] before he started blanking, he would have found that another user or users,

• Pizzaman0000,
• Pizzaman6233,
• 68.117.38.94, and
• 75.134.132.66

were engaged in numerous personal attacks directed at me. A simple review of the Capella University edit history will reveal many of those. Perhaps the most blantant example is when Pizzaman6233 stated, F you.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Pizzaman0000 was merely warned while I was blocked. Why?

It also needs to be pointed out that over the past 24 hours since I was blocked by ElKevbo (talk · contribs), other editors have also gone in and restored the content that he had blanked. Instead of the whitewashing that was going on, they also made appropriate edits without the hostility and vindictiveness displayed by ElKevbo (talk · contribs).

In light of the contentious nature of the problem the Capella University article has experienced in the past, the article should have been protected - something which has already happened twice in the past.

My final question, how do I file a formal complaint against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) with Widipedia? Both acted rashly without adequately examining the facts and they now behave as is they flexed've their muscles to prove their points - that certainly does not show a sincere effort, as ElKevbo puts it, to want to "extend a sincere offer to work with (with others) in a collegial manner." That is certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia editors. Shac1 08:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common for us to see this type of complaint. I suggest you try mediation first; there is currently no basis for opening a complaint. However, if you do, you can try filing a request for comment, but you will need another established user to back you up. Part Deux 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I noticed while submitting an unrelated 3RR violation, that ElKevbo's name had been inserted into the template. I removed it, but thought it worth mentioning. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a point of courtesy, you could inform me and ElKevbo that you have brought a complaint here. Natalie 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Natalie and Elkevbo should have been informed of this being here. You state Elkevbo blocked you, but your block log only shows blocks by Natalie and DESiegel. Natalie also unblocked you when she realized she'd been fooled by the imitator, an honest error I'm sure. Admins are humans, and hence not perfect. If you care to pursue, I'd suggest mediation too.Rlevse 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) should have also informed me of their intent to block me first. Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) jumped to conclusions, first and was only "informed" that "she'd been fooled by the imitator" when I pointed it out. As you state "Admins are humans, and hence not perfect." Other editors, such as myself, should also be given the same custosy - neither ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) did, in fact, they engaged in personal attacks and gloated about their blocking.Shac1 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, ElKevbo never blocked you. You were blocked by DESiegel for violating 3RR. When it appeared you were using a sockpuppet, I merely restarted the block. When it became apparent that this was an imitator and not, in fact, you, the block was lifted because your original 3RR block had expired. I'm really not sure what you want - I have already apologized and I fail to see what else I should do. Natalie 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you were in fact using a sockpuppet (arla364 (talk · contribs), as established by this checkuser. Natalie 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Proxyorg

This user Proxyorg first started to spam Proxy_list and ignore talk and warnings using ip addresses Special:Contributions/210.17.217.161 and Special:Contributions/210.17.220.40 and now is back with username Proxyorg contribs and continue to spam and ignore talk and warnings. Graciella 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for a block

24.190.154.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a school's IP address; it has been blocked four times, and someone claiming to be a pupil there (and an "administrator", though I'm not sure what that means here) – Elnerdo (talk · contribs) – left the following message on the Talk page:

==Please ban us==

If an administrator sees this, please ban our IP address from all editing of Wikipedia. We are a highschool in Northern New Jersey, and we have absolutely nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyone who has anything important to add to wiki already has an account. elnerdo 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that such a request would need to come from someone in authority at the school, not a pupil, and that even then I doubted that we'd be prepared to block an IP indefinitely. I just want to confirm that advice here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC we have blocked indefinitely such IPs in the past, but as you say as a result of formal requests from a responsible party (probably via OTRS) --pgk 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence gives me pause. I have to wonder if this really comes from a position of authority. Part Deux 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have my doubts (although he does say that he's a pupil with some position; the equivalent of a prefect?). We'd certaibnly not block it on his say-so.

On a related but different matter — I've just received this:

== i'm Sorry, but please block my IP address. ==

Hello Mel, I have tried every trick in the book to get booted from wikipedia editing and now i would just like to be blocked. This is my last request, so please consider this so that i'm not able to edit pages on wikipedia.

Thanks-

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that he has been living up to his User name, and couldn't have been far off being blocked anyway. Again, what's the correct response please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks, you aren't supposed to be able to request a block for yourself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, if you wanted to block him for something unrelated (which came to your attention after you started investigating the initial request), I think that'd be kosher. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, so the question's now moot. (I've always wondered by self-requested blocks aren't allowed; in this case, certainly, it would have mede sense.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou vs. User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali

For several months I have been subject to continuing abuse by vandals and sockpuppets who object to my edits and my extra-Wika politics relating to the Middle East. To date, some 160 sockpuppets of User:Runtshit have been indefinitely blocked for their libellous and abusive edits to over 130 different articles. In addition to abusive comments, these editors have been adding a link to a weblog set up for the sole purpose of spreading these and other defamatory comments. Following the intervention of several administrators, linking to this hate site has resulted in automatic bans for the perpetrators.

Now, for the first time, an established editor has repeated these libels and posted a link to the weblog. In the course of a dispute at Talk:Shimon Tzabar, User:Jaakobou appears to have trawled through the history of my edits, and has repeated a libellous accusation as fact, including posting the URL of the abusive weblog. Since he has clearly read the weblog, he cannot claim to be unaware of its libellous nature. And since he has studied my contributions history, he must be aware that scores of vandals have been banned for posting these false and defamatory allegations.

The posting of this material is a deliberate provocation. It is a clear and deliberate breach of WP:NPA. If allowed to go unremarked, it could encourage other editors to post such abusive material. I therefore request that User:Jaakobou be blocked for a suitable period in order to emphasise the serious and unacceptable nature of his behaviour. RolandR 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali have been making a tag-team effort and on numereous occassions stooped down to defamatory intonations and accusations with their tag-team reverting. this case was not much different as he accused me yet again (for the umpteenth time) for pushing my POV, an act that deserved a reply that he should quit doing so. after scores of situations where i was "against" a tag team revert effort while trying to make a normative contribution to wikipedia:

a few samples of insults/tag-team efforts:

1. "was in the article for several months until removed by POV editor"
2. Reverting tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits
3. "RonaldR, any valid reasoning for removal of criticism and POV change of "seperation wall" title ?"
4. cencorship of criticism per "politically-motivated"
5. "Removed hostile POV editsd"
6. Adam Keller warnings on RolandR talk page - part 1
7. Adam Keller mediation attempt i've made - refused by RolandR - personal attacks included: "this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."
8. warning on RolandR talk page per more personal attacks
9. earlier weasel terms warnining he removed from his talk page
10. "I wouldn't be too worried at User:Jaakobou's bluster. He constantly threatens and attempts to bully other editors who do not agree with his own POV" and a little extra sad taunting attempt.
11. Abu Ali, please help me out on Adam Keller
12. "tag team war reverting" warning recieves these: "He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously", "I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou" and the best attempt to give the tag-team revert an anti-jaako feel: "Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks."

I could go on and on with smaples of tag team wars by these two and POV pushing. this entire complaint by RolandR against me is the result of his incessant attacks on me which is the resut of a blatant tag-team warring style of editing preffered by the two over a proper talk page discussion debate. off course by now, he's contacted allready all of his other tag-team buddies to add libel against me... but guess who was first? (Abu Ali). evidence from the article of this initial report: a request by Lizrael for RonaldR to not force his opinion into the article, and a second request - both were ignored by RolandR and Abu Ali. The RonaldR attack - "My suspicion is that the deniers want to suppress the link altogether, in order to prevent Wikipedia readers from linking to its well-written and devastating critiques of Israel's behaviour.". obviously, i've had enough of the insinuations and the "hidden" nick-naming and i presented that he should stop calling me out on "POV charges" (claiming his view is neutral) cosidering that someone has even made a blog to honor his anti-israel POV. Jaakobou 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks by Jaakobou are irrelevant. The fact remains that he deliberately posted a link to a defamatory website, despite knowing that 160 sockpuppets had already been indefinitely blocked for the same offence. RolandR 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how would i know that 160 sockpupets posted it? i'm very sorry that you have sockpuppets chasing you, but i was only presenting that you are a POV editor and that you should stop accusing me with POV while claiming you're neutral. another note i wish to stress, is that you constantly claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce your POV onto articles. Jaakobou 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please do not POV the title of this incident ^{per this edit: [90]}. Jaakobou 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been made clear, perhaps User:Jaakobou will agree to not post the link again, and perhaps both of you will concentrate on the topic at hand rather than other editors. What does Abu Ali (talk · contribs) have to do with it? He hasn't edited for nearly a year. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for catching that, error fixed - User:Abu_ali what the correct username.

note: i was not the one reporting this "violation". Jaakobou 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then will you agree to not post the offending link? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of "posting" the offending link, it was placed (via ^[2] style) to validate my claim that a blog that celebrates his bias exits. To my defense, I am fairly tired of being attacked under "tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits" allegations by a tag-team that claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce their POV (bypassing 3RR) under the pretnece of neutrality... regardless, i wouldn't mind not reposting that link (when forced to mention it's existance).. but it would be only fair that user rolandR remove the warning from my page and in the future avoid statements such as "silly".."highly POV editor" and such. reverting should be left out and a discussion should be done properly... in fact, i'm surprized that this issue was not dealt with earlier. note: it would also be a good thing if he'd avoid removing my warnings from pages of other users and his own page also. Jaakobou 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, i was thinking of archiving this thread but you haven't answered Zzuuzz's question yet. Will you agree to not post the offending link? If yes, then we can move forward and archive this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}, as you can see from User:RolandR's reply, he has no attempt to consider other editors in a respectable manner (per "totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response", "I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid", etc.). I see no reasoning for me to post the link (and i don't intend to) but a reciprocal reaction would be the removal of the warnning and an honest attempt at resolving disputes without the tag-team reverts per "user is highly POV and untrue, pejorative and misleading" tactic. It's become a major hassle to deal with them every time we encounter a dispute. note: why do you place no regard to the tag team revert and disrespect issue? Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response. The link did not place itself; it was placed by Jaakobou, who himself repeated some of the libels from it. It is inconceivable that he can have looked at this site and not realised that it was libellous, abusive and offensive. I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid to recognise this. Nor can I believe that he was unaware that scores of other editors posting this link have been banned from Wikipedia. After all, he trawled through my contributions history to discover some that he could cite as examples of my point of view, so he will of course have seen the dozens of contributions relating to this, as well as the offensive edits made to the pages he looked at.

I have been battling for months to deal with this. Several other editors and administrators have wasted hours of their time removing these libellous edits and links from Wikipedia. Zzuuzz is aware of this, since he himself has dealt with this abuse on many occasions. A grudging and half-hearted undertaking not to repost the linbk is simply not good enough -- Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this.

Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations. I do not intend to dignify them with a response, except to note that it is a lie to claim that I have removed his "warnings" from user pages other than my own. RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placeing the attention at the root. i could care less about some people hassling you about your views. I do care about the blatent disrespect you're repeatedly showing. you're the one jumping on the first thing you can in an attempt to ban me. Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

recent personal attacks

Please see RolandR's talk page to see Abu ali's subtle personal attacks against me. It's a repeated phenomena that's difficult to work on articles with; a duo that says they "must be doing something right" after they see they have, to put it bluntly, pissed me off. when noted that this personal attack is frowned upon, RonaldR ignored the note and reverted it back. Jaakobou 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page, removing a message from User:Abu ali. He accuses me above of removing his messages from other users talk pages, and now he does himself what he falsely alleges that I have done. This too is unacceptable behaviour. Is there any way to block him from my talk page? RolandR 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it while ignoring my notice that this personal attack is frowned upon^{quick link}. Jaakobou 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Joestella and continuing disruptive behaviour

A user User:Joestella is not getting his way in a couple of current AfDs, especially one at this link. Checking out WT:AUSPOL and also Talk:The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that he is in a minority of users on a list of subjects and has a habit of pushing controversial ideas onto the rest (he even brags about this on his user page). He tried to have a user page deleted which disagreed with him. Then a few days ago, he blanked an FA at South Australian general election, 2006 because he didn't like it (this is covered here), fought consensus and reverted/editwarred almost to the point of 3RR all the way until the page was protected (which it still is), then started work on a POV fork from it to stop it from getting deleted, and now is modifying votes on the AfD that disagreed with his. This is utterly unacceptable. DanielT5 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Anil Kr Gupta linkspam

Can admins please look through the contribs of Anil Kr Gupta (talk · contribs). He's added links around Wikipedia to what seems to be his personal site (see his userpage), and looks like he's been warned for it before. If he continues to add links to his website it may be time to consider sanctions stricter than an external linkspam warning. – Chacor 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Annrex

Resolved

 – User blocked. – Michaelas¹⁰ 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Annrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Possible troll. So far single-purpose account, insistently posting some off-topic rant about the Polish Wikipedia to WP:AN. User pages says on wikibreak but has only just arrived. Unacceptable licencing at Image:Coapon.JPG - "The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited to use this file and its derivatives". Can anyone shed any light on this? Block or not? --kingboyk 12:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a WP:POINT upload if I ever saw one. No wonder they blocked him on the other project. Part Deux 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Take him out. He started with a weird rant and turned it into a troll. --Golbez 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse an indefblock. User has joined in an attempt to rant about the Polish Wikipedia, while assuming bad-faith of the administrators. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

User:Wikipedia is Communism

He went through the Navajo encyclopaedia doing his usual dealie [91] - I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to say anything, but I don't speak Navajo. WilyD 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, did he do that to the main page? Yikes. I reverted it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hit the Rumanian wiki too: [92]. I'm reverting them now. Part Deux 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WilyD 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else would like to help, you can see the list of vandalized pages at [93]. I don't time to fix them all. Part Deux 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Navajo wiki. --Golbez 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you see rampant vandalism on a small wiki, report to #wikimedia-stewards, we can fix this much easier with our tools. MaxSem 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly easier may be more appropriate actually. Prodego ^talk 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Communism Vandal. He use to go around just blanking pages and putting the image of the Hammer and Sickle with the caption "Wikipedia is Communism". One of the better known habitual vandals out there.--Jersey Devil 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does he have an agenda? Does he really belive that 'wikipedia is communism'? And if so... Why? ThuranX 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – IP blocked. – Michaelas¹⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block this guy (and revert/sprotect talk page) before I go insane trying to revert him? For that matter, perhaps you could sprotect the AFD he's going for. Part Deux 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours by Redvers. Please report to WP:AIV any additional vandalism blocks you would like to be made. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

67.140.169.240 (talk · contribs)'s edits are pleasant. Corvus cornix 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Babcock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was recently issued a block warning by Durova for self-promotional COI editing, but has ignored warning and is continuing behavior. RJASE1 ^Talk

And now he has an obvious sockpuppet - PGG6327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RJASE1 ^Talk 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Davesmith33

This user is edit warring at the Top Gear (current format) article in regards to a.. wait..... dog. Dave believes that this dog is a star, but has presented no verifiable source and is in "violation" of consensus on the talk page against the addition. Secondly the user is also warring at Template:Infobox Television in regards to a redundant (disputed) parameter s/he has added with no discussion. Matthew 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked by Gwernol for 3RR violation. Matthew 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ararat arev

The sockpuppets and Ips of this banned user is causing a constant 3RR violation on the article Turkey. Which was semi-protected to stop the trouble. However he is now using sleeper accounts to cause heavy disruption and harmfully break The three revert rule daily. I suggest a WP:RFCU and a full scale community warning. I have brought this to the attention of admins as it appears to be getting full scale out of hand. Retiono Virginian 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User vandalizing the Hispanic article

Hi,

User:Burgas00 has been repeatedly removing entire sections from the article Hispanic. He is mainly obsessed with the section Hispanic#Racial diversity. Here you have some of his actions:

1.- He deleted a whole section that had been there for months and where tens of users have contributed. It was full of references and it had been discussed for long in the talk page. He did not obtain any consensus to remove it:

1 → "Racial diversity - I think this section is useless. It is quite evident from the rest of the article that Hispanics are an ethnicity not a race. This section contributes nothing to the article"

2.- The section he deleted was re-added. Now, he deletes a half of it. Someone re-added this piece of content that he had deleted, some time later:

2 → "Racial diversity - This bit is random, irrelevant and very lame. I think the whole section should go, but if not, at the very least this bit should dissapear"

3.- He deletes the whole history section where lots of users contributed, and all the small sections that talk about the Hispanics from Spain, again with sarcastic comments:

3 → "Cutting down stuff which is not relevant to the article on hispanics. Whats all this stuff about "The historical mistake"?????"

4.- He deletes, again, the section of the racial diversity:

4 → "Racial diversity - I'm erasing this section which is just garbage.Someone please rewrite a short coherent section rather than this rambling collection of users' personal issues"

5.- Again, he deletes the section of Racial Diversity:

5: → "Racial diversity - This section is shady racial politics. It is not acceptable..."

6.- And finally his last edit, copy pasting an entire section from the Spanish People while removing already existing pharagraphs in the Racial Diversity section:

6 → "Racial diversity - Copy pasting from Spanish people article... I still think this section is not necessary"

I think that some admin should say something to him, since me and other users have already told him not to do so in the Talk:Hispanic (check this part of the discussion, for example). Thanks. Onofre Bouvila 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution that-a-way. Viridae^Talk 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements

I have speedy deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements under CSD general criteria #1, absence of meaningful content. It was a bit of fun while it lasted, but I think the time has come to zap it. I won't wheelwar over it should anybody think I have overstepped the mark and I trust people understand that this is a good faith action. W"e have an encyclopedia to build" &c. --kingboyk 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this fits G1, it is not Patent Nonsense. I ,ight well have supportd deeltion at WP:MFD however, so i won't undel. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I confess I might have stretched the criterion somewhat :), whilst being totally transparent here and knowing that many admins knew of the page and could (and still can) easily undelete if they please. --kingboyk 17:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules are that we have to waste our time with this at MfD, so unless there are objections, I'll be restoring it and sending there (because otherwise, there's likely to be even more wastes of time talking about it here, endlessly). Who is('nt) with me!? El_C 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of that if it's for the sake of process and process only. What would it achieve? Wouldn't it be best to wait and see if anybody actually wants it kept first? Then by all means, send it to MFD, because it was a questionable deletion per process. Avoiding timewasting over such a triviality was, of course, and as you probably realise from your statement, the intention in the first place. A few comments here and hopefully forget about it would be easiest. --kingboyk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll only restore it if anyone wants it kept for reasons other than procedural ones. El_C 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it speedied. I was a regular contributor to the ill-fated project, too :) It's served its purpose and had always been slightly POINTy - Alison^☺ 17:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that made me smile more than the project did, I have to admit :) --kingboyk 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what it was, so it's hard to make any sort of distinction at this point since I can't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke WikiProject offering to endorse RFA candidates. --kingboyk 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Kelly Martin seriously propose it as an RfA criteria, or have I been misinformed? El_C 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly was seriously proposing "endorsement by a WikiProject" as an RfA criterion; this project was a joke reaction to that proposal, being created for the sole purpose of handing out such endorsements to any and all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've never been a member of any wikiproject and yet she supported my adminship, but that was then! El_C 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ach, I can't believe I missed the whole show. That was a fine joke (one that I would have loved to participate in), but Kingboyk made the right call. A Train^talk 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to keep it ... let sleeping dogs lie. While amusing, it was also a little mocking. -- Pastordavid 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize no one is suggesting keeping it; the question was about whether MfD or a speedy was appropriate. A Train^talk 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gitraffe

I have blocked Gitraffe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Block is up for review. The users contributions are quite bizzare, and I have a feeling that he may be a banned user trolling again. In his first few edits, he threatened Dab and Hornplease. His latest edit was also a weird one. See [94]. I thought about this and then finally blocked him for trolling. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Clearly a troll, transparent sockpuppet. – Steel 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator but shouldn't requests for community bans etc go to the community noticeboard?.Tellyaddict^Talk 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has community banned anyone. – Steel 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti

I wish to file harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti, who have been tracking my articles and deleting as many as they can find. They usually cite "lack of notability".

Prior to mid-March, 2007, I had had only two articles out of several hundred killed. Since mid-March, with dhartung and iridescenti, usually following dhartung, I have had nearly twenty articles removed. A number were suddenly deleted. Several were deleted, and I did not find out for several days later.

I will focus on the following seven articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malouf_Abraham%2C_Jr. Malouf Abraham of Canadian, Texas, is a retired physician and art collector. He is building a $7 million art museum in Canadian. He has also underwritten the Abraham Art Museum on the campus of Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, TX. I have over a dozen references. Dhartung wrote in condescension: "Successful allergist who knows a bunch of important people, apparently. Otherwise non-notable. Dhartung". Dhartung does not take into consideration that Dr. Abraham is building a $7 million art museum in a small town in the Texas Panhandle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_A._Bickley

Bickley was one of the founders of Denver City, Texas, in 1939-1940, the last TX oil "boom town." The town library bears his name. He gave an oral history interview with Texas Tech. When this article was posted, the editor put it under "Did You Know" about Bickley being a founding father of Denver City. It was found missing from Wikipedia without explanation on April 13, 2007. Dhartung wrote: "Delete per nom. I'm tempted to speedy it, as I don't consider being named 'outstanding citizen' is really much of an assertion of notability. Otherwise, it's just a nice obituary. Accomplishment is not notability." Dhartung did not check to see that this article was cited by DYK just two weeks earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_H._Long

Long was a member of the Louisiana Long dynasty who did NOT run for office. In Louisiana, just being a visible Long makes one "notable." Dhartung wrote: "Just being a member of the Long family is not, by itself, notability." But Dhartung is not from Louisiana: in Louisiana Longism is notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_P._Hebert

Hebert was an elected member of city council of a city of more than 45,000 population. He was a star college baseball player and an engineer who developed a type of sewer pipe. Iridescenti wrote: "The highest office he attained was Streets Commissioner for a small (pop 50000) town. Plus, in light of the creator's history this is probably a copyvio from somewhere. - iridescenti). Iridescenti accused he of plagiarism, and there is no plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Boyce

Boyce was the STATE chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party from 1972-1976. He was also a Baton Rouge philanthropist. He is easily notable. State chairman is an ELECTED position, not from voters, but from the elected members of the 144-member Republican State Central Committee. Dhartung wrote: "Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level.". Boyce was not "local" but state. Guidelines say "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office . . . This could easily be interpreted to include state party chairmen, who are elected, or even county chairmen, who are also elected in many situations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_E._Bennett

Bennett was a professor active in his profession and often quoted in his local media. He was an elected member of his county school board. When this article was first posted in December 2006, there was objection. The article survived the test at the time. Then it vanished from Wikipedia on April 9, 2007, with no notice to me. (Dhartung did not participate in this deletion.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_Dunn

Mr. Dunn was a Portales, NM, business and civic leader with an impressive World War II record, which was rejected as establishing notability. He was the subject of several articles in the Clovis newspaper. His death was carried by the McClatchey newspapers and placed in nearly all newspapers in the West.(Dhartung had the secondary role in deletion of this article.)

I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality.

Billy Hathorn 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The length of this notice is excessive; please rephrase, aiming at greater concision. El_C 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: dhartung and iridescenti are Wikistalking me because they say to delete my articles. Anyway, to respond to that, I notice that the result of each AfD you mention is delete. Maybe they are right? -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of AfD is that it's just not one person's opinion. If someone is consistently adding articles that don't meet guidelines, then of course many of their articles will go to AfD, but at that point it becomes a matter of consensus from multiple parties. MSJapan 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan has explained it perfectly. The majority of the editors discussing your articles at AfD agree with dhartung and iridescenti, so perhaps you should rethink how you're approaching this problem. A Train^talk 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletions, please aim it to deletion review. Accusing other users of stalking you will not achieve anything, especially in case the community agrees with their actions. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have not nominated articles Hathorn has authored that indisputably meet notability, such as politicians elected to public office at the statewide level or above. In my comment here I state, "Hathorn is skilled at using Wikipedia tools and knows a bit about house style. And it's great that we can have holes filled like Lieutenant Governors and State Senate Majority Leaders. If only we could get these skills turned toward helping the encyclopedia in a way that is acceptable to the community, this would not be as sour a process." I truly wish, Billy Hathorn, that you would do so. These borderline locally-famous people that you've cited above as evidence of improper deletion are all cases that you are welcome to take to deletion review. I'm certainly willing to accept community consensus at either AFD or DRV on any given nomination. But I'd rather you just didn't create these dubious articles in the first place, and I -- and other editors -- are very uncomfortable with the extent to which you use your own unpublished academic writings as a source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, of the seven AfDs you cite, I participated in a grand total of three of them, and was not the nominator for a single one of them. You appear to think that myself & Dhartung have some kind of magic delete-power; I'm not a sysop and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Dhartung. Each of those AfD discussions resulted in a Delete decision by an admin (and not only that, a different admin each time). As per Amarkov, ever if we were stalking you, if the articles didn't warrant deletion the closing admins would close them as keep, even if everyone !voted to delete. I also must point out that on one of those AfD's you cite as proof of our 'hostility', neither myself or Dhartung made any comment whatsoever. As for your comment that "I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality", I don't know about Dhartung's edit history but to the best of my knowledge I have never edited one of your articles in any way, 'hostile' or not. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonaparte trolling again

Someone please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/219.87.129.180 for being an open proxy and block this reincarnation of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He 3RRed anyway. Thanks, --Irpen 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:NEMT again

Please refer Archive 176 as well as the user's talk page and contrib history for previous incidents. He's now taken to creating bizarre redirects such as daymoon to sun (a quick websearch reveals no connection between the two). A trawl through his history will bring up a few more. I've just about given up watchlisting this user, it's by time he be given a lengthy ban for this puerile vandalism which wastes other editors' time having to police. Don't bother discussing with him, he will just wikilawyer and become non-responsive as previous discussions have proven. I hereby wash my hands of this case (and if it's not taken care of I'll probably wash my hands of Wikipedia too, editing here is just getting TOO tiresome to be worthwhile). Cheers. Zunaid©® 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou

Based on Steve Dufour's statements about Scientology Finance on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scientology_Finance, Misou put up a speedy deletion template [95], which was removed by another user. Then Steve Dufour put it back [96]. I removed the template because it has nothing to do with living persons, nor does it fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. It looks to me that they want to get rid of the aricle for POV reasons.--Fahrenheit451 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University Article Request for Protection

There is now a another new user, Fizzleoneseven who has just shown up and is blanking the article on Capella University. The article needs to be protected.Shac1 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: requests for page protection. Natalie 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The account is a self-evident sock. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RM vote spamming

I'm not sure if the user in question knew about Wikipedia:Canvassing, but could someone please check out Special:Contributions/Paparokan and let me know what they think? He appears to be spamming all the Turkish editors in order to get an article moved. Someone should probably rollback all the spamming and possibily speedy close the requested move, as it appears that the changes of a consensus being reached at this point are null. Khoikhoi 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted most with popups and left a note on Paparokan's talk page. --Iamunknown 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Waheedmiah vandalism at Craig Winn

This user, who apparently has edited with the following AOL IP addresses: 172.188.13.28, 172.189.25.83, 172.159.97.14 is repeatedly adding link-spam type of vandalism and violation of WP:BLP at Craig Winn. This user has been very persistent despite several warnings. [97] [98] [99].

Please help with a course of action for this un-relenting vandal. --ProtectWomen 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

trolling for young people

Defender of fantasy creatures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Finding out about spirits, which asks people between 10 and 16 who believe in spirits and monsters to contact him/her via email. What should we do in a situation like this? Assume good faith that it's a dumb kid, or indef block and disable account creation? — coelacan — 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I've blanked the page to start with while we discuss it - can an admin delete the actual page? It could be very innocent and a kid but frankly I'd rather not take that chance. In regards to the user, someone should drop by the page for a chat. --Fredrick day 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a ban. In situations like this it might be better to contact the arbitration committee. — MichaelLinnear 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the Foundation? This is not something the Arbitration Committee handles. NawlinWiki has deleted the article but not blocked the user... either didn't read the content (I had tagged it as G1 and Fredrick blanked it already) or NawlinWiki didn't think it was blockworthy. — coelacan — 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Instantnood was banned for a month a few days ago for using four different sockpuppets to avoid blocks, page bans, and subject matter bans after repeated ArbCom sanctions. He's back today as User:Pointe. Assistance please. SchmuckyTheCat 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrigible it seems. — MichaelLinnear 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Instantnood's record, but if it's clear to others that this new user is the same editor then I'll be glad to block the account for a WP:POINTE violation. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Creation of bunches of "of mainland China" categories, demanding singular interpretations of "China", re-categorization of Hong Kong, and doing it all in a massive spree. SchmuckyTheCat 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Harvardy userpage vandalism, further comments

The archived discussion relevant to the incident that I reported yesterday, now contains a new comment here. Thanks.Doktor Who 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)