Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kotepho (talk | contribs) at 06:02, 5 June 2007 (→GFDL: You can't rename the section entitled history from one document to something else and make a new one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Removal of RS sources

    After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

    There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.


    [1]

    Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

    When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)
    Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.
    User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[2] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.
    Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

    And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

    And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talk • contribs).
    Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?
    Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If no non-partisan media are willing to cover such details of a conflict which is on the news all around the world each time there is a skirmish, then I would doubt that they are at all neutral. In any case, see things like The mission statement of Tamilcanadian "Our humble attempt is to broadcast to the world our struggle to preserve and save our culture from the Sri Lankan government's campaign of genocide against the Tamil people." and Tamil Nation] to see what their agenda is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", still there are articles which have been sourced using anti-rebel sources as WP:RS. Those who are willing to remove Tamil-Centric souces using as WP:RS for the events purported by the State Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the Tamil areas where the International Press is in total isolation, are keeping silent to the usage of anti-rebel sources as WP:RS in various articles. Whether Blnguyen has failed to see those articles or he has biased view towards the persecution of the Tamil community in the Sri Lanka to be exposed to the world is not still clear. But his vesak wishes to his friends [3][4] who are adamantly against the view there is a State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, is giving some view of his biased nature and will only lead to a RFC against him subsequently.Lustead 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    None of the articles from which I questioned the TNet, TNat, TC websites: Mylanthanai massacre, 1990 Batticaloa massacre, Akkaraipattu massacre, Eastern University massacre, Kokkadichcholai massacre, Sarathambal, Ilayathambi Tharsini or Krishanti Kumaraswamy had Sinhalese groups' references to anywhere the same extent as the Tamil ones, contrary to what RS says. And it says that these sources are only good for presenting the POV of the said groups, not for rock solid statistics etc. It is you who is the single topic editor here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you declared yourself Buddhist and made come into contact with me previously, I would have given you a message as well.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamilnet does not file false data, there are serious non Indian and Sri Lankan researchers such as from the United States and Australia who have studied this news site. For example for archived version of the research paper on this see this. Read it in full before making any comments. I can provide more such research papers. I am not arguing that Tamicanadian is a RS source, so let us not confuse the matter here. The discussion here is only about Tamilnet as I said I will take it all the way because I am sure we will prevail at the end when neutral uninvolved Wikipedians see the arguments on both sides not any one belonging to a cabal or faction with and axe to grind.
    Tamilnet passes RS because
    • 1. It has an editorial board
    • 2. It has an editor
    • 3. It reviews its news reports for accuracy
    • 4. It is used as a primary source by notable media
    organizations such as BBC and CNN (just to name a few) to report on information that is generally censored information in Sri Lanka.
    5. It is used as a source by notable Human Rights groups such as Asian Human Rights Commission and HRW (just to name a few)
    To arbitrarily remove very important information that is particularly important for Sri Lanka conflicted is tantamount censoring information in Wikipedia. By claiming most information is covered by BBC and CNN.because it is not true at all.
    For example in the Sarathambal rape and murder case, some one arbitrarily removed Tamilnet source which says that number of important dignitaries including number of majority Sinhalese attended her funeral. That information is not available in BBC or CNN. But that piece information humanizes the Sinhalese people that although it was a Sinhalese person who is suspected of raping and murdering this minority Tamil women other Sinhalese were equally upset about. That piece of information makes the article neutral other wise the article will be completely one sided. To remove Tamilnet from that article now makes it a non neutral one from a neutral stable article.
    Then there was a claim that it was a blog ? There was a claim that it was a partisan website ? That it was a lobby group ? Now all this is personal opinion without any credible citations.
    I think people simply jump to conclusions without doing serious research. Let us continue this discussion to its logical conclusion. Thanks Taprobanus 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't neutral anyway. Some of those articles were 80% TN sourced and the rest mostly HRW or AI. Yes, that tripod site is a random website. and the Socialist News is clearly self-declared as partisan. Just because something is a primary source doesn't mean it is reliable. A political journalist gets info from politicians and bureaucrats speaking anonymously. Does that mean that rumours spread by a politician's secretary become RS and can be taken as real statistics? And you are talking about people with an axe to grind when you know full well my ethnicity and the fact that you are an activist.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any source to back up the allegation that Tamilnet is not a reliable source? Partisan view can never be a parameter in deciding RS. For example, there are hundreds of articles in wikipedia which uses *karnataka* web sites which present kannad-centric views and obviously very partisan. Let's not get into the quality of these websites. Anyways, a simple search in google provided me with these sources.
    A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.
    "It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product."[1] here is the link
    Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point out that Kasun Ubayasiri is an Australian of Sri Lankan majority Sinhalese extraction which makes his point of view even more credible. His reaserch papers have appread in may scholarly jourmnals. Thanks 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    <deindent>I can't believe that any editor would even suggest that Taminet is a reliable source. Plain and simple, every single news organization that refers to a report from Tamilnet, Reuters [5], AP [6], Xinhua [7], AFP [8] etc etc all call Tamilnet a pro-LTTE website. So does even the BBC [9] ("Tamilnet, the pro-Tamil Tiger website"). The only reason reports from Tamilnet are quoted in international media is that Tamilnet is considered the official news website of the LTTE[10], just like reports by Baghdad Bob were widely quoted by international media.

    To give a few examples, Tamilnet sometimes reports incidents before they actually "happened" [11]. Two weeks ago Tamilnet published a bogus news item containing material from an alleged "interview" with the Bishop of Jaffna, one of the highest ranking religious leaders in Sri Lanka. The Bishop later completely denied he even spoke to Tamilnet, saying "Hence I deny totally the report ascribed to me by the Tamil Net"[12].

    I simply don't see any reason for this argument to continue. No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency. Regarding it as a RS for Wikipedia articles would be simply ridiculous, and there should be no two ways about that. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No one - apart from the LTTE and it's supports - consider Tamilnet a credible news agency Admins please take note ofthe above WP:ATTACK on wikipedia editors who are trying resolve this matter by amicable discussion. Thanks Taprobanus 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because these news sites call Tamilnet a pro rebel website does not mean that the website fail RS. Also I can remember many protests against BBC for giving one sided information on the LTTE. So if you want to look at it that way then I guess that BBC also a unreliable source. For example- BBC reported that they had credible evidence that shows that the LTTE was running the credit card fraud in UK. However, they failed to show the "Credible" evidence. Furthermore the UK police them self have said that they have NO evidence linking LTTE to these fraud. Does this mean the BBC is not to be used in the SL related articles ? Does that mean that BBC is not a RS ? This argument brings about 2 debates. 1) Since the BBC has made false news blaming LTTE then how can we take their word on Tamilnet being pro rebel. 2) Since BBC has done this sort of biased coverage they can be considred Biased against the LTTE. So does that mean that BBC should not be used as RS ? Also as I have said above other sources have been crammed into wikipedia which are considred Anti rebel. So if thats sites are allowed to be used then why not Tamilnet (playing the devil's advocate) even if its pro rebel ? - watchdogb
    Also the story about Bishop of Jaffna is not exactly as Snowulf puts it. Their title was wrong but the story is right. A close associate of the bishop told Tamilnet these stories. Tamilnet went on to say that they made a mistake and that they will change the title. They even made a article on this.

    Section break

    I believe i've had heard enough arguments from both sides and at at least i can have my own judgment now. I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:

    • TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)
    • Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced. Please read the next point.
    • Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. (source: RS/Examples).
    • The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry..We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.
    • I am a Moroccan and i use to edit Western Sahara related articles and i've never attempted to claim that the pro-Polisario (the Saharaoui separatist group)arso.org website is unreliable. We use it as a reference in many related articles. Is it biased? Have they lied? Yes, definetely but who and which is not? Many times and the lies have been mainly reported by foreign and NGO media. Has Moroccan newpapers lied? Yes, of course and in many occasions. THEY ALL LIE sometimes, if not all the time. Let me add this to you. Recently Morocco blocked access to YouTube. I was the one who first added the information to [Human rights in Morocco] article. Why it has been blocked? Well, one of the speculations is that Morocco didn't want some videos about abusing rights of some Saharawi students to be available for Moroccan public. Ummm!!!! Than which side is unreliable here? The state owned media or the partisan media who could publish videos of the abuses on YouTube? I am sorry but in this case i SHOULD consider YouTube as reliable and kick the garbage of the other side out of my scope.
    • I used also to work on the article about ETA, the Basque separatist group. Everyone knows about the group but only a few would know about Gara. Well, Gara in simple words is the loudly mouth of ETA. Gara newspaper has had the habitof publish/announcing terrorist attacks executed by ETA hours before they occur. It is not only considered biased but it considered to be part of ETA, and therefore a terrorist newspaper according to their opponents (mainly the Spanish gov't) though nothing is sure or otherwise it would have been shut down as they did w/ Egin. Still, we use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia as media outlets around the word do. Do we have any dispute tag on the ETA-related articles? No. Are they protected? No.
    • NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COI of Taprobanus

    Taprobanus used to contribute under "RaveenS". In his old sandbox, he declares himself to be RaveenS. In his self bio, it shows that he contributes to Tamil Canadian and some other Tamil websites. A google brings up things like this on TamilCanadian and TamilNation. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannot come with a comprehensive argument so go after the contributer, shows the caliber of argument. I have contributed to both sides of the conflict in Sri Lankan conflict. Tamilcanadian, Sangam.org for the pro-Tamil side and Asian Tribune and The Island newspaper for the pro Sri Lankan government side. Infact my biggest contributions have been to the Asian Tribune news website which is very much anti-LTTE news site. The editor himself is good friend of mine and was dissapointed because I stopped contributing after sI began to contribute to Wikipedia. So just because I have a minor history of contribution to both sides of the conflict (which has been ignored by User:Blnguyen in his arguments) I have a COI ? Although effort has been made to confuse what we are discussing, I need to point out that we are not talking about Tamilcanadian here. The argument is about Tamilnet. I am encouraged by the comments

    Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account

    by Nearly Headless Nick {C}. That shows when really neutral non involved editors take a look at this newssite, including editors of BBC, CNN and other major organizations, they decide to use it as it publishes verfiable information. Again we have come to a conclusion about Tamilnet in this ANI. Thanks Taprobanus 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also considering that he's been pushing for these sources(Tamilcanadian, tamilnation etc) in scores of articles he's edited makes it an even more acute case of COI. Also in his message to me here, he admits to being emotionally invested in these articles. He claims that he hasnt let it seep into his editing and that nobody has ever complained, but a look at this discussion and the talk pages of several articles and editors suggests otherwise. Not to mention, he himself has admitted to 'COI' earlier in this very discussion. Sarvagnya 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because he has written a few articles doesn't make him to view, he has some Conflict of Interest over those on-line media until otherwise he is trying to use his own articles as WP:RS or have some Editorial Capacity in those media and bring them as WP:RS.Lustead 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Raveen's exact words were
    "Before his addiction to Wikipedia, he used to contribute to Asian Tribune.com, Sangam.org and Tamilnet.com among other e-magazines and Blogs, but since then he has stopped contributing."
    Misquoting to suit one's needs?
    Please do not use COI to gain upper hand in POV disputes. Thanks. Praveen 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you must, please take it to COI notice board. Praveen 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we all know why some people are so insisting having racist crap sites like, tamil nation,tamil net,tamil canadian as WP:RS here. First I thought people are just kidding as even a small kid reading those crap sites would know its merely comical to have them here in Wikipedia. But I guess its not, for the contributors to those sites.Iwazaki 会話。討論 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iwazaki, i am afraid to disagree w/ your opinion. My reason is that when someone says racist crap, s/he should back h/is allegations w/ fatcs. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayssal my good Moroccan friend,here in this case there are no evidence, that's the sad truth. Just go through those web-sites , then you would know how childish are those sites. How racists are those web-sites. And that's exactly why all the media which quote from those sites explicitly say tamil net is pro-LTTTE !! I am not sure how that makes tamil net a neutral source. And for user.raveen, we don not know whether he is contributing to those sites even now, but evidence shows that probability is quite high .And thats may be why, he wants to have those as valid sources here.Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just can't be unfair to anyone. "No evidence is needed" is alarming. Please, just get some. If there are none, then there are none. If we are going to focus on bold text then i have this: denense.lk is pro-x gov't!!. Nick has just said that the website was censured while he was browsing. Who blocked the access to the site? I am a Moroccan and when i talked about my youtube story (including the censorship of my own gov't) i was rational. It just happened yesterday to Nick. Does the Srilankan gov't follow this thread? If yes, then i shall give them my satute. In wikipedia, we got BALANCE. Somewhere else? i just don't care. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayssal ,I don't think you fathom what I said, or may be I should have been more coherent. There are tons of evidences to show they are pro-tamil pro-LTTE.. Check out every media,CNN BBC or whatever, they call these web-sites PRO-LTTE.. And why they call them like that? Because that's what they are, extremely pro-LTTE sites !! I was saying no-evidence to refer counter arguments against tamil net.Let me be clear this time, there are no evidence to prove tamil net(or other tamil something sites) are neutral. These are inherently bias sites, nothing else!And how do you know the site got censored by the GOSL ? A site can be temporarily closed for various reasons, I have no doubt that you also aware of this. There is actually no need to censor those sites as they have done enough harm by engaging extrme pro-LTTE stance.To keep a good balance in Wikipedia we need valid,good sources, not some pro-LTTE crap sites like tamil net.Iwazaki 会話。討論 06:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IF tamilnet is not considred as a NPOV site it does not matter. Why ? According to wikipedia rules you have to give the same weight to all sources. I have seen editors used Asian Trubune is anti rebel site in many article. They have also used South Asiah Terrorist portal is anti rebel. These sources do not even have an editorial board. I think those sites fail WP:RS badly yet they are here on wikipedia. Since these sources have allready been used in wikipedia then why not use Tamilnet ? Do you want to have POV articles ? Watchdogb 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    A cursory look at these websites acertains that they are advocacy websites of some kind. Tamilnet.org got closed just as I was browsing through it. Perhaps some of their verifiable comments can be taken into account, while giving due respect to WP:UNDUE; otherwise, most of them look like propoganda sheets. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So whats your thought about users using sites like SATP and Asian Tribune ? If Tamilnet fails RS then SATP and Asian Tribune would fail RS 2times as hard. So before talking nonsence go take a close look at the contribs you have made with those sites. Also its not propaganda sheet. Please do some real rescarch on tamilnet and if you would like go ahead and read the article thats allready here on wikipedia. Watchdogb 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn’t see the following media as propaganda machinery as they are covering wide variety of news coverage,
    and by giving importance to Dravidian Art, Architecture,Culture, Dance and Music.
    If some one wants to say randomly they are propaganda sheets, he or she should discuss here in detail.
    Note: Beacaue they are covering Tamil Eelam news doesn’t make them propaganda sheets.Lustead 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of privacy and endagengering my life

    As the civil conflict in Sri Lankak got worse during the last 1 year I have progressively requested Wikipedia admins to change my user name from RaveenS to Taprobanus for privacy reason. I also asked a Wikipedia admin to delete contents in the User page RaveenS that showd my full name because of privacy concerns. Both were done, to retrive these information must be misuse of admin authority? People in Sri Lanka or those who visit Sri Lanka are killed regularly for having an opinion that may be considred to be different than the government. This has been documented by Amnesty International, RSF and Human Rights Watch. User:Blnguyen beacuse of his conflict with me has now published information that may lead to my death because of my contribution to Wikipedia that may be offensive to the government of Sri lanka. I want wikipedia admins to take a good look at his behaviour based on this simple violation of privacy as well as putting the life of a fellow Wikipedian in danger.

    Also as these sources indicate[13],[14] most of the Journalists in Sri Lanka contribute under duress when their views are different from who ever is in power. Many internationally known contributers such as Taraki, Mylvaganam Nimalrajan and Richard De Soyza have been murdered by government proxies. RSFsee here has documented countless other murders of anyone suspected of being a Journalist with a different point of view during the last 20 years of civil conflict. All this evidence put together and the flippant decision by an admin to out me, my personal information when I had done everything to remove such information from wikipedia has to be investigated. Thanks Taprobanus 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any violation of privacy here. Blnguyen got the info from your subpage. If you want him to stop then you only have to delete that subpage. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a computer expert, this sub page used to be the starting point for my personal page which I requested to be deleted the comment was too much personal information. Then I blanked the sub page thinking the information is gone. So my intentions are very clear, to protect myself from privacy concenrs. Then I changed my name from RaveenS to Tapbrobanus again the comment was wanting to remove too much information associted with real name. All pointing a wikipedian wanting to be able to contribute without being associated with real name. The intentions are very clear. The admin in question because I requested to him to discuss with me via wiki process how we can resolve the difference of opinion he had with me regarding one source Tamilnet began a pattern of going after articles that I have created, it sort of stopped with the ANI finding. Now he is going after some pictures I uploaded and marking them with various violations (they are legitimate) but he is not informing me of all his findings in my talk page as the template requets. He has now shown to be fishing for personal information about me by going through my sandbox very many levels below where they are all indicating WP:STALK very least if not other violations. This is issue is not black and white as to whether the information was out there or not. There is some Grey involved as I am not a computer expert and I have made my intention to remain private known to Wikipedia as an instituition. This is potentially a life and death issue for me because my intentions were very clear as I changed my name and deleted my user page information that has been fished out by a Wikipedia Admin. Thanks Taprobanus 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not mean to put your life in danger. I believed that since you posted a very detailed account of yourself with all your achievements etc, on your userpage, that you wanted people to know about your life accomplishments. I am not stalking you. The fact is that you only edit LTTE-Sinhalese related things, so it happens that the pages where you used TamilNet, also had copyright violations. I am adamant they are copyvios and a liability to WIkipedia to say the least. I did notify you on your talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a very detailed version of myself in my user page then I deleted it using an admin’s help. The sandbaox that I used create that user page, I blanked it number of times thinking it is gone. But you had to fish for that information at number of levels below where that Sanbox was to find information that I erroneously left behind. As an admin and a senior Wikipedia editor that is uncalled for just to make WP:POINT.

    I am more than willing to accept for face value that you did not mean to put my life in danger although that's what you did with your actions. At minimum for this issue to go away you should apologize so we understand that you really understood what you have done. Otherwise this will follow the wiki process. When I came to your talk page to talk about Tamilnet, I said I believed 100% in the wiki process and I am more than willing to follow it through to rfa, but not even in my dreams did I think that instead of Tamilnet we will be talking about an rfa about your conduct. But this madness can stop with a simple apology.

    Further don’t belittle my contributions as only related LTTE-Sinhalese stuff. Just like you are interested in English game of Cricket for a Vietnamese citizen, I am interested in Human Rights in Sri Lanka and the world at large, my user box says that. If WP:NOTABLE incidents happen in Sri Lanka whether the perpetrator is the government or the LTTE, I will write about it.

    About the pictures you tagged, you tagged 5 pictures that I uploaded since this discussion began but only informed me about 1. Why ? Thanks Taprobanus 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The reason for your user name change is obvious.. You wanted to cover all your contributions which you made to those racists pro-LTTE web sites. Because that would enable you to play an innocent role here in Wikipedia. But luckily Thanks to great Wikipedians we all know who you are and why you are here.We do not need to go far to see your anti-Government hypocrisies. They were clearly shown by you with your creation of dubious templates(which got deleted) and lots of other non-sense stuff esp you added to Sri Lankan related articles.You have before even collaborated with other users, exchanging pass words to push your anti-government pro-tamil agendas, even calling some of your friends not-pro tamil enough !! And here you are shamelessly trying to play the victims role by accusing probably one of the best Wikipedians we have now. I have told you many times not to tell stories, stories are for kids NOT for adult Wikipedians. And here you came up with another stories. I don't think anyone in the world take what you say seriously.. Death threats ?? You must be kidding here. Why dould anyone want to threaten a person like you ? I have never heard a person got threaten in SL just because he is pro-LTTE..Some members of TNA make comments supporting LTTE in the parliament ,and even call LTTE , we, but still live in peace among the Sinhalese with of course protection of GOSL . There are many tamils openly criticizing Sinhalese people,GOSL and live in peace in Colombo. And why should people take some one like you,who may have not probably visited my country for years,and live 1000 miles apart ?? The whole tirade made by yoou is simply disgusting.ESP because it comes from sone who has no idea about whats going on in Sri Lankan, probably find info by reading those racist tamil web-sites !! Anyway, finally we all know who you are and why you are here. And we even know why you have put your self to such a low position some time.Its all to defend your POV, your bias towards a certain section, your hatred of GOSL, and probably your hatred of the country call Sri Lanka. Iam sorry, I don't think people like you deserve to stay in Wikipedia. Iwazaki 会話。討論 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is well documented fact that people journalists ,political workers and people from all of walks have been killed this includes Tamils,Sinhalese and everyone particurly after 1983 both in North and East and also in the south during the War against the JVP.It is sad fact that journalists are killed in Sri Lanka just for there views by all the sides in the conflict.Paramilitary backing the Sri LAnkan Army ,LTTE and no one is above it.If he wants maintain his privacy as most people do so in the internet it is fine.I do not think anyone can question it .Most chat rooms people avoid giving there real identity to strnagers as it is dangerous.Taprobanus may feel his life is at risk this is true .Not a single sinhalese government staff want to work in the North except the Army in the south Tamils do not want to go to certain parts.This is sad reality of Sri Lanka. Harlowraman 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note to iwazaki that he is just as unabashedly partisan as taprobanus. He is correct that many tamils live in sri lanka and enjoy comfortable lives in a sinhala majority. Another major point is that not all tamils support the LTTE, infact some for religious reasons are more apt to support the sinhala. A prime example is Subramaniam Swamy. This conflict sticks its branches into South Indian politics as well, its not just relegated to Sri Lanka.Bakaman 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 'South' Indian politics... may be just the Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Which is understandable, given the extreme tamil ideological stance that these parties and the ltte share. But it has little to do with any religious ideology, least of all 'Hindutva'. Anyway, thats besides the point. The point here is that Taprobanus has a conflict of interest which not only his subpage, but also his comment on my talk page and his comment early on in this discussion prove. His alarmist pitch now is yet another bad faith mudslinging at one of the most respected and useful wikipedians we have. Anybody, half as concerned about their privacy as Taprobanus claims he is about his, wouldnt even put up their bio anywhere on the internet, let alone on a high traffic site like wikipedia. How very convenient of him now to claim that his life is in danger! All this lawyering for what patently are advocacy sites and propaganda tabloids is now starting to spill over into WP:POINT. Sarvagnya 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our "comrades" seem to have connections as well.Bakaman 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comrades' have agendas and 'connections' in every corner of the globe :) Sarvagnya 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Taprobanus' concern is correct. Many people who stand up against the GoSL have been killed when they step into Sri Lanka. While it is true that many tamil live happily beside sinhalese and other yet how many of these people speak against the GoSL ? Not many at all. The ones who do speak against the GoSl don't enjoy peaceful life. Now with the bashing aside. This is a serious issue. Taprobanus is really scared for his life. I bet the person who brought his real name up here has a hidden agenda. Every one knows he changed his name for a reason... Why breach his privacy? Most editors allready know who he is (sl related anyway). So I kindly ask the admin to take proper measures not only to hide Taprobanus' real identity but to make sure this type of act will not be followed by any users. Watchdogb 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already advice raveen not to tell stories and not to attack good/established Wikipedians. And regarding his bogus fear for life, Why would anyone even think of harming him ? When, from what I have seen here, he can be easily out-smarted and out-witted by anyone. The only reason he changed his profile was to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Obviously he knew that was going to harm his future in Wikipedia and give him a black mark. After all who on earth take people who write to those crap pro-LTTE sites seriously ? And finally in case you haven't noticed,TNA MP's regularly praised LTTE and live in the comfort of the GOSL.Please at least read news ,if you are serious about contributing to SL'an related stuff here.Iwazaki 会話。討論 14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WOW IWAZAKI... TNA MP's Praise LTTE and live in peace ? Hmm what happend to Nadaraj (mind you in the tight security zone of SLA controlled area) ? Very comical comment by you. Plus your the one who constantly attack other wikipedians so I think its best to take your own advise. Your argument are pretts nonsence. What does his fear of life have to do with him being outsmarted ? Also how can you say he changed his profile to cover his contribution to those racists tamil crap sites. Who are you to say what he was thinking ? You got proof ? Why can't you take it as it is. He didn't want his real identity to be shown on wikipedia and as he has just shown he is scared for his life. Besides many people (such as yourself) don't even put their real name on wikipeida. Does that mean that you want to hide something from the racist Sinhala sites ? Does that mean that you don't want to have a black mark in wikipedia because you (might) contribute to Asian Tribune? I don't get your point.... So its ok for you to remain unknown but its not ok for someone else to be unknown ? Wonder why that is... It's not proper for a admin of wikipedia to violate someone's privacy. Its even worst when the admin does not take his real name off of the discussion even when the said user is scared for his life. Is this how wikipedia admins their admin ? Watchdogb 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We are NOT interested in your content dispute. We cannot, personally, fix the dispute in Sri Lanka. Could you all take this somewhere else? Secretlondon 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously. There seems to be a small group of editors who regularly show up here on AN/I on both sides of issues and problems here. Blnguyen and bakaman are both well aware of how to act here, and Blnguyen's comment, and actions, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience. As for Iwazaki, such blatant bigotry for someone whose politics don't match yours do not belong on wikipedia. Your message essentially amounts to 'I hope they catch and kill you, because you're Pro-tamil and LTTE.' As an otherwise uninvolved editor, I'd definitely hope that if Iwazaki has any more such comments here, he receive a cool-off break. Blnguyen knew not to reveal it, too. He's not so dumb as to think that this user really meant to leave his ID behind, and almost certainly exploited the user's error to gain advantage in the content dispute. He ought to be blocked substantially, IMHO. ThuranX 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy.. hold it. Its not like Raveen abandoned his former id or something. Even now, User:RaveenS redirects to User:Taprobanus. And there is no content dispute here which involves Blnguyen with Taprobanus. There are only two issues here - one is the usage of advocacy sites and propaganda sheets by Raveen as sources in dozens of articles which goes against WP:RS. The other is COI(to which Raveen himself confesses). And on both counts, Raveen is caught on the wrong foot. And just because he's been caught on the wrong foot, very funnily, he pulls out the ridiculous "my life is in danger" card out of nowhere and tries to mudsling at respected editors. If his alarmist pitch is really true, the commonsense thing to do would have been to WP:VANISH and probably come back after some time with a new account or something or just vanish from Wikipedia for good. But given that he hasnt done any such thing, I am forced to give more credence to Iwaziki's theory that he just wants to whitewash his true colours and act all innocent and naive on wikipedia. If anything, it is Taprobanus who should be 'blocked substantially'(in your words) for circumventing wikipedia and disrupting. Sarvagnya 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you are good friend of User:Blnguyen, you should leave it to neutral people to decide this vexing issue. Thanks Taprobanus 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is that supposed to mean? Can you be more specific? Sarvagnya 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To make my stance clear to everyone at the outset: I'm Indian, but largely apolitical, and have no strong views regarding the LTTE situation. However, I believe it is unfair to accuse Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy. I do not believe Taprobanus is overreacting - I will not be so cavalier as to brush off someone's fear for their life, nor call them an alarmist - but I believe he needs to take a giant step back and think about whether contributing here under an identifiable username is a good idea at all. I respectfully recommend that he read WP:VANISH and consider whether editing about a subject which is obviously very close to his heart is going to end up with the result we all want: a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.
    As an aside... we still haven't solved the problem of sources. Riana ⁂ 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ThuranX correctly said - "The revealing of a user's ID after that user pursued anonimity should be taken seriously". It is something like revealing the penname of a reporter who is handling the issues of State Terrorism / Terrorism or an officer’s identity who was dealing with French Connection. Though the comments of User:Riana are neutral, other than her comment about User:Blnguyen at this incident - "However, I believe it is unfair to accuse User:Blnguyen of inappropriate behaviour. He has given many proofs throughout his time here that he is completely trustworthy and respectful of others' privacy". I don’t believe the open testimoney of some Indian or Pakistani wikipedians, declaring themselves as neutral on Kashmir issue and then commenting on. The same will applicable to the issues related to wikipedians as well. The Vesak wishes of User:Blnguyen to User:Iwazaki of This and User:Snowolfd4 This and then revealing the ID of User:Taprobanus who is differing the views who those received his Vesak wishes and then the actions of User:Blnguyen going after some pictures which have been uploaded by User:Taprobanus and marking them with various violations (when they are considered as legitimate according to the User) without informing him, are highly inappropriate for a user of his experience and making others to suspect whether he is over-estimated his Admin. powers and misusing it or in a state of mental-imbalance. Lustead 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not used my admin powers. I am not mentally ill. I gave Vesak wishes to whoever I had come across on-wiki and who declared themselves to be Buddhist. You and your friends are not declared Buddhists, so I didn't send them to you. I gave out many of the Vesak greetings on May 31. If you are saying that Indians and Pakistanis are not to be trusted on Kashmir, then why are you here if you are a member of the "involved ethnicities"? The fact is that I saw the copyright pictures on the pages with the TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less. If those pictures are acceptable, which they are not, then they will stay. As they are, they don't pass WP:FUC #8. I would not have revealed Taprobanus' were it not for the fact that he still preserved it in his possession at the time. The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious website s and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here What you mean, you guys ? and what reason do to assign to these guys. Assume good faith per WP:AGF and dont no personal attack of fellow wikipedians. I think you may be loosing your cool ever since I posted a simple statement in your talk page that I am more than willing to discuss per wiki process with you as to how to resolve a vexing problem about a source called Tamilnet. Now that source issue is resolved at the ANI level all what you had to do is move on to cricket or what ever you like rather than linger on and make all of us South Asians centric editors look like petty quarrelsome lot unable to accept the wiki process for what it is. Without following the wiki process, we will have chaos and edit warring like what you precipitated in number of articles that only stopped after the ANI findings by a neutral admin then you started it allover again by removing Tamilnet yet again showing a loack of respect for wiki process. I have a job to do, family to take care of and number of notable raped and murdered women, massacres and involuntary disappearances to write about in Wikipedia when I have time. So let us all move on. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have the freedom to wish anyone you want in wikipedia or elsewhere by sending Vesak, Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan wishes. But the coincidence of your wishes and your controversial edits alarmed other wikipedians.
    I should add one more ethnicty, the Chinese also on Kashmir issue, I don’t trust anyone other than Kashmiri wikipedians whether they are Buddists, Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs and any neutral wikipedians. Kashmir or Tibet can’t be a center for regional powers to show their supremacy at the expense of natives of those regions.
    Coming to the point, you are saying - "TamilNet website and they were clearly not acceptable. Nothing more nothing less". But another well reputed wikipedian User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality, he qualifies more than you to WP:NPOV is concerned, differing from your view point by accepting TamilNet is meeting the WP:RS. I excerpted here some of his views[15]–"I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons: TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (based on the links provided by participants above)". So his answer will clear your doubt which you posed – "The fact that you guys only edit one very small focused topic with dubious websites and not academic textbooks says more about why you are here". Lustead 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Riana, tamilnation.org is run by the guy who served as lawyer for one of the terrorist leaders. On the site, he says that he 'bows his head humbly' to these 'leaders'. In his view, SriLanka is perpetrating a genocide which curiously none of the mainstream press like BBC or the Indian media etc., have reported. In other words, these sites are foisting hoaxes and only a bad faith editor with a COI would be using those sites as sources on wikipedia. Also, tell me what are the credentials of these sites and the people who run it? Are they affiliated to any offical press bodies in any country, for that matter? For many of these sites, we dont even know who's running it. Who the editor is, who the reporters are. In short a benami site. No checks. No balances. Pretty much free to write what they want.
    For purposes of Wikipedia, how are these sites different from driveling blogs all over the net? Like I've already argued above, the parallels with FOX etc., is invalid. Even if the likes of FOX or timesofindia or The Hindu or CNN etc., are biased, we have WP:NPOV which takes care of it. But you cant use non-RS sources and argue that you are bringing NPOV to wikipedia. NPOV has to be established only from RS sources. And as far as the affairs of Tamil goes, it is not as if there is a paucity of RS sources. There are more than enough RS sources. There is even a BBC Tamil version. The Indian press covers it widely. Where is the need to even use these propaganda sheets, except to push POV? Sarvagnya 07:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely WRONG. Take a good look dude. Our issue here is about tamilnet and not tamilnation.org. So get your facts stright. No, BBC has many times shown bias against the LTTE. So again I ask does this mean that we should not use BBC ? Ofcourse we use BBC. Also last time I check any of the SL articles they are allready filled with POV sources from the GoSL friendly websites. So may I ask Sarvagnya why you would stick with those sources ? Watchdogb 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Here we go. User:Sarvagnya is bringing his crap arguments once again. He has written the same non-sense in the portions above and received a verdict from a neutral editor contrary to his stand (That Tamilnet is a RS). Now his bad faith attempts to accuse Tamilnet as an equivalent to blog (once again) shows his difficulty to understand simple English. I suggest neutral editors/admins to please read the arguments & evidence given in above portion which clearly demonstrates Tamilnet's reliability. Thanks Praveen 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, let's not discuss privacy related issues in this highly visible place. I think there is a chance to move on. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving on

    On the top of this page, it says: "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." I believe this page gets cluttered too easily, and this section is a case in point - it has grown far beyond proportion.

    I think we can boil it down to two issues:

    1. Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources
    2. Privacy violation

    I propose we discuss the Reliability of Sri-Lanka related sources on WT:RS. As for the privacy violation, naturally it is not a good idea to discuss this publicly. Since I have experience as a mediator and since I am very sad to see two good and respected contributors locked in this sort of conflict, I offer to do informal mediation. I will contact both parties and see what comes from that. — Sebastian 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    School children - vandalising

    Earlier this evening I blocked Murlock (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism including moving Indonesian Declaration of Independence to Fake Indonesian Declaration of Independence. He responded to the block with this in short claiming that they are at school and all login at the same time causing vandalism to be attributed to the wrong accounts.

    the other accounts

    Any suggestions on what to do with these editors/accounts. Currently I've blocked them for all for 24 hours Gnangarra 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) has responded here Gnangarra 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a more reasonable explanation is that the kid is lying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some association - they have edited each other's user pages without any comments or discussions, before or after. See discussion here. Merbabu 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's time for an indefinite block and a hard IP block of all involved. I've asked User:Ciell who's an admin over at Dutch Wikipedia to comment. Kermanshahi is currently indefinitely banned as a sockpuppeteer and a known troublemaker over there. I gave Kermanshahi the benefit of the doubt last time Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, but from the looks of it, he's outstayed his welcome. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is remarkably serendipitous - just yesterday, I made User:Neil/hmm because the above users' activity seemed hinky. They award each other barnstars, voted keep en masse on some very hoaxy articles (anbd I have a strong feeling a bunch of articles on medieval Frisian people are still floating around that are utter hoaxes with no references or references in Frisian). I would imagine we would need to checkuser the above users and also:
    • Mrlob (talk · contribs)
    • Ezza61 (talk · contribs) (note, I think this one is less likely to be a sock, but he edits the same articles, has the same barnstars, and edits 15 minutes before Murlock most of the time)
    There also seems to be a raft of ropey walled garden articles that need going over. Neil (►) 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    School on a saturday? It is established with a dutch checkuser, that there are several accounts working from this (high)schooladress. I would advise you though, to contact User:Oscar, who did a cross-wiki check when I last requested a checkuser on Kermansjahi and his friends and told me he found more interesting stuff. Gebruiker:Blowland (user:Blow?) wasn't found to be a sockpuppet. The dutch policy about checkuser isn't that open as the english one, so I can't tell you what he found out. Ciell 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's pretty clear this is not a schared school IP these guys are using. I'll doublecheck User:Blowland's contributions but I think it's a pretty obvious sock. Neil (►) 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one of the three adresses is a school IP. Ciell 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's an open proxy? -- ChrisO 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, don't think so. RonaldB would have blocked them by now. I know someone else who edits from that adres, so am pretty sure. I'll alert Oscar, maybe he's up for it tonight. Ciell 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have talked with some Iranian users and they claim that there is absolutely no way Kermansjahi might be a Dutch schoolkid. He shows quite deep knowledge of Iranian history and culture that only Iranian or a professional researcher on Iran could acquire. He might be an immigrant from Iran but he must leave the country as an adult. This seems to contradict the sockpuppeting allegations. On the other hand, he obviously connected with Mrlob and some other members of the gang. I have asked Kermansjahi to explain his version of the events be Email Alex Bakharev 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kermanshahi, even if there isn't a link with Mrlob (which I am convinced there is) is a confirmed sockpupeteer and troublemaker aside from this one incident. Given that, the checkuser seems to confirm things. Neil (►) 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets wait for his side of the story Alex Bakharev 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neil, do you want me (a Dutch admin with Frisian roots living 10 miles from Friesland) to verify the possibly hoaxy articles? If so, can you provide me with a list? AecisBrievenbus 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of this new evidence I have decided to unblock Kermansjahi. I have an E-mail exchange with Kermansjahi and Gnangarra. The checkuser does not contradict Kermansjahi's version of the event, there are a few contribution history's edits suggesting that Kermansjahi might has some off-wiki connection to Morlock, there are other evidences that they are not the same. Kermansjahi himself denies that they are connected. I have assumed good faith and decided to unblock. Gnagarra agreed with unblocking if there would be doubts in the checkuser result that seems to be the case Alex Bakharev 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken from WP:AIV

    Resolved

    Well, I am not sure if this is the right place to post for a troll but here goes. SteakNShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was being disruptive and generally rude at Talk:General_relativity. I posted a message on his talk page User_talk:SteakNShake that asked him to cool his jets and find some sources. He replied and asked me to point out where he was being pejorative. I pointed out those instances, he replied in a fashion that would lead me to believe he is a troll or a crank of some sort. Also User_talk:Ems57fcva contains another instance of his rudeness. Oh and he just started vandalizing again at GR. He just threatened User:DVdm.--Cronholm144 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear case of Cronholm144 trying to ban people who disagree with his beliefs. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!--Cronholm144 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This claim above that I am "pushing POV" is bald and without merit. What I am pushing is a necessary change to this one article that seems to be guarded by some self-appointed experts who refuse to allow any changes at all. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

    New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [25] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [26] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [27] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [28] refering to other users as idiots [29] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [30] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [31] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [32].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [33] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [34] [35] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After you blocked EdwinCasadoBaez He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. [36] [37] . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. YoSoyGuapo 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet blocked, original block extended, firm explanatory response e-mail sent. Let's keep all future discussion in one place. Grandmasterka 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the same editor as User:EdwinCasado, who was indef blocked as a vandal in October. Natalie 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Migospia and racism

    Speaking of accusations of racism, could an admin other than I warn Migospia (talk · contribs) that just because someone templates an image of a black artist, or !votes in a *FD about a black individual, it does not mean they are racist. I've tried, but i'm just a "fucker" who wishes to rid Wikipedia of any reference to black people, apparently. I'm not going to get a favorable response talking with her any further. For your attention, a choice selection of her quotes from the last two days alone:

    1. "... it seems you are just going for the small time black artist." In an email to me 2 days ago.
    2. "...if this is not rascit then either add that image thing to all cd/album covers here on Wikipedia or delete them"
    3. "...I am starting to know why people hate Wikipedia it is because of admins like you and you were cleary awae of the race"
    4. "...how can you vote to delete this and not be racist"
    5. "...I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist"
    6. "...I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here"

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangeline. Rockpocket 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left Migospia a note about this discussion. I suggest dropping her a strong {{uw-agf3}} - if she persists in the ad hominem attacks, further action can be taken. Riana ⁂ 08:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a similar comment about this user on the noticeboard. I had already warned her in the AfD about throwing around charges of racism, and yet she continued. When I left a message on her talk page about leaving defamatory comments, she deleted my warning from her talk page and replied "Ah! I can't believe this another editor!" on mine. DarkAudit 08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of warnings from friendly to stern have been offered, e.g. [38] [39]. Doesn't seem to make much difference, even when faced this the litany above she appears to think it proves her point about racist motivations. I don't feel there is anything I can say that will have a positive outcome, so I'm left with taking action. If someone else wishes to try an avoid that then be my guest. Rockpocket 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I really suggest you start looking into your own policies and definitions of words, because this is beyond belief and sickening, it is like that time someone broke a 3rr and got away with it and another not really breaking it got blocked, you guys have to stop twisting things around and bending policies, it really is hurting people in the process, or at least person--Migospia †♥ 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm attempting the old "Assault With An Olive Branch" approach, let's see if that works. I see that the initial concerns of this editor have not been referred to, so I have suggested at her talkpage that she checks out WP:CSB (once I got the link to work, ha!) to see if she can address her concerns there. Unless there is something new someone can bring to this debate I suggest we don't pile on on over there. If the folk that has already tried cannot get a result I'm not sure what more of the same will do to improve things. LessHeard vanU 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea. I've said my last, so hopefully you may have more luck than I. One note though, while I'm very aware of Wikipedia's systemic bias where it exists, I'm not convinced that is the relevant issue here. The reason I say this is because I was also accused of racial motivation of an entirely separate issue a day or so previously (a fair use query of this image.) I was genuinely flabbergasted, since I hadn't actually registered what the subject of the image was of when the allegation was made. Prior to that she was accusing those who were editing the veganism article of holding an anti-vegan agenda (despite the fact the editor she was accusing is a vegan himself and was sourcing his info from pro-vegan websites). Since Migospia edits quite heavily in these divisive issues, I'm getting the feeling that anything that she does not concur with is immediately perceived as an issue of bias or discrimination by the other editor. As I'm sure you are aware, that simply is not conducive to constructive editing. I felt that should be made clear. Rockpocket 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The perception of bias (which can include any subject where there is more than one opinion) is as important as the actuality. If Migospia can address her concerns as it relates to WP:CSB then at least her interactions should be more civil, and better addressed according to policy/guidelines. In my brief interaction with her I think that she is responding better. Perhaps a (semi) sympathetic ear was all that she needed to calm things down. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message on Migospia (talk · contribs)'s talk page about all of this. As I told her, there has long been systemic bias at Wikipedia and some editors are racists (such as the skinheads who pop up here all the time and vandalize articles). But in this case, none of this applies b/c Tangeline simply isn't an article that should be kept.--Alabamaboy 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, her userpage indicates she is civil, so her action is contradicting her words, I guess? WooyiTalk to me? 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like everything else, what happens generally is an abstract. When it happens to you then it takes on a different hue. Pointing out the obvious is not always advantageous. LessHeard vanU 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    She is now claiming that she was not calling anyone racist, but is also not rescinding or striking out the inflammatory statements. A statement like "how can you vote to delete this and not be racist" makes it clear that she was. DarkAudit 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats by Administrator llywrch

    Administrator llywrch (talk · contribs) made this bad faith AFD nomination, in which he admits "I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue". Several editors expressed distaste for misuse of the AFD process, I suggested a speedy keep with an admonishment of the nominator for such a gross violation of WP:POINT. Llywrch made this response (which he has now reverted), and then issued this direct threat on my talk page: The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page.

    Administrators should know better than to violate WP:POINT, but what's really disturbing is his willingness to threaten editors who point out such. Other than pointing out that making spurious/bad faith AFD nominations only clog the system and waste editors' time (AFD was speedily kept as a bad faith nomination) and suggesting a word of caution regarding WP:POINT, I have had no interaction with this admin nor made any other comments regarding the incident.

    Instead of responding directly to his threats, I'm requesting ANI advice and/or intervention on how to deal with an admin who is making inappropriate threats. Help is appreciated. /Blaxthos 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can see it wasn't WP:POINT, it was a good-faith attempt to find a way of resolving a problem. Not a particularly productive one, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nominating an article for deletion that one admits shouldn't be deleted simply to "encourage disccusion" on a policy/guideline is absolutely violating WP:POINT. However, as stated above, my bigger concern isn't the WP:POINT; the meat of the problem is the very blatant threat made by an administrator when it was completely unwarranted. Do you think that admins should be able to threaten editors who, as far as I can tell, did nothing wrong? /Blaxthos 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand how it is a common mistake for someone unfamilar with wikipolicy - but an admin? I'd also like clarification of what was meant by this remark. --Fredrick day 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I think the entire evolution of events is downright disturbing. I will attempt to reiterate the problems:
    1. A (by his own account) seasoned admin (who is tasked with the responsibility of properly disposing AFDs) either doesn't understand the purpose of AFD, or ignores it entirely.
    2. After no fewer than five editors express the inappropriate nature of the AFD, the admin makes this statement, in which he expresses his intent to take unilateral action in the future (presumably because the community forcefully rejected his malformed attempt to instigate discussion in an inappropriate manner)
    3. The admin then makes a statement on my talk page that can be construed as nothing except a threat of punative action because of comments made regarding his AFD (additionally, I wasn't the only editor to point out the "abuse" of the AFD process by this admin).
    4. When I bring it to ANI, it appears (note I'm not saying actually is) that other admins are circling the wagons and seem unwilling to address the significant inappropriate actions of a fellow admin.
    What am I supposed to do? This could be fodder for WP:RFARB, however I'm trying to find some other avenue in which these concerns are addressed. How about addressing the points above? /Blaxthos 14:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reads like frustration to me. HE asked for a discussion of expandable stubs, and what can be done with them. in stead, he got a long set of standard AfD arguments for Keep, and a couple of 'POINT' shouts. No one actually addressed his problem, instead, IF they reallized what he wanted, they POINT'd him. I'd be frustrated too. Heck, I'm frustrated more often than not by WP these days. I see his point, and agree, there's probably a need to figure out how to address the issue. He got blown off, ignored, and attacked by various people instead. he reacted. Not a good reaction, and a stupid thing to say. Since his nom wasn't about deletion but discussion, saying 'i'll delete what I want' is foolish. All the same, I'd chalk it up to an Admin identifying a problem and trying to get broader community consensus, picking a less than optimal method, and getting frustrated by the response. ThuranX 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not brush it off as frustration... HE is an admin, HE abused the AFD process (or used it for an inappropriate purpose), then HE issued threats of unilateral inappropriate action and threats of punative action against editors who did nothing wrong. How is this appropriate or excusable for an administrator? /Blaxthos 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he looked for a resolution to a problem, but looked in the wrong place. Go away and help him find the right place, or just go away. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. ThuranX 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin outright attempts to bully an editor who has done nothing wrong, and states his intent to completely ignore proper protocol in the future, and instead of addressing the issue (which isn't the original problem, but rather his reactions to it) and I'm told to "just go away". Unbelievable. No wonder most editors hesitate to enlist administrative assistance... you guys should be ashamed. /Blaxthos 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But you did do something wrong. Being rude and unhelpful is something wrong in my book. If he actually deletes articles without consensus then that's a different matter of course. But for now, let it drop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to follow Theresa's advice, & let the matter drop, but I only discovered a few minutes ago that I was the subject of a discussion here, & thought I tell my side of the matter.
    1. I don't frequent AfD much nowadays, so I'm not up on the rules or the mood of the place. When I was there more often, it was not unusual to nominate articles like this one. (I'm still somewhat disappointed in the response I received there, because I felt this was a hard case, AfD serves best to deal with hard cases like this, & no one appeared interested in discussing why I felt it was a heard case. But at least I received some discussion.)
    2. One instance of an act like this, whether or not it was intentional, is not what WP:POINT is intended to address. Sometimes one has to be bold, & push against what one perceives are unspoken rules of Wikipedia in order to learn what fellow Wikipedians currently think, then act accordingly; this should be done, I admit, in the most minimal manner possible. I don't think I am being disingenuous here in saying not every convention on Wikipedia has been debated & addressed in policy -- nor is every question about such matters met with a prompt response.
    3. Much of what I do on Wikipedia, I tend to do in isolation, without direct input from other Wikipedians. Sometimes I wonder if my "Wiki compass" has drifted too far away from what the consensus is -- & asking questions from time to time is a way to check this.
    4. Hmm. So if someone posts something intemperate on Wikipedia, afterwards recognizes that it was the wrong thing to say & reverts her/himself as soon as possible, it still counts as if that person left it unreverted?
    5. Frankly, I am a bit surprised -- & gratified that anyone "stuck up" for me. I consider myself a lone wolf on Wikipedia, & unaffiliated with any faction or philosophy expressed here on Wikipedia. I just try to contribute useful content, & less often I express an opinion about policy; occasionally I contribute something that other Wikipedians agree is actually useful.
    6. Lastly, I am unaware that telling someone that they have offended me is a threat. Blaxthos twice mentioned "WP:POINT" in this post -- once in the body, once in the comment line. I asked one question -- & he believes is I am disrupting Wikipedia to make some kind of point. (What it is, I can't fathom -- perhaps it's that "don't nominate orphan articles about historical people of borderline notability"?) -- llywrch 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for popping across to explain that - I think this comes out "nothing much to see here". while you might consider yourself a lone wolf - don't be too hesitate to "howl out" if you want an independent second view about what you are upto. regards --Fredrick day 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Jimbo Wales

    Resolved
     – Page semi-protected for 25 hours, thread removed. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's currently a full scale edit war going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales between two anons. One is claiming to be a German Wikipedia admin, and another is claiming their privacy is being violated. I can't make much sense of it because it's all posted in German. I posted at WP:RFPP but nobody's gotten to it yet. -N 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for 25 hours (because I pressed 5 instead of 4 and now don't feel like changing it). You should be able to just remove the squabbles now. Neil ╦ 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the thread entirely from the page. Carrying over disputes from another project to here is inappropriate. -N 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that, since this is where Jimmy's User page and Talk page are. However, I do believe that conversations in any language other than English are not appropriate. Corvus cornix 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe that people still have beliefs like that. ExtraDry 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another problem 2 topics below about use of a language other than English! Template anyone!Feddhicks 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting crap people can't understand involving disputes on another project is bad form. It has nothing to do with bad "beliefs". -N 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use image on a user page.

    Hello all. I hope I'm bringing this to the right noticeboard- these things seem a tad Byzantine at times. Anyways I deleted two fair use images from the talk page of Kingzjester (talk · contribs) diff & diff- I admit that I only left an edit summary and didn't use the {{Fuir}} template (which I didn't know about because it's not listed at WP:UTM). Kingzjester responded by undoing my last edit and restoring one image to his talk page diff. I then wrote a short note diff explaining about why I had deleted the images. Kingzjester responded by refactoring my comments diffdiffdiff and adding a rather nasty notediff- all of which he eventually erased and replaced with a URL for a websitediff that McAfee reports has a web exploit[40]. He also posted one of the images onto his user page diff, where it remains. I wrote a second note, apologizing for not writing before deleting the image and more fully explaining the wherefores of the fair use policy diff. The response was the replacement of my comments by giant image of LBJ. I notified him/her that I was bringing the discussion here. I welcome your suggestions, comments. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be aware of not biting the newbies. Fair use images in userspace is one thing, but personal photos are another. WP:NOT#myspace is not a speedy deletion reason, furthermore you need to WP:AGF. Please step back and not attack this user so much. He probably feels very threatened. I used to think the same as you, find one small thing with an editor, attack everything wrong about them. I will leave a note for the user. I encourage you to all step back a moment. -N 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least take the time to read her user page. She's a constructive editor, but her posting of 10+ images of herself, plus others that are orphaned, is just insane. This is not MySpace; none of the images are encyclopedic. If they are not speedied, then I'll apply for them to be all deleted at IFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And she's not a new user, FTR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And please cite where I "attacked" the "new" user. Furthermore, if these are violations, why did you not apply IFD templates for the images instead of doing plain reverts and then not assuming good faith when you sprouted up at my talk page? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Kingzjester, not Carly. I'm not going to get into a fight with you over this. -N 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How were applying tags for copyright violations "attacks"? Furthermore, if you go back through his edits, you can see a prior history of very crude remarks. Certaintly he was not applying good faith. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is something else that creates a question. Kingzjester (talk · contribs) uploads this at June 3 around 2:04. Oh yEs itS caRly (talk · contribs) then uploads this and this June 3, around 2:15 that are from the same set. Possible sock? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, or more probably meatpuppeting, but they aren't violating the policies on having multiple accounts, as far as I can see. -N 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible death threat

    May be I am wrong, but this seems to be worth reporting. User:ellol recently asked me on my talk page using slang of Russian mafia[42] the following:

    Do you understand Russian well enough to realize that "...it is better to come to an agreement than to be killed by knife" (Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок) and that "someone must be punished for making too much noise [in Wikipedia]" (Западло не отвечать за базар)? Of course, he told later that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia".

    I wanted to ignore this incident, but ellol became very active recently and started making other outrageous claims, such as that I support Russian fascists (Movement Against Illegal Immigration [43]), and others, so it it might be a good idea if someone checked this. Of course, this is difficult to check because not every native Russian speaker understands well this criminal slang. Biophys 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are these users conducting whole talk page sections in Russian on the English wiki? It precludes a vast number of interested editors from checking the facts alleged in the citations. They don't provide translations or anything. Seems like that would be some sort of vio of OWN, since it ensures that many can't even discuss the matter. And in a section about citation, one guy states 'Here's what the cite said - big russian quote - , and that's what I put in. He didn't quote his edit, nor link the diff, and so on. Shouldn't most of the english wiki's discussions be in english, so as to make them most accessible tot he majority of the editing audience? ThuranX 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly the point. He intentionally makes his threats using not just Russian, but Russian criminal slang, so few people can understand and block him. This is link [44]. This is his diff from my talk page where he came uninvited: [45].
    • This is one of his statements (Russian):"Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок)." My approximate translation: "Anything can be done for money". "I am not satisfied with Putin" "It is better to decide everything at the gangster's "court" meetings than to get a knife into the heart"
    • This is his another statement (Russian): "Западло не отвечать за базар". My translation: "Someone must be punished for making too much noise" [in Wikipedia] (according to the context)Biophys 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should explain more. "заточка" means not just knife but a self-made knife, something more similar to a screw driver. Killing with "заточка" is a traditional way of killing "traitors" (like me) who betray secrets of the gang. "Cтрелка" ("распальцовки на стрелках") means a meeting of a gang (usually several gangs) where they decide who is guilty of violating "laws" of criminal world, and the person who is "guilty" is often killed immediately. That kind of nice message I have received.Biophys 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means a shiv. I have asked Ellol to explain himself (and I would also like someone else to translate the above to confirm). I think a warning would be best if the translations are correct. Neil ╦ 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked him to limit his comments about other editors on the english Wikipedia to english. That should make things easier moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course, he explained me already that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia" - just as I told above. Biophys 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That excuse particularly bothers me, as it implies "If you can read this, you'll know i'm connected, and leave me alone to get my way, or else!" That sort of 'cryptic' (secretive) comment, one which only afew can read, is far worse. Making AN/I do all this extra work when 'Fuck off or I'll kill you' in english would've been sorted out with an indef immediately. If this all is shown to be legit translations, this user should be banned. ThuranX 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, these translations are correct (did he provided his translation?), although one should know this language of Russian criminal underworld to translate. But, as in any cryptic message, he did not tell "I'll kill you", and the message begins from a couple of nonsense phrases. Then, this threat goes. One important thing is his mentioning of Vladimir Putin just before the threatening sentence, as a reason why I deserved this, since I made many edits critical of Putin's administration and FSB, although I did not edit yet directly article about Putin himself (probably I should). Biophys 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I must tell that such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address.Biophys 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask YOU if they are correct, I'm asking if another editor can confirm your translation. ThuranX 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. User ellol just provided his interpretation of this segment, which I disagree [46]. I can ask User:Colchicum or User:HanzoHattori to translate. Would that be O'K?Biophys 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted request for translation at talk page of User:Colchicum since he is a very neutral editor.Biophys 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is just crazy. The full text of the Ellol's entry was:

    May I ask another question? How do you understand the following phrases: "Сколько метров у твоей видюхи?", "Меня прёт его гламурная тёлка и навороченная тачила", "Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок", "КГ/АМ", "Западло не отвечать за базар", "Дело ЮКОСа разрулили по понятиям, а не по закону", "Задолбал толкать фуфло"? I'm certainly interested to understand your level of modern colloquial Russian language. ellol 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you understand the following phrases (my poor translation): "How many megabytes has you graphic card?"(Meters some time colloquially are used as megabytes because of the M abbreviation), "I appreciate his glamorous girlfriend and expensive car", "Money rules", "I am not excited of Putin", "Underworld meetings are still more civilized than a zatochka (a sharpened piece of steel used as a weapon by prison inmates and obviously barely used outside prisons there are much more deadly weapons are available) in a body", "Креатифф - говно/автор - мудак" (Creative piece is shit, its author is a dickhead; from padonki language), "You should be responsible for your words", "The case of Yukos was solved according to the underworld customs rather than the written law", "You are exhausting us with your lies". Ellols also asked Biophys to calculate Probably testing if Biophys knows Kronecker delta and Einstein notation. He obviously asks a random test of modern Russian internet-business argot (and a very simple test BTW, I left Russia 14 years ago and still do not have problem with the test. If a couple of phrases came from the criminal slang so they are vaguely threatening but this was obviously not the intended effect. Ellol was trying to make the point that Biophys does not understand the life in modern Russia there the power abuse by FSB for the most of population is a very small worry relative to the street crime, corruption, inter-ethnic problems, etc. I see nothing threatening in this message Alex Bakharev 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Alex here. Biophys simply took his quotes out of context to make it look like a threat. If you actually read the whole sentence, there is absolutely nothing threatening in it. Ellol merely wants to see if Biophys have a sufficient grasp of today's Russian slang. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I believe that CIA knows who I am and my address, but that wouldn't stop me from commenting on Biophys's complaints along the lines of "such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address". Biophys is advised to stop posting rants about кровавая гэбня, Russian mafia, and other urban legends on this noticeboard. This is a wrong place for spooking people. I agree that non-English posts are not acceptable in English Wikipedia, although some wikipedians think otherwise. I'm afraid they will be very frustrated once the suggestion is formalized into a policy. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you simply accepted the original explanation by ellol that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia". If you think it is O'K to come uninvited to someones talk page and leave him a cryptic message on Russian criminal slang claiming that "it is better to decide everything on gangster's court of honor than to be murdered by shiv" and mentioning Putin and that someone must be punished for making "too much noise" in next phrases, I have nothing more to discuss.Biophys 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that User:ellol should be more careful in his use of language that might be misinterpreted, especially when communicating with those with whom he disagrees. Threatening language should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Imdanumber1

    Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to bypass redirects because he dislikes redirects and "a guideline...cannot be violated". The latest can be seen at User talk:NE2#Redirects, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Wikipedia" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing, and tells me to "do us a favor and leave Wikipedia, troll." Can I please have some advice? --NE2 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of these changes seem to be in piped links, not changing redirects TO piped links. Since they are already 'hidden' links, I don't think the changing from redirects is such a bad idea. I read the relevant section, and it says not to turn a solid redirect into a piped link, but doesn't seem nearly so clear about the changing of the destination of a piped link. I think it's better anyways. Why give people confusing information? If they see A on rollover of the link, but wind up at B, they might go check A anyway, to check against vandalism. I've done that before, and I've even found it before. Perhaps an Admin might have a better insight to the policy here, but I don't htink he's done anything wrong. ThuranX 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing the link to New Lots Line to point to IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line makes cleanup a lot harder if the article, which talks about two lines, is split. The bypassing of Times Square–42nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) means that if the heading in Times Square–42nd Street (New York City Subway) is changed, changing the redirect to point to the new heading will not be enough. --NE2 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining your point, ThuranX. This NE2 character is really starting to get on my nerves. Man, oh how I wish there was some type of anti-troll patrol on Wikipedia! –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To NE2, then copy that reasonign to the talk, and revert those two. Imdanumber1, he's NOT being a troll,, he's got valid concerns about the links. I think that the problems aren't as big as he thinks they are, but he's not a troll. ThuranX 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd actually have to work with him for six months like I have to realize how disruptive he can be. He doesn't listen, he has a bad attitude towards other users, and he refuses to engage in a consensus to reach a decision that everyone may agree on, As much as I have tried to assume good faith for him, I can say no more than the fact that he is blatantly being spiteful, which I believe is and can be considered as trolling. Check his contribs and his talk archives. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have told him that repeatedly, but he only responds with claims about consensus. --NE2 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryffindor out of control

    Gryffindor keeps on moving Meran to Merano against the consensus and WP:NCGN. (see also the above report by Pmanderson).--Supparluca 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he has protected the page abusing his admin powers.--Supparluca 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to work this out with Gryffindor. On first sight, it does look like rather questionable use of the admin tools to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider that this isn't the first time at all. He started to abuse his powers in 2005, always with his strong point of view, and always (for what I know) on articles related to that province, usually with subtle and bully behaviours.--Supparluca 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a complicated situation with possible mis-steps on both sides. See [47] for questionalbe accusations of vandalism. —Gaff ταλκ 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryffindor made one controversial move in a questionable interpretation of the results of a straw poll he had himself initiated and voted in. On being reverted, he today repeated his move three times within few hours and then protected his version. I've reverted his move to the status quo ante and kept move protection on that version in effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your celerity, though I obviously think that's not enough.--Supparluca 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch List on Project Space

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=135583956

    An editor issued me a fake warning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

    The watchlist in project space was a keep.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&diff=next&oldid=135581510

    However, an editor(s) is trying to speedy delete it after it was kept. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An article can still be speedily deleted after an MfD, so long as it meets CSD requirements. Passing an XfD does not give an article immunity against further deletions. Phony Saint 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what confuses me is that the stated reason for the XFD is reposted material - but what's it a repost of if it survived it's MFD? --Fredrick day 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it again, it's not a repost, but QuackGuru didn't state that in his edit summaries or here. After the original article - this article - was moved to project space, someone recreated the article in mainspace, and that was the article deleted. I was about to revert myself when I saw you already did it. Phony Saint 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. This sounds settled then. Mr.Guru, in the future don't remove an AfD template, but rather follow the "hang on" instructions contained within. Removing the AfD template as you had done [48] is considered vandalism. Hence, my warning to you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Levine2112, he still believes my edit was vandalism when it was not. He knows it was not a repost. He voted in the MFD.[49] He knows it was a keep. It can't be a repost in project space when it survived the MFD. Levine2112, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with your unfounded warning. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has issued me another unfounded warning. This time, I made a single edit to an article and he has dumped on my talk page a warning of edit warring.[50] This is harressment and uncivil behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing an AfD is considered vandalism. Separtely, your involvement in the editing of Coral calcium constitues edit warring. In each case, the warning template I placed on your page was appropriate. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed an inappropriate speedy delete tag. It did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. You do not believe it was vandalism because you have not reverted back to the tag.[51] Making a single edit to an article is not edit warring. Please stop with your incivility. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing an AfD tag from an article which you created is considered vandalism. I didn't revert because of the discussion here which I believe cleared up the situation. Next time you are presented with an AfD tag on an article which you created, rather than removing the tage, consider following the "hang on" instructions in the AfD notice, as removing the tag can be construed as vandalism. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not remove an AFD tag. I removed a speedy delete tag. You knew it was not a recreation. You participated in the MFD. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same deal. Removing a speedy deletion tag from an article you created can be considered vandalism. Next time, please consider following the "hang on" instructions in the template, if you wish to contest the nomination. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:CSD: Any editor who is not the author of a page may remove a speedy tag from it; the author may not do this, but instead should place a {{hangon}} tag on the page. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No wikilawering. You got it backwards, again. You knew in advance it was not a repost. How could you consider it vandalism when you participated in the MFD and knew fully well it was a keep. You can't repost a watchlist when it was never deleted in the first place. I consider it uncivil for any editor to put a speedy tag when they know the article's detailed history. The key is that you knew it was not a repost and yet you accused me of vandalism. Rubbish. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 cannot explain away the fake warning for alleged edit warring when I made a single edit to coral calcium.[52] Very odd behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to make uncivil accusations. I did not know that it was not a repost or whatever it is your are claiming. What I know is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page which you authored. This can be considered vandalism; hence the warning on your talk page. All the warning was meant to be is educational to you so next time you would know not to remove such a tag from a page which you authored. Please assume better faith. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not attribute vandalism to my name again or you will reported for your disruptive behaviour. You still can't explain the ficticious warning for edit warring when I made a single edit. A single edit is not edit warring. Your warning was not educational. It was harrassment. You did not AGF with me and you continue to contrue vandalism to my name. I do not vandalise and it was not edit warring. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know what other way there is to explain that removing a Speedy Deletion template from an article which you authored can be considered vandalism. It isn't about whether or not I agree with the template. It's about following the policies. And the policy is: "If you are the author of this article, don't remove the template." That's all there really is to say. I am sorry that you are turning this is into something personal between us. I assure you that is not the case. I have warned many users for doing the exact same thing which you did. No one else has reacted like this. This is fairly routine practice for the VandalProof team members such as myself. Again, nothing personal. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not work like that. Levine2112 knew in advance it was never a repost. He knew I was the original author. He participated in the MFD. The MFD was a keep. He commented on the talk page after the resulting keep.[53] He knew all this and he still thinks it was vandalism. No. It was not. He tried to delete it as a repost but it did not work this time around. He also knows I did not edit war. He can't talk his way out of that one either. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spoken my mind on this issue and see no need to continue on this until if and when an Admin responds here. In the meantime, I would appreciate that your discontinue your bad faith accusations about me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has not provided a reason for the harrassment warning[54][55] of edit warring when I made a single edit to the Coral Calcium. That speaks volumes. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the next posting [56] where I explicitly spell it out for you: "This includes removing an AFD template". -- Levine2112 discuss 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. In the beginning, I created an article in mainspace. It survived deletion and was subsequently moved to project space. To make a long story short. I did a lot of work and made considerable changes to the article and posted it back and mainspace. It was not a repost. It was deleted as a repost. It was a logical fallicious argument made by some Wikipedians. Of course you know how things can get on Wikipedia sometimes. I opened a deletion review. I have provided proof it was a different article with substantial changes to the text of the article. After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. I want many experienced administrators to overview. Per deletion review policy any administrator can undelete and overtrurn deletion. If you agree, it may be possible to return this article back to its proper place in mainspace. Thank you very much. Please advise me if there is any options for me left. A good article deserves to be in mainspace. I have provided proof it was a different article. This article is a great resource tool. A library of information. And belongs in mainspace. Please return this list to mainspace and explain on the talk it was not a recreation. In fact, it was a substantially different article. All in all, we should not reward people who take advantage of Wikipedia's openness who misrepresent the quality of an article just because they don't like it and who pretend it was a repost. Godspeed and hooray to Wikipedia!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&oldid=99780515

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_1

    Sincerely, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the main problem was that the article's talk page wasn't moved when the article was moved, so nobody really knew the article's history; I fixed it and it now resides at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. I suggest closing this thread since there isn't any necessary admin action needed. Phony Saint 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its time (mainspace)

    All allegations it was a repost have been summarily debunked. Now then, to the mission at hand. I recommend it be put back into mainspace right now, because the article has gone through a major transformation and the text of the article has considerably changed. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What part of moving this article requires admin intervention? Take it to the talk page of the article or the WikiProject. Phony Saint 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. This article has repeatedly been deleted from mainspace. You already took it to DRV and lost. If you repost it is mainspace, it will be deleted again as a repost. The way, the truth, and the light 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The old version was deleted from mainspace. This one is the new version. This requires administrative assistance and approval. Also I moved the article before. It did not work properly. The talk page got left behind. I forgot about it. It would be easier if an experienced administrator would go ahead and review. After a determination has been made it can easily be put back in mainspace. I hope administrators can offer their assistance. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD and DRV comments were against having any article based on this concept in mainspace. The talk page has been fixed. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was based on an old version. The new version is organized and different. This requires administrative oversight to sort this out. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, you're trying to circumvent consensus by bringing it here. Take it to DRV again or the talk pages; AN/I is not deletion review, or article review for that matter. Phony Saint 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I take it to DRV again? Where is the policy to open a second DRV when the article has been updated? There is no policy covering this matter at hand. The talk pages are not for this matter. I am asking here for administrative guidance on the path never taken. The first DRV was deletion as a repost which was unfounded and easily debunked. Again, there is no specific policy on this. We are breaking new waters. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism&diff=next&oldid=104740040 According to Levine2112 the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. He charged me with reposting deleted content. Nothing was further from the truth. This kind of misrepresentations should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The text of the article was considerably different and the enitre article was reorganized. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I charged you with nothing more than removing the speedy delete template. So I simply reverted the edit and warned you that it is considered vandalism to remove a speedy delete template from an article which you authored. I really wasn't think about the MfD from five months ago. I was just going about my usual anti-vandalism business. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Levine2112 has also charged me with edit warring on the Coral Calcium which was a lie. I made a single edit and he harrassed me with a warning. The allegations have no merit or validity. Levine2112 is unable to provide any evidence of edit warring. He made it up. Levine2112 can't cover his tracks by explaining his way out of this. Levine2112 has presented a false picture, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. You teamed up with another editor with whom you have an alliance and joined in a edit war to help prevent that editor from breaking 3RR. It should be noted that the editor with whom you teamed up with dropped the same edit warring warning on another editor who only made one reversion as well. Like you, that editor promptly deleted the warning. Unlike you, that editor recognized that the warning is just a warning, stopped his edit warring and moved on. I suggest you do the same. Finally, it should be also noted that the edit which you reverted was changed back. It was discussed on the talk page and it appears that you and your edit warring "teammate" were in the wrong policy-wise. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – Blocked by User:MaxSem. Pants(T) 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block Sugarkisser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user has created a bunch of hoaxes just like the other likely sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants(T) 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot going crazy

    Resolved
     – No problem with bot

    The Bot that adds a date to the Citation Needed tags seems to be messing up an article I'm working on. See this version right after the Bot hit it. [57]. All the refs in the article are messed up. Before the Bot did its thing, all the refs were fine. For now, I've deleted the Citation Needed tags. Wonder what's going on. TimidGuy 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing wrong with the bot. The references in the article were...unorthodox. I'm working on fixing them up some. --ElKevbo 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much. Glad to know that the Bot is fine and that it's the editors who messed up. : ) TimidGuy 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion

    Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker/sandbox? I do not think the editor intended to start that page after investigation. I have placed the csd tag, it has however been removed. Thanks in advance, Navou 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted. Neil ╦ 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    about the username Sinepgib

    Resolved
     – Block seems appropriate and endorsed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    recently, the admin. Anthony.bradbury blocked the user Sinepgib for being inflamatory because it reads backwards, bigpeniS. I feel that this is going slightly out of control on the rules because I know people with the last name Fruck and there are plenty of people with the name Dick. That does not mean that they can not have usernames like that so why block Sinepgib. This username could mean millions of things and picking out an innapropriet is slighty out of hand. I feel that they should not be blocked for having an inflamatory username and should be unblocked. There has to be a limit to what is inflamatory. --Salnjm 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh what an interesting edit history for a new editor. --Fredrick day 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fairly clear the username is inappropriate. There are over a billion possible usernames... please chose another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser extremely flawed

    The checkuser is extremely flawed. My roommate is over 1000 miles away from the location of a known bad apple. Yet the checkuser claims they are using that bad apple's IP.

    I am not mentioning which case because I don't want to get involved (happened within the past week). They will just accuse me of being the same person as the bad apple. There is a certain gang mentality in certain parts of wikipedia. This is bad.

    I expect to be blocked but a reasonable administrator would look into the matter unless they have a gang mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfulmind (talk • contribs)

    <Quack quack> Well, logically, if someone's first edit is to ANI complaining about checkuser, they are highly likely to be someone blocked because of checkuser. Moreschi Talk 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be related specifically to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anacapa. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet checklist, let's see: New account's first edit is to complain about someone else (such as their roommate) being blocked. Check. Mention of corrupt admins. Check. Acknowledgement that people will suspect he's the same person as the blocked user. Check. Statement that a good admin would investigate instead of blocking this new account. Check. ChazBeckett 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked, for obvious reasons. Block log message: "Goodbye". Moreschi Talk 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL--channeling Anne Robinson, Moreschi?--Blueboy96 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an easy case to solve. Anaconda is in the University of California, Santa Barbara. Is that complainer near Santa Barbara? If not, checkuser is flawed. If so, checkuser is correct. Feddhicks 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's already been solved. Checkuser was "likely" ("same location"). Editing patterns were conclusive. A violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Next. MastCell Talk 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Analyzing just the logic, not the specifics of the case, it's not been solved. The hypothesis was if the person is really 1000 miles away and the checkuser flawed or is the person in Santa Barabara. Whatever!Feddhicks 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC) "When it absolutely, positively has to...."[reply]
    Hmm, just so all know, I'm a student of UCSB, too, and also sometimes edit from UCSB computers. Just so everyone knows there are legit users there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting very messy. user:Hotpotatoes was banned for trying to avoid scrutiny by creating a sockpuppet account. They have evaded this block and trolled the Anacapa discussions using User:Thoughtfulmind and User:71.212.90.90. Either the checkuser is wrong or a meatpuppet is being employed - but its still trolling. I was the user who monitored Anacapa's behaviour and Hotpotatoes doesn't match the pattern - the language is wrong. On top of that the furthest IP away from UCSB I have for Anacapa is Glendale, CA, not Denver, CO. Hotpotatoes is a sock account by their own admition, whether of Ancapa or not I don't know. However they, and Thoughfulmind are in clear breach of WP:SOCK and 71.212.90.90 was used to block evade. If the checkuser was wrong Hotpotates should have emailed the blocking admin about it - trolling WP:AN and Community Sanction Noticeboard is out of line. Perhaps checkuser should look into User:Thoughfulmind's IP and put this issue to bed--Cailil talk 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way, it's the end of the ballgame for Anacapa, I take it.Blueboy96 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CyclePat

    I like CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have been dealing with him on and off for ages, but his incessant campaigning in respect of AMA has gone well past the point of Pat's usual well-intentioned cluelessness and into trolling and disruption. I have blocked him until he gives an undertaking to leave it be. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah he has taken it too far despite warnings, maybe you could reduce it down to a 24 hour disruption block so he can have a think about things rather than an indef? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the 72 hour block given previously hasn't had that effect, so I'm not sure why 24 hours would... --pgk 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, your right, he continued after it - agree we should leave it as it is pending CyclePat agreeing to leave the issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Contribution history

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

    Anyone know why everyone's contribution history seems to have stopped updating? Not just me, as the contributions of every user who's recently updated a page on my watchlist also seems to stop about an hour ago, even when I know they've made edits since then. Is this just a regular glitch I've never noticed before, or is someone messing with the software? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    yes I've noticed the same thing. --Fredrick day 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So have I, and it doesn't appear to be a browser problem, as I've refreshed and cleared the cache a few times now. --Merovingian ※ Talk 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just massive database lag, awhile ago it was up to 20 minutes. --MichaelLinnear 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why don't we have the brown notice about it? --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My contribs seem to have frozen at UTC 22:29 (I can tell the exact spot as it was in the middle of an AWB run). Everyone else seems to have stopped at the same point, too, although the histories & RC both seem to be updating normally. A mystery... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a major problem for vandal reversions, as we are unable to review contribs from active vandals. —Gaff ταλκ 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you want us to do? We can only wait. The issue will solve itself with time or a database upgrade. Administrators cannot do anything about this issue, and therefore it should be considered resolved from an admin point of view. -- ReyBrujo 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add my two (Euro) cents worth, popup scripts are able to access the recent contributions of others, so that might be a temporary work-around from a vandal fighting standpoint. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)

    Can someone suggest a sensible place to report these personal attacks (in the edit summaries)?:

    I'm not sure that dispute resolution/mediation etc are the correct forum, but don't know where else to go. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure, but you should definitely not be re-posting warnings that the user has removed from his page. He has shown clearly that he prefers you not to keep posting there, so please take a hint. Especially don't post templated warnings. People do get testy at those. I agree the edit summaries aren't civil, but your posts are pretty provocative, too. Please give his page a rest. POTW isn't fair game just because he has a bit of a rep for being testy. That's emphatically not a good reason to keep poking at him. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    P. S. And you're supposed to tell him you're discussing him here. That's one message on his page that would be appropriate. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Both Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Vandalism allow a user to remove warnings from their own talk page. Phony Saint 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above appears to be a response to this complaint to and about a user who has already found to have been using sock-puppets to harass me and blocked for incivility towards me. Andy Mabbett 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack on fellow editor

    I'm a disinterested third party in this. User:BrianGriffin-FG, at Talk:Family Guy#Meg's biological father, is hurling F- you's at a fellow editor, in boldface yet, and that's at the end of a long back-and-forth of his inappropriate arguments. It's an extreme lack of civility that someone might want to address. --69.22.254.111 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've redacted the attack and make a stab at an explanation on the users talk page. -Mask? 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Salmoria

    Can action please be taken to block this User for a small period of time. They have become involved in a revert war,been told off the WP:AN/3RR rule,and has ignored. They have vandalised my discussion page with fake vandal claims and repeatedly ignored advice given to them by other admin persons on their discussion page. Refer Tina Turner for the history of edits and reversals.Maggott2000 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be a fairly clear-cut WP:NPOV problem turning into a disruptive edit war. You can leave a message at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR violations. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is much more that that. This is clear misuse of the vandalism template, page blanking, probable sock puppet, vandalism of detail to the sbject and references, and offensive behaviour by the User. Please look into this. My talk page is a mess of this Users misguided and irrational behaviour Maggott2000 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some diffs for the admins and us rubberneckers? ThuranX 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Summers95926

    I am having some issues with User:Summers95926, Nora Greenwald's self-proclaimed biggest fan. He has been vandalizing the article by removing large chunks of it, saying that "Nora requests for it to be deleted." All the information is from interviews and articles already published on the internet, and if she wanted to keep her "private life private" like he claims, then she shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Anyway, he also keeps adding tags to the article, claiming it needs clean-up, it is unencyclopedic, and he also tagged the entire article as unreferenced. Clearly it is not, or it would not have been made a good article.

    • The talk page where we have been debating: Talk:Nora Greenwald
    • He also threatened me here (Read the edit at the top of the screen)
    • Examples of adding inappropriate and un-neccessary tags: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], among others
    • Example of blanking sections: [66]
    • Example of deleting sourced info [67]

    It should also be mentioned that he has a Conflict of interest as he knows her personally and is deleting information (which I should mention is in no way libelous), thus conflicting with WP:POV and WP:NPOV. He is also a known self-promoter, which one can see by all the articles and pictures about and of himself listed for deletion here. He made his own page and page about his wrestling promotion, which have also both been deleted. Nikki311 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given a little notice about WP:COI and WP:BLP, keep us updated on what is going on. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I appreciate it. I also left him a note on his talk page telling him to tell Nora Greenwald to contact Wikipedia if she wants. I also provided the link to the e-mail address for him. Nikki311 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    June 2007

    Blanking of editor's comment by User:Someguy0830 at Wikipedia talk:Village pump. first instance Badagnani 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What the heck is your problem? Nothing was blanked, you were not hurt, and if anything he helped your message by not making it look like some newbie made the post. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see, this is another page. The page you posted to was not a discussion page, that is all. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang it, now I'm confusing myself. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Second instance Badagnani 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post it to Wikipedia:Village pump, not Wikipedia talk:Village pump. The talk page is only for talking about the village pump page itself. Phony Saint 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn non-functioning contribs list. I would have commented sooner. It's like he said. Spamming that notice everywhere isn't productive. It didn't take me long to see you're heavily invested in this particular issue, so I'd suggest doing as you've already been told and calming down about the whole thing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks after being told repeatedly to stop, using various IPs

    An editor complained at the help desk about something in the article on Labrador Retrievers[68] calling another editor "delusional" or, rather, suggesting another editor might be delusion (I suppose if they didn't write an article that exactly agreed with this editor's opinions). This editor was asked politely to stick to the topic and post on the article's talk page, and to not discuss the other editor there. This editor then posted a comment on the article's talk page calling the other editor "paranoid." I removed the edit, and warned the poster on his talk page, with a level 3 warning, in light of the name calling, and having been asked not to continue in such a manner. The poster is using an IP address, and is changing IP addresses to repost the same comments, which I removed again from the talk page.

    My question is, can I now ask for this user to be blocked, who is posting from a range of IPs, and how do I got about it? Should I give a final warning, and where do I give it since the user is changing IP addresses within a range of addresses? KP Botany 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you try request for page protection? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, hadn't thought of that. It's for a talk page, will it be done for a talk page? I guess I don't see why not. Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over it, it seems as if its just one individual doing the same edits. Your RFP will probably be denied (unless it was from a lot of editors), however, the last edit by the IP received a L4 warning (continuing from the others). If it continues, apply for help at WP:AIV and cite the other IPs. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the mistake of talking back to them a while back, so quite obviously I'm the editor this person is so intent on speaking out against. I made comment about them on this board a few days ago, which is archived here. In case of future reference, it has a list of the IP addresses the person had used, though I did not include edits to the talk page. I am concerned about possibility of having to report them to WP:AIV some time, because of, among other things, the fact that putting warnings on their talk page is rendered useless by the constant change of address. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short term RFsP was granted, and the admin removed the personal attacks. However, when requesting semi-protection I did not realize that this page had been granted a short term semi-protection before and that the IP returned and continued with precisely the same behaviour (I also lightly scolded and complimented User:Sarranduin for so politely tolerating the obnoxious behaviour--there has been no return on the personal attacks, so the situation has not escalated, just stayed the same, one IP editor spewing incomprehensible venom at another editor). I will request that the IPs be blocked when it returns, unless someone has a more useful suggestion. The IP is not reading the article, in addition to not reading any warnings or comments, and is simply intent on reposting the same personal attack. KP Botany 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin action re confirmed sockpuppetry

    Resolved

    Emnx has been listed as a suspected sockpuppet here and has been confirmed by checkuser. This also confirms 3RR violation and block evasion as listed in the suspected sockpuppet report. As this user has been vandalising user pages and edit warring on Mandrake Press, I request that appropriate administrative action be taken. IPSOS (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sockmaster is blocked for one month, obvious sock indef, his IP for a week. I see no point in blocking the dynamic IPs he used ten days ago. MaxSem 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure to list them in case he tries to evade his block. Now we have a record of the IP ranges he uses. IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of Vandalism Template

    Article for Joe Eigo has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([69], [70]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the objection that User:Naconkantari had was the number of cite-needed tags. I'm surmising this from the edit summaries, since no one's actually discussed any of their reverts at the talk page. Sometimes adding an overly large number of tags to an article can be a form of vandalism. In this case obviously it's not. Why not open a discussion on the article talk page? It sounds like User:Naconkantari was in favor of removing unsourced material, and just objected to the huge number of tags. I think you'll find common ground. MastCell Talk 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I did attempt to discuss the changes on Naconkantari's talk page but didn't really get anywhere. --81.179.113.175
    Generally if you need that many cite-needed temps, you should go with the cleaner messagebox "citations needed" temp. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. As to the article, I note that, in one of the diffs you provided, you used the autobiography tag. This is used when the subject has extensively edited the article. An editor named JoeEigo has edited the article, but only twice. What would you define as ostensibly or extensively? Also, do we have/need proof that this is Mr. Eigo? He's a minor celebrity, but well-known to LazyTowners like myself and is as susceptible to pranks as, say Julianna Rose Mauriello--Ispy1981 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JB196, now using IPs

    Resolved
     – Blocked one of the socks, and Yamamoto got the other one and the semiprotection. Riana ⁂ 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    62.231.243.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 74.192.233.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Looks like JB has run out of accounts, and is resorting to vandalizing my user page with IP's (probably open proxies). Someone mind blocking him and semi-protecting my user page while we get the proxies blocked? SirFozzie 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fozzie, I don't think he's ran out of sleepers. For the third day in a row, I had to protect his target articles a few hours ago. He began hitting them with IPs immediately after the protection expired, and I semi'ed them. Minutes after that, he then shifted to one of his sleepers, and I had to move to full protection. I don't think he has ran out of accounts, just saving them to hit said articles. Phaedriel - 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Shuriken.jpg
    And it looks like this...
    We should really give him a barnstar for all the help in identifying open proxies. One Night In Hackney303 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's using a new one, reported to WP:AIV. Vandalized his checkuser page with the IP, it's been added to that case. RJASE1 Talk 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, RJASE, and I think you may be right, Phadriel. and ONiH, I'd like to give him a Barnstar or two, as long as I get the choice of HOW to give it to him... (grins) SirFozzie 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I semi'ed the CU page for a day. And Fozzie, I've got one helluva barnstar for him... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! - Alison ☺ 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now all we need is one of those airguns to deliver it at a high rate of speed ;) SirFozzie 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps this? One Night In Hackney303 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article on the "star", it is thrown in a special way, sort of like a discus but as a weapon. Resurgent insurgent 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think showing a picture of a ninja star with the comment "I've got a barnstar for him" and subsequent comments about delivery of said ninja star might be construed as aggressive and threatening if you did not know that Phaedriel is (I hope) joking, as is everyone else, right? Neil ╦ 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of threads this guy causes on ANI per day with sock reports I think any offensive weaponry we can throw at him is welcome, frankly. Deserves it. Ye shall reap what ye have sowed, etc. This fellow is busy sowing plenty of grapes of wrath. Moreschi Talk 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I'm joking, dear Neil, as everyone else is regarding the "star" - and I think our comments cannot be construed as anything but smirk. We're just blowing off a little steam aften chasing him and reverting his misdeeds for several days in a row. Mr. JBP shouldn't be afraid about his physical integrity while he's around us. However, I'd happily smash his computer... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RodentofDeath edit warring in Angeles City

    RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) (again), along with two other editors who may be sockpuppets (my last request for a CheckUser was declined) are making specious arguments on Talk:Angeles City, and have resumed edit warring in Angeles City (again). I'm about to give up on this for the night because I'm about to hit WP:3RR, and anyway their Edit summaries are including (specious, insultingly so) reasons for which they will claim good faith edits.

    Example argument:

    remove "became known as center for prostitution" as article already states it became known as culinary center.[71]

    rv. angeles has prostitutes. unless you wish to argue that point and that the population increased after WW2 then please stop revert warring.[72]

    There are five (5) reliable citations for this article. This has been discussed repetitively on the talk page for that article. >150kb in the archives since this edit war began, and that's just for this article. (He does in several places.)

    AN/I hasn't demonstrated an interest in this situation that I've noticed, but this has gone on for over a month. RodentofDeath has been entirely destructive, and the fact the he even bothers to make excuses (however incredibly lame) on Talk pages now qualifies this current period is his charm offensive. / edgarde 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reveryed the most recent edits, since this appears to be POV removal of sourced statements, and asked for more input on the talk page. --Haemo 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like we needed more talk page input. Counting all the archives we have >300 highly repetitive kb of specious arguments against this sentence, and attacks on the editor who initially inserted it. It's really beyond discussion now. / edgarde 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a formality - if he can't bring any new, substantial arguments, then we can revert his edits wholesale. --Haemo 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    well that doesnt sound very much like a neutral point of view but since we are pointing out comments please notice who wrote "(→Destroying Angeles again - There's been enough "talk". Put up or shut up.)" on the talk page history. RodentofDeath 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    if you are going to summarize please do so accurately. there was definitely not 300k of arguments on this one sentence. this article started out as an attack by one editor intent on destroying the reputation of a city she despises. most of the discussion successfully argued for the removal of the "welfare" section along with other false information used to distort the image of angeles. at no point have i attacked anyone other than to point errors they have written. meanwhile you are accusing anyone that disagrees with you of being me. RodentofDeath 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block by Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

    I have an issue with a block made by User:Rebecca. I have tried discussing it with her but she does not seem to feel it is inappropriate in regards to the to issues I feel are most important.

    1. It was not preventative
    2. There was no communication prior to the block

    Here is a basic time line of what happened:

    • Sometime around May 25 I saw a notice on the Community portal to Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I was shocked that the backlog was so large that Articles tagged in Dec of 2005 where being worked on. I started to help out. Note: I never sign up for these things even though I have pitched in with several, like the Biography Unassesed Article Drive, in the past.
    • Most of what I did in the following days was retag articles which had {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}} or {{primarysources}} working through various letters in the categories.sample contribs The large majority of articles in these categories did actually have at least one source. However I also actually read through many articles and did other things as needed. I assesed articles, removed unsourced accusations of killing people, redirect to alternate named article on same subject, tagged copyvios, outright removed ref tags, etc. Basically I made several 100's of edits to these articles tagged for a year or more, with the idea they have generally not been given attention in areas besides referencing. I watchlisted all the artilces I edited and when I see a good, significant, non-IP edit come up I unwatch them figuring that if there were concerns with my actions something would have been said by then. I was not looking out to mass-delete articles, although going through these categories I certianly saw the necessity for some deletions. I was editing responsibly; improving Wikipedia.
    • As I was going through these edits, I was leaving truly unreferenced articles alone. I was thinking to first clean up the category then deal with articles that actually belong in the category. Other people taking part of the project quickly cleared out the true unreferenced articles from Dec 05-May 06. None of these where even close to the monster that is June 06. A good number of articles from those categories where run through prod. Maybe 20 or so, I can't link to them of course. I looked over those articles as they were in the waiting period and felt I understood which sort of non-notabilities or violations of WP:NOT would be appropriate for prod.
    • I was hesistant to start putting article through prod because of the situation on my watchlist. I decided I should start an alt account with a clean watchlist so I would not miss any concerns over articles I prod, and would be able to watch for any recreations. I created User:Birgitte-prod and left a note explaining why on my main user page.
    • On two days (May 31 and June 2) I tagged about 27 articles with prod. I notified not only notified the creator, but also any other significant contirbuter I noticed in the history.diff diff While looking through the history I dilgently checked previous prods and altered any I found to AFD. oops needs afd. I responded to remarks made on the talk page questioning my actions with a calm civil explantionNotability - reply. Of course I cannot show diffs for the articles I first checked the discussion of to find a previous AFD Keep/no consensus notice which I didn't prod or the many more articles which have been unreferenced since June 2006 that a simple reading of the article clearly convinced me that it was notable. On May 31st I read all these things as I went, spending a few minutes on each article. On June 2 I first checked articles and discussion pages making a list before tagging anything for prod which let me edit about once per minute (still hardly bot-speed). The point is I was editing in a careful and responsible manner and not like a bot. In all the alternate account has less than a hundred edits total over a three day period and only 27 prods. Obviously after seeing Rebecca concerns I understan that they were not all the uncontroversial deletion candidates as I believed them to be at the time. I understand that my judgement was in error in some cases and I am happy to readust my criteria due to the concerns she has raised. I have no desire to prod articles which are contraversial, I was simply mistaken. After Rebecca reviewing my edits, I still have 14 active prods and one AFD with no oppostion.
    • Based on the prods Rebecca disagreed with she blocked User:BirgitteSB-prod indefinately, with IP blocking, reasoning "Mass-prodding pages at random for being unreferenced, many indisputable notable." She left a note on my talk page stating she had blocked your User:BirgitteSB-prod bot account for mass-prodding pages on the basis that they were unreferenced. . . Please find some other means of handling unreferenced articles. She also uses rollback to revert about 7 of the prods I placed, despite the fact that my edits are not vandalism. Of course I think it is clear that my account was 1) Not a bot (<100 over three day, sometimes at 1 edit per minute) 2) Obviously not "prodding pages at random" 3) Proding articles on the basis my belief that they were of non-notable (plenty of non-refernced articles were not prodded and I mention the non-notabilty in my reason) 4)Obviously going to be on the same IP address as my main account. 5)I was also "handling unrefeernced articles" by other means, as shown above, only prodding where I truly believed it to be appropriate. On top of the unsoundness of Rebecca's reasoning and her technical incompetence she blocked me A)Without first addresing any of her concerns with me B)Without any preventative purpose (indefinate block on an account not editing at the time still left standing). The mistakes I numbered show a lack of dilgence on Rebecca part, but the ones I lettered show a completely unacceptable use of adminstrative power. Rebecca needs to understand that disscusion before a block and blocks as preventive messures are an absolute neccessity when dealing with established contributors.
    • Eventually despite there being confusion and my auto-unblock request being declined someone unblocks my IP, but doesn't notify me. Or maybe I was unblocked first and then had the auto-blocked declined. Anyways, I leave some messages on my talk page to explain the truth of the situation and outlining why the block was inappropriate asking Rebecca to respond. OK you blocked an account that was not a bot, was not actively making edits at the time, without adressing the issue with me personally, AND you blocked my IP so I cannot edit at all. I expect you to seriously change your blocking procedures. The above block was completerly out of line and is quite an inconvience since I can't edit at all now. Just to be clear (clarify issues) . . . I am signing off for the night but someone please copy this to Rebecca talk page. Rebecca, you seriously need to think about what you are doing with the block button. You need to be certain you resoning is sound and you need to know how blocking actually works regarding the IP.
    • Rebecca responds with I did not realise that it was a manually-operated account . . . How on earth did you get to the conclusion that they were "uncontroversial deletion candidates"? There is not a chance in hell that any of those I've listed would have even passed AfD. Which is certainly less civil than anything I have written, and she is the one blocking me! She does not lift the improper block or address any of the issues I raised with her actions.
    • I leave her note with the explantion she asked for and reassuring her I will readjust my criteria based on her concerns. And asking her once again to adress my concerns about the inappropriate block.
    • She responds critizing the same prods again despite the fact I have already reassured her that I change my behaivior based on her concerns. She apologizes for the IP block, but stating If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.

    Clearly Rebecca is not going to see that blocking in such a manner is inappropriate through discussion with me. I am not contesting that the disputed prods should be deleted as I am more than willing to accept her judgement that I was mistaken there. I have made it clear I will be more strict with which articles I tag for prod in the future. I don't think I can do anything else beyond these things. I am not at all saying she is wrong about {{prod}}, and that my edits were correct. I am saying that my edits were not blockable offences. Obviously if I had continued to edit in this fashion after someone shared their concerns with me, it would merit a block for disruption. However this was not the case. Please can someone else help her see that her adminstrative actions were inapropriate, because I don't believe I can get through to her.--BirgitteSB 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The account concerned had been making dubious edits at a rapid speed. From a look at the edits, some of which were very strange (a good number of these would have obviously got either a unanimous or speedy keep had they been taken to AfD), I assumed it was tagging articles upon some sort of formula-gone-wrong. I was apparently wrong on this matter. I thus made the block of the seperate account (mistakenly hitting the wrong button when I did so and blocking his main account, which was promptly fixed), and explained why I had done so on Birgitte's talk page. Birgitte has stated that he will be more careful about his taggings in future, and I see no reason why this dispute need continue. Rebecca 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience with BirgitteSB (on WikiSource, for example, where she is a long term contributor to very great effect) has been that she is uniformly thoughtful and helpful, even when I do not agree with her, and always open to reason and discussion, and someone who works hard to benefit the projects she is involved in. This is behaviour to be strongly encouraged (it sounds like she was tacking a thankless task that was woefully backlogged) and I am not sure that blocking was the appropriate course of action to take here. I'd note that Jimbo himself has pointed out that sometimes summary deletion of unreferenced articles is the best approach, as "no article" is better than a "bad article". ++Lar: t/c 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Lar. That was a poor block. It would appear that the mistake has been put right now and I'm sure Rebecca will be more careful in future. --John 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my above posting has convinced you to undo the block, I have no desire of continuing the dispute. I will say that I really do hope you have had a change of heart in regards to the statements: If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.. Even if you will not publicly retract this, please do not block good-faith editors without first alerting them to your concerns in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP needing block repeatedly vandalising WP:AIV

    • Resolved
       – blocked for 31 hours

    71.108.59.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked, and unblocked earlier. Has continued to vandalise and is removing the AIV reprort. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he/she was removing a report made about him/her from the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And removing the report pretty much instantly, which is why I reported it here... I don't think most vandals know about [[WP:AIV]. Oh, well. Any bets on a return engagement in a bit less than 31 hours? Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this vandalism?

    190.10.0.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are constantly changing certain articles' infoboxes from hex color coded to other "named" colors and linking common English words, even after being requested not to, and after being explained why not to. Examples: ([73]) and ([74]). (Full discussion about colors here, although not updated, consensus was reached.)

    At what stage, if any, does these persistant changes become vandalism? This user has at most 5 constructive edits.

    G.A.S 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I would just start escalating templates, and keep up trying to discuss it with him on his talk - hopefully he'll get the message. --Haemo 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.V.E.i.

    • Resolved
       – indefinitely blocked

    User M.V.E.i. has been repeatedly accusing me of vandalism, inserting false information and "talking lies". I have asked him to provide evidence (up to a point where I linked my contributions and article history for him) or stop that. Yet that has had no effect, either he ignores my request completely or insists "it is all there". Accusing someone of vandalism is perhaps strongest and harshest thing to say to another Wikipedian - yet I did not want to "bite a newbie" (his first edits are from April 20th) and just warned him repeatedly. However, now that is grown to a point where I believe that his actions can be called stalking.

    Instances when has accused me of vandalism, trolling and/or lies:

    He has been repeatedly asked to behave civilly, not only by other users but by administrators as well ([85], [86], [87], [88]). That has had no effect whatsoever.

    I am unsure what to do about him. Temporary blocks have no effect, he feels that he is fully just in his edits. Apparently he even doesn't realize that he is insulting other nationalities or editors. DLX 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Way, way over the line. Indefinitely blocked. Neil ╦ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You could AT LEAST learn the case, i can find you a few that belive that DLX should be blocked for vandalizing articles and starting Edit-Wars. I gave hin exemples of lies he said and he couldn't denie them. M.V.E.i.
    IP blocked. Sigh. Neil ╦ 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BetacommandBot/Bookcover image deletion

    I'm confused by BetacommandBot tagging Image:Evolution and the Theory of Games.jpg with the {{non-free use disputed}} template. The image was tagged as {{Non-free book cover}}, since it is used in an article Evolution and the Theory of Games, which discusses the book in question. Is this not sufficient to meet the fair use criteria? It doesn't seem to feel like any of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use. Pete.Hurd 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the second paragraph of the {{Non-free book cover}}; it begins with "To the uploader" in bold. --ElKevbo 08:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief! Better just delete it so that Cambridge University Press doesn't sue for using an image of a cover of a book in the article about the book. Can't we just make a template for this, maybe call it {{Non-free book cover + the "used in article" rationale}}? Maybe Betacommand could write a bot to fill in the needed couple of fields of boiler plate. I'm not going to. I'm done with this. Pete.Hurd 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed that one. Personally, I believe this hamfisted new rule about a boilerplate not being sufficient to assert fair use is retarded and an appalling waste of everyone's time, but what do I know? Neil ╦ 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a new requirement, the fact that some think it is just demonstrates how lax we've been in enforcing it. The template has stated the requirement since 31 Jan 2006, the policy I would guess older than that. --pgk 09:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think most have only noticed it since it started being enforced by bots. Being in place for almost 2 years doesn't mean a rule is a good one (in my opinion, of course). Neil ╦ 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us have enforced it when seen for quite some time, the bot is merely uncovering the rather large amount which have been missed. I personally find it much more of a problem that we have lots of people uploading images etc. without taking the time to understand the basic policies, adding tags to indicate a status without reading those tags (how do they know it really is the correct thing if they never bother to read it?). Realistically if people had taken the time to actually read and act on the tags message when they uploaded it, we'd have no problems now. (By act I mean either simply do it, or try and discuss/understand the requirement and if tweaks can be made). --pgk 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently very little (and yeah, you set yourself up for that one). --Cyde Weys 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <deindent> Yeah, it's pretty stupid that boilerplates can't be used as FUR's, but it's policy anyway and it takes you what, 20 seconds to write up a FUR? —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But if the boilerplates are not sufficient, why do we still have them? What is their point, other than luring the newer editors (or ones that have uploaded so many images they don't read the boilerplates any more) into uploading images that get deleted? It's as silly and as wasteful of everyone's times as allowing people to upload with templates that immediately tag the image for speedy deletion. Neil ╦ 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Their point is to record and display coherent and sufficient information on the license of the image, not its fair use rationale. There's are different boilerplates for that. Get with the program, man! --Spike Wilbury 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have both? Why not have one boilerplate that accomplishes both requirements? Neil ╦ 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason Betacommand can't set up his bot to simply add the rationales on these - because it allegedly doesn't provide enough information. Yes, it's beyond asinine, but that's where paranoia gets you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The templates are there primarily for categorisation. I really think they should be abandoned and plain old categories used instead, since there seems to be an endless stream of users who get confused and think that the boilerplate is all they need to add to the description page. --bainer (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason why templates couldn't be used for book covers that are used only on the article for the corresponding book. The reason, both legal and in terms of Wikipedia policy, for using Image:Greenmile.jpg on The Green Mile (novel) is no different than for using Image:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.jpg on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. (I picked these two at random; there are probably thousands of book covers that could all use identical rationales.) Rather than have people write their own rationales in each case - some of which may be badly written or flawed - why not use a boilerplate for {{Fair-use book cover for book article}}? The same also applies to album cover images to identify an album, video game boxes to identify that video game, and so forth. Yes, additional rationales would need to be added in some specific cases where it's used on other articles, but that is a minority. Right now we have a bunch of images that need fair use rationales and using something like this is the best possible way. *** Crotalus *** 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second thing is though, you need to demonstrate why the useage is needed. Do we really need a picture of the book cover, does it do anymore then decorate the infobox 90% of the time? I mean for most uses, we could get away with free images of say, the author, or of fan art or something (as long as the fan art is free). It can and should be explained in each rational why we really need to use the image. Most of them are "so we can put it in an infobox". Infoboxes do not provide critical commentary of the book cover itself. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc Glasgow

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

    I would like to complan about the single track narrow mindedness of this user. The user is unilaterally deleting images and postingh copious ammounts of articles for deletion claimg they are biographies, when they are murder articles and also restoring to their version and closing AfD reviews when they were inherntly involved in the original deletion. I think the user needs to be more civil and think about what they are doing before being single tracked and doing what they want as if they own wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 10:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kindly take a ticket and stand in line. I would suggest first trying to discuss the issue with the admin in question (if you haven't) you also have WP:DRV, WP:RFC and this arbitration case that he is currently involved in relating to similar actions to those you are complaining about. Other avenues of dispute resolution exists apart from those listed - I would suggest reading WP:DR. ViridaeTalk 10:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like he's doing a good job of getting rid of NN articles - thanks for shining the spotlight on those NN articles, I'll be over to them to make a delete case on most of them. --Fredrick day 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an arbitration case currently open dealing with this entire matter, and the several editors who are involved in it. There is no reason to have mini brush fire discussions about it on the administrators' noticeboard. I'm closing this discussion. Uncle G 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring

    The detailed background to this can be found at [130]. It has been suggested that this is the appropriate forum, so I turn it over to you.

    My first problem is that this editor deleted of hundreds of external links without discussion, rather than discuss the deletions on a talk page as I suggested at the very beginning of his deletions, and instead engaged in edit warring. This is evidenced by the diffs at the above. The editor denies it to be the case. Checking the diffs shows that this is in fact what happened.

    In short, the editor has deleted hundreds of baseball statistical and biographical urls that were external links in baseball player bios because of what he understands is the directive for him to be bold, and due to his subjective view that the urls should be deleted. I believe his deletions are not only substantively wrong-headed, which is being discussed now at the above url, but that they are doing damage in the interim. If he wishes to challenge such links, in my view, Wiki policy is clear that rather than delete the urls, he should post a template. See [[131]]. It will be difficult if not impossible to restore links once the matter is resolved, if that does indeed happen.

    The editor originally claimed that the urls were deleted because they constituted link farms, and contained identical content. This was subsequently disputed by a number of editors, including two whom I contacted immediate to help -- Wizardman and Nishkid64 -- the two admins in the baseball project. Their comments are the first two that you will see other than mine and his. Even now, days later, the editor has just deleted more urls, as one can see at [132] -- with slightly different rationales, such as "removed sites with nearly (emphasis added) identical content, sites that didn't need to be in their (sic)."

    It would be appreciated if: 1) appropriate action could be taken vis-a-vis the editor for his having made hundreds of deletions while initially ignoring the request to discuss, and then concurrent with discussion; and 2) action could be taken to have him RV his deletions pending the finalization of the discussions on the above url. If need be, though it is not clear to me that this is appropriate given that fact that there is an ongoing discussion, he could tag the articles once he has RV's his deletions, and untag the articles upon conclusion of the ongoing discussion. Thanks. --Epeefleche 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Captain scarlet and microformats

    With reference to this recent edit by the above user (Captain scarlet (talk · contribs)) where they say that "This user's contributions now solely consist on removing as many Microformats as posible to maintain quality on Wikipedia." Could this be considered an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? They have made their dislike for Microformats clear yet fail to justify the reasons for removing it on a large number of occasions as can be seen by looking at Special:Contributions/Captain_scarlet. Comments from this editor on this issue tend to be similar to this where they plainly dismiss the addition of microformats with other editors without considering the possible benefits of the change on the appearance of pages for our readers. It is clear that the user and the main editor behind microformats, User:Pigsonthewing have had numerous disagreements in the past and I feel that Captain scarlet's dislike for microformats and revert campaign against them may have more to do with this than actually writing an encyclopaedia.

    Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page (diff) following his comment that "Whatever you tell me will be delete and ignored whatever its content". For this reason I will not be informing Captain scarlet of this. Adambro 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please note that previous attempts to discuss my concerns with this editor have led to the demand that I do not communicate with him via his talk page" - likewise. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular edit on his userpage is just trolling, and you'd probably do well to ignore it, since he hasn't actually created any disruptive microformats. That said, diffs like this one seem like a more significant problem. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rampant incivility is pretty much the norm whenever User:Captain scarlet and User:Pigsonthewing find there way to the same talkpage.--Isotope23 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And it's not from me. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <Cynical mode>Oh my god you're serious</cynical mode> No further comment. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has suggested that he is creating microformats of any sort. far from it; he is repeatedly removing templates which happen to include microformats, without apparently any reason for doing so, or being willing to enter into reasoned discussion. Indeed, his last 50 edits alone include 13 such reverts, to just three articles: [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144] and [145]. Andy Mabbett 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles you and Adambro didn't revert either... [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159]
    These reverts were made after Pigsonthewing ignored any comments left on talk pages, other users suggestions and compromises; Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct, Talk:Tinsley_Viaduct/coordinates, [[160]]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have ignored no meaningful comments and have worked towards compromises. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't ignored anything, then I haven't either and this time consuming nonsense is nothing more than a comment on your own behaviour. Fact is you canot accuse me of doing anything more than what you do. Criticising me is nothing more than criticising yourself, if you're ready to talk, do so. You have done nothing of the sort except using vitriolous comments against me and anyone else who disagree with you, with a support of an administrator... If my edits now consist only on reverting the inclusion of Micrpoformats is because I view Microformats as nothing more than a useless gadget and because I have no desire to spend time adding valuable content thanks to you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You try an RFC on whether to use Microformats on the pages in question yet? I took a quick look at the list and didn't see one, but I might've missed it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's this Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Microformats where no-one objected to their inclusion. Andy Mabbett 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war at London Metropolitan University

    Could an administrator intervene at London Metropolitan University? This looks like a severe edit war. Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've talked with Crewsaver on his talk page about the issue. He's a pretty new user, but he seems open to working through dispute resolution on the issue (talk page discussion, maybe an article content RFC). As a good faith gesture, he's re-added some aspects of the anonymous editor's additions that he doesn't find particularly objectionable. Now, we just have to see whether the anon is willing to do likewise. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Political succession boxes (large scale removal without discussion)

    Emerson7 (talk · contribs), who was blocked just a month ago for similar behavior, is going through various political bio articles and removing succession boxes. S/he claims that the succession boxes are "deprecated" but gives no evidence that there has been any discussion to support that claim. Attempts to engage in discussion results in him/her ignoring me and/or telling me s/he is correct per WP:SENSE and/or adding the article to WP:RFPP. S/he already has one article locked in the inconsistent state (Romualdo Pacheco). WRK (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Emerson7's disruptive reverts are continuing and have also been reported at WP:AN3. If you look at his/her contribs, everything lately is reverts. WRK (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked that emerson stop removing the boxes pending discussion and or a link to a community decision or other discussion depricating the succession boxes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    in my own defense (realizing this may or may not be the correct forum), this has be ongoing for several days...WRK has not refused to act in good faith and has accelerated and expanded 'war' see yesterdays 3RR requests. --emerson7 | Talk 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue goes much deeper than Wp:3RR. Unless you can show a consensus against the succession boxes, it would appear that they are a very common practice included use in the presidents of the united states. What I see is you trying to make changes against consensus then hiding behind the WP:3RR rule to get them to stick. Try to get a consensus against the boxes if you dont like them, dont just remove them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am acting in perfectly good faith in simply keeping the California governor articles consistent with the governor articles of every other state. I've also attempted to engage you in constructive discussion only to be called immature and told that I am not using WP:SENSE. You are making large-scale changes with no hint of discussion or consensus. WRK (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets remeber to keep cool. It'll all get sorted out! Dont stress about it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    London Borough of Camden

    Apologies for needing to bring this to your attention. There has been extensive editing at this page for about 4 days. The edits, made by anon ip and a named user have violated a number of policies. This has been pointed out on the talk page. An experienced user removed the edits, as extensive violation of WP:BIO, they have now been reverted by another anon IP. I believe that the page needs to be semi-protected, libels removed and a strong statement of policy made on the page. Thank you. Kbthompson 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be two partisan individuals editing this article (one an anon ip the other a newly created account). The article seems to be used as a soapbox for their political views. I have reverted the additions once, but I am unwilling to get involved in reverting the re-addition. The talk page discussions are also rantish and partisan. Because of the extensive libelous material that is added, request semi protection. MRSC • Talk 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! I parked in Camden once, just off the high street, came back five minutes (literally) to find my car towed. And, ironically enough, I had been buying cannabis. Whilst what they're adding to that article seems a bit... one sided... as someone who goes there fairly regularly let me assure you that it *is* accurate... my little anecdote supporting the stance of these people. Best username yet 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It does make it seem like Camdem is the worst borough in the country. Even if they have sources it is disproportionate. We are really not interested in this stuff. Secretlondon 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Molag Bal sock

    Hello, I think User:Rugbyman 5000 may be a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Just yesterday User:Martinp23 blocked User:81.154.110.210 as it was a Molag sock and had reported both me and User:Cometstyles to WP:AIV because we were apprently socks of Molag ball, he was blocked for one month and his unblock request denied after he requested it, a discussion on the IPS talk page then went underway between me and him and he began to get abusive and threatened to kill himself, his user talk was then semi-protected to prevent further abuse, the at 16:08 (GMT); User:Rugbyman 5000 was created and he immediately nominated me for adminship (I've now requested speedy deletion of the page for the reasons listed on the {{db-reason}} tag. He then edited my userboxes page adding two of the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} twice onto that page, which transcludes in a green format onto my userpage, however if you look their was a userbox their saying This user is is not a Wikipedia administrator and does not wish to be one currently, when I edited as Tellyaddict I had said several times that I did not want an RfA at that time and despite this, it was created and regretfully I accepted that nomination but the RfA for my new username (The Sunshine Man) I have declined. It just seems odd that a user would create an account just to nominate for adminship. Any thoughts. Regards --The Sunshine Man 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's severe enough file a checkuser. If not, wait for more contributions of this user to determine if the edit pattern is similar to the accused party. Miranda 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of Article History

    On 6/2/07, I created the article Allison Stokke, not realizing that it had already been created and deleted. There is an ongoing, very active DRV, but I wish to raise a different, more serious issue: my edits to that article no longer appear in the article history. There are edits before mine, and after mine, but looking at my own User Contributions page, my edits have simply disappeared. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an outrageous abuse by some Admin, unilateral censorship *way* outside the bounds of Wikipolicy. I want my edits back in the article history and my User Contributions, whatever the result of the DRV. Bete Noir 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct - your edits were deleted out by User:Sean William. If the article remains, then this is a violation of GFDL which will need to be resolved. If it is deleted, all the other edits will be deleted, and there will be no problem. Neil ╦ 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not admin abuse. He stored one version of the article instead of all the versions. The article was deleted a few times and recreated a few times. Sean Williams chose to restore one particular version (the one from around May 31) instead of the one that you recreated after that one was deleted. It is not abuse, just choice of what version to restore for consideration during the DRV. Further, it is not a GFDL violation because the article was not built around your edits. Your edits were deleted, the full article history was later restored, then someone added the DRV template and more edits were made related to the DRV template, then Sean Williams deleted your version and the other version leaving just the May 31 version plus the recent DRV template edits. None of this violates GFDL since your edits are not in any version of the article that currently exists. Metros 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, maybe I read it wrong ... are you sure they're not in the article? Neil ╦ 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the only edits that exist are the May 31 edits of the article and the June 4 additions of the DRV template. BeteNoir's edits were on June 2 and remain deleted. Metros 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, apologies on my part to Sean William. Doh. Neil ╦ 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But please explain why my edits are gone from my own editing history? My own User Contributions? Bete Noir 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because deleted edits do not show up in a user's contributions. Metros 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When The Cunctator restored that article, he sloppily restored every edit ever made to that article, which included two irrelevant re-creations. If I had let it be, then the history of Allison Stokke would have logs of the individual page creations, which would be confusing. Instead, I decided to delete the two stubs in favor or the larger version that is being debated at DRV. This is neither abuse nor censorship. Sean William @ 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Appleyard is treating contested/controversial proposals at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, and moving pages without consensus

    Yesterday, an unregistered editor added two proposals at WP:RM to the Uncontroversial proposals section. I happened to notice that one of these proposals was contested, so I checked and noticed that this IP editor had recently started making name changes to Ftr which were then reverted by different editors here, and here.

    This IP editor also started making name changes to BMI Baby, which were reverted by different editors here, and here, and here, and here. This IP editor knows these page move proposals are clearly not uncontroversial and should never even have been added to the uncontroversial proposals.

    I went back to WP:RM to move these to the contested proposals section, but Anthony Appleyard had gone ahead and moved the pages, even though the edit history showed this would be contested (another IP editor even added a comment opposing this move, which was ignored).

    So I moved the pages back to their original title, including detailed edit summaries why I was doing so, but the proposals were re-added by the same IP, to the uncontroversial section again, even though they were clearly contested). Unbelievably, Anthony Appleyard has again ignored the dispute in the edit histoy and moved both pages, apparently just because they were in the uncontroversial section. In the case of Bmibaby, User:The Gannet, User:Trident13, User:Gandoman, User:MilborneOne and myself, all dispute that BMI Baby is the correct name (the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline's own website, and many other reliable sources, refer to it as one word; "bmibaby"). Ironically, I have little interest in these subjects or their correct names, the main problem is this admin is being over-zealous and apparently moving any page that is added to the uncontroversial proposals, even if they could be contested or controversial. Crazysuit 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered speaking to Anthony about this first? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the all back, as it appears to be a case of not paying attention to the history of the page, but I will pop a note at his talk page. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They were proposed as uncontroversial because:
    • They are supported by the naming conventions and the manual of style (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
    • The proposed formats are supported by the references, as well as the rules of English (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
    • When proposed on the talk page, no dissenting opinion was put forward
    Therefore, I cound only conclude that the moves were consensual, and in the absence of any overwhelming evidence to overturn the strong consensus reposed in the NC and MOS, the reverts were contrary to that consensus. Hence they were put forward a second time for speedy reversion (as a result of User:Crazysuit's deliberate sabotage of the resulting redirects). 81.104.175.145 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A comrade does not tolerate GDP map

    I am almost embarassed to report this bizarre incident. This may not be vandalism per se but certainly Cold War POV.

    This editor has reverted (exactly once daily) this apparaently harmless bubble map of gross domestic product in 2005 based on IMF data. The map was a simple replacement for colour-coded map to resolve accessibility issues faced in old computer screens.

    This editor strongly believes I am pushing America-centric POV.

    Also see related discussion here

    What action, if any, would be taken? Anwar 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll first note that I strongly disagree with characterizing this dispute, however obliquely, as "vandalism". It's a content dispute that ought to be more fully hashed out on the talk page. That said, I concur with Elk Salmon and Giandrea that the original image is superior to your replacement. The "bubble map" leaves most countries with no data at all and is more difficult to comprehend. — Lomn 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 'comrade' meant to imply that they are socialist? —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from this being purely a content dispute, the map currently in the article seems to be a lot better than yours, if only on the basis that yours says nothing at all about half the countries in the world. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Chris. Upon seeing your map, my first thought was, 'why dots, instead of ust coloring in the nation?' I see such a map is available nad in use. Let's use it. ThuranX 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mudaliar

    I had been alerted about a few posters at Talk:Mudaliar. They were conversing in Tamil (my native language) and posting obscene messages and personal attacks. I have indef blocked the posters, User:Jack Heart, User:Zip600001, 58.185.249.2 and 84.73.20.236. Can another admin please review my actions if they were appropriate? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I dealt with some vandals there last week... I don't read Tamil, but if those were indeed obscene messages (and I'll take your word for it) Jack Heart (talk · contribs) would appear to be a 1 off troll account. Zip600001 (talk · contribs) appears to have some actual edits but an established account doing the same sort of edits as IPs and a newly minted account would strongly suggest a sockpuppeteer. I'd only consider an unblock of that account if a checkuser cleared them of sockpuppetry. Otherwise I think your block is appropriate.--Isotope23 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indef blocked 203.101.45.171 too. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Deletions and Harrassment by user Evrik

    Archived. No cause for urgent admin intervention. Encouraged to follow dispute resolution. Another admin can reopen this if they feel there is more to be said. MastCell Talk 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user refuses to agree on simple matters and abide by the direction given by an Admin. We have tried DS before to no avail, hence I have come here. Examples:

    • #1: [161] Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."
    • #2: [162] Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.
    • #3: [163] Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. Admin Will Beback specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article.
    • #4: [164] Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per admin Will Beback Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category.

    I mean if a Mexican national who has a felony conviction and hid in a church to avoid an outstanding warrant for deportation cannot be tagged with the categories "Mexican criminals" and "Fugitives," what does that really say about the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia?

    Furthermore, Admin Will Beback clearly directed that Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans. User Evrik is basically trying to get around the spirit if not the letter of that admin's wording.

    Additionally, user Evrik has repeatedly used the "highly discouraged" Single Purpose Account tag after my asking him several times not to do so. I have explained myself to him but he is unwilling to bend. I consider this a personal attack and harrassment and ask that the article be reverted to my last revision, user Evrik be blocked and that he be made to delete the SPA tags anywhere he has placed them on me. Sorry to dump all this here but frankly, I don't know what else to do :-( 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).

    Hmmm... with a brief glance at your history, I see edit-warring, a couple of recent 3RR blocks, and the clear use of sockpuppetry to continue edit-warring and evade 3RR. Your complaints appear to boil down to a content dispute, and I'd recommend you take it back to the article talk pages, without further edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. Alternately, you can pursue dispute resolution. I do agree that Template:Spa shouldn't be used in this context, and I'll ask Evrik not to do so. But there's nothing requiring immediate administrative intervention here. MastCell Talk 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, there has been edit warring. Users Ramsey2006 and Evrik frequently tag-team on this article. Other users have been blocked as well here. I have tried to avoid edit wars since my second 3RR which is evident by my postings on the 3RR notice board recently. As for sock puppetry, I still dispute that but nothing I can do about it. I firmly believe that this is far more than a simple content dispute. Evrik seems very personally involved. As I have stated, we have tried DS before to no avail. I requested a Third Opinion. I made a Request for Comments. No effect. Someone who is convicted of a felony is a criminal. How can that be up for dispute and if it is, how do you resolve something so fundamental? Finally, he is ignoring the ruling by another Admin. Why is that allowed to stand? Thanks LordPathogen 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    This user is geting increasingly out of control: "Don't think I didn't notice that you tried to report me for 3RR (and had to be shown what the real policy was." Some assistance would be appreciated. I have tried all the relevent options I can think of... 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordPathogen (talk • contribs).
    Umm... looking at that talk page, I see you harassing User:Evrik (about the Wikimedia elections) and engaging in incvility and personal attacks. I don't see the diff you cite above as particularly "out of control". You're not helping your case. I'd suggest pursuing the steps outlined in dispute resolution; this isn't the complaints department and I don't see that User:Evrik has done anything actionable. I'll ask him to stop using the SPA template. MastCell Talk 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User Evrik created a whole section on the talk page devoted to me and that is not harrassment? Please also note that 1. I created my header after he did his and 2. I removed his name when he stated it was a personal attack. LordPathogen 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    It seems to be going well. (H) 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what does this mean, the fix was in? LordPathogen 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, if you look at this summary:
    This template must be substituted.
    you'll see almost no edits outside Elvira Arellano. You'll also see that all the other edits are related to Elvira Arellano (except maybe for unsuccessfully reporting me for 3RR). LordPathogen is being disruptive and using the process to disrupt the article. --evrik (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, you will see that Evrik is still ignoring your request since he user the SPA tag even here... And with editors like Evrik, it is little wonder I have time for other articles, now is it? ;-) And as for using the process, kindly note it is I, not you Evrik, who have recently asked for a Request for Comments... I ask you MastCell to read the edits I made adding data from the legal brief and decide for yourself if they are "disruptive" or is there perhaps someone who shall not be named that is gaming the system here...LordPathogen 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    As long as we're adding things to the record

    This little gem as emailed to me last week while LP was blocked:

    from LordPathogen <xxxxx>

    to Evrik <xxxx>
    date May 25, 2007 12:43 AM
    subject For the "Modern Thinker" LOL

    You and Ramsey2006 openly push your personal agendas and present them as Wikipedia fact. For example, neither of your can bear to use the term "illegal immigrant" in an article on... Illegal Immigration. That is akin to an article on Christ being forbidden to use the term Christian because it is "labeling." I'm sure you both sleep well at night, content that you have made Wikipedia a better and "right-thinking" kind of place, but actually all you have done is substitute lies for reality. The saddest part, however, is you have been doing it so long you don't even notice anymore...

    Get me banned permanently. Don't really care. Rest assured however, that I do plan to relate in detail the shabby treatment and narrow-minded POV I saw here in the hope that I can discourage as many people as possible from particpating in this project. And that's where it really hurts you guys because you, unlike I, live for this stuff. :-)

    Btw, don't worry about sending your partner in reality distortion a copy of this, I'm way ahead of you. If you want to send me a reply, feel free. I can certainly use it to round out the blog entry on this adventure...

    Delivered-To: xxxx

    Received: by 10.65.158.9 with SMTP id k9cs266316qbo;

           Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

    Received: by 10.70.46.1 with SMTP id t1mr3335381wxt.1180068210940;

           Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

    Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org>
    Received: from rock.cadm.xxxx (rock.cadm.xxxx [128.103.149.98])

           by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 44si1803928wri.2007.05.24.21.43.30;
    
       Thu, 24 May 2007 21:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

    Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.103.149.98 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org)
    Received: by post.xxxx (Postfix, from userid 203)
    id 7D06D604; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:30 -0400 (EDT)
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1-soc_rev_31 (2006-03-10) on rock
    X-Spam-Level: *
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=4.0 autolearn=no version=3.1.1-soc_rev_31
    Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by xxxx (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0315FD
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])
    by xxxx(Postfix) with ESMTP id AF38B5BF
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:29 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from srv73.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.73]:57498 helo=localhost.localdomain)
    by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
    (envelope-from <wiki@wikimedia.org>)
    id 1HrReD-0006ft-36
    for xxxx; Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:29 +0000
    Received: from localhost.localdomain (srv73 [127.0.0.1])
    by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l4P4hSeZ023166
    for <xxxx>; Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:29 GMT
    Received: (from apache@localhost)
    by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id l4P4hSrX023165;
    Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:28 GMT
    Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:43:28 GMT
    Message-Id: <200705250443.l4P4hSrX023165@localhost.localdomain>
    X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
    To: Evrik <xxxx>
    Subject: For the "Modern Thinker" LOL
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
    From: LordPathogen <xxxxx>

    --evrik (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No apologies. I think both these editors Ramsey2006 and Evrik are extreme POV and for some reason, this one in particular is treated with kid gloves by Administrators. I guess because he must be high up the wiki food chain. I don't think that is good for Wikipedia and frankly, it is frustrating as my email surely depicts. The email was also not a secret. No one emails secrets... LordPathogen 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah...that looks virtually identical to the email that I got from User:LordPathogen. This whole thing is getting rather annoying.--Ramsey2006 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Status report? (User:Night Gyr)

    Resolved

    I was emergency desysopped last friday over a misunderstanding of something I said in the Allison Stokke drv, which someone interpreted as a threat to leak deleted revisions to the press. Now my intents been clarified, the article has had a history undeletion (so the revisions are visible anyway) and arbcom's been dragging its feet for the last couple days without giving me a single word on what's going on. Does anyone know? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest leaving a note at the bureaucrat noticeboard for resysopping. -- John Reaves (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - but it will bear more weight if someone else asks for him. That's called DefendEachOther. I asked at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Night_Gyr. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw on another talkpage the other day a comment from an arbitrator to the effect that the matter was still being discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. I assume that the 'crats would wait to hear from ArbCom before taking any action, although the time is coming when hopefully some sort of more official update on the situation will be posted. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I forgot that there is are people who are 'crats and arbitrators—Raul654 has posted that he has resysopped Night Gyr. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it turns out the crats aren't arbcom, after all. The bit has been restored. Friday (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just noted (we must have just missed ec'ing), this particular crat (Raul654) is both. (UninvitedCompany is both also, actually.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threatening messages

    Resolved
     – User Mehudson1 warned not threaten other editors with violence.

    Mehudson1 (talk · contribs) needs at least a talking to about leaving threats of physical violence on people's talk pages: [165], [166]. I don't personally feel intimidated, but not all Wikipedians have skin as thick as mine. A review of the user's own talk page and the very low talk pages participation in the user's contributions demonstrates an uncommunicativeness, that suggests the user may only respond to other editors when a temper threshold has been crossed and the urge to lash out can no longer be resisted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a warning. Anything further and I'd be willing to block them (let me know or bring it back here). MastCell Talk 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot

    As User:Future Perfect at Sunrise doesn't feel like taking on another of these disputes, maybe some other admin can have a look at this Admin talk page edit in which User:Rex Germanus states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Please have also a look at his recent (and numerous past) edit summaries in which he calls me "German nationalist" several times. He also continues to maintain User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale where I just have added two links to show that an edit of mine and my talk page are meant. Also, Rex had filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No one, with a capable intellect, will deny you're a nationalist. If they do, they should look at your edits. You were inactive for quite a long time and then suddenly reappear ONLY to undo several of my edits, with no edit-summary whatsoever. That's looking for trouble (seeing this 'reporting' it would seem you're still looking). Those aren't personal attacks. Those are valid observations for everyone to check. Rex 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you want an admin to do? Play nice, and don't let it get under your skin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Star Over China

    Resolved
     – IP blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and encouraged to utilize the talk page.

    82.196.168.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made five reverts to the above article restoring a quote critical of the book. Asdie from edit warring and 3RR concerns, the quote itself doubles the size of the article giving undue weight to two people's criticism, and is also so long as to probably violate fair use. Anyone want to step in? – Steel 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. I've blocked the IP for edit-warring and 3RR violations for 24 hours, and left a note asking him/her to discuss concerns over the proposed addition at the talk page once the block expires, rather than re-adding it. They seem relatively new (although IP addresses do change), so perhaps they'll come around. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! – Steel 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darwinek - Block review needed

    Resolved
     – User unblocked by Phil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier today, established user (and former admin) Darwinek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by Phil Boswell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "edit-warring and incivility." Darwinek has requested an unblock review. I posted to Phil's talk for input, but he appears to have been offline since the block. Note that Darwinek is on civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Posting here for comments and consensus on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks resolved now, unblocked after apologizing. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked now, after he apologised nicely and promised not to be so silly again. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to object, I noticed this (the suggestion of unblocking) discussed on IRC so the outcome must be evil . --pgk 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Guess I should clarify that I'm kidding just in case anyone takes it any other way). --pgk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteakNShake

    Resolved
     – I love it when one policy violation gets completely side-stepped by another. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was previously dealt with at #Taken from WP:AIV above, but the primary issue was civility. I think that another look is now needed. This editor is being totally disruptive to the general relativity article, pushing edits that violate WP:NPOV by being strongly anti-relativity with a novel synthesis centered aroung the posibility that "space is virtual". Such a novel synthesis violates WP:NOR. A look at talk:general relativity will reveal the extent of this user's disruption. Especially telling is Talk:General_relativity#proposed_change_to_article, in which this user's idea for a change to the article was solidly shot down. Also at User_talk:SteakNShake#Response_on_the_.22edit_war.22_business is the remark that "These changes will stand, come hell or high water", which means that this editor is not interested in being part of a consensus.

    BTW - I also advise that a CHECKUSER be done on this editor. He has "hit the ground running" in this campaign, which means that he probably has edited here before. So this may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: There is now a block on user:SteakNShake due to the user name being inappropriate (since it is the name of an organization). So this request is moot, for now. --EMS | Talk 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Christodouloug534

    Christodouloug534 (talk · contribs) just recently posted an {{unblock-auto}} request, with the same IP address as Jack1956 (talk · contribs), who was blocked per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41. Since their contributions seemed to have a lot in common, besides the IP address, it seemed to me that this indicated some more sockpuppetry, and I've blocked the account. Since this account has been editing since November 2006, I thought I should submit this particular block here for review. Sanity check, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If I had to guess, I'd say that User:Christodouloug534 is none other than Glenn A Christodoulou. Now, Christodouloug534 never contributed to that article, but he's contributed to or created articles about United Theological College Aberystwyth and its faculty, including Samuel Ifor Enoch, that Jack1956 and associated accounts have also contributed to. I'm inclined to think that these are all the same person, and I think the block is appropriate. Note, however, that I blocked Jack1956 and the other accounts in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.152.81.41, and so am already involved in this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use problem tags reverted

    User:Chaldean keeps removing tags identifying images which fail to meed the fair use critera without addressing the problem, in spite of the templates' clear instructions and mine. Could an administrator please ensure that images such as Image:Alnaftlogo.gif and Image:Ashurtv.JPG remain tagged so that Wikipedia's procedures may have their due course? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User WDS1/WDS2/WDS3/WhiteDragon Slayer

    User constantly vandalises page, removes large section of text and removes discussions on White Dragon (England)

    Now has taken to cutting and pasting large sections of text from www.icons.org.uk and www.whitedragonofengland.com - user not discussing the issues at hand and placing large amount of POV, unreferenced material onto page...some verging into the ridiculous.

    Believe that 212.139.218.107, 82.153.29.85 and 80.41.15.107 is also the same person. WDS1/2 already banned.White43 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WDS3 (talk · contribs) already blocked, as well. I've reverted the page. Not sure yet if the IPs are the same person, but what I've checked so far doesn't necessarily suggest a link. If the IPs are socks, sprotection may be a good idea; it they're not socks, sprotection might be premature. Hm. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    he was creating duplicates as well earlier - I tagged one. --Fredrick day 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On further review, 212.139.218.107 (talk · contribs) seems to be WDS, but the IP is dynamic. 80.41.15.107 (talk · contribs) was editing at similar times/page, and is on the same ISP, but I haven't found an exact contribution similarity, yet. 82.153.29.85 (talk · contribs) appears to be a static address, and has been blocked by Steel359. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka

    Iwazaki who has a history of WP:STALK ing my new articles is simply tagging and edit warring without discussing as to what his point is. He did the same on a new creation Duraiappa stadium mass grave. Thanks Taprobanus 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny, I could say the same thing about this edit [167]. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that some users follow around other users' articles because they like to provide assistance in cleaning up articles, and in some cases they simply have the same interests. Of course, edit warring is bad and it seems that they've neglected to put in a reason for the change (using popups seems fine when you've got obvious nonsense or vandalism, but as your were the only edits up to that point it seems inadequate), but once that is cleared up you should be fine. --Edwin Herdman 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe uncivility from TheClownPrinceofCrime

    I have just warned the user for recent harrassment, see here. As such, the user continues to display ignorance and even trolls my talk page not once, see here, but twice. This all started on another user's talk page a few days ago, see here. Despite my warning there, see here, the person continued, see here. This wouldn't be the first time TheClownPrinceofCrime has been blocked for this; the user replaced their entire talk page of warnings and unblock requests with this comment. I suggest a sysops or administrator's firm action. Lord Sesshomaru

    Yet, the trolling goes on and on in my talk page. See [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173]. Lord Sesshomaru
    Blocked. Naconkantari 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Naconkantari blocked him: [174]. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note: Your edit warring on his page was not appropriate either. Users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. --OnoremDil 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing uncivil comments is edit warring? Lord Sesshomaru
    Yes. "This is my page. If you don't like it I dont care. If I've offended you good. I just dont care." - This comment may be uncivil, but it's his talk page and it wasn't directed at anyone. The comments aren't so uncivil that you should be edit warring over them. --OnoremDil 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. What about the first comment? Lord Sesshomaru
    Ah, never mind. Lord Sesshomaru

    Quack Quack?

    Resolved
     – user blocked for unrelated vandalism and harassment ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone potentially think this user is a sock?

    First two edits are "# 17:41, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:KingTee (←Created page with 'To leave me a message, please use my talk page. Thanks. ==Disambiguation== I'm a participant in WikiProject Disambiguation, pa...')

    1. 17:40, 3 June 2007 (hist) (diff) The Black Wall Street Records (there are cited sources there, and there is no prefernce on wikipedia that there has to be pages for the members)

    The Black Wall Street Records was semi-protected around that time due to an edit war. What kind of user's first edit is to join WikiProject Disambig?

    Also, note he blanked his talkpage when the only edit was a welcome template: possible to make it more difficult for people to see when he was welcomed?

    Appears to be a sock of one of these two IPs: 84.13.153.130 and 89.242.9.82 ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to say you are completely off base, but didn't about 80% of registered Wikipedia editors start off editing from IPs? We actually encourage people to register instead of using IPs [175]. Risker 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest you WP:AGF for now. If the user does enter into a pattern of reverting the same part again and again, then it may be appropriate to go further. I would also suggest that a newly-created user is not a sockpuppet. IPs and users can be socks of other users, and one might think of anons changing IPs or accessing zombies, but without significant evidence I'd probably rule out an anon registering a user account as sockpuppetry. After all, even if it is the same person, they may change. 81.104.175.145 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you both are missing my point: Both this user, and the two IP's are editing the article at the same time, which has been engaged in an edit war. That's not encouraged at all, in fact it's expressly forbidden in all iterations of it. I'm not saying anything about IP's all being sockpuppets so I don't know where you're getting that. The registered account started editing significantly more once the article was semi-protected, hence my sockpuppet belief. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. He's now attempting to impersonate me, is vandalizing others user pages, and deleting AFD notices as well. see here. I've therefore blocked. Resolved.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    Resolved
     – Pretty serious, it would seem. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how serious this threat is, but I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was indef blocked by Yamamoto. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block doesn't notify the school. ThuranX 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent a short email with a link to the diff to the email address on the school website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rash of reverts

    All have been reverted number of times, no intention to talk mostly on whether Tamilnet is RS or not ? Thanks Taprobanus 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copt

    Could someone please take a look at the last edits on the page Copt? I believe Impartiallaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 74.0.147.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are other socks of this banned user who used to make those same edits. — Zerida 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is certainly the one. However, the article lacks verifiability and RS. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are much more important than semi-protecting the article or chasing a banned user everytime they strike. I tried to fix what i am talking about (adding footnotes, removing blogs as references, etc...). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as a whole does not lack reliable sources, though it may need to be checked for POV. The main issue is with the flag which is why it remains tagged as lacking neutrality. I agree regarding policy, but it applies just as much to vandalism. Content disputes are not an excuse to vandalize or introduce false information into an article. I also agree with the changes, though short of deleting the flag altogether (and I don't see why it should be), I don't think that they will stop this user either. — Zerida 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable block evasion by Emnx

    Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. Shiny brand-new SKRINE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have taken up his cause. Details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd). Do I need to request another checkuser, or is this one obvious enough to act on without RFCU? IPSOS (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SwatJester

    This is the second time I am here filing a seriosu complaint because I dont see the first one I made on the list here. Im here because a adminitstrator SwatJester has deleted the logo I uploaded for my article called Atala T LLC and claimed it was a fair use image which is false. I made sure the article is competley appropreate for wikipedia before I uploaded it to the site, Now the logo has been upthere for a while and if there was something wrong with it, my mentor Slavin would have mentioned it to me along time ago. Also, everything I try to create of fix on this site ends up being deleted and I do not think it if for the reasons they say it is, I think it is because some of these people abuse there powers on wikipedia and think that they can get away with doing so. Swat Jester also stated that I would be blocked for disruption. I have not disrupted anyone on wikipedia or even atepted to disrupt anyone. This is very upsetting and apalling to have to deal with constantly. I hope that we can fix this and make sure that this does not happen ever again. Thank you --Muriness 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You uploaded a fair use image and used it solely on a subpage. That's a violation of policy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the last time you filed a report here, you were told that you were violating non-free content policy. Why are you bringing this up again? Everything you upload that gets deleted is because it is not fit for being on Wikipedia. There is not some grand conspiracy against you. Your menter, Slavin, tried repeatedly to reason with you, but you were not listening. Can we just archive this section and move onwards, please? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference: your mentor Slavlin: "Muriness, I have been trying to help you with this as my time allows, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort here. I am thinking that you would benefit from participating with some other articles first. That might give you more of a feel for how the process needs to work. Also, I think you need to get a better feel for the software. Probably spend some time reading on Wikipedia:Introduction as well. Talk pages are pretty basic but you don't seem to be using them properly either. That is what is giving me the feeling that you don't have a good feel for the tools available." followed by "Actually, I followed the trail on it and I agree that you were being disrespectful. He does have the right and the duty to block people who are being disruptive" source ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    continued, statement of intent not to stop bringing up the issue. This is disruptive, and if he continues I will further block, and I've warned him as such, and recommended that he stop, and spend time reading up on image policy. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This administrator is abusing his powers and is blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served and he learns not to abuse people. --Muriness 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I prove my point: This is your last warning. Continue to state your intent to be disruptive, and you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muriness"

    You're in the wrong here, and continually complaining about it and posting here without seeking to understand what you did wrong is disruptive. --Haemo 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Swatjester should probably let someone else do the block if it becomes necessary, but he's quite correct in stating that Muriness is being disruptive. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late. I blocked for 48 hours. Continuous "you have new messages" comments demanding things from me were tiresome. Akhilleus (or anyone else), if you'd like to block review and modify it, please do, however I feel I've left more than enough warnings. At least 3. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've checked his block log before posting. Hopefully he'll take this opportunity to read the image policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (posting this at userpage as well), he might be interested in joining IRC, more specifically the channel #wikipedia-en-help. The user seems to have some difficulties adjusting to using a Wiki, so getting help/coaching here might help somewhat. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "…blocking me claming that im being disruptive! I will contune to argue untill justice is served…"

    We're having a problem at a very base level if you don't see the contradiction here. Refusing to let minor issues pass (especially when consensus is so clearly against you) is a manner of disruption. Please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. (Note: You can click those two links to see the policies and guidelines I'm citing.) –Gunslinger47 03:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Someone else declined the unblock, then protected his page for abuse of the unblock tab. Now he's using Special:Emailuser to demand I unblock him. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm having trouble believing that this guy is going to be a productive contributor when his block expires. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    GFDL

    The recent spate of BJAODN deletions got me thinking. If copy-and-paste moves violate the attribution requirement of the GFDL, and BJAODN violates the GFDL, doesn't using subst on a template also violate the GFDL? After all, it just shows the text as if it had been copied and pasted, with no attribution. *** Crotalus *** 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Archives of stuff like AN/I and user talk pages are also technically GFDL violations by the logic that got BAJODN deleted, since they're accomplished just by copy and pasting. --W.marsh 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but with talk page archives, the comments are generally signed and dated, and the antecedent diffs are preserved in the history of the main talk page. As for template substitution, I guess you could say that templates aren't content, rather they are shortcuts used for navigation, categorization and maintenance, so if you write {{subst:whatever}} it's as if you bothered to write the entire code. There are a few templates, such as Prod, which indicate the antecedent in the subst'ed code. That being said, there will always be examples where Wikipedia technically violates the GFDL. Perfection is impossible. I think the Wikimedia Foundation will shut down the site for lack of funds before they complain about the GFDL compliance of template substitution. But it's an interesting topic to think about. Placeholder account 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The signing provides the attribution needed to be in compliance with the GFDL.-Mask? 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do signatures "Preserve the section Entitled "History""? Kotepho 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows exactly when and who made a particular edit to the page. For example, Kotepho an edit here on 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC), and Ryulong is making an edit here at 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in the GFDL about "preserving a section entitled history". All there is in the GFDL is a requirement that work is attributed, and signatures on every comment are the perfect way to accomplish that. --Cyde Weys 05:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Kotepho 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.

    Sigs do exactly that. the new authors, and date of the publishing of that copy, and the statement of modification (the comment). The section marked as historical is split into 2, one for the history of that copy, in the history tab, and one for the publishing history, contained in the work itself. -Mask? 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There can only be one section entitled History and you can't just put it somewhere else and call something else History. Kotepho 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

    Is Citizendium in compliance with the attribution requirements? Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How to blacklist a site?

    Resolved

    appropriate action was taken to blacklist the site. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Does anybody know how to blacklist a site? Wrestlingobserver.com is currently being used by JB196 and his hundereds of socks. JB196 is a banned editor and daily creates socks just to reinsert links to this site. It would save the many of us spending hours reverting and blocking them if he could just not add them to the article at all? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see m:Talk:Spam blacklist Naconkantari 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to object to this, JB196 is employing another joe job and has done it in the past. He managed to get several websites related to wrestling blacklisted in the past just because he could. His WP:LTA abuse page covers his joe job MO and thus black listing the site is giving him what he wants. –– Lid(Talk) 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok, Lid, if you see the meta talk page list, only that one article is blacklisted, not all of wrestlingobserver (and we know Dave Meltzer won't move it around) SirFozzie 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass tagging by 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Could an admin please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.93.209.195 ? A user 66.93.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion as advertising, and I don't know whether this should be treated as vandalism or not. Some of the tagged articles might not survive AfD, but they don't seem to be eligible for speedy deletion. --Eastmain 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at a few random diffs. They all seemed to be pretty helpful actually, not all were tagging, he also removed spammy text from some articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, looked at around 20 diffs, and all are fine by me. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by User:71.235.81.39

    Hello, user User:71.235.81.39 has a history of Trolling talk pages relating to Boston, Connecticut or New England in general. He leaves comments such as this one 1, refering to anything to which he disagrees with as propaganda.

    Other examples of this are: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Plus others which I don't have time to lists.

    He has been warned about these postings many times on his Talk Page, but he seems to ignore them. I recently posted this warning on his talk page. He then responded with this message on my user page.

    Since these posting by User:71.235.81.39, are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, I would like an administrator to consider blocking this user.

    Thanks For Your Time: BH (Talk) 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling the truth with PROOF in TALK pages should be no problem. That is what they are there for. Just because someone may not like the facts that I write does not mean that they should have the right to harass and delete my words simply because it goes against their POV propaganda. This guy and two others have been on my case. Is this site about their thoughts or everyone's? Some so-called editors need to be banned. The site needs to stop letting editors pick the topic because they clearly pick the topic with the thoughts and actions of spreading their vision of the topic. People like me only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth?--71.235.81.39 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statement is a near perfect match of the tone the user uses to express his POV. It is also a piece of irrefutable evidence against its author. BH (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia disruptive editing extinguisher #1: Verifiability not truth. —Kurykh 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. BH (Talk) 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing him of trolling only inflames the dispute. Please remember wikipedia:civility. That said, Kurykh is correct: debating truth on talk pages isn't helpful - just back up statements in articles with verifiable sources. Rhobite 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that Wikipedia is here to publish verifiable facts that have been written by others, not to stand as a light against the darkness, the one source of shining truth. In other words, if 71.* can come up with independently-published sources that state New England doesn't exist and that there is a pro-Boston bias out there, then we can include his info. If he does not have sources to that effect, we cannot. Meanwhile, there are a lot of sources that he feels are propaganda, which in this case is tough cookies for him. It's happened to me, too. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that he was warned not to refer anyone as a propagandist (1) here, or he would be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. And he has never brought up any sources other than using a weather map centered on NYC. BH (Talk) 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally confirm Black Harry's account and complaints. Though I believe the anonymous user may have intended contributions rather than disruption for its own sake, the result of all discussions with him have been replies of a personal inflammatory nature rather than calmly articulated reasoning with sources. I advised user [176] that continuing to post on indignant anger would not be prudent, and that any well-reasoned civil remarks would be considered and discussed by his putative antagonists. This did not aid the situation.--Loodog 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, if the diffs didn't prove the point that this user has been making uncivil, disruptive comments to advance his agenda, the user actually posted a comment on this thread, in which he accuses us (me and Loodog) of writing "POV propoganda". He then suggests that "Some so-called editors need to be banned". not blocked mind you, but banned by the wikimedia foundation and/or Jimbo Wales himself. Then, he finishes his defense of his actions by saying "People like me (him) only come to correct the BS with the truth. Do you want a site full of lies of the truth? (sic)". What else do you need for proof? BH (Talk) 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff

    Accordingly I made the move. But, afterwards, as I cleared up the resulting double-redirects, User:Hel Hufflepuff came after me reverting all those resulting edits to redirect pages. (An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aethelbert_of_Kent&action=history .)

    I complained on User talk:Hel Hufflepuff.

    User:Hel Hufflepuff tagged User talk:Hel Hufflepuff with {{db-vandalism}}. I added {{hangon}} to it.

    User:Hel Hufflepuff then deleted a line from User talk:Anthony Appleyard for no good reason;and then did the same again.

    As:-

    1. User_talk:Gryffindor has already been involved in difficulties (see User_talk:Gryffindor#Merano);
    2. Gryffindor and Hufflepuff are both founders and houses of the fictional Hogwarts School;

    Is there any chance of sockpuppetry here? Anthony Appleyard 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Kasun Ubayasiri. "PHD thesis" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=135988971"