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 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) at 06:20, 30 November 2007 (→‎Deletion of User:Etheltrust.: marked as resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    Re: Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users

    New accounts, signed up solely to attack one article and its creator via WP:COI/N and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, has a Verizon IP address tracking to Newark, New Jersey (nwrknj.east.verizon.net) matching many others previously reported for the same pattern of attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped for the last day or so; however there is something to be concerned about here. Definitely seems to be pursuing someone. If he starts up again, a block for disruptive editing and wikistalking should be strongly considered. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useless here, Daniel, as the stalker is on a dynamic IP that changes faster than Washington State's weather. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another new account - same IP origin at nwrknj.east.verizon.net - is continuing the attack as 72.68.125.254 (talk · contribs). [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See this discussion Mangojuice's talk page, as well, This has been going on for over a month. It seems from previous discussions that there is little to do about it, but it is distressing to the prime target, Benjiboi, and those of us who are his colleagues here. Is it not possible to range block? I mean, if we can block all of Qatar from editing, can't we block a few anons who happen to be Verizon customers? Jeffpw (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Contact the ISP and tell them about the harassment and where it's coming from - I'm certain that harassing others falls under the things that can get someone's Verizon account terminated. Otherwise, we can't rangeblock except for short periods due to collateral damage. I am, however, starting an independent sockpuppet investigation page on this guy; I have dealt with him on Sister Roma. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2 IPs listed here are on 2 different /11 ranges. Blocking them both (if we could do it - we can't) would potentially block millions of people. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the intel, Z-Man. Maybe an abuse or LTA report is in order? And could we get someone to close the COI/N thread he's started as bad-faith? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A sock 72.76.13.102 is continuing to add to the thread at WP:COI/N despite it being formally resolved. What's the protocol? Can we delete it as vandalism? Move to the poster's Talk page? Gordonofcartoon (talk)
    The IP is dynamic, so he will miss talk page notes. I've since protected COI/N since at this point he's simply using it to troll and harass Benjiboi, leaving a link to a section on my talk page for IPs to submit COI reports. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ISI Page

    I have a screamsheet on him up here. Feel free to add onto it if you have information. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    The diffs in the COI case were utterly unconvincing and countered his own claims. I have closed tyhe thread; can we get someone on the phone to Verizon's NJ headquarters to report this person for harassment (if possible)? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we PLEASE get someone to contact Verizon?! -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whois shows a phone number as "OrgAbusePhone". Perhaps we should try that or "OrgAbuseEmail". SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking if someone will do it because, in off-Wiki communication, I am rather meek when asking others higher in station than myself unless I'm familiar with them. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-prot review

    I have semi-protected WP:COI/N to stop the person behind the IP from using it to keep needling Benjiboi. I request a review of the prot. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Administer is trolling and threatening to block me

    I would like to file a complaint against Admin User:Swatjester, is this the right place in order to air my grievance and show proof so I don't waste my time? - Jeeny (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If administrator attention is required, yes. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He has threatened me with a block because he says I'm "trolling". He deleted this with the edit summary that I was trolling and uncivil. I really wanted to know why I and others of the community should trust his judgment when he is up for a trusted position of ArbCom. I have problems with his attitude, and he is exaggerating in his wording to me, and that I have "strong feelings" and need a break. He is abusing his power by intimation, and this needs to be addressed right now. See his message on my talk page. I have a troll that is following me around and has now responded to SwatJester's warning to me. So, I'll be blocked and the real troll is free to come back again and again to disrupt this project. Swatjester has to be kept in check on this issue. That if he blocks me, he is abusing his "power" that is supposed to be no big deal, and a trusted member of this community. This admin is calling me a troll, which is very offensive to me and not true. Are you sure this is the right place? I have more. - Jeeny (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You were warned for referring to another person repeatedly as a moron. After the first warning, you blanked it with the edit summary "If it fits...". You then proceeded to troll my arbcom candidacy page. That is unacceptable. You seem to have a disdain for the policies and procedures on this project. You would do well to heed them. Also, please note at the top of the page here: This is not the administrator complaint department. This is not an incident in which administrator attention is required. The only attention that is required here is for you to calm down, relax, take a deep breath and a nice cup of tea, and edit civilly without personally attacking other editors as you have repeatedly done in the past week. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He even admits he is an asshole (see my talk page). He doesn't mind being called names. Unlike you, I have more respect toward the a "real troll" than someone who cannot admit when they are wrong, and is all high and mighty. Cannot read between the lines, and has no flexibility. - Jeeny (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that in the diff that I reverted from my candidacy questions, in one single edit you referred to me as arrogant, flippant, accused me of false representations, compared me to Essjay, accused me of making things worse for others, accused me of disrupting the project, referred to me as "Mr. Defender", accused me of lying, called me egotistical, called me a "babe in the woods" and made statements that could be interpreted as a threat against me off-wiki. You're lucky I didn't block you right there. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who would interpret that as a a threat against you off-wiki? That's ludicrous and you know it. In fact you seem to be threatening to deliberately misinterpret things in order to use your powers.

    And none of the admins who read this board thought to say something to you about you throwing serious accusations like this around in bad faith? That's just great, guys. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What? There you go exaggerating again. You repeatedly say I repeatedly call people morons. And where or what did I say that made you think that I made a "threat against [you] off-wiki"? You called me a troll. I did not accuse you of lying, show me where I said that. I said you exaggerate. Big difference, because it's difficult to know the motives of others when on the internet when you can't see their face, body language, etc. And now your saying I should be "lucky [you] didn't block [me] right there"? Is that not proof that you are a bit trigger happy? - Jeeny (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I exaggerate nothing. Typing words on a computer is one thing, but actions proves another could be construed as a threat, especially since you were talking about how you are "better than me" off-wiki in the sentence before that. Here, you change another persons edit summary to Scumbucket. Here, you call someone a moron in both edit, and in edit summary (hence, repeatedly). Again, you call someone a moron, accuse them of adding bullshit, tell them to get a grip on life, call them a troll. Here you call them the Perfect Troll. And even when blanking the conversation, you call them trolls. This incivility is unacceptable, and it is symptomatic of the pattern you have shown over your 14-entry long block log. It ends now. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I was better than you. I feel I am no better nor worse. See, that's what I mean about exaggerating. I can't trust you to be in ArbCom if you continue to misconstrue statements like that and turn them into something against YOU. - Jeeny (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? What was the point of "(BTW I have more experience than you in mediation, conflict resolution, and arbitration, and with many awards to show for it, in REAL LIFE)." then? Chopped liver? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fact. I've lived longer than you have. I have 8 years of experience in THAT one job. Just the facts. Not better than you. As you can accumulate the same time in 8 years. See that's fair. - Jeeny (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been advised several times to cease conversing with SWATjester. I really suggest you take that advice. FCYTravis (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What!? I have asked HIM to stop with me. Where was I "advised several times to cease conversing with [him]"? Oh, forget it, you don't need to answer that. I'm done for the night. - Jeeny (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then oppose him when voting starts. I don't think this discussion is going to be very productive — everyone just needs to walk away and cool down. --Haemo (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right Haemo, thanks. I'm done. You show a reasonableness, and I can deal with that. :) - Jeeny (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that's only really 4 valid blocks. --Haemo (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and Phil's shouldn't count. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeeny, you really need to cool down. I hate to say it, but the concerns Swatjester raises appear to be valid. While I'm not sure whether or not he was entirely cool dealing with you, just remember that when you get frustrated with a user, you shouldn't resort to calling him or her a troll. It's best to take a break for a little while, or go edit something else. Maser (Talk!) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See, he was the one who called me a troll. - Jeeny (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs Swatjester has provided are compelling. There is never an excuse for "a few bad words" directed at other Wikipedia editors. I've had death threats before on Wikipedia and haven't replied insultingly. What would be the point? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "diffs" Swatjester is using are against a KNOWN troll, which even he called him himself. This is crazy. - Jeeny (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DFTT. Personal attacks are never acceptable against anyone, even a troll. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O'rly?. I can find many more where this is accepted from admins, MANY more. Don't you see that you're helping to make Wikipedia a joke more than it is? Do you not know any people in academia? They laugh at this place. I'm trying to help that not be so. Also for the essay; "There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not trolls". Again, I take offense being called a troll, and should not be acceptable for admins, ArbCom wannabees, or in any others in "trusted" positions to use that word without good cause, if at all. Stop the insanity! - Jeeny (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you just use the word "troll" in your edit summary? Seraphim Whipp 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that was what I was called. - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Jeeny, your continuing this discussion is becoming disruptive. You need to calm down or write articles instead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I was going to make a comment along those lines a few hours ago but I forgot to save (too many tabs). Jeeny, you are wasting our time and disrupting the encyclopedia. Please stop before you get blocked. John Reaves 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disrupting because I see an inconsistency? Didn't you say once that if an admin abuses his or her power than to speak up? Do you not understand the implications this has? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not anarchy either. I'm truly trying to understand the dynamics here. I'm not disrupting for the sake of it, but to understand. Threatening me with a block is counterproductive. Honest to goodness I do not get it. I'm a degreed academic, and do not understand this place. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? - Jeeny (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are a degreed academinc haven't you ever taken a course on harrassment and appropriate behaviour or do you resolve your off-line problems by calling your colleagues and peers trolls and morons? Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no such thing such as a course in harassment, maybe a seminar, or for law enforcement. Also, it's spelled "harassment", one "R". I don't work here, I'm trying to help, but this harassment by young persons who have very little life experience, and little education is frustrating, and disruptive. Don't you see that? Plus they are in a position of power? Just because you did not call me a "name" does not mean you were not intending to insult me by your comment.- Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes it is. Now go work on it. John Reaves 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm doing. - Jeeny (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No you're not, now you're harassing John Reaves on his talk page. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agreed. I have blocked Jeeny for 48 hours, not only because of his disruption and trolling but because he has a long history of it and is showing every sign of not learning. I think everyone concerned needs a couple of days of peace from this. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's been blocked for a couple of weeks, and presumably left the project as well. It appears my predictions were entirely accurate about the outcome of this situation. --Haemo (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For all our claims of supporting the actual editors of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be all out to write, we very rarely actually do it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop extending the block and then protecting the page. This backwards approach is needlessly punitive. El_C 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Jeeny does not handle blocks well. Either protect her talk page when you block her, or ignore her, but don't leave it unprotected and then protect it later. Picaroon (t) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Swatjester, instead of provoking Jeeny with a warning about personal attacks, I think next time you should block the banned neonazi who is provoking her. Her blowup, her disrupting your candidate page, was caused by your "personal attacks" warning in which you threatened to block her for calling a self-proclaimed troll a -wait for it- troll. I'm astonished that we have blocked a good-faith contributor for two weeks when we could have simply blocked the IP who was harassing her. Hayden5650 has been stalking her for months, and warning her for personally attacking him while not doing anything about the IP was not helpful at all. This block was entirely preventable. Picaroon (t) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That does not give her the right to redirect her frustration towards anyone. We can blame and block Hayden5650 all we want (which we have done and will do), but being trolled does not give you a free pass to suspend civility at your pleasure. —Kurykh 02:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an issue of cause and effect. It's like this: a banned user trolls her. She insults him. An admin she has previously been in conflict with warns her about personal attacks, while not doing anything about the banned user. She gets angry and begins attacking him. She wouldn't have been incivil towards anyone if Swatjester hadn't left her a pointless warning. Things kept escalating because Jeeny thought (and rightly so, I note) that the troll was being ignored and she was being targeted. None of this would have happened had she not been given a pointless warning. It was her fault that she didn't stop herself from escalating the situation, but the situation itself is not her fault at all, which is why I still see this as a completely preventable block. Now, she's angry, and we can't unblock her till she calms down. Picaroon (t) 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Swatjester should have blocked the troll, but that still does not give license to Jeeny for being uncivil. —Kurykh 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you, we heard it the first time. That's why she has been blocked for two weeks (and has probably quit the project altogether); the issue is why Swatjester, rather than addressing the problem initially, escalated her frustration, called a prolific editor to the ENCYCLOPEDIA (remember what we're all here to do?) a troll, has damaged the project as a result, and NO ONE IN THIS THREAD could give two shits. As I said above, it's sad how little we actually defend the editors of the encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a similar observation here just recently. This was appallingly badly handled however one looks at it. Alun (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Picaroon: My warning was not for her calling a troll a troll. My warning was for her calling an anonymous IP a moron. That's unacceptable no matter whether it's a troll or not. Do not feed the trolls. Jeeny is a clear problem user, NOT a "prolific editor". Prolific GOOD editors manage to edit without continuously stirring up trouble, they manage to edit without repeatedly receiving blocks, both valid and invalid. You can dress it up and hide it however you want, but Jeeny has an EXTREME problem with civility and personal attacks, that is unacceptable no matter what her contributions are. As for you Bbatsell: nobody gives "two shits" here because Jeeny is not an innocent victim. What do you expect me to do here? I block her, you guys whine and complain "ohs noes, u r hurting good contributar!!!!". I give her warnings INSTEAD of blocking and it's "ohs noes, u r provoking her into torolllinggz!!!one1". Obviously the only remaining solution is to let her just personally attack anyone and everyone she feels like. Instead of repeatedly touting about how she's helping the encyclopedia, lets step back and take a look at the following diffs which clearly show that she has other things in mind rather than being a worthwhile contributor: scumbucket. moron edit + edit sum. moron edit, refers to edits as bullshit. feeding the trolls. more feeding the trolls. Obviously this is EXACTLY the kind of behavior we want to support. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Swatjester has been placed in an untenable situation here. Every move he made has been second guessed, while he was doing the best he could. This is one of the reasons I would not want to be an admin.
    I have discussed the situation with Swatjester and he has agreed to unblock Jeeny if she agrees to mentorship. If the community feels this is a good idea, I am prepared to do this. Jeeny and I get on well, and she listens to me. I want to thank Swatjester for being so open minded in our discussions. I would be hard pressed to react in such a way if I had been in the same position. Jeffpw (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to help out as well; I've encountered Jeeny before and our interaction was generally genial. (oh the pun) --Haemo (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Haemo. Swatjestor mentioned to me in our discussion that mentoring was usually done by admins, due to the occasional need to enforce actions, but was willing to give it a go with me. It would be beneficial to have an admin on board for the process, though, and I am glad you are willing. Jeffpw (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [2]. That says it all, really. I don't care what "bad word" you were warning her for using, Swatjester, nor whether she was "feeding" him; to use a comparison applicable for multiple reasons, your approach is like criticizing Poland for defending itself the wrong way during the blitzkrieg. We need to be protecting our good faith users from harassment, not warning them for responding with insults; if Jeeny removed the trolling immediately, he would have just left her a new message. When admins willing to block ban-evading neonazis aren't online, there isn't really much for non-admins to do but wait, and criticizing Jeeny for insulting him while she waits is ignoring the issue. Again, [3] says it all. Let's stop defending people like that from the oh-so-terrible insults of "troll" and "moron", and start blocking the banned neonazis. Simple, really. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good precedent. Only neo-nazis get blocked whilst established editors get carte-blanche to break the uncivility rules. Thanks for the heads up. Hmm, thinks, who can I insult first... so little time, so many to insult! --WebHamster 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to know you don't care for our policies Picaroon, I'll keep it in mind. While we're on the subject of "protecting our good faith users from harassment" how about protecting our contributors from a user who self-admittedly refuses to assume good faith, has no concept of what being civil and not attacking people is, and thinks that "fuck you" is a perfectly acceptable response on Wikipedia?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Glad to know you don't care for our policies"?(!) You know, a bit of grace won't kill you. El_C 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, a sockpuppet (presumably) of that banned user is trolling Jeeny's page again in an effort to provoke her into another outburst. Could somebody please do something about User:Phral Phrallington? His hurtful comments will only make this situation worse. Thanks. Jeffpw (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While we must do our best to keep good contributors, let me offer a reminder that we are not Editors' Ego Protection and Emotional Support Services, Inc. —Kurykh 06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused, Kurykh. Was that last comment in reply to me? If so, I find it an odd response to a post that a~banned user is trolling talk pages. Could you clarify that, please? Jeffpw (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a general comment and was not directed to you, Jeffpw, and was not a comment about Phral Phallington, but at the apparent scolding of Swatjester for actually doing something. —Kurykh 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was, and am, concernced about a statement Jeeny made. Is it trolling to ask her to confirm or deny what was said? --Phral Phrallington (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your interest in it? You're asking some pretty private questions of another individual; why would you want to know this? Because asking intensely personal questions without a good reason is harassment. --Haemo (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you think if a user created a new account especially for the task? Especially one who is clearly aware of the inner workings on wikipedia, as shown by your presence on this page. What is wrong with your normal editing persona, IP or not? David D. (Talk) 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeeny agrees to mentorship

    Jeeny has agreed to mentoring, and to abide by our civility policies and WP:AGF. I have left a message for Swatjester and FT2, and would hope that Jeeny can be unblocked, with the proviso that she will be blocked again, and her page immediately protected, if she acts disruptively again. Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless someone's beaten me to it, I'm going to unblock Jeeny (based on the mentorship), and semi-protect her page (based on the Phral attacks). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If mentoring works, then it will solve the problem well. Provisionally unblocked to allow trial. See comment on Jeeny's talk page for more. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - beat you to it! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of agreement - Icsunonove

    Several weeks ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise mediated between myself and Icsunonove for a permanent topic ban on editing with regards to the South Tyrol page/talk page. In a very short time, it now seems that Icsunonove is showing his true colors by ignoring/violating the ban with no regard to what was reached. He seems to be hoping the few short weeks have subsided and he can go back to status quo. With this, it seems there is no honor to such an agreement? Or is it that Icsunonove does not think that he was mentioned for a permanent topic ban and can just go about his business without regard? Rarelibra (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Showing my true colors?" There was never any topic ban, and I really don't know where you get this. Can you show me where this ban was made? If not I think you should take back those offensive comments you can't seem to keep to yourself. I personally think any sort of permanent topic ban is ridiculous, unless a user is truly malicious. On this topic, if there were to be any such bans, one would have at least a dozen Editors to censure. Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Rarelibra has been banned from editing this topic because of the edit-war between him and User:Icsunonove, it indeed raises questions. Either User:Icsunonove honours the agreement, or User:Rarelibra is free again to edit as he pleases. Gryffindor 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive320#User:Rarelibra
    (copied from my talk page): Sorry guys, but as far as I can see, my proposed ban on both parties didn't at the time gain the consensus support it needed, and there certainly wasn't an "agreement" he subscribed to that he could be expected to "honour" now. I guess that's mostly due to Rarelibra's freaking out as he did, and his offence overshadowing those of Icsunonove in the perception of other admins. So, upshot is, Rarelibra's ban was a no-brainer, Icsunonove's not (unfortunately, I'd still say.) Right now, I see him editing more or less constructively, so there's nothing much to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically I am honoring the agreement and Icsunonove isn't - because he can go around and throw all kinds of insult around (as was proven) and provocation, yet continue to do as he pleases - just so I am totally clear and understanding this. It would be more suitable to ensure that he does not edit on that topic again - especially when there were more users who noticed how callous and insulting he was - whether or not my own actions overshadowed. I owned up to my actions, he NEVER has. But that's fine - I'll walk the high road. I only ask that the moment he starts to insult and slander someone off-topic that he is quickly and thoroughly stopped. Rarelibra (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, and I really thought your apologies were sincere from a few weeks ago. Take the high road? Like you are doing on here? I really thought you were going to go and do your own thing, and I had plenty sympathy if you have issues at home/work. You say I'm callous and insulting, and yet you guys are not? If you indeed want to take the high road, why did you find it necessary at the time to make those insults of "Italo-Fascist" when I was not even active on Wikipedia? Thought you might get away with it? You completely instigated this, you used profanity, you made legal threats on Wikipedia, you sent that sick e-mail. I defended myself, and I've apologized more times on here than your lot combined. So, that last sentence you wrote, I think it would be very wise if that applied to you. I just find it incredibly thick-skinned that you can do what you've done on here, offer up an apology, and then continue to try and point the finger at someone else. Find some way to relax... Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing the thread Future Perfect linked to, I see no agreement and no community decision. I do think an RfC on Icsunonove might be a good idea; but it would be better if Rarelibra is not one of the certifying editors. Future Perfect, do you think that you and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson are both in a position to certify an RfC? GRBerry 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure (although I haven't got the time and energy to bring it forward myself). And, as I said, right now I can't see much need for immediate action. With his main opponent removed, Icsunonove seems to be currently editing a lot more constructively. Whether that is because he now has free reign for his POV-pushing, I can't say right now.
    I'm also not sure whether RfC would really be of much help. We really don't need more talking about who did what and who thinks what of whom. If and when this needs action again, the only thing that will need talking about, in my opinion, is who will be banned, from what, and for how long. Be that at admin/community level or at Arbcom. No more "intermediate steps" in dispute resolution, it's been going on for long enough that this should go straight to sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fut.Perf., I really can't figure out what you have against me. "free reign for his POV-pushing"? You told me you are not involved in this topic, nor taking any side, but it seems you have some issue with me personally? Rarelibra is not some main opponent, and I don't even know why this stuff has to be stated in such a way... Icsunonove (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I get attacked on here yet again, lets do a little review here. I was on break from Wikipedia for quite awhile. I came back to see that Rarelibra and PhJ were slandering me to a new user, calling me an "Italo-Fascist". That's called instigation. I defended myself by pointing out that these guys have their own "history" on here, and are by no means neutral. This was returned to me through profanity and multiple threats of taking legal action. Rarelibra told the Admins he did not mean real legal action, but then sent me an e-mail through Wikipedia stating real legal action. I don't believe this was ever fully addressed. Then Rarelibra made an apology to both me and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson, stating that he had issues at home/work, and I left it at that. I'm easy to forgive and forget. Somehow he assumed that there was a topic ban, and I guess he was actually satisfied that he had taken one for the team to get at least me off of the discussions? Maybe that is why his apology was so forthcoming? I see no place that I've ever agreed not to work on the subject I care about; does he want to stop making maps?? Lastly, if there was ever to be a topic ban on this subject it could not be simply two editors. There have been many involved, including the Admin Gryffindor who arguably started a lot of these nasty debates back in 2005, and has been reprimanded many times by other Admins on his dubious actions. If you really want to start asking for RfCs I would suggest starting with Gryffindor on this topic and Rarelibra on the continued threats of legal action over e-mail (I still have the messages). They seem to have a need to go around Wikipedia stirring things up on multiple topics. I've worked a lot on these pages to come up with neutral solutions that have finally started getting the arguing to calm down and have pages that incorporate the multi-ethnic backgrounds of these places. What have these others done? All I get now is being made out as the bad guy by the German crowd? All along I've supported preserving both the Italian/German/Ladin language nature of these regions. Lastly, I do not understand why I keep getting accused of harassing Septentrionalis. I have no problem with Sep, it has been Rarelibra that has gone after him. Also, I don't know why out of the blue Future Perfect at Sunrise has laid his target on me. I have no problem with this Admin, except I do take issue with being singled out like this. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is, I don't instigate or get in any trouble making maps. Nor do I offer up insults, personal attacks, or other such negative behavior. Just know that any such behavior will be swiftly reported in the future - and I'll be the 'nice guy' (I guess) in avoiding the topic... no matter how POV. Rarelibra (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that all sounds very nice, but you and PhJ were still the ones who found it necessary to go around calling me an "Italo-Fascist" when I wasn't even participating in the discussion. I guess you can sweep that fact under the rug, even though it is -- you know -- documented in the logs. Or did I misunderstand you, and you are actually saying that you don't instigate or make trouble when you make maps? Ok, I'll give you that one... :))) You can accuse me of being "POV" all you want, I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased to either point of view. That is nice that you'll be monitoring me; though I still think you should spend more time dealing with your own behavior and addressing those legal threats with the Admins. Anyway, lets see if this time you all can leave me the heck alone... Icsunonove (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to address your own actions. You come in acting like you are innocent. Your words of "I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased" smack of irony. You need to focus on your own actions. Just know that we'll make sure you stay respectful and professional - because it is easily proven across many talk pages of your own instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks. Rarelibra (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough already... You came on here and accused me of something I simply did not do, which only shows that you continue to make this personal. It is just another waste of mine and others' time. You've also tried to avoid your own AIN with regards to legal threats, profanity, and racist remarks by turning around and pointing the finger at others. By the way, you began this page with "instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks". So much for your, and I quote, "I offer up a full apology to Icsunonove - who I ask of this, let us share the olive branch, go our separate ways, and contribute to wiki with positive and constructive vibes."; now there is some real irony! You don't even seem to realize that you are back attacking me in less than two weeks, after offering that olive branch, and for me doing absolutely nothing. Are you able to make that connection?? Is that a nice thing to do? Take some time and try to figure that out. See ya around. Icsunonove (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough out of you! I came on here because I thought it was agreed upon - but yeah, Future Perfect proposed it. I guess you weren't going to abide by it either way. So technically, it would still be open for discussion amongst admins - that I am abiding by it in spirit is one thing, that you refuse is another. It just shows the true colors. I am not attacking you, either - what paranoia brings that on, well, who knows. I am merely pointing out that you, as I, should respect a permanent topic ban and edit elsewhere. By the way, I haven't avoided anything - I owned up to my actions. You haven't owned up to anything... and like you state, it is easily traceable in the history of many talk pages to see your unprofessional behavior and constant personal attacks - that was observed by several others besides myself. And it was commented on here on ANI. So you best reflect and remain professional yourself. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your apology to us was false, obviously only based on your desire for a topic ban. But get this straight: there is no topic ban; there never was. I'm not wasting anymore time on you. Your anger/home/work issues, good luck with them, seriously. ciao. Icsunonove (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Careful - you are borderline attacking me. There was a proposal for a topic ban - that we could easily ask admins for further review. It's funny how you like to put words in people's mouths or statements of gradieur. Good luck with life - you are going to definitely need all you can get. Rarelibra (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Executive summary
    There was no topic ban.
    Icsunonove has violated no agreement.
    End of story.

    —Ian Spackman (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If capable. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war

    Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I just came from this article because of an RFC request. The article has been subject to an ongoing feud between Korean and Japanese editors. This war relates to the cultural issues between those two peoples and is, to put it mildly, acrimonious. the main point of contention is over Dog meat, and I am not going to list the full details but it is not pretty.

    The feud has been going on for three months now with no end in sight. The fued has resulted in several warnings to and blockages of editors on both sides over incivility, rudeness and derogatory comments. There also seems to be some serious ownership issues.

    Several of us over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink have tried to mediate the issue as we have no real connection to the article other stated desire to see a well written, NPOV article on international cuisine. This hasn't worked out. What I am requesting to be done involves several different things that only admins can do.

    There really needs to be a cooling of period, and this is what I think needs to be done:

    1. the divisive section needs to be excised;
    2. The article needs to be put on full protection for awhile, 2-4 weeks;
    3. the editors involved in the pissing contest need to be warned, or even blocked to allow them to cool off;

    I think this may need bouncing up to the arb committee, but I am going to let the admins decide on this.

    editors that appear to be involved in the edit war:

    I am not blaming any of these people for the war, it just seems that it has gotten way out of hand over there. These people genuinely want to get the best article, but are allowing their passions get the better of them.

    -Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    OMG, Jerem43, you have no right to do this. I haven't reverted any single edit on the article. FYI, I was trying to meditate between some editors at their disputes but simply I failed. Besides, Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC and Bsharvy is missing on the list and you think threatening block is suitable method?--Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris and Bsharvy have been the ones trying to mediate the issue and you, as one of the editors involved, have not been helping. I looked through three months worth of the war before posting this request. I did this because someone who was disinterested had to make this call. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    As far as I've known, you're the most unhelpful editor for the article. You originally came to 'fix'(as you think) the order of the cuisine template and then you failed to persuade editors to relocate it to the way you want. As the consequence of that discussion, you post this? I don't think you behave properly. Of course we need a meditation from admins, but You're acting like a teacher to lecture editors. In addition, I don't also think Bsharvy has been meditating or helping for the article. He is the one consistently reverting edits between others and brought wrong statics and infos--Appletrees (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...all of whom look to be the same people who got South Korea protected and in response went on a witch hunt on the talk page. A lot of these ultranationalist editors have already been involved in one arb case, and we're headed straight for another. east.718 at 10:06, November 27, 2007
    east718, I acknowledge you're one of admins but don't think your scornful comments on the South Korea talk page and the above are good to listen to. Two days ago, I considered to ask you to meditate the dispute because you were there to make a protection on the article. But after seeing your cynical comments, I gave up the thought. You could've also meditated the dispute as an admin but simply label ultranationalists[4] and making article under a protection for fun[5]? That is very offensive. I want you to withdraw the comments. The disputes were initiated by a vandal and another editor as you call "witch" to have wikistalked so long made things worse. --Appletrees (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not one of the warring editors, I apologize for painting you with my thick brush. Once you realize just how much of a problem nationalism is on Wikipedia, you start to lost patience fast. Granted, the editors involved in the East Asian conflicts have been better behaved than most, but the situation is deteriorating and barrelling towards a huge Balkans/Armenian-Azeri/Troubles style flashpoint. east.718 at 10:57, November 27, 2007
    • Comment. I was involved in this a while back on a purely editorial / local interest / attempted mediation level, but just got sick of the carry-on. Somebody say pissing contest? Pretty much. Protection, arbcom... do it, because to pursue a long edit war on such a controversial topic - as divisive as various ethnic, political and religious debates which get locked down quick on WP - shows disregard for how visible WP is, and how we must visibly co-operate to present great articles. I am singularly unsurprised to see Melonbarmonster still involved. From a recent comment on the article talk - Talk:Korean cuisine#Melonbarmonster (troll) - his popularity does not appear to have risen since I was keeping a closer eye on things. I am surprised that he hasn't added to his rap sheet for a while. Deiz talk 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly don't think blanking the section, even temporarily, is a solution. The main problem with editing process there is the lack of any effort to work toward consensus. The editors tend to insist on black and white solutions, e.g. deleting the whole section, deleting whole paragraphs (on the grounds that there are some references they don't like). There has been little discussion of the form: My concerns are... etc. Very little effort to find out why the author put that seemingly objectionable material in the article, and work toward a more consensual way for the article to reflect that concern. In short, little communication. The only real edit-warring I've seen has come from melonbarmonster, who has consistently shown a lack of interest in any sort of open-minded conversation. (P.S. I'm not sure how much nationalism is involved. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, I wish folks could see that this is edit war is part of something bigger. This incident is simply one small battle in a war between editors who strongly identify with extreme and vulgar ideas of what it means to be Japanese or Korean. In other words, this IS part of a long-term war in which some of the editors identified above are continuous disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They are nationalists and they have refused to follow Wikipedia policies. This editor has been blocked 9 times. At the very minimum this editor should not be allowed to edit any articles about East Asia and this one and this one should be blocked indefinitely as highly disruptive editors. Some of the folks (but not Badagnani, a good editor) listed above have frightened away good editors and have created an ultranationalistic and racist atmosphere. Please do something. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dually agree. In viewing the Korean Cuisine article and similar articles, many that wish to see "offending" texts deleted are Korean nationalists. Then the Japanese nationalists step in and have it restored. Then other editors, like myself, see no reason for it to be deleted, and then an ensuing edit pattern continues. It's been ongoing for quite a long time, because no rationale is given for the text deletion most of the time, and a talk page discussion usually dead-ends. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, I respect your concern but you got the wrong point. Japanese editors were not involved in the series of the incidents at this time (but as Banagnai said once, a Japanophile editor is involved). I think your accusation against Good friend100 is fatally wrong. He has to get by the painful lessons from the past disputes, but he was not involved in the edit warring. I assume you're a newbie and the dispute looks tediously long, so that you seem not to look through the every detail on this. I also don't think Melonbanstar should be infinitely banned for the dispute as you wish. In my opinion, Melon and Banagnai have equally responsible for the endless edit warrings. But on top of that, I think the reporter exaggerates the problem too much. He stopped by to make a cuisine template placed right top of a picture depicting Korean foods. But he failed and then made this report. How transparent. --Appletrees (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I had planned on placing this article up for arbitration as the RFC was getting no notice, so I believe that this was Jerem43's intention after going to the discussion page, not just because of the edit he made was argued. I was also not mentioned in his list for the edit war, as from what anyone can clearly see, I am not involved with it, I came in the help stop it. I'll address a number of the major issues here. This article has clearly been in an edit war, anyone who can read can see the constant back and forth of reverts and then the insults aimed at the persons doing the reverts, or can see the response of others who take the edits as a "personal insult." The edit war only ended after I placed a note on many of the users discussion pages to calm down in case someone would report them for incivility or revert warring and then I added the RFC to the article.
    These issues I have long attempted to address in Wikipedia articles, people should stop acting like articles belong to them, just because you are form a country does not make that countries article yours. This brings the comments to what some attempt to call "consensus" on the article, but I think some people need to look the word up in a dictionary. A raising of hands is not a consensus, a discussion to a final resolution with well fashioned arguments, not "I'm right, you're not" while using numbered statistics that have a possible manipulation to them. Internet sources are a poor source for editing a controversial topic, especially from the BBC which is a television channel looking for ratings, not accuracy.
    There is little civility amongst the major contributors to this article (unless you agree with them) which is why I personally went on there to personally arbitrate. I made one edit a while ago and it was jumped on and I left the article for awhile and came back to put in some information on the history of the cuisine but realized that there was so much volatility surrounding the article, I would attempt to calm the editors down before attempting to add anything of merit to the article. This is the inevitable outcome of that attempt.
    I stick to my position that the dog meat information should become part of the history section that will discuss the evolution of consumption of dog meat in the country dating back to the pre-modern era. Statistics do not contribute to the article as they just provide controversy. Dog meat is clearly not a "staple" of the diet and does not warrant it's own heading. It would be likened to having a heading for each food item in any culture. Would you suggest in the French cuisine article we have a heading for frogs, snails, horse meat etc. just because other cultures find these items taboo? No, because these items are clearly small parts of the ingredients found in the cuisine. Anyone who states that each cuisine is individual (I see the argument coming) is flawed in that argument because each culture has food taboos, they just are not a major part of the cuisine as a whole.
    Clearly the regular combatant editors have scarred away not only editors who may contribute a small amount of information to the article that are not major contributors from the article, but they have also pushed away largely contributing cuisine editors such as myself from editing as we do not need the added stress. What happens instead however, is much valid academic information on the whole article, not just single sections are lost because we would rather not get into arguments with combative editors. I think some people have lost the idea of enjoying academic work to further education for others, in favor of as Jeremy has stated, a "pissing contest" to see who can win an argument to put their agenda forward. I would hope that multiple administrators with no cultural bias would help to arbitrate the situation.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Melon is currently not here, but most of flames are toward him. --Appletrees (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I did not post this because I was unhappy with the "discussion" over my edit, but because I realized that issues of ownership by the editors was a serious issue on top of the edit war and it was getting in the way of a serious discussion. The way in which in which the editors disregarded the MoS over their own opinion of how things should be done was just simply the last nail in the coffin. I had been mulling the posting since shortly after reading the Talk:Korean cuisine threads on the matter, as well as the flame wars going on on your individual talk pages. This issue has gotten way out of hand and as Chris stated it needs to be resolved by individuals who are not vested in the issue. That was my intent by posting this message, and nothing more. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, the fact you found you needed to build consensus at "Discussion" rather than simply barging into a page and insisting on your way does seem to be the reason you began this. Your constant cursing, in nearly every post, did not endear you to other regular editors there, nor assure others of your good faith. Finally, repeated edits were needed formerly at the Korean cuisine article to avoid blanking of an entire section outside consensus (usually by a single user, Melonbarmonster). That has been ironed out and consensus regarding the "dog meat" section is being built, with some very good proposals being evaluated in a calm, thoughtful manner by most of the editors. The "edit war," further, is long past. I suggest you exercise moderation and actually read through the discussion, including the discussion in the past few weeks, and you will see this--a vigorous discussion, something that is encouraged at Wikipedia. I do not believe you have done that, although you say you have. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to ask you to please take the time and point out the incidents of me cursing. You cannot because you will find at no time did I swear. The only swear mentioned was in my quotation of Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. I did read through the discussion and saw what you call Vigorous was what I call inappropriate. People were dismissing commentary by disinterested parties who were trying to help, the only "consensus" was being made by 3-4 individuals with a vested interest in the article. Your comment about me swearing, is indicative of the problems with the "discussion." - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - In addition to the profanity you mention, your vulgar reference to urination was so uncalled for I will not repeat it here. It is simply indicative of what appears to be a hot-headed attitude in general on your part. I do not believe you have read all the discussion carefully in the Korean cuisine article, or you would be working to build consensus there (which we have already been doing) instead of here. From the tenor of your edits (i.e. your appearance and insistence that your version of the article be implemented immediately, with no dissenting comment permitted, hence you begin to issue profanities), the "ownership" and "urination" seems to be emanating from your direction rather than from the Korean cuisine article, at least at the moment, I'm sorry to say. Badagnani (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The term pissing contest does not refer to urination, but in fact refers to an argument, usually without purpose or value.[6][7] You live in Ohio and have never heard this term? It is American vernacular that has been around for years. My usage of the term ownership refers to the tendencies of the editors to brook no dissension on "their" article. My commentary was simply a statement that the WP:MoS, specifically WP:IBX, should be followed regardless of the opinions of the editors- not that "my version" is correct. It is not "my version" of the article but the the MoS standards for articles. The policy is there for a reason and you and the others felt that it does not apply to you. That is not me being rude. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Vandalism and incivility

    I think the edit wars on the South Korea article is far from a ultra nationalistic battle. The first one is a matter of dealing with User:Jjk82's bogus and false info regarding Korea's environment, education level, possible discrimination, and dog meat. The second dispute is a civility issue of Sennen goroshi.


    Discussion

    and perhaps, if one editor constantly makes complaints about someone, and encourages other editors to do the same, constantly gets his complaints resulting in "no action taken" he should rethink his attitude towards the editor in question, and try to enter some form of civil discussion, rather than continue his neverending complaints.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is the very neverending story unless you cease the misconduct. Well, take more time to think about what you have just caused. I couldn't help to report it this time again, because admins above are mentioning the South Korea article dispute and connect with it. I strongly object the link between the Korean cuisine and South Korea article caused by your disruptions. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Don't distort my initial edit and just write down your opinion here. Beside, your civil acts include YOUR CONSTANT WIKISTALKING and REVERTING my edit blinly and vandalize the discussion at CFD? You're so you. Just accept the truth, you never act civil to anyone. --Appletrees (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    any comments made by me will be in the Sennen Goroshi section. thanks.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, Sennen, this is my report, please don't misplace your opinions into the original report. Dividing discussion is easy way for people to distinguash the context. The reason I report here is to make things clear among the chaos and unnecessary blame for the Korean cuisine dispute. You have strong civility issue, but judging by the past, maybe you can escape again, but not for the vandal, User:Jjk82. So, you might want to brush up your old memory like below? OK. I made a new thread for you, so don't complain and distort my report any more--Appletrees (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, if it makes you happy to move my comments, then feel free. As long as my words are not changed, and people can read what I have to say, for the sake of peace, it might be better not to argue over such small issues.Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in 2 minds about say what I am about to say..however BE BOLD !! it seems that Jjk82's comments are content disputes, not vandalism, perhaps if he is a new user, he is a little unaware of NPOV, and the requirement to use NPOV terms, however it might be better to enter into some form of discussion with him, point out that facts need a verifiable and reliable source, and give him a few lessons on what is and isn't acceptable in wikipedia. I do agree that some of his edits are not acceptable, and of course should be removed, but give discussion a little time, and see what happens, before branding him to be an out and out vandal. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sennen goroshi, well there's an old Korean saying, 'He that commits a fault thinks everyone speaks of it.'. It looks that your behaviours and comments may fit into this old saying. Since most users in Wikipedia have sound mind, not like some small parts of impurities here. Sennen goroshi, please remind that it is exteremely easy to harm others by using particular references by absurdly magnifying rare cases with prejudiced tone. Even I can start let people know darker side of any countries using those kinda references like you and your friends used. However, I won't do that, since I and most wiki users have normal and sound mind. As you may know, it is common sense that you and your friends' behaviour will sculpt other users' one toward you and the Japan article. At last, I'd like to tell you that we have tried and will try to solve this problem with only legal channels in accordance with wikirules. So why don't you stop trying to entrap us to be categorized into witch hunters? I will also report your this kinda disregarding and disrespectful attitude, too.

    In addition, you said wikipedia is open to the public, and regardless of shameful facts anyone can upload anything to wikipedia if it is based on facts. In part, may be you're right. However, you disregarded something huge. The ultimate spirit of free-uploadable Wikipedia is rooted from belief of users' sound mind and aspiration of sharing knowledge, not for tools to attack any objects simply because of personal hatrism. Moreover, you are urging that South Korea is a dirty place and South Koreans are racist, right? As I told you numerous times already, regardless you cited some news articles referring to daily-basis tiny little cases involved in yoor claims, but you just cannot generalize and define the South Korean society based on those rare cases. In any country, those kinda accidents happen all the time, and news from any countries are always full of accidents and crimes. In accordance to your logical flow, in Wikipedia, anyone can describe any countries where the places are sick and dirty & full of racists using those kinda news as references.

    I think it is inappropriate use the terms, such as nationalist and personal attack to the users who claims vandal charge on the following users; Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez. Please check the previous traces of those users issued here, and contour the overall pictures of this situation. You will see what has been and is going on in the various South Korea-related articles in Wikipedia. Like you said, Wikipedia is not a battle field. I totally agree with it. However since we are living in imperfect world, so when there are numerous disputes occurred in Wikipedia, please consider the people who start and are caused problems.

    How many countries could possibly avoid downfalling into a dirty and racist country in Wikipedia if described as those issued users, Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, with supporting by daily-news articles? As I remember, the US is the most country in which fossil fuel are used, and consequently generates much higher amount of pollutes any other country in the world, plausibly. You can see the news everywhere referring to this fact, even from Al Gore's speak. However, is there anyone who claims that US is a dirty country? In addition, about the issue of racism, can we conclude that most of Western countries where minor racist clans are being there, such as KKK, neo nazi, and skin heads, are all racist countries?

    Please please my fellow editors and administrators, I would like to deeply ask all of us to see the cores of current issue with more intropective and sound views and approaches. Wikipedia is definitely not the place where people freely excrete hatrism toward any objects due to personal feelings. Please please check the traces of those users,Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez, and see what has been done to the myriad South Korea-related articles in Wikipedia.Patriotmissile (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sooooooo not involved with this. Sennen goroshi whatever comes out of nowhere accusing me of uncivility, and follows up doing all this wikistalking on matters resolved on articles eons ago. He made a few unsolicted or warranted comments on my talk page. I made some comments about his behaviour in the sincerest, politest terms on his talk page that have since been removed. I have nothing to do with the Korea thing although I noticed Sennen goroshi's edits were at the very heavily biased and he is a frequent violator of the 3RR and makes uncivil edits, racsist comments. For my own part I am a tough editor and I am ruthless in my edits of fancruft from Aarvarks to Zimbabwe. Take me out of your discussion. CJ DUB (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This entire discussion appears to be a fork from the Edit War posting made above. This is indicative of the problems stated in that section. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Jerem43, you are a bit out of civility to alter this report with your own way. I've seen your such behaviors already though. Therefore, you are as an observer, I relocated your wording here. --Appletrees (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh* It seems as if the Korea nationalists and the Japan nationalists continue to battle it out. But instead of being at least civil and diplomatic with their edits, they would continue to edit war, mass-delete, and introduce POV on both sides. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is what I put myself into the middle of trying to resolve the situation. I have now been accused of things I have not done so they may prove a point, this is really ugly. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Would you guys please provide opinions on this situation after thouroughly proofreading all those disruptive revisions made by the Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez? I can understand that even just obsering this situation may lead such an annoyance, and also can mislead you guys to be recognized as a war between nationalists of Japanese and Korean. However, as I have iteratively told, before appearance of those Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez users, South Korea article has maintained in peace. In addition, no Korean users above have vandalized Japan article here. I also explained many many times about the reason why the claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez are unjust.
    Would you guys please shift your observative ground to ours at least once? Please consider if your mother country is trampled and downfallen into a dirty and racist country and become known to whole world, simply by those kinda users with supportive by such news articles where any countries have, what would you do? Will anyone who tries to defend such acts automatically become a chauvinist and be treated like obsessive small-minded nationalists here in Wikipedia? If so, I'll be greatly disappointed. I am not gonna ask a huge favor, I'm just asking sound and generalized common senses.Patriotmissile (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read what you just wrote? My point is that while you and the others were trying to correct any inaccuracies you lost touch with the point and got caught up in societal and historical feuds. Remember the Japanese attacked the US in 1941, they did horrible things to American POWs, many of us have grandparents that fought in WW2 that have strong feelings against the Japanese and many of us who grew up in the 1970s saw negative view points spouted by our parents against the Japanese. Despite all of that stuff, Chris did not let that cloud his judgment when he redid the Japanese Cuisine article.

    The same can be said about the Mexico cuisine article, the Cuban cuisine article, the Vietnamese cuisine article, the Russian cuisine article and the Iranian cuisine article. We Americans have issues with all of these peoples, going to war with many of them and yet we do not allow it to get in the way of helping to write those good articles. Both sides are pushing their POV and it needs to stop. Let someone who is a neutral observer with a proven track record (Chris has upgraded several cuisine articles to "GA" status, including the GA article French cuisine) help and make the article better. (And, yeah there are Americans with a jingoistic POV who do go around spouting nationalistic vitriol. Chris and are not amongst them.)

    We want to help you but you are not helping us. That was point all along. Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Jerem43, I have read what you wrote, and I also read your above comment, too. However, I can't get the point you are trying to say. what's all those cuisine stuffs for? Have I asked you about the old relationship between US and Japan? Have I asked you how US citizens are so fair and lenient to embracing various reluctant topics? Do you mean that me and several users are blinded by chauvinistic patriotism, so have lost reason? Do you mean we Koreans should shut up and accept whatever others describe at us, just because you and some of US citizens still consider Iranian and Japanese cultures in a positive way? That's pretty nonsensical, I guess. Moreover, I guess I haven't seen any unfavorable opinions toward US made by users from those countries. Will you react the same way as you are reacting now, even though those issued users denounce the US scathingly as they did to South Korea? I'd really like to see how you will react if such situation actually occurs.
    Please read what I have said carefully. I provided the reasons why those claims made by Sennen goroshi, Jjk82, and Keyngez cannot be acceptable and used as defining the whole society of South Korea.
    Jerem43, you said you wanted to help us, but we would not help you. Please tell me in a what possible way you want to help us, and what exactly you want us to help you. May be I am not that keen guy, so please list what exactly they way you want us to do, and what exactly you have helped us so far with your mysterious way. As I told you, accoding to some of the references used by Jjk82 and sennen goroshi whom you may be supporting, your great country can also be defined as a dirty and racist country just like what is desribed for South Korea now by those users.Patriotmissile (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my memory, "We" haven't requested your specialty in cuisine here though. So thank your for your "interest" so far.--Appletrees (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Sennen goroshi blocked yet? CJ DUB (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While I welcome comments from all civil users, I think CJ DUB is not qualified to give an opinion regarding my civility and his comments should be seen for exactly what they are - the comments of an offended editor, who responded badly when being told not to tell other users to FOAD (fuck off and die) I think his own comments are so far from civil, but please, judge for yourself. "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That page has donjon but its an obvious mistake made by a moron. " " DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOCKEY, or even know how to write an article. It just means you know how to push a button to join. Good for you. Don't EVER post on my discussion page again" "Firing order‎ (→Cylinder numbering - what moron added that...rm)" - these are hardly comments that show his civility, and therefore his goading and claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.Sennen goroshi (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is you, Sennen goroshi, who can judge other users' attitude. As you may quite know well, may people made complaint about your attitude. However, strangely, you're still here. Please remember you are the one practically elicited whole this situation along with your clans, Jjk82 and Keyngez.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is my name on this list? Because I told you Sennen Goroshi is free to remove comments and warnings from his talk page? I hardly find that reason enough to get me involved with this. Mostly what I see is incivility towards Sennen, not the other way around. You guys are claiming ownership to articles when they are free to be edited by anyone. Unless something is going to be said about me being uncivil please remove my name from the discussion, as I have done nothing wrong. SpigotMap 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeremy, don't distort my report any more, you're not a admin. If you keep doing the disruption one more time, you have to deal with more than you're doing now.--Appletrees (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested block of these users

    I hate to do this, but this needs to be resolved now. (original comment)

    Patriotmissile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    You hit the nail on strait on the head, I am saying that you are being blinded by hostilities towards the Japanese contributers and guilty of insular thinking. This shows in your (as a group) communications with these editors (and theirs with you, this is a two way street of hostilities), I made a point to research all of the people who are at the root of this conflagration and none of them are innocent. The various user discussion pages and their contributions to the main talk page of the Korean cuisine article show the outward hostilities.
    The inclusion of the other articles of countries the US has had serious issues with is a demonstration to show that conflicts with other nations should not get in the way writing good articles. You and the others cannot see the forest for the trees and because of that we are at this ANI page.
    Of this group, you are the only one who has not been blocked in the past and I believe you to be a truly committed editor but this whole affair has gone too far.
    Well Jerem43, I have read your black list well as well as your reasoning for such a block request. However, don't you think you're overreacting on this issue? It seems that you extremely abhor this whole series of disorders simply because this chaos has made you consume an above-average level of tylenols. Now I think I can sense in part why you enumerated all those cuisine stuffs and the relationship between US and other hostile countries. Honestly, I have no idea what has happened to the US article and you have suferrred from all those antagonisitic revisions. However, you can't simply ask everyone from everywhere to follow the precedents occurred throught out the article of your country. Yes, those precedents may can be used as references to solve similar cases. However, they cannot be the exact models to be applicable to all other cases since each case can have so many subtle differences, which can lead to complete different interpretations.
    In addition, about your request to block the users you listed, as far as I see, Wikipedia has the well-established rules for its administrative operation, and block or permanent eviction of users will be decided in accordance to the rules. You said I was blinded and obsessed by chauvinistic feeling and due to that, I have hurted other users by using harsh attitude, right? I'd like to tell something. Those charges you listed were originated from your own personal feeling. For better understanding, I honestly felt harshness and a little biasm on your comments, Jerem43. So, can I also ask you to be blocked simply because I had a little personal dislike on your coments or attitude? I don't think so, and I won't do so.
    Yeah may be as you said, none of us are not innocent depending on point of views one is looking at this chaos. However, please consider what ultimately caused everyone had to be out-of-line at least for a while. In addition, I guess you are still confusing the core I have kept urging. I didn't mean nobody dare to upload any bad articles to South Korea thread. What I have asserted was one should not make conclusions and arbitrary interpretations from the tiny little rare cases which occur everywhere and everytime. Can't you discern the huge between my assertation and your current claim on my attitude? Please mull over my comments.Patriotmissile (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    "We" do not have to consent to or request permission to edit anything, as the whole purpose behind Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. You do not own the article and others do not have to seek your permission to edit it; you, as a group, are demonising others who wish to contribute to the article; you have removed the contributions of those who feel they have something worthy of addition; you have ignored the MoS; you are being uncivil; and you cannot reach a consensus with the other editors of Wikipedia, only with yourselves. That is a significant point in these discussions.
    Several times in this very lengthy discussion you have shown outward hostility to the people commenting in this thread, as well as shown bad faith by editing the discussion and moving my comments from where I put them. You have tried to lay the blame for the edit war on editors who have made good faith efforts to improve this article, such as Chris and Bsharvy.
    You have been blocked before because of this and failed to learn from the experience.

    Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    You have been blocked nine times because of this type of behavior. This pattern is indicative of a wider issue of your failure to make productive contributions to Wikipedia.

    Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    You have lied in an attempt to discredit me and my proposal, that is a true example of uncivil behavior. You twisted one of the most famous quotes by one of the English languages greatest humorists in an attempt to claim I was swearing, and you tried to claim that a term which means a pointless argument as me being vulgar. Your lie was to have claimed that I engaged in this behavior as a matter of discourse in all of my communications.
    You have a pattern of behavior that suggests you only follow WP policies as you want to, and when those policies go against you you do every thing to discredit them or the contributors who applied them. A prime example of this behavior is here.
    You have been blocked five times for this behavior, and like Good friend this shows a wider patter of unacceptable activities.

    Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Sir, as per CJ DUB's comments, you are guilty of numerous violations of the standards WP. You have been blocked three times, and you should be banned for the egregious nature of the edits you have made. The ichor you espouse towards the Korean contributors in some of your postings is vile.

    Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Your edits have at best been unproductive, as you have personally caused more friction on the Korean cuisine article than any other editor. You have been blocked more than a half dozen times for this behavior; a trait of consistent abuse towards others that you share with the aforementioned contributors.

    In a summary of my thoughts on this issue, all of you are guilty of violating most of the following WP policies:

    • WP:MoS - You have ignored the accepted policies of this site in favor of your own personal tastes.
      • WP:IBX - I and others have shown you that this is proper way to do things, this is an example of your behavior.
    • WP:Civility - Your interaction with the rest of the Wiki-community has been brisk at best, openly hostile at its worst.
    • WP:Consensus - Your groups' view is not the only opinion that matters, other view points must be considered when making a true consensus.
    • WP:3R - The issue with the info box edit was just the latest problem, the only reason it wasn't removed for a third time was the article was locked before that could be done.
    • WP:Good faith - By not trusting the intentions of others who only want to contribute, you have show the nothing but bad faith.
    • WP:Edit war - This is why we are here, and it is a shame.

    Also, this behavior is carried over from an arb case over the South Korea article, as stated by East718. Many of these contributers mentioned here are continuing the conflict that got the South Korea article locked down.

    For all of this behavior, all of you are need to be blocked, some of you permanently.

    Yes there is anger in my post, anger because this has dragged on for three months and not a single person has tried to compromise. These individuals have claimed that they are willing and are in the process seeking a productive consensus, but there are always some codices, conditions, objections or plain old passive aggressive behavior which belies their claims. Their posts in these threads are perfect examples of how they have been behaving, which is like children.

    To the admins that monitor this page, consider this a request for blocks on each of these editors. I would like to see a permanent ban on the worst offenders, Melonbarmonster, Sennen goroshi, Badagnani and Good friend100. The others should be blocked for enough time that they realize the depth of their behavior and its affect on the general Wikipedia community.

    - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    *Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    With his bad faith, He has caused a serious chaos to Korean cuisine, distorting the separated incident report and his serious incivility, inappropriate usage of language like urination.

    Jeremy, I should ask your responsibility to have cause a serious of chaos to Korean cuisine article as you report without any consensus and notice to editors into the article, and took inappropriate examples like urination, and distorting my seperated report with your special edits. I think you're doing more than wiki policy. You need to be banned for these ongoing disruptions. --`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have't ignore the MoS, besides, that is a matter of perspective. Several people don't agree with your insufficient rationale and do agree with my rationale instead. You're the one to consider what is civility. Weren't you jumping from the ongoing discussion on the cuisine template, you reported the Korean cuisine and demanded editors to be banned for your retaliation. That is highly disruptive. I think you need to take time to think about your disruptive behaviors as taking a responsibility. --Appletrees (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding your complaint about my relocation of your right(?) comment to the discussion subcat, well, the report is filed by myself, not you. You're not the reporter at all. --Appletrees (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should make sure I understand this correctly, is Jerem43 suggesting that just about every gets banned? I would say that the vast majority of the users named above have been responsible for many good edits, and despite a little friction, overall they add to wikipedia. Melonbarmonster, Badagani, Appletrees, Goodfriend and myself most certainly do not deserve a ban, let alone a perm ban for all but one of us. Since goodfriend got given another chance, I think his attitude towards reverting people has changed hugely, Appletrees has a ratio of about 50 to 1 of good edits/disruptive edits, Badagani is an excellent editor and mediator, and while melonbarmonster might be a touch stubborn, he is still an editor who tries succesfully to make wikipedia a better place with his edits. I find the suggestion that a large group of constructive editors get perm banned, a million times more offensive than someone 3RR reporting me, or calling me biased. As for myself, I am gradually learning to keep my POV to myself, and not to take the bait offered by some of the more annoying users. I don't think any of the users listed by jerem deserve any form of block, and that dispute resolution is a better place to solve these issues. BTW I've been blocked once, not three times, one 48hr block, reviewed and taken down to 24hours. thanksSennen goroshi (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I am starting to be a little skeptical regarding the latest suggestion of Jerem43, that a huge group of editors bet perm blocked. First of all this seems to be like nuking a mosquito. Secondly it is hardly in line with normal wikipedia sanctions against minor discretions. Finally I was wondering how much canvassing/coaching/plotting is going on behind the scenes between Jerem43 and Tanner-Christopher. Call me untrusting if you wish, but when I read people asking for an E-mail so they can discuss something that cannot be discussed on wikipedia, and then the user who was asked to contact, suddenly is appealing for perm blocks all round, it seems as if something might be going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=prev&oldid=174200562 There seems to be something strange going on anyway. If I have made an assumption that is incorrect, then I sincerely apologise for that, just at the moment my spidey senses are tingling, and they are telling me that there may be more to this situation than is being shown. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Jeremy and I both live in Boston, so honestly the way I communicate with people about other things is none of your business. I communicate with a number of people outside of Wikipedia and if you look at different discussion pages you will see the same thing posted on their pages, it is called having "friends" seeing how we are both in the hospitality industry, I don't discuss personal information on Wikipedia and I have a number of people who contact me on a regular basis besides for my expertise in the field as well. This however is actually indicative of some of the excessive incivility I have seen on your discussion page that when I have gone to comment on certain items, has been completely deleted. I am amazed from what I saw on your discussion page that you haven't been blocked more than once, but I think people have given you a lot of leeway in hopes that you can be civil. Finger pointing instead of discussion is a huge thing going on here by all of the editors for the Korean cuisine article, I honestly don't go over to other Korean articles as I am not an Administrator and my expertise is in cuisine and culture interaction, I am sure I could properly edit that article without a bias as well, but why bother when there is so much friction on the cuisine article. I can only imagine that it is worse on the article for the actual country. As for Jeremy causing serious "chaos" to the Korean cuisine article, this process has stopped editing on the article until "this chaos" is finished.
    So actually there is a calm on the article until some level headed editing process for the article can go forth or some administrator steps in. It seems any edit that goes into the article other than done by Badagnani or Appletrees is pounced upon with the overuse of the term "consensus" when they don't need consensus at all to add what they want to to the article. Actually most edits for any Wikipedia article do not need consensus at all, see WP:Bold. I am not usually into bringing out controversial things on Wikipedia, I do what I need to do and go about my business as I don't like arguing with people, but I guarantee as soon as I were to edit this article in the manner in which I have brought other cuisine articles up to B and GA status through reorganization and addition of history and relocation of giant lists to List of Korean dishes, I would be pounced on, oh wait, I already was when I made said "list" article. I however let it go at that time and now that I feel the desire to work on the article, I think the issues need addressing as this is a bigger issue than just the "dog meat" section. The silliness over the tea section is yet another banter back and forth that was just pointless because people didn't understand the use of the word "fragrant" and as such, became accusatory.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have recently had a discussion with an other contributor in regards to this issue, and agree with him. I will be back after work with an amended proposal. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • Hi Haemo, thank you for your comment. Perhaps Arbcom or mediation could work. However, it seems that two of the editors listed above have no intention of submitting to or participating in arbitration because they eschew the policies of this project and frankly, by their actions they are dead set against everything that makes Wikipedia a good thing. After all, this is not an isolated incident -- the Korean cuisine problems are just a single battleground of the war between C-K-J ultranationists. Korean cuisine is another proxy article in a long-runnning war that has never been adequately dealt with by Wikipedia.
    Remember the Dokdo arbitration? Melonbarmonster and Good friend100 were found to be part of the problem. As a part of the findings of the Dokdo arbitration Melon and Good were warned that if they continued to participate in edit wars and disruption that they would be blocked. I suggest that Good not be allowed to edit East Asia articles and Melon be indefblocked. I and other editors who have a genuine interest in making positive contributions to Korean-related have been locked out. We want to see an end to this seemingly endless ethnic warfare that is occurring in the Korean-related articles. As far as I can see, people with administrative tools have yet to publicly acknowledge that the continuous edit-warring that has occurred at article after article related to Korea is a serious problem. It is a serious problem. Why are there so few Feature Status articles related to Korea? Because the Korean-related articles have been hijacked by these incredibly disruptive editors. The ultranationalists must be stopped so that regular editors can get back to the job of presenting Korea in an NPOV manner and according to the spirit and the letter of wikipolicies. Somebody has to stand up and say something until Wikipedians realize that the quality of the 'pedia is greatly compromised by these ultranationalist editors. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fellow editors and users, Please remind of the meaning of old saying, ' My hourse burned up, but do died the bedbugs.'. It will definitely be not a wise choice to make scapegoats simply to quench this entangled issue and balance between two sides without ascending to the ultimate cause of this situation.Patriotmissile (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, Who are you?

    Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia. Thank you for your interest in Korean related articles. I initially thought you're a newbie per your account log, [33], therefore you may not be acquainted with the current situation in Korean related articles. However, you're definitely not a new comer because of the following reasons. At the report on the Korean cuisine article at ANI, I felt very strange about the strong urge of a seemingly newbie which is that some of editors should be banned infinitely, especially, Goodfriend100 and Melonbanstar.[34]

    this IS part of a long-term war in which some of the editors identified above are continuous disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They are nationalists and they have refused to follow Wikipedia policies. User:Good friend100 has been blocked 9 times. At the very minimum User:Good friend100 should not be allowed to edit any articles about East Asia and User:Sennen goroshi and User:Melonbarmonster should be blocked indefinitely as highly disruptive editors. Please do something. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    In addition, as I visited User:Jerem43's talke page, I found out that you seemed to avert people's eye as leaving your concern about ultra-nationalists and goodfried100 in the middle of a forest or the past thread there. That was also very odd. [35]

    However, they have been going at it steadily for three years and many of the uninvolved editors have become fatigued and dispirited and quit.............In an ANI thread in October, Jimbo and another editor discussed patterned disruption and disruptors of Wikipedia articles.....

    What perplexes me the most is that, in their zeal for 'righting the wrongs' of history, they show an extreme lack of respect for the ancestors of Goguryeo and other historic peoples of Korea......

    Rather than indef. blocking Goodfriend100, I suggest that the editor not be allowed to edit any articles related to East Asia. The editor may be able to contribute positively if the editor is restricted to doing his GA-related work.

    Repeated urge and mention of Goodfriend100's block, Jimbo, and Goguryeo at his talk page. Besides, I'm not the only one thinking about the same thing as your transformation. [36]

    Hello, You must have renamed your self from another user, as you seem to be very knowledgeable. (Jerem43 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

    You might have changed your id and seem to contribute to here for over 3 years. In addition, your wordings and writing style look somewhat familiar to me. I thought I met you before somewhere except the recent ANI. I recalled an anon's speaking at my past report on Sennen for the first time. But there was none but I found an anon's note on my other report instead. [37]

    By the way, this problem was originally a content dispute at a controversial article that has seen nationalistic battles between users who outwardly identify with Japan, Chinese, and Korea. These users are all extremely tiresome and are all a drag on the pedia. They insist on using this project as a nationalistic battleground and they have scared away or completely turned off a whole bunch of constructive and policy-abiding editors. As long as we continue to ignore this problem at Wikipedia and/or deal with it in a piecemeal fashion (for example, Goodfriend100 should have been indef. banned along with others involved in the dispute!!), we will have more bad press from the mainstream media (i.e. care to edit the Koguryo article, anyone?). But I digress...70.53.130.180 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC

    At that time, I also felt strange about the anon mentioning Goodfriend100, because all of 76.2.227.93.27, Sennen and Good friend 100 were unrelated each other. But I also recall the report regarding Good friend 100's restriction because my report and the report were made on the same day. Strangely more, one of two anons strongly demanded an infinit block to Good friend100 in a very similar style in writing to yours. [38]

    Please block the user indefinitely. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year)" have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years........I think Jimbo was referring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? .......Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock.74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    You might rebut my assumption, but interestingly the both ip addresses are designated to Toronto, Canada.

    And today, still you're strongly demanding Good friend100's infint block as mentioning Jimbo's speech, he didn't really cause any problem in the recent incidents. [41]

    the Korean cuisine problems are just a single battleground of the war between C-K-J ultranationists. Korean cuisine is another proxy article in a long-runnning war that has never been adequately dealt with by Wikipedia.....Remember the Dokdo arbitration? Melonbarmonster and Good friend100 were found to be part of the problem. I suggest that Good not be allowed to edit East Asia articles and Melon be indefblocked. I and other editors who have a genuine interest in making positive contributions to Korean-related have been locked out.

    Strange and weird. Didn't you use proxy to escape yourself? How do I believe you're an good contributor as you change your id and keep urging these two editors to banned infinitely? Besides, there is a possibility of your socketpuppetry.

    Moreover, FYI, I personally don't like a red colored ip address or user name because the red colored name indicates "dead people" in East Asia, so they are very conspicuous to me. Therefore, I automatically remember the first digits of anons or ids when I encounter them. On the talk page of South Korea, there are two anons, 74.12.80.137 and 74.12.76.28 from Toronto. [42], [43]

    To sum up, you've been a long time wikipedian and switch your id. The above mentioned ip addresses are all referring to you in the light of the same writing style and repeated demand for Goodfriend and Melon to be banned. I have not invested enough time to find your previous id, but admins can do that. I don't like people doing such the foul play. I think that more you demand for infinite blockage to the two editors faithfully into Korean cuisine, more suspicious you look. I don't think you behave this in a good faith. --Appletrees (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ever since I have participated Wikipedia as an editor, I found myself shriveled by realizing how this world is distorted and full of antagonism and plots. Appletrees, if you're right, this will be a good opportunity for me to reaffirm the doctrine of original sin of humanbeings.Patriotmissile (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I second that. --Appletrees (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This will be my last comment on this matter

    The person whom Appletrees is dismissing in the previous section made a very sane and rational comment on my user page trying to dissuade me from seeking a blanket ban on some of the users I mentioned above. I agreed with him that some of these users have made constructive edits on other articles (Appletrees has done some fine work in regards to several arts articles as an example), but should be given some sort of reprimand in the form of a temporary block to give them time to cool down from the events that have passed in the past few days. If this is the case, then I ask that the editor he mentions, Bagdani as well as Appletress and Patriotmissle, get a little time out.

    If Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia's allegations that Good Friend and Melonbarmonster have been officially warned about engaging in edit warring with the potential of a permanent ban if they did so is true, then they should be banned. This needs to be looked at by an admin now.

    We need to prevent this from happening again, as the edit war has just moved to the discussion page of Korean cuisine. I therefore agree with him that maybe those editors involved should not be allowed to edit articles related to East Asia, as they appear to be highly biased. That would be the job of the arb committee to decide.

    I ask editors to please do what is needed to be done to get this thing settled, as it is heading straight for the absurd pile

    I started this whole mess with the best of faith in an attempt to end an edit war that was getting out of hand and to have the participants chill. I am sorry for the inconvenience that this has caused the contributors and admins (but not to those whom are the subject) that have had to sit through this discussion, and I am going to go have some fun now (after the Advil kicks in).

    - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Unfortunately, some of the editors who people are requesting to be blocked/prohibited from editing e.asian articles, are the most qualified to improve those articles. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    POV fork

    I have just made these two edits

    I think thes edits that I reversed by user:COGDEN by are way out of order. But now I've made the reversals my hands are tied as I am a party to the dispute.# If either of these edits are reverted by user:COGDEN please could another administrator block user:COGDEN or protect the pages now. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you explain what actual changes he has made, beyond splitting the section into its own page? "There is no assurance that this resemblance will be maintained" is the strongest argument anyone has made against it, which tells me there's not anything _right now_ in this "POV fork" that has a different "POV" than what it's a "fork" of. You haven't explained why it needs to not have its own page. WP:RS has its own page. Any protection seems like it would be premature at this stage in what is essentially a formatting dispute. You should both discuss it on the talk page. —Random832 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Altering well known well publicised redirect from a policy page to a page that has not status that was created by the same person who created the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at again, it looks like he was bold, you reverted - and then you went to ANI with demands rather than , you know, that third stage in the consensus process, hmm, what was it again? - he hasn't even reverted back yet, except in the case of one sterile revert by User:Kenosis in WP:NOR.—Random832 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of myself, this was not a fork. There was discussion on the talk page about moving a section to its own article, and the question never really got answered. So I was bold and just did it, and the move was reverted, basically without any legitimate explanation. I stand by the original edit, but I have not re-reverted or made any additional change, or attempted to prolong any sort of edit war started by the reverter. And if there is any "forking" effect, it is caused by the reversion, not by my original edit. COGDEN 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PSTS is a redirect to a policy page. If this is allowed then all redirects to policy pages become open season. For example someone does not like the wording in WP:PROVEIT (it redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence) then they can create a new page put whatever they like in it and then alter the redirect WP:PROVEIT to that page. In this case I am not accusing User:COGDEN of acting in bad faith, as the section he copied was a copy, but the potential for abuse is huge ,and a look at the edit history of Wikipedia:No original research (and its talk page) show that COGDEN has been very heavily involved in discussing changes and altering the section WP:PSTS all of which, to date, have been rejected by most editors. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in other words, you're being a process wonk - putting style over substance. There's nothing wrong with being bold, and you assumed bad faith by automatically thinking he would revert it back without discussion. Can you two please go to the talk page to discuss this proposed split (which can be done COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of any proposed changes to the wording of the policy itself; just because it's in its own page doesn't mean he'll have any more control over what's in it, even if one assumes that was what he's trying to do. It's not clear what huge "potential for abuse" there is - even it being on its own page changes to it are no less visible.—Random832 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of User:Etheltrust.

    Resolved
     – page kept, no deletion, change made to WP:CSD policy. Tiptoety (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. I have marked this page for deletion multiple times and it has been denied, would like over all opinion.

    Also take a look at this convo i had with an admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the second admin to decline to delete. The main part of my reply to Tiptoety about this was: "Hi there - I've no problem with deleting userpage spam under G11, or userpage attack pages under G10, but if someone wants to have a bluelink for their username and is happy with just having "la" on it to prevent it being a redlink or as a test edit, I don't see the problem personally. If there's a real problem, why not ask the user to add something in line with WP:USER rather than go for the speedy button? Technically, you may well be right, but frankly WP:BITE applies too. This editor got whipped with a speedy delete warning the very same minute that the account was created!"
    Comments welcome about whether I'm misapplying the criteria but, to me, trying to delete one brand-new editor's user page three times is, well, perhaps over-enthusiastic. BencherliteTalk 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with the above, but I would like to add that the user page seems to have nothing that would constitute as a page worth of deletion. It is not like the user pressed every key and then cussed on the page. The user simply added "le" I see no problem with that. Rgoodermote  02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:CSD should be revised so userpages are exempt from G1 and G2. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined as well, and removed the warning templates; I've been known to tag or delete attack pages or spam, but "la" doesn't make me want to delete. There are pages like this all over userspace, and it hurts nothing. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to fall under the speedy criteria, but the possible harm of scaring away a new editor vastly outweighs the benefit of saving 2 bytes of space on the Wiki servers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that is rash, no simply put it is two letters. If it is a problem instead of speedy delete suggest to the user that they need to make it more than just two letters. But again it is not like every key was pressed and they typed random racial slurs. Rgoodermote  02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Thank you for your comments, i guess i have just read the policy and was tagging it deletion because it did not meet it. I second the idea of re-writing the CSD policy. I did not mean to violate WP:BITE, and try very hard to welcome users, which i have proven i do quite often. You are right that the deletion warnings on the users talk page were a bit much, and if i could get WP:TW to stop doing that i would. Tiptoety (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need more rules. A user-page is an individual's for however they feel like using it — so long as it helps them collaborate. If they think that adding "la" to their page helps them collaborate in whatever way then we should be okay with it if it doesn't have any demonstrable harm, even if we don't understand it persay. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts that a re-write would be affective, but I will third it if a reasonable re-write can be decided. Good Night Rgoodermote  02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about these:
      • G1-Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Pages in userspace are exempt from the criterion.
      • G2-Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?"). Pages in userspace are exempt from this criterion.

    A user planning to take any action should ask himself or herself whether, apart from technically complying with policy, there is any purpose to that action? Tiptoety, what did you think that seeking to have this page deleted would actually accomplish? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As i stated above, i do not think it would accomplish anything, yet it violated policy so i tagged it. And that was that, after re-thinking maybe i could have just ignored all rules. I am all up for fixing up the CSD. Tiptoety (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never put a speedy delete tag on a user page for something like that, especially not soon after creation. Not all of us is handy with a keyboard. The user may have been thinking up something to write when the speedy delete tag went on. I know from personal experience how confusing and alienating that can be-- the first article I tried to create was speedied because I had saved an empty page. My next edit would have created a stub, but the speedy delete tag scared me off. , Dlohcierekim 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The criteria for speedy deletion do not, and were never meant to, require that any matching pages be speedily deleted if doing so would otherwise be counterproductive. Since WP:CSD did not actually clearly state that anywhere on the page, I've added a paragraph about it to the intro, for the benefit of any other newcomers who might otherwise end up similarly mistaken. (Feel free to improve the wording.) I've also added a specific exemption to CSD G2 for test pages created in users' own user space. I think that ought to be sufficient to address this issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD Policy Change

    You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia policies are primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I do sincerely believe that the edits I made reflect existing Wikipedia policy as currently enforced in practice. Certainly I have not seen anything, based on my participation in past discussions on the CSD talk page and other related forums, as well as my reading of other policies (such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:User page) and observation of past and current practical policy enforcement, that would lead me to believe that the interpretations of policy which I've sought to state explicitly with these edits would not enjoy broad community consensus. If you (or anyone else) believe this not to be the case, you're welcome to revert them and to seek wider community input on suitable forum — such as here, on the talk page and/or at the village pump — in order to determine consensus. (The latter is not absolutely required, as indeed few things on Wikipedia are, but it would be the polite thing to do when one is aware of the existence of a potential disagreement.)
    In any case, I don't see any actual contradiction with the sentence you mention. The part about the general criteria applying in all namespaces simply means that, unlike the rest of the criteria, they are not restricted to any particular namespace but apply, as the name says, in general. Even if one were to interpret that sentence in the prescriptive sense you seem to be reading into it, that would simply mean that the general criteria, in their entirety, including G2, and including the exception to it, apply in all namespaces — G2 simply happening, thus, to have no effect in user space (as it has never actually been enforced there anyway). Anyway, you might want to note that a similar "contradiction" is already found in criterion G4 and, most blatantly, in G8. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, and i completely agree, just wanted to make sure the community did as well. I think we have beat this topic into the ground, and thus i will mark it as resolved. If someone does wish to argue the changes made to the CSD policy, you can do so on the appropriate talk page. Tiptoety (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StopTaoSpam

    ...there's this person that's been harassing me and trolling on my talkpage. StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs) has been harassing me since I reverted his removal of content, and he's been very uncivil to me and attacking me on his userpage, and he has been trolling on my talk page. I have the diff links if you want them, plus a warning that's still fresh on my talkpage. I would recommend you get rid of this message before he makes a big deal of this again on his userpage. -Goodshoped 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are the links that he is attacking me. -Goodshoped 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure StopTaoSpam's remarks on his userpage regarding Goodshoped qualify as an "attack" exactly, nor do two edits to Good's talkpage qualify as trolling. It appears that StopTaoSpam means well, but he may be harboring some resentment ever since Goodshoped reported his username to WP:UAA. Other opinions? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, [[28 November 2007 (UTC)
    This user name is in appropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know! I wrote him up at UAA, administrator failed to block him, and he made an attack on his user page. -Goodshoped 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to voice my extreme complaint concerning Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will request arbitration or resolution concerning the use of "harassment" and I was annoyed with Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with his report at WP:UAA however It has growned to frustration. The first thing is I was not harassing Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was Harassing Me.
    For example with the policy of good faith and civility. My first edit resulted in a instant revert. With a edit on my talk page with [[46]] He doubted whether it was spam yet went ahead and reported me at WP:UAA. Not enough in his report he stated "StopTaoSpam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) — Violation of username policy because: Is an attack on an specific user, includes profanities, obscenities, or references to genitalias or sexual slangs, matches the name of a company or group, promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view, is defamatory or insulting to other people or groups, invokes the name of a religious figure/religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promotes one religion over another, refers to a violent real-world action, and refers or includes allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera; User was removing links that were possibly spam, but also was kind of directing a personal attack on the Taos.. -Goodshoped 04:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)".
    When I quested him talk page concerning his reasons for the revert and in the laozi article discussion. He responded first contradicting himself last. It was when I edited my OWN userpage on the problem. In which case he proceeded to abuse my talk page with progressive threats. I responded with a warning on his talk page and you can read it yourself. I have listed my points. Now look at this post by his supporter [[47]] Isn't that a clear threat? If my name is a large concern than discuss and correct it but be aware I find this situation to be inexcusable and request arbitration with Goodshoped35110s and Gp75motorsports.

    Well, the name got deleted from UAA without any action, and I am now forced to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Would StopChristianSpam or StopMuslimSpam be acceptable user names? Corvus cornixtalk 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed if from RFCN. We do not create discussions there unless the user has been asked to discuss the username specifically, and the discussion was fruitless, or he ignored it. Neither of these has happened. If it has been rejeceted from UAA, then it is not blatant. If he is being disruptive, then he will be blocked for that. I (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He ignored the requests on his Talk page, and he came here, right above my posting above, to abuse the person who brought it up there and here. Your removal of the discussion was blatantly inappropriate. How the hell are we supposed to get this offensive user name blocked? Corvus cornixtalk 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate. I (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's crap. The User name policy says, Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. This name is all three of those things. The only reason it was removed from UAA the second time is because it was removed once before, not out of any consideration as to the validity of the complaint. The name is obviously promotional, and I am offended by it. I ask again, is StopChristianSpam an appropriate user name? What do we do now? The proper processes have been thwarted for inappropriate reasons. Are we just going to allow this highly offensive username to be used with no consequences? Corvus cornixtalk 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am making no comment as to the validity of the username. I merely removed the report, which was invalid, from RFCN, where there are criteria that must be met before adding, which this request did not meet. Take it up with the admin who removed it from UAA. I (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has been reported twice at UAA, and declined both times, it is obviously not that inappropriate - sure doesn't sound like you're not taking sides. But you still haven't explained why the removal from RFCN was appropriate, since the user has been asked to change his name and has decided not to discuss the issue, but to attack the person making the request. Corvus cornixtalk 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not, that comment is merely deductive reasoning. And I have read his talk page. At no point was discussion with the aim to resolve issues with his username started. Merely a "I'm reporting you to UAA". I (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't manage to read your username is an insult toward somebody, even if it wasn't intentional? I admit it isn't particularly cordial, but it is an attempt at discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion implies you are open to the idea my name is not blatant and offensive but you may have expressed your opinion to be the contrary. The name was an simple enough to login and edit the problems I saw in the articles. However this post was about harassment. I refute such statements. Any name change can be done after arbitration StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ←I did. However, that comment was only made a few hours ago, and he has only edited once since then, here, and I don't see that as a refusal to discuss. It was not an attempt at resolving the username issue. The dicussion that needs to happen is not a "your username is bad". It's a "I have concerns about your username. Would you be willing to try to resolve them?" I (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a message on StopTaoSpam's page, as well as Goodshoped and Gp75motorsports pages, suggesting that everybody step away. I don't like agenda-based usernames, but I don't see a flagrant violation; it's a WP:RFCN issue. Some de-escalation would be good. I've been working with Goodshoped on his tact and diplomacy - obviously, more progress is needed. StopTaoSpam could be less touchy, and it would be good if he'd change his name, for diplomacy's sake. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The name is clearly disruptive I have softblocked the account and recommended to find a neutral username Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very bold. I don't think it is clearly disruptive, but we will see how well this de-escalates the situation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been unblocked and is changing the username. I really appreciated your help. -Goodshoped 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{unlikely}} that you are an AN/I clerk. east.718 at 04:58, November 28, 2007
    Yes, I know. I just kind of like to do that for some reason; it looks cool. No offense to the real clerks, and I'm not impersonating them. -Goodshoped 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{unnecessary}}, as there are no clerks. east.718 at 05:08, November 28, 2007
    OK...it's a clerk war and we're supposed (aren't we?) to talk about this particular user? -Goodshoped 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ?{{clerknote}} He has filed the request at WP:CHU. Since I don't see any need for me to clerk there (everything there is in apple-pie order), I'll clerk here instead. :p Jéské (Blah v-_^v) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    <undent>{{clerknote}} Why not have him cool down at this page? -Goodshoped 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)?[reply]

    {{clerknote}} Resolved for the night, don't play any games with him (for now.) (yawn!) Good night! -Goodshoped 05:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{clerknote}} Not yet; he just filed an arbitration request with me, Gp75motorsports, and Corvus cornix. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to consider blocking him indef; I don't think he'll stop. -Goodshoped 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, stop making new threads, and stop doing things that disrupt the flow of this page. There's no way the arbitration case would be filed, and that is why I was bold and removed it myself. Nothing is going to happen here to either of you—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you to those who stepped in and resolved this. Corvus cornixtalk 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you from me too. I don't think he's coming back. -Goodshoped 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G-Dett's civility issues

    Could someone please look at this edit summary -which is just the latest in User:G-Dett's routine behaviour, and remind her that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is in fact WP policy. Thanks. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOFEEDING, WP:SPADE, and WP:NOSPADE are the relevant guidelines, but consider me reminded.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:CIVIL will be sufficient. If you want to add more, start with WP:KETTLE. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a point made by another editor "deceptive, insulting and stupid" seems pretty uncivil to me. Perhaps if G-Dett had left out the "stupid" part it might be different, but she didn't. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, 6, for your princely moderation.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe that anyone could defend G-Dett's behavior in any situation, let alone in a routine content dispute when the other editor did nothing particularly unusual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moshe! As someone who's sat meekly at your feet and learned about cheetahs, and in an effort to learn more regarding same even posed some precocious questions of my own, I am hurt and offended.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Phral Phrallington has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong section I think.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i suggest G-Dett apologizes and agrees to be more civil in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Jaakobou, the words you quote were up for a grand total of 12 minutes before I took them down. Glad to see you're such a fan/archival completist of my work.--G-Dett (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. Don't people have anything better to do than judge the merits of other editors humor/sarcasm? (No offense G-Dett. I find you highly entertaining myself, but really.) Tiamut 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I think you're making this too big a deal, honestly. Maybe a simple note on her talk page saying, "Would you mind refactoring," would suffice (and it seems would be moot, in any case). There is so much really harsh stuff that gets thrown around on a daily basis that's way worse than the above... there may come a time when the WP culture as a whole gets a lot tougher on anything that smacks of incivility, but we're a long way from that now. Also, if G-Dett really wants to be uncivil, I'm expecting/hoping for something much funnier... <<scratches head and wonders if it will be at own expense>> IronDuke 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect a big deal to be made of this and I could care less if she apologizes. I'd just like her to stop the routine incivility and personal attacks. WP is not supposed to be a battleground, and it appears that she needs someone outside the conflicts she's engaged in to point out that there are in fact, behavioral standards here, and why that's so. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, alright, I'm sorry. For now. To Tewfik, I dedicate a larded roast of his favorite mammal. Peace!--G-Dett (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)

    Can a neutral admin please look at the contributions of She Who Photographs (talk · contribs)? To me, it appears to be a SPA whose purpose is to add disparaging and POV content to Woodburn Company Stores and Image:Woodburn Company Stores.jpg. The content added to the article is non-notable incidents while the image content is a straight copy of a self-proclaimed "Employee support group", which is really more like an employee rant forum. I've tried to contact the editor, but they have been unresponsive. The editor has just reverted my changes for the third or perhaps fourth time and I would prefer that somebody else intervene. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this editor has made edits that blatantly misrepresent the information from a cited newspaper article. I have left a warning message, as have others. — Satori Son 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-consumer (talk · contribs) is making similar edits. Possible sock? Katr67 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William Rodriguez

    Resolved

    Edit war in progress. People calling eachother vandals. I didn't go through the edits to see who is actually making legitimate contributions, but see the history for yourself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon closer examination, it appears that Jrandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the one who is being disruptive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, Jazz2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have some ownership issues with this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is a huge mess, but it looks like the edit war is over. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be...for now. I left Jrandi a 3RR notice, and he hasn't edited since. Maybe those warnings actually do work? Thanks Haemo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spoke too soon. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jrandi (talk · contribs) has been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit warring. — madman bum and angel 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So has Jazz2006 (talk · contribs). — madman bum and angel 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jrandi (talk · contribs) has requested a review of my block. — madman bum and angel 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jrandi is an imposter of James Randi. The manner that the account edited (grammar/writing style, POV, edit warring) is definitely not the manner that Mr. Randi would behave. I have contact with Mr. Randi and have confirmed it is not him editing. It's a hoax or imposter. The block has been extended indefinitely. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has Jrandi actually claimed to be James Randi? Mr. Randi is not necessarily famous enough to be an "open and shut" WP:UN#CELEBRITY case anyway, and the username only has "J", not "James".—Random832 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodriguez used to work with James Randi, as an assistant. This is noted in the article. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible it's a coincidence, but that seems pretty unlikely. I think a username block is entirely appropriate here. Natalie (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block for review

    I've just blocked Danaullman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely, requesting review. Rationale - all his contributions consist of serious POV-pushing, edit-warring and fringe science advocacy on homeopathy-related topics. I've seen plenty of SPAs exactly like this and I seriously doubt we'll get any productive contributions from this quarter. Please also note he has something of a COI in this area, being, according to himself, the publisher for an advocate of odd views on homeopathy. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs? Neil ☎ 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can see, specific diffs would not be useful; the whole edit history is obvious POV pushing, and no attempts are made to discuss any of those edits. I'm not unblocking. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ed conflict)Ullman has a definite COI, as evidenced by his edits to his biographical page (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I nominated for AFD a while back). The article was created at his behest by a third party, as described in this[48] edit summary. I've been trying for several months to get him to talk about his edits, with no success until a few days ago[49]. I've even referred him to OTRS, in case he wants to correct BLP problems without discussing it with me. He has also repeatedly inserted links to his commercial website into homeopathy and/or deleted critical external links using both his main account and a handful of IP addresses.[50][51][52] Anyway, my $0.02. He's already created a sockpuppet, I gather. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aron Tendler

    Lobojo (talk · contribs) is readding content to this article that I feel is clearly in violation of WP:BLP. The content concerns rumors of sexual misconduct by a Rabbi who has not been charged with any crime. The reporting of rumors has no place o Wikipedia, in my opinion, and I would ask an impartial admin to review. I would note that two other admins have been involved, one of whom reverted to the rumorless version, and the other to the version including the rumors. However, the latter admin did not respond after discussions on the talk page and let the version without the disputed content stand. This is not a content dispute, as i see it, but a policy dispute. Jeffpw (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This individual is apparently a brother of Mordecai Tendler, whose article was recently AFDed. The AFD, history, and talk page of the brother's article are relevant context for understanding inter-user disputes here. GRBerry 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the Mordecai Tendler article was Kept at the AFD.DGG (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, the article in question is Aron Tendler, not his brother. The only things relating them are the fact that they are brothers, the articles were created by the same editor, and both contain rumors which have not been substantiated. What separates the two is Rabbi Mordecai Tendler denied the rumors (apparently, anyway--there are no inline cites in the text), while Rabbi Aron Tendler has not commented on the rumors. The fact that the Rabbi did not comment makes the rumors unfit for his biography, in my opinion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    are you saying they are more likely to be verifiable if they are denied?DGG (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying that the fact that the subject has spoken directly about them makes it allowable in the encyclopedia. The fact that the subject of this article has not commented makes it even more so just rumor and speculation, and thus a violation of WP:BLP. There is precedent for this position: Just look at the discussions on the talk page of the Clay Aiken. Though media sources speculated about his sexuality, that didn't make it into the article, because he didn't directly confirm or deny it, Only the quotes he himself made were put in the article, per BLP. That same principle should be applied here. It frankly amazes me that there is even a debate bout whether this material shoudl be excised. It is against policy, pure and simple. Jeffpw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is appalling that I should be attacked in this way openly, but behind my back so to speak. I was not informed of this discussion by the one who initiated it, as I should have been. Lobojo (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anyone attacking you here, Lobojo. I see instead a discussion of the BLP policy and whether the article violates this policy. Please don't take things personally. I would also ask that an administrator explain to Lobojo what our civility and NPA policies mean. After attacking me here, and being warned here for the second time to stop contacting me on this issue, and rather discuss on the article pages, he has persisted on leaving annoying messages on my talk page. I'd like it to stop. Jeffpw (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have notified me, as you well know you are trying to create a sense of great tension around this issue. You have needlessly escalated this issue all over wikipedia for no good reason and you are making edit summaries to make it seem like I am being uncivil, when I am behaving quite properly. You should have notified me of this discussion, you did not do so, I'll turn the other cheek, since this is all no use anyway. Lobojo (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And as for the "warning" you cite above, they are just you warning me! You are simply using the old tactic of spattering around warnings to intimidate to try to provoke opponents by patronising them. The second warning was one that you just made ((!!!)) just now in responce to my complaint that you failed to inform me of this discussion! I mean really, please stop this drama! Lobojo (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just feel that I you are trying to bully me into submission. I am not ashamed of my complaint on your talk page? Where else was I supposed to go to express my dismay at not being infomred of this discussion about me? Here it is since you erased it from your talk page. Lobojo (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni Giove (talk*contribs)

    Resolved

    Editors have agreed to disengage.--Isotope23 talk 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple attacks towards myself and User:Direktor. Also suspected of sockpuppetry and POV pushing od theDalmatia article for some time now. Has been reported to ARBCOM, who restricted him to one edit per week per article, with discussion, a restriction that he has deliberately disobeyed, making FOUR eits to the Istrian exodusarticle in one day, with absolutely no discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia 2 for evidence. Best,--Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You two really need to disengage. Giovanni's restriction was 1 revert per week... not simple article edits. The "attacks" towards User:DIREKTOR would appear to be in response to being labeled a sockpuppeteer, sans any evidence (and as someone fairly familiar with the situation I'd say that the claim is somewhat unlikely). Direktor and Giovanni have a history of complete inability to work together, exacerbated by the fact that the are editing the same articles from 2 different POVs. I realize you are trying to help here Gp75motorsports, but all you are doing is ratcheting up the situation by calling his edits vandalism and accusing him of sockpuppetry.--Isotope23 talk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have disengaged, I don't know if Giove has. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd behavior from a sock farm(?)

    There are a number of odd accounts:

    1. Jimbopheel (talk · contribs)
    2. Pheel's appeal (talk · contribs)
    3. Wikidont (talk · contribs)
    4. Pithecusson (talk · contribs)
    5. Per2343o9 (talk · contribs)
    6. Trypanopediac (talk · contribs)
    7. Tyranopediac (talk · contribs)
    8. Wikiroach (talk · contribs)
    9. Wikicockroach (talk · contribs)

    I was about to block the whole lot; but I wanted at least a second pair of eyes. None of them have made significant contributions, are relatively recent, and they all seem to be interested only in criticizing Wikipedia to make some sort of odd point. They are obviously related to each other: (2) is a straightforward sock of (1) made to "appeal" the username block; (7) and (6) are obviously related; (5) and (6) bolster each other in Islamabad; (4) and (6) make POV edits about religion and all signed the "petition" to unblock (1).

    I wanted a second pair of eyes because I'm the one who did the original block of (1) for the username so I didn't want to act further in the "dispute", but also because I suspect those may be either only part of a sock farm, or all of them socks of some other editor that's trying to make a point of some sort. — Coren (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you know they're all connected? For example, what is the connection between (6) and (1) besides signing the petition?—Random832 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know for sure, hence this thread.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (added) More precisely, it seems fairly clear that (3) to (7) are all the same puppeteer, but (1) and (2) might be different— it's just odd that they would just happen to stumble upon (1)'s block and linked advocacy— especially since none of them are very active. — Coren (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, that it isn't totally clear per the duck test, but it is very suspicious. I'd recommend a checkuser before blocking as socks other than maybe Pheel's appeal. Of course most of them could probably be blocked just based on vandalism, and other nonsense edits...--Isotope23 talk 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's technically no cause to block user:Pheel's appeal (well... not based on sockpuppetry anyway - he doesn't necessarily appear to be here to build an encyclopedia) unless he's connected to the other accounts, username-blocked users are free to make a new account. I would suggest checkuser.—Random832 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True... or he could simply be a friend of the blocked editor. Checkuser is the way to go here. Most of the accounts have been dormant for a few days, so there is no rush.--Isotope23 talk 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think a CU is possible; there's obvious pointy disruption, but it's not large scale or rampant. What I'm worried about, is that they are all part of a sockfarm owned by a bigger puppeteer; probably a banned editor: they all are recent, and jumped in with obvious knowledge of wikimarkup, wp terminology and wp policy— someone else is behind them (sock or meat). — Coren (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Isn't that what CU is for?—Random832 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Arguably, but if you check the rules you'll see that the privacy concern greatly override the desire to find low-damage socks unless they are ban/block circumvention. Not necessarily a bad idea in general, it's just not convenient in this particular case. — Coren (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wrong; the privacy policy prevents IPs from being outed except in special circumstances, not whether a set of accounts come from the same IP (they do not reveal the IP unless asked to do so and the situation is dire). A CU can be run on the names alone if they're being disruptive. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more: (8) and (9). Obvious relation, and (9) is also doing the Islamabad name edit war. — Coren (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think you should put in a checkuser request. Worst that happens is it's denied.—Random832 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCU filed. We'll see. — Coren (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was 1 blocked? What part of username policy is being violated by that name? Dan Beale-Cocks 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a peek at the user's page before it got blanked. The Jimbo part of the username was obviously referring to JW. Apparently in some sort of odd tribute— but given the farm's apparent desire to make a point about Jimbo it's evident the editor has no intention to write an encyclopedia. — Coren (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar energy Rfc ignored

    I initiated a Request for comment of some confusing content on the Solar energy page about a month ago.[53] This seemed like an easy fix and the results of the Rfc are clearly in favor of removing said picture but one editor continues to bring it back. This picture issue follows several months of disruption on the page by this editor. I'd like the picture issue settled.Mrshaba (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday I made this addition to Marc Ostrofsky: [54] using the following pages as references: [55] and [56]. I believe that the references, which are to arbitration cases overseen by the .eu domain name registry, support the edits. I received this edit [57] from a person who more or less admitted to being hired to edit the Marc Ostrofsky page by Ostrofsky himself, which appears to contain a legal threat. Are my edits unsupported by their sources? Am I reading too much into this? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a legal threat. Jose João (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd call it a legal threat. The threat is to "report you to Wikipedia", not file a lawsuit. I think a friendly note cautioning against their making stronger threats would be appropriate though. --Onorem♠Dil 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's oddly worded. The disputed edits are described as "slander" (verging on a legal threat, but no threat actually made), it then talks about "taking formal action" (again, no legal threat as such), then it talks about being "forced to report you to Wikipedia" (whatever that may mean). The"deadline" mentioned is up in 2 minutes; I'm curious to see what'll happen... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes me wonder is that if this is a legal professional speaking, why is he referring to "slander", when (and if it was the case) it should be "libel" due to it be being written word that is published. Makes me think hot air is being blown by someone who doesn't have a clue. --WebHamster 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of whether they are good sources is an intersting one, but more suited for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or the article's talk page than this forum. Normally final arbitration results are effectively final court decisions, and could be used the same way final court decisions are used. The reason that it is doubtful is that in part, those sources rely upon the Wikipedia page on which they are being used. In case #4014, this occurs in the Complainant's complaint, paragraph 28. In case #2438, this issue doesn't appear to occur. GRBerry 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire sectionMarc Ostrofsky#Conflicts with the .eu Domain Name Registry needs more justification in my view. These arbitration decisions are primary sources. In general we are supposed to avoid primary sources, though exceptions can be made (in my opinion) if they are essential to the article. It's not clear to me that a narrative of whatever applications Marc Ostrofsky may have made to the the .eu registry is essential to getting a full picture of his significance or his career. If they are included to suggest some ethical lapses on Ostrofsky's part, then the burden of proof rises (since it becomes a real BLP issue) and relying on primary sources alone becomes even more questionable. Why should we be the first published source to consider that Ostrofsky's role in ask.eu was not proper? As an encyclopedia should be summarizing what's been published elsewhere on that issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Crediting image authors in main space?

    I noticed on Bridget Moynahan that the image says "copyright Rebecca Murray", with her name being a link back to http://movies.about.com. On the image itself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bridget_moynahan_int.jpg, it says:

    Copyright Rebecca Murray; http://movies.about.com/
    The image is from an interview with Bridget Moynahan, and she has informed me that the image may be freely used on Wikipedia provided that copyright is indicated and her site is identified.

    Does this mean every visible page it appears on has to bear this identification, or is sufficient to have it on just the image page but not the article? I hadn't seen a credit like that appear in any other article before, and wasn't sure if violated any image or content policies, as the link back to the author source there isn't very encyclopediac. Does this happen on any other articles? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, yes, but it would need a fair use rationale, if one can be made, for every page. Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK the photo credit and link the website should only be on the image description page, and not in the article body. Also, "Wikipedia only" images have to have a fair use rationale anyway, because they won't stay Wikipedia only - when other sites mirror Wikipedia they mirror the "Wikipedia only" photos along with everything else. Natalie (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the image, it seems like the uploader may not understand that the CCSA license means that anyone can use the image provided they follow the terms of the license, not just Wikipedia. Natalie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you just put copystatus tags on the image page? Easy. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for starters, Lawrence Cohen is asking whether or not the image needs to be credited in the article text, as opposed to on the image page, which is an issue not addressed by any tags. And I'm not claiming that the image is not licensed CCSA. I'm just saying that I don't think the uploader correctly understands what the CCSA license entails. Natalie (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I didn't even realize there was/is/are any possible issues with the tagging of the image itself. I was confused as to why an outbound link to the photographer's site was in the body of the article itself. I.e., if I uploaded a photo of a bridge to Wikipedia, and said it could only be used in articles if credited with a link back to http://lawrencecohen.com, that would seem wrong to be linking to my site from the article itself. Is it acceptable to link to a photographer's site like this from the article's page itself? • Lawrence Cohen 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No; information relating only to the article should be in the article, and the image author (and other such information, such as a URL) should be on the image page itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, with the exception of cases where the making of the picture, or the history of the picture, or the provenance of the picture is of interest to the readers of the article. For instance, saying which satellite was used to obtain a NASA satellite picture; who took the picture on top of mountain if it was the guy who just climbed the mountain and who is mentioned in the article; the name of a submersible from which a deep-ocean underwater shot was taken; the name of a famous artist when showing an image of a painting by that artist; noting that a historical picture came from the Library of Congress (eg. a 1626 map of the world), and crediting the original authors of historical material (eg. 17th century Dutch maps; Brady Civil War photos; famous photojournalists). In the vast majority of cases, the author of a photograph will be of no interest whatsoever, but a blanket "author information on the image page" rule is not helpful. The above examples should make clear where the dividing line lies. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, although I don't think that crediting the authors in the article space is required in those cases. So I guess a better way to say what I'm thinking is that it's never required to credit the author in the image space (so the author having that requirement is a deal breaker), although it may be appropriate if the photographer is notable or interesting and some way relevant to the article. Natalie (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the link from the infobox. ➪HiDrNick! 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it safe for me to remove any such things that are found? Or are there some licensing conditions for images that may require this, barring Cacharoth's examples? • Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There shouldn't be any licensing issues with removing the credits in the article space, as long as they stay on the image description page. Natalie (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, that is a terrible picture (especially considering the fuss). I'm sure we can get a better one. Neil ☎ 10:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MatthewHoffman

    MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs)

    I've been asked, by e-mail from a Charles Matthews, whoever that is, to have this block reviewed. I only vaguely remember the details, but reviewing, it seems a fairly clearcut case, and the e-mailer hasn't given any reason for it to be lifted. Anyone think there's a problem with it? Adam Cuerden talk 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My problems with this can be seen firstly in the block log
    • Account making outspoken Talk page comments is labelled "vandalism-only"
    • First block on 3RR is presumably within the rules; second block uses the word "harass" which is bitey.
    • The second block is upgraded to indefinite with a vague accusation that it is probably a sock. Evidence?
    Adam has little or no recollection of this. The AC heard directly from Matthew Hoffman, protesting that he is a real person. This I believe, and it's not hard to document.
    The expressed views are shared with others, and are no grounds for saying it's a sock. We should all be sensitive to this kind of accusation, especially when used as here to take out a dissident voice. (I'm not saying that no blocks should have been isssued; we have WP:BITE for a reason.) Adam seems altogether too close to this for my comfort. I have been trying to get any response at all for some time.
    What is more, I don't accept that the AN is some sort of standing committee handing down indef blocks. It seems clear that Adam, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here. That is not the basis on which admin powers are given. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to raise the issue of people moving too quickly to indefinite blocks here, but got little response. Blocking so-called vandals indefinitely straightaway is too bitey, in my opinion. It is difficult to distinguish between someone experimenting and someone playing around. The case you point out is clearer, as the talk page edits should not have been labelled vandalism. Regarding the buck stopping with individual admins, I agree. That is one reason why people are sometime reluctant to unblock after they have blocked. What might help is in cases where discussion between two admins has occurred, is that the blocking admin passes the block over, and allows the second admin to unblock with the proviso that they will reblock (if present) or endorse a reblock (if not present) if the unblocked editor causes trouble. The problem comes when such offers are rebuffed with a "no, I don't think this editor should be unblocked - take it to ANI/AN/ArbCom if you want to pursue this" (take your pick). As Charles says, agreeing to let someone else unblock is different to unblocking yourself. In the former case, you are passing over responsibility, in the latter case, you are continuing to take responsibility. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by all my decisions, but am willing to change my mind, and if Matthew Hoffman wanted to discuss his block, then I would happily reconsider and might well give him another chance. But I fail to see what the point is of unblocking a disruptive user after several months because a random user asks me to, no offense to Charles Matthews intended. Adam Cuerden talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, if you don't know who a "random user" is, check! That is why people have userpages. In this case, even a cursory attempt to check would have revealed that he is someone who you should listen to and you should have treated his concerns seriously. GRBerry 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I don't think Charles was acting in his arbitrator role, but just as another admin. Still, the "random user" comment did cause me to raise my eyebrows, and is particularly ironic as, if all goes "according to plan", Adam and Charles could be colleagues in just over a month's time... What will the "random user" comment be worth then? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2) Charles, thanks for bringing more of the story to light. The prior AN/I conversation can best be described as thinly populated; only Adam, Moreschi and Jehochman participated, and noone other than Adam commented more than once. Looking at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04#Serious Violation of NPOV I see that other users were also somewhat incivil toward this user, which should generally be considered a mitigating factor. I don't like the combination of that conversation with the block; the combination clearly has a chilling effect of implying to any future readers "if you challenge this view, we will block you for it". I also think there was an easy compromise that should have been suggested at the time, and wasn't because too many editors were edit warring instead of seeking consensus.
    Checking, the 3RR block is legitimate in my eyes, the violation clearly occurred. The harassment block is not legitimate in my eyes as harassment didn't occur, and neither is the extension, as there was not adequate basis to believe the editor was a sockpuppet. I believe the block should be lifted. GRBerry 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but after two months, it is somewhat odd to have this suddenly resurface. I see I received an e-mail from Charles Matthews at the time, checking my inbox, but I fear it got lost in spam and was never read.
    Oh, fine. I'll unblock him, if you feel so strongly. But I'm putting him on a short leash and probation. Adam Cuerden talk 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see, you ignored one email, you made no answer to a User talk question whether you'd had an email, you didn't try find out what my locus standi for asking was (I'm an Arbitrator investigating an indef block). You turned away another email saying you didn't recall anything. Admins are supposed to be reasonably responsive, in relation to their admin actions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume you mentioned in your e-mail to Adam that you were "an Arbitrator investigating an indef block"? That makes the "random user" comment even more strange. On the other hand, this is the first time in this thread that you've said you are an arbitrator. Maybe saying that earlier might have resolved things a bit quicker? Not everyone knows who the arbitrators are, though Adam has no excuse really, as he is a candidate to be one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't mention my status. Revealing, isn't it? Stonewalling all the way. Anyway, I suggest Adam withdraws from the AC election. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." - My second e-mail to you. Your response was that this was not good enough, so I brought it up here myself, but upon some review, the block seemed justified and had been declared so by several admins. And, after two months, I think that it's reasonable for someone to only act on an indef block after finding out there's a reason why it's still relevant to look into. You seemed to expect me to jump through hoops on your sayso, without finding it necessary to talk about the reasons for your concerns, and so I see no reason to withdraw from Arbcom elections on your sayso. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, come on. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, SPA, edit-warrior - why are we talking about second chances? Why are we wasting our time? I had a look at this first time around, saw he was not someone to get hot under the collar about. Please, ArbCom has enough problems with disruptive editors without adding to the casload. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is that if you respect your fellow admins, and one of them approaches you suggesting an unblock, you will be prepared to let that admin take over responsibility for the block. If that admin is wrong, and the unblocked editor immediately goes on a rampage, it is their reputation and credibility that will take a hit, not yours. Lacking a convincing response and stonewalling a good-faith request after it is clear further discussion won't get anywhere, is just being stubborn. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, how do you justify the sockpuppet and SPA accusations from Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman? Spending 11 days and 20 edits on a single article doesn't make an account a single-purpose account. Give them longer and they may widen their interests. Or is a requirement now that all accounts start off with wikignome edits on unrelated articles? Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this is an example of an admin doing absolutely everything wrong (a block logged in a deceptive way, and defended by the bureaucratic runaround), and given that saying "an obvious sock" on no evidence at all is somewhat discredited right now, the fact that Adam's actions in an area where he is not really uninvolved at all find defenders conveys a message to me. The "noticeboard culture" is corrupting proper administration of the site. It seems entirely clear here. The phrase "random user" is the arrogance of power wrapped for Christmas.Charles Matthews (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, wait a minute. Adam above says that he brought the block to other admins for discussion. Was it here, Adam? Can you provide a link to the discussion? and was upheld, you're certainly coming on a little strong, aren't you? And it seems to me that you are being arrogant, by assuming that everybody, even every admin, even every person running for the Arbcom, should obviously know who you are and obviously should stop what they're doing and kowtow to you, when you didn't even bother to identify yourself nor to explain your concerns, apparently. It seems to me that somebody as arrogant as yourself should be the one to resign from the Arbcom. Corvus cornixtalk 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I'm not asking for name recognition. Five seconds due diligence? I'm not asking for obeisance. I'm noting that even plain editors of Wikipedia deserve something more than a brush-off. And why not read the whole thread before diving in? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read the whole thread, thank you. Corvus cornixtalk 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the link you asked for is a few lines from the top. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue for this forum isn't lack of name recognition, it is lack of due diligence and the lack of openness to review. (The lack of recognition is a current issue for a different forum, and I posed it there a while ago.) As I said above, if you don't know who someone is, check before ignoring them, especially before ignoring them repeatedly. Even the most cursory attempt to check would have revealed that the question was coming from 1) a long term editor in good standing, 2) an admin and 3) an arbcomm member, any one of which by itself is enough reason to respond seriously to the question. GRBerry 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    +Yes, because, you know,
    Oh, yes, and guys, don't spam filter your Wikipedia mails, and if you do, don't ignore User talk messages "did you have a mail from me?". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now read every single edit that MatthewHoffman made before being indefinitely blocked, and I agree with GRBerry and Charles Matthews that the indefinite block was unwarranted. I am concerned that the (unwarranted in my view) sockpuppet and harassment accusations remain in the block log with nothing more than a laconic "second chance" unblock notice (which implicitly shows that Adam still thinks the initial indefinite block was justified), and I'm also concerned that Adam has placed excessive probation restrictions on MatthewHoffman (one revert per article per day), with no indication of when the restrictions will end. Thus an indefinite block has turned into an indefinite probation, which is hardly an improvement. Adam's initial block notice on MatthewHoffman's talk page referred to "extreme rudeness", but I have failed to find any such thing in MatthewHoffman's edits, and I looked through all of them. I'm seriously concerned at the lack of judgment shown by Adam Cuerden in placing the block, Moreschi in calling for an indefinite block, and Jehochman for backing up that call. Unless Adam can provide diffs demonstrating the appropriateness of his block (specifically the "extreme rudeness"), I think Adam should retract his probation conditions and leave MatthewHoffman to edit under no more restrictions than any those any editor faces. I would urge anyone questioning this to read Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman and judge for themselves whether those edits tally with what Hoffman was blocked for. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I share this concern and endorse the suggestion. I note that at the present time Mr. Hoffman has no deleted contributions, so anyone can review all the contributions. GRBerry 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I may venture a disinterested opinion here. I've looked through all User:MatthewHoffman's edits, as suggested by Carcharoth. Sure, Mr Hoffman states his position strongly at times but in my experience there is nothing new in that in relation to articles as divisive as this. As to his apparent knowledge of policy and usage prior to editing, ISTR that all newbies to Usenet NGs are encouraged to "lurk" before posting- is it impossible that he could have done that? I couldn't find any evidence of bad faith on his part, nor disruption. And, for the record, the article could just easily been any WP article. The subject matter is of little or no interest to me. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Right. Here is the entire e-mail chain. Charles (October 15, the email I missed) I have concerns about the ungrading to indefinite of the block on User:MatthewHoffman.

    Would you like to talk me through it?


    Charles (November 20)

    I haven't heard back from you about this blocked account.

    I think it would be a good idea for you to unblock it and see what happens. I can see that the editor is partisan. What now stands in the block log is unconvincing, and not greatly creditable to Wikipedia.

    Me (today - it is exam period)

    I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this. Could you remind me?

    Charles

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MatthewHoffman

    You blocked with a claim of sockpuppetry. Well, he wrote to the AC about it; I certainly thought he was just who he claimed to be. He may have been a pain, but that log doesn't look any better to me than when I first looked into it. In fact, considering current concern about "deducing" someone is a sock, it looks worse. I'd appreciate it if you'd give this your attention.

    Me (I'm horrible with acronyms, so didn't realise what AC meant) Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion.

    Charles Sorry, not good enough. I have prompted you before about this. This is _your_ block.

    Me Okay, I've set up a discussion about it.

    [Then this thread started]

    Charles (5:23 pm)

    By the way, if you'd looked me up first you'd know that, or asked who on earth I was, I would have explained that, I'm an Arbitrator. As I said on AN, Hoffman wrote to the AC about the block.

    Me (6:02 pm) Right. Well, that makes a difference. Sorry, but there's so many ways to make a username that I didn't think I could guess yours knowing only your name.


    Judge for yourself. Adam Cuerden talk 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this? Adam Cuerden talk 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me, why should an administrator, who has barely touched an article at some point in the distant past, be forever banned from dealing with anything related to it? I have a lot of pages on my watchlist in order to deal with vandalism and other problems. This means reviewing the edits, and you do end up helping out here and there because of this.
    Why should we add a pointless layer of bureaucracy between the people monitoring the pages and actually dealing with problems? Adam Cuerden talk 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to "and has anyone else noticed that I unblocked the editor several hours agoo, but am still being attacked over this" - no-one is attacking you over this. I'm questioning your judgment in placing that block, and your failure to adequately address the concerns raised. I'm not using incivil language or ranting and raving. I'm pointing out what I think was wrong about the block, and I'm asking you to provide diffs to back up your claims of "extreme rudeness". Characterizing people expressing concern over your block as an "attack" is being overly defensive. I've pointed out that your unblock came with unnecessary conditions and that your unblock comment "second chance" fails to acknowledge the concerns raised here that the indefinite block was not warranted in the first place. Finally, putting someone on probation like that shouldn't be done unilaterally - a probation should have community support or arbitration approval. Individual admins should not set themselves up as probation officers without outside review. I still see no reason for MatthewHoffman to be placed on a "tight leash" as you put it, and I'm repeating my call for you to retract that statement you made MatthewHoffman's talk page. Let him edit unrestricted and trust other admins to do the right thing if trouble develops later on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I've finally had a chance to review the case a bit [Why, after 2 months, did this have to be settled right now, immediately, no time to talk things through?] I was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one.
    Anyway, I think it was things like this edit [58] for the incivility, as well as a few others. Lots of rules lawyering, huge rants on and on in one day. If the sock puppet doesn't hold up, though, there'd be no call for the indef, however, as I said, I trust other people to make those judgements, and he's certainly a creationist type. Also, I'm now going on a short Wikibreak. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incivility: Borderline as far as I can see for a contentious topic, he makes his criticisms of other editors clear but IMO does not cross the line.
    • Sockpuppet: This was at best a suggestion by another admin based on perceived short-term behaviour, not independent evidence and thus has little value. It's weak by any standard.
    • Judgements: I thought Admins were given the responsibility to make their own judgements.
    • Creationist: Again, should a block be a content-based decision? This comments suggests so. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, thank you for striking through your comments on his talk page and for apologising to him. As you know, we don't block for being "a creationist type". If you don't have time to review blocks, please say so at the beginning of the thread, and ask another admin to "take over" the block and unblock if needed. I would respond to some of your other comments, but I think you've earned your wikibreak. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems finishing a discussion

    Can someone politely tell JzG and the other admins to let me please, pretty please finish my conversation with Haemo on my talk page? I got a sneaky (no warning, nor even a notice) 7 day block for 3RR, which was then made into a 1 month block for just using a "mocking" tone, which oddly became an indefinite block, again without discussion, nor warning, nor even a notice on my Talk page. Now bear in mind that even my worst detractors can't point to any "sins" by me apart from very vague accusations regarding my attitude -- which was the topic being discussed. Try to think of any other editor who got indefinitely blocked and has drawn such hostile comments without doing anything bad-bad -- no vandalism, no sockpuppets, no obscenities, no direct insults, nor any such nonsense -- just edits that have been accurate and consistently supported by refs and discussion on the appropriate Talk pages, with the only fault -- maybe, perhaps -- of not showing enough diplomacy at times. If you follow the discussion I started regarding my getting unblocked, you will see that it gets interrupted twice right in middle of my chatting with Haemo, first by MaxSem and then by JzG. Despite somewhat disengenuous claims to the contrary, there was no "soapboxing, etc," -- just go check.

    I hope I'm not asking for too much -- I basically just want to be allowed to finish discussing my case for removing the indefinite block. I think December 1st would be a reasonable deadline -- it's just a couple of days off. And it is just my Talk page. Some of you might know that there could possibly be underlying off-wiki reasons for some of the things going on, but I promise to avoid bringing those up in this discussion -- I'll just stick to Wikipedia only topics. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (By the way, I'm not using any real "tricks" to post here -- my block is just kind of weird). -BC aka Callmebc 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So you're bypassing your block to request it reconsideration? I have to say that this is not very likely to help your case. If you wish to appeal your case, you can do so on your talk page or contact an administrator by e-mail to make a posting here, but you should not do it yourself. TSO1D (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His user talk page has been protected by JzG with the comment 'Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]', so that avenue is blocked. I agree that he could have e-mailed an admin. I think we should be very cautious in protecting the talk pages of blocked users. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone point out the reason he was originally blocked?—Random832 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which time? He's been blocked ten times. See [59] Corvus cornixtalk 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, information without context is no information at all. Editing the Killian wikis is a tough, thankless endeavor. -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Callmebc was blocked for violations of WP:BLP following multiple complaints to OTRS over an extended period of time. The talk page was locked several times due to soapboxing and continuation of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy is omitting one or two minor details: the "OTRS" business involves...hmmm, how can I put this diplomatically enough....a little, some might say politically driven, "story" that doesn't seem to quite meet standards for WP:VERIFY and WP:PROVEIT (for starters) that a reference was added to back in September. There was, shall we say, a long, LONG "discussion" about how best to deal with said story by me and others that went on for a couple of months. While I was blocked from editing even my page, it was somehow decided that the discussion actually involved my casually maligning "people," so a whole bunch of redactions like this were made to both my page and the Killian wikis. And I don't quite get this "soapboxing" thing -- it seems whenever I try to defend my actions or explain anything, regardless of detail and circumstance, I get vaguely accused of "soapboxing" without any specifics given. It's like: Defending one's actions == Soapboxing. And it's a bit difficult to get a handle on there being a "continuation of the same problem" since nobody seems willing to talk specifics (or respond on point in general.) -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be so, but I was watching the discussion and almost reverted your blanking and protection of the talk page as soon as I saw it. If Callmebc addresses the concerns, the block becomes putative rather than preventative. Haemo was giving Callmcbc a chance to change, a chance I believe he deserves, and you cut off their discussion without warning. Not the best move I've seen made. When the page was blanked and protected, Callmebc was not trolling or being disruptive. He was discussing the potential for being unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. You and I have had our differences, so I really do appreciate that comment. I was indeed discussing some options. I had already agreed to keep content disputes off the main article and try other means like RFC's to deal with what I would consider to be false info. And even if all the Wikipedia options to resolve it fail, I'll just suck it up and leave it alone instead of creating another revert war. As an admin basically told me in an email, if the consensus is that 2+2=5, then so be it, and if I find that frustrating, I probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia -- it's just a collaborative website. I don't know if this is a generally believed wiki-philosophy, but the discussion I was having on my Talk page was just getting into the nature of my attitude, especially in regards to other editors. One thing I did for a little while on Global Warming, which has chronic edit/revert disputes, was try to get discussions going on the Talk page rather than in back and forth edit summaries. I think I can make that my more usual approach for dealing with content issues. Bear in mind that I really have strong feelings about how Wikipedia, like any reference, should emphasize accuracy above all else. But I'm also well aware that a community atmosphere and a sense of collaboration is very important to regular wikifolk, many if not most of whom spend an enormous amount of time dealing with vandals and doing many small bits of copyedit-type work. These two aspects of Wikipedia are not completely incompatible, I suppose, if I can avoid stomping on people's toes in my usually impatient rush to get things done and over with.
    So there are some things, I do believe, that are worth finishing up in discussion, if I am allowed to do so.... -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That all sounds very reasonable to me (I'm unfamiliar with the background). Can't he be allowed to prove if he's a man of his word? Give him enough rope and all that?Alice.S 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    The background, in a nutshell, is that the articles involving the Killian documents are sort of like the haunted houses of Wikipedia, with long, strange histories and seemingly derelict -- until you try to bring out the mop & bucket (never mind the hammer & nails), when things then tend to become more like the House on Haunted Hill. (Which I suppose fits in well with giving me "enough rope," eh?) -BC aka Callmebc 13:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jajouka/Joujouka

    Could someone please help at this long-term dispute? The conflict can be described in a whole as a coflict of interests as per the definition at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

    Two groups of Musicians with almost similar backgrounds exist in real world and both have their own article in Wikipedia. The bands in question are Master Musicians of Joujouka and Master Musicians of Jajouka. Many related articles are still being tagged w/ {{Not verified}}, {{Primarysources}} and {{totallydisputed}} templates.

    It should be noted that these 2 groups have been directly associated w/ other biographical articles of a few notable writers such as Paul Bowles and William S. Burroughs, painters such as Mohamed Hamri, musicians such as Brian Jones and Bachir Attar photographers who were or have been associated w/ the Beat Generation somehow.

    Lately, some of these articles have been subject to edit warring again. Apart from the accounts of some of the users involved (User:BKLisenbee and User:Frankrynne), many IPs were edit warring as well. These IPs hail from both Europe (Ireland and France) and the US (NY area and Florida).

    I've been directly involved in maintaining some order and there have been many discussion between editors at the articles talk pages and some have led to concensus. However, the following infringement and disrespect of policies and guidelines are still being noted (WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and it seems that my 1 week blocks for both users (U:BKLisenbee and U:Frankrynne) have done little to curve tensions and enhance contibutors' behaviour toward each other.

    All details can be found at User:FayssalF/JK -an informal mediation subpage i created back on May 2007 to help both camps stop edit warring and build a relationship based on mutual trust. That helped ease tensions but not all the time. I am just therefore requesting from any volunteer admin to help out since i've been a bit busy lately. It still can go through a formal mediation process but any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

    Further information: [[:See previous ANI report]]

    -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I welcome this request

    opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    possible immflamatory comment on User talk:ElKevbo?

    Resolved

    No admin action necessary at this time

    Hi. An anon placed a comment on this user's talkpage, calling him/her a jackass and mental. I then posted a comment after it, asking if it should be removed per WP:RPA or something. Should it be removed, or perhaps just rephrased? I see the anon has a talkpage, but I didn't check to see if it was warnings or whatever. Can someone check, and either remove the comment or do something about it if nessecary? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd let ElKevbo deal with their talkpage as they see fit. I will warn the IP about civility and I did remove the poorly sourced text in question.--Isotope23 talk 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing on Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

    The main editors to these pages are admitted employees/devotees of Maharishi, who is the originator and marketer of Transcendental Meditation. Recently, two RfCs have been lodged requesting additional non-TM editors evaluate the pages for NPOV and COI concerns. The TM editors are closely allied in their edits, and are most vocal in refusing any large changes to the article (some edit-warring on this took place yesterday - so TM is now protected). They also are insistent that their conflicts-of-interest should not dis-qualify them from being the main editors to the page, and seem to mis-understand consensus and neutral-point-of-view. One editor in particular, User:TimidGuy, has said that anyone who thinks he shouldn't edit the page should lodge a complaint with ArbCom. ArbCom shouldn't really be bothered by this, but the talk page posts approach flaming levels, so could someone please take a look at these editors and decide what is indicated?

    The relevant accounts are User:TimidGuy, User:Littleolive oil, and User:Spairag, although the last hasn't been very active recently. Based on their edit histories, I would put all three right on the edge of being single-purpose accounts Michaelbusch (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I know nothing about this topic but I did take a quick look at this. There's more to the story. There's an obvious edit war going on or User:Ryan Postlethwaite would not have just fully page protected it two days ago. It's also obvious that editors on the other side of the coin are User:Naturezak and User:Dseer, who just got a civility warning from Jossi, which Dseer deleted as "spam", see [60]. I don't know what's going on here, but I do know a more thorough investigation is warranted. For now, I say keep the full page protection, have the editors peaceably settle it on the talk page-hopefully, and neutral admins and editors take a deeper look. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that peaceful settlement is unlikely - the COI editing is a long running problem going back at least a year. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is considerable dis-content with the current article, outside of the TM editing block - that much may be stated with certainty. Dseer apparently has a great dislike of Jossi (see my talk page), which perhaps explains that particular problem. My reading of the situation is that the fire of the current objections will eventually die down, but unless some remedy is applied, the COI editing will continue indefinitely. I have several times asked the TM editors to stand down from the articles and allow comprehensive rewrites, but they refuse - and do not seem to appreciate the nature of the problem. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Matrix Prime

    Hiya. A few months ago, The Matrix Prime and I had a dispute about whether a fair-use image he wanted to add to Optimus Prime (disambiguation) was appropriate. Ever much undo-ing and teeth gnashing, the image was axed and the guideline updated to more emphatically preclude those images. I've generally moved on from Transformers-related pages, but a few were on my watchlist as part of a to-do. Category:Primes/Primals cropped up on my recently-edited watchlist pages, and I removed a fair-use image from it. The category was recently deleted as empty (there seems to be an edit dispute abrew between TMP and User:mathewignash), but TMP recreated it with the fair-use image. I removed it; TMP restored it, and I again excised it and left a message on TMP's talk page. In the last 30 minutes or so, TMP appears to have gone through my edit history and undone some of my recent good-faith and appropriate edits ([61][62][63]). These are generally trivial or maintenance-tag related, but considering previous head-butting with TMP and TMP (as far as I can tell) not having previously edited any of these pages, it appears to border on harassment. I'd appreciate a third-party's perspective and possible intervention. TMP's restoration of that disambig page image, the restoration of the fair-use image to the category page, and this comment in response to my aforelinked post on his talk page unfortunately seem to show this editor's reluctance to abide by guidelines and/or consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metis1 and Metis TransPacific Airlines

    Resolved
     – Downed by his own username. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has claimed on his userpage that he worked for Metis TransPacific Airlines, which has been claimed by Skytrax as "spoof operation". Today he has blanked the page twice [64], [65], and once removed warning tags [66]. I have reasonable reason to request this person to be banned indef.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alice.S

    Alice.S violated WP:NPA several times over the past two days as shown by the following diffs:

    I would call this more "general incivility" than actual personal attacks, and you're both guilty of edit warring. Why don't you try discussing this on the article talk pages? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a very perceptive point about discussion, Someguy.
    When discussion is attempted, User:Perspicacite alias Jose João resorts to editing other editor's comments in breach of WP:Talk guidelines.
    I also take this opportunity to point out that
    1. this complaint is a duplicate to one made above by User:Perspicacite alias Jose João within the last few hours
    2. User:Perspicacite alias Jose João never sees fit to warn the victims of his complaints that they are being discussed here
    3. User:Perspicacite alias Jose João has continued unexplained and unjustified reverts within the last few hours while ignoring the discussion page of the reverted article.
    Alice.S 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    update and then Perspicacite admits that addressing him on his user talk page is a complete waste of my time. Alice.S 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brief block of Jreferee

    Resolved

    Jreferee (talk · contribs) was mass spamming dozens of user talk pages with a rather trivial message - eg [69]. He'd only worked through the "A"s - there looked like more to come. A number of admins posted to his talk page asking him to halt and discuss before continuing - but no response - he continued. I applied a 15min throttle break - and indicated on his talk page I'd lift it immediately, if he simply started talking. As of posting this there's no reply from him. I'm posting here for transparency - although, I hope there's no need to make too much of this.--Docg 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a compromised account? This makes no sense. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was editing normally just minutes before this started...Someguy1221 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    seems rather odd behaviour for that editor - maybe he just needs a day off - anyway the short preventative block looks good - it's massing spamming - nuff said. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking policy allows blocking for persistent spamming. Jreferee was spamming a message to many talk pages, and despite being contacted and asked to stop, he continued. His message may not have been directly harmful but it was irrelevant to the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. I just wonder what he was doing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the block, rather they appear to be questioning if it's a compromised account or not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be an odd use of a compromised account. John Reaves 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, i think the best way to tell is let the block expire and see what he does, and if he continues it may be worth emailing him about it (to verify the account is not compromised). Tiptoety (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you guys think we should scan a checkuser to see? This behavior is unusual for Jreferee to exhibit. Maser (Talk!) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the case, the spamming sure did work. Activity increased by a lot, if you'll look at the history. bibliomaniac15 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's highly unlikely that the account was compromised as he was editing normally a few minutes before the spamming. While it makes no since, it appears that Jreferee made the edits himself by choice. — Save_Us_229 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not compromised. - auburnpilot talk 01:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for all of your concern. I saw Doc and John's posts on my talk page at 23:17, 28 November 2007, stopped posting, and logged off as I had some pressing business. The two messages didn't ask for anything else and just seemed like simple requests to me. Doc's 23:19 block of me was two minutes after I stopped (by choice) and logged off. I'm not sure why no one discussing this notice the two minute difference between when I stopped and when I was blocked. Doc subsequently indicated that he had the block template up - probably closer to the time when I logged than the two minutes makes it appear - a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, there were better ways go about my actions. The more I think about it, the more I regret raising concern for my actions in other admins. I'm sorry for the anxiety I raised. -- Jreferee t/c 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The end.--Docg 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible begining of an edit war on Wikipedia:Citing sources

    It probably needs a few more eyes since it is a style guideline page. There is some discussion Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Webcite, but the beginings of an edit war on the main page has begun --Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring abrew

    As I mentioned obliquely earlier, it looks like two editors -- mathewignash (talk · contribs) and The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) -- are in a spat over a category name. It hasn't gotten to the 3RR level yet. Additionally, in my experience, neither one is big on talk-page discussions and both have a history when it comes to assuming good faith. This time, it's over Category:Primes and Category:Primes/Primals. Ultimately, my own thought is that the contentious nature stems from the entries' inclusion in one/the other is WP:OR; it comes down to "I think this" or "I think that" or "it's sooooo obvious this or that is true." More immediately, though, they've gone back and forth blanking one category then another and re-categorizing related articles. Take a look at the categories' respective edit histories to get a sense of it, although note that Category:Primes/Primals was earlier CSDed as being an empty cat. (per one editor or another's transition to Category:Primes.

    Anyway. Toodles. --EEMIV (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an odd creature: a category that looks like an article that also happens to improperly display a fair-use image. Regardless, it falls far short of the WP:FICT guideline, so I went ahead and left a note [70] on the user's talk page. If mathewignash and The Matrix Prime cannot resolve their differences (and manage to avoid 3RR violations), you might consider directing them to WP:DR. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When was the promise made not to upload fair-use images? The current fair-use warnings on his talk page are for images uploaded in October 2006, April 2007, and September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all there on the talk page. Promise made: 28 October 2007, Deleted disputed fair-use images: 22 between promise and 26 November 2007. There are also more disputed fair-use warnings that haven't been deleted. And there are 3 no fair-use warnings 26/27 November 2007. --WebHamster 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the admin who unblocked based on the promise was Steel (talk · contribs)--WebHamster 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was not more clear. All the fair-use warnings I reviewed were for images that were uploaded back in April or September this year, or October 2006. None of these warnings appear to be for images uploaded after September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I did a spot-check of ten recently uploaded images, and all were tagged {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. Are you sure you are not confusing the date the fair-use warning was issued with the date that the image in question was uploaded? It often takes BetacommandBot weeks (months?) to catch up and check all the uploaded images. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TfD issue

    Would someone like to take a look at these two TfDs? Both of them are ugly, contentious, and require a fair bit of clean-up. I was leaving them for another admin to close, but after leaving them for several days, a non-admin came and closed them. I'm not going to lie about it, I just got back from playing racquetball and I'd rather not deal with it. For what it's worth, I do agree with the guy's closes - the templates, however, need to be untranscluded, infoboxes changed out, and the user politely told that although his help and eagerness are appreciated, we would rather he leave it to the admins. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IceKarma looks like an admin to me... BencherliteTalk 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected... I feel like just a bit of an idiot right now. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RYNORT

    I just want to notify you of this user. He has claimed to want to help positively contribute to wikipedia but has not worked with other editors very well and has a one-track mind at the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article. I tried to offer suggestions if he wants to be a valuable contributor such as adopt-a-user and others have tried to help him out but he has attacked others on the talk pages and has now resorted to vandalism. I tried to help steer him the in right direction but he's not listening. He said yesterday that he was quitting but yet still edits and argues with others. You may want to check this out if he keeps this up. MrMurph101 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, he's blocked forever now. Unless he decides he wants to contribute constructively, there's nothing to do. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Soondesk6 and Bothtones7, possible sockpuppets of User:Roadcrusher

    Bothtones7 was created 11 days after the last suspected Roadcrusher sock (Smackdown10) was perma-blocked. Bothtones7 immediately proceeded to upload copyvios to Second Avenue Subway and related pages, a favourite of Roadcrusher. I had seriously warned Bothtones7 about the socks issue, hoping that he would take the hint, but he continued to ignore copyright rules until blocked by User:JeremyA for 24 hours on 23 November.

    Soondesk6 was created on 25 November. Among the first edits was to upload a flag of Norway (Image:Norway.png) under FU, which was within minutes given crude FU rationales by Bothtones. Soondesk6 has not been on Second Avenue Subway or any related pages, but image uploads share the Roadcrusher style of erroneously providing sources using a {{di-url_of_source}} style, the crude FU rationales (Bothtones7: "Image should be allowed because it is what the article is about." Soondesk6: "Image is a source of information."), and now Soondesk6 is adding {{reviewedfairuse}} onto uploads (e.g. Image:Evaporated milk.jpg‎), which I find highly suspicious for an account that has been added less than a week ago (I've been here for over three years and hardly know of FUR). Soondesk6 had also did a couple of copy-and-paste jobs for new articles (see [71] and [72]).

    User:Marc Shepherd and User:JeremyA can corroborate my statements on Bothtones7.

    New possible socks:

    Known socks:

    Kelvinc (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I went straight here because Roadcrusher is already listed as a puppeteer on WP:SSP. Also, I have been looking over this issue for almost three weeks now and would like to take a break from dealing with this guy, who I perceive to be escalating in avoiding copyvio detection to the point of constant disruption. Kelvinc (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Troll gone wild!

    WTF is this..? Have a look at these contribs! Ira01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is this aceptable?--Hu12 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't tell from here because I'm uninvolved, but informing all interested parties of a MedCab case is acceptable. If they're requesting those users from a specific side of the dispute or uninvolved parties, then it becomes a question of canvassing. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, first edit being to a mediation? In fact, ALL edits being to a mediation? Sounds like an SPA to me. I'm not going to block, but someone else should. His very first edit was to start a MedCab case against Hu12, and nearly all of his edits are canvasing, editwars, etc.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Ira01, he signed up with a user identity because he could not go into mediation without one. That is why his first contributions under that identity all have to do with mediation.Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a plan. Dlohcierekim 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would block if I was an admin. I would suggest just blocking anyway, Jester, as the issue is already before the community, and if anyone really disagrees. This has WP:DUCK written all over it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rylong blocked him. Seems fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ira01 is requesting a review of their block. The block appears fine to me as well, but I am not familiar enough with all of the details of this case to handle the request. — Satori Son 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not requesting an unblock for Ira01 right now since it is both temporary and I think a cooling off & educational time period should be helpful. Ira01 is not trying to be a troll. He really is a clueless newb. If anyone else would like to assist in educating him about wikipedia & a handful of other potential contributors about the philosophy, culture & processes surrounding Wikipedia please join in the conversation here: http://prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=4139.0
    Although Ira01 did screw some things up. I really do think it is from lack of education. This quick block process has not left him any wiser. I post in that forum as 'onthefence'. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am sure your jesture is well ment, its quite unclear why wikipedia would need prospers.org to provide a platform for anything related to wikipedia policy and behavioral guidline?--Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree (if it matters). But then where to have the discourse Gothere suggests? NewHorizon (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I suggested it is because with Wikipedia discussion format is a little difficult for new people to utilize. Ira01 is clearly confused. I was looking for a little bit of expert help in clarifying matters, but if you are not interested, I don't blame you for not wanting to get tied up in another forum. In the mean time, I will see if I can convince Ira01 to sign up for the "adopt me" program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothere (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Gothere (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Want point out that there are serious conflicts of interest in all the editing that has occured.→ lendingstats.com. It appears all the disruptive editing was a result of Prosper lenders, reverting in order to use Wikipedia for promotion. clearly Violates WP:NOT!--Hu12 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "It appears... in order to use Wikipedia for promotion." Want to point out that your presumptive characterization of this segment of the Prosper community, of their motive(s), and of the neutrality of the lendingstats.com site is an ad hominem attack, entirely unfounded, totally incorrect, and generally runs counter to the theme of the "good faith" otherwise prevalent among WP admins. "Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why we welcome newcomers and are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ... Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines." NewHorizon (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA attempt at humiliation?

    Resolved

    Just a guy trying to do something nice for his friend--Jac16888 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I'd like to point out something strange at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone. DavidJ710 (talk · contribs) created the RFA several minutes before he asked CastAStone [73] [74] [75]. In the RFA, David states several false facts about CastAStone which makes him look better (sorry if that sounds rude). Me and User:Balloonman both suspect this was an attempt to emberass CastAStone. Looking at his talk page history, David has had contacted with CastAStone a few times. Perhaps he made the RFA because of this? Although that was nearly a year ago. I'd like someone else to weigh in on this. Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David claims to know CastAStone in real life, per this. Still hinky, and I feel bad for CastAStone if he did intend to make a sincere attempt to be an admin. Some encouragement will help on that end, I think - but as for DavidJ710? ZZ Claims ~ [[Special:Contributions/Ultra

    exactzz|Evidence]] 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    We have asked CastAStone to verify this. Personally, if they knew each other, I don't think CastAStone would react this way. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)erm, your link is just to one of the rfa !votes, it doesn't suggest anything about them knowing each other. Anyway, this all is very stange, and them knowing each other would make it simpler, just a practical joke on davids side, although still unacceptable, suggest they both be notified of this discussion and asked to explain before jumping to conclusions--Jac16888 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    notified castastone--Jac16888 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How'd I bugger that one up? DavidJ710's claim that the RfA is legit is here. He confirms this on his talk page, here. Another comment is here, asking to wait for CastAStone's response before taking action... which is moot now that the RfA has been removed by Balloonman. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, glad this has been solved. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody, I do know David personally, he was probably over-enthusiastic in nominating me, but I do not believe it was malicious nor a practical joke; he's inexperienced here and he probably thought it would be an honor.--CastAStone|(talk) 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Testing the Limits of Username Appropriateness

    Resolved
     – WP:RBI, WP:DENY, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonerific (talk · contribs) was blocked for their username and attempted to make a case about working in a meat plant as a deboner of animals or some such possible trolling. Soon after their unblock appeal was rejected, Cocktastic (talk · contribs) showed up on the scene, preemptively claiming to be a farmer of gamecocks, etc. Essentially a similar telling of the story with slightly different parameters. So... is it safe to assume that this is likely continued trolling by the same person, or should there be a WP:RFCU? Or should I assume that the story about this editor's occupation is true? I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes here, so maybe this is an obvious block of some sort. Ideas? --Kinu t/c 05:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty obviously the same person. I asked Cocktastic if he knows Bonerific. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)The story seems unlikely at best, but a block for their name is appropropriate anyway, because even if it is inoffensive to them, other people aren't going to see it that way. A checkuser would be a good idea, just to clarify things--Jac16888 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not duck but dick, I think. Such sensitivity! If it's named like a dick, who cares? If on the other hand it behaves like a dick, then take the appropriate measures (even if its name would satisfy "Focus on the Family"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right. And it wouldn't surprise me if the recently created Bonerfide Editor (talk · contribs) was somehow related to this too. --Kinu t/c 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop listening to sob stories. If it's likely to offend, it's offensive. User:TheCockGobbler does not get a free pass because they used to eat male chickens. --Haemo (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, me? I've heard no sob stories. I didn't even notice what "Bonerific" might be about till I read on and was primed by "Cocktastic" in the same context. And "Cocktastic", which I did immediately understand, didn't offend me in the slightest. I suggest (i) that people have more important things to do here (let alone elsewhere) than zap UIDs that somebody somewhere might find offensive, and (ii) that anyone offended by "Cocktastic" (let alone "Bonerific") thereby demonstrates a very odd combination of readiness to see dicks and sensitivity to colloquialisms about dicks. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These accounts are being created just to be annoying and disruptive as evident by a recent post here by one of the various users. They are here to be disruptive. No one named "Bonerific" or "Cocktastic" is going to be a serious editor.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That I can believe. I'll buy "Username suggests that he'll behave like a dick". Still, why not wait for him to behave like a dick? As it is, people banning his usernames are wasting more of their time than his (assuming he has a thesaurus at hand), as they can never be sure which UID he'll think of next. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea this would generate such discussion. Alas, here you go: behaving like his namesake. Very mature. WP:RBI. --Kinu t/c 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a stretch for someone to see the term "cock" or "boner" as offensive. --Haemo (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't? But the person would have to parse "bonertastic" (or whatever it was) as "boner"+"tastic", and then read "boner" as "erect penis". Let's see ... my mother wouldn't have known the word "boner", and if she had she'd have merely shaken her head at this person's puerile choice of name. So who's offended here? (Shall I phone my wife and ask her if she's offended?) Yes, all in all I'm in favor of his use of a stupid UID: it's a convenient sign that he's a fool. Have him call himself something innocuous, and his edits then wouldn't ring alarm bells when they appear in edit histories. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How else do you parse it? It's how I parse it, and while I don't get offended easily, I definitely don't feel that people running around with usernames about their erect penises is an attractive environment to contribute in, and could definitely see how someone (indeed, people I know) would be offended. --Haemo (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't parse it as I read it, just as I don't parse most people's usernames. (Incidentally, I take yours to mean "blood", which has a lot of unpleasant associations for me, but about which I don't complain.) Ah, I now see it was "Bonerific". I suppose "rific" looked reminiscent of "terrific"; I didn't think of "bone" as it has so many meanings -- unless of course you're primed by "cocktastic" or whatever (or, to phrase it unkindly, are obsessed with dicks). ¶ It's not hard for me to come up with usernames that I think would be offensive to most people (including myself). (I could for example use "lynch" and "nigger" in close combination.) I wouldn't defend such usernames. Meanwhile, the fact (in Wales's view a glorious fact, in mine a dismal one) is that any damn fool can edit Wikipedia unless he's persistently and blatantly stupid. Yes I'll agree: "Cocktastic" is the UID of a fool. Again: better that he consistently calls himself "Cocktastic" than that he pops up every day with yet another among the millions of potential ways of praising his own dick, or, worse, edits stupidly under an innocuous and thus inconspicuous UID. (In my unjimbolike opinion, much better still if everyone had to apply via email for permission to edit WP, whereupon fools like this would be around for a maximum of one day per month -- but that's not going to happen.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No offence intended but I love the irony of this thread about a phallus related username being marked resolved by an admin whose name parses as "Are You Long?" :) --WebHamster 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. Dlohcierekim 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My name is parsed in two different languages and not pronounced that way. "Ryu" and "Long" are each one syllable. I'm also too lazy to come up with a more creative name.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recurrent IP editing on Missouri road articles

    An anonymous editor (most recently 12.74.143.212, others presumably within the same IP range) has repeatedly made edits to the articles on Interstates in Missouri (see history of I-70 in Missouri [76] for an example), generally editing against the Manual of Style and the exit list style guide by changing directions in the articles' exit list to all caps. The IP also usually signs the end of the article. Numerous attempts to reach the IP editor through talk pages and inline HTML comments, like on Missouri Route 370, have failed. This led to the interstate articles being semi-protected, but the editor has branched out to unprotected state route articles [77] and even non-road articles [78][79]. Calling it 'vandalism' doesn't seem quite right, but at this point it seems that they're willfully editing against policy - would like others' opinions on what should be done. —Scott5114↗ 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a list of some of the IP addresses involved. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    The user Otolemur crassicaudatus is indulging in Vandalism of articles. He is fundamentalist in his views and is creating articles to spread propaganda and is using Christian fundamentalist websites to create articles. I request the administrator to take action against him and stop him from this kind of actions. Thanking you. All the edits by him need to be reverted. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the user's list of contributions. Putting aside this user's motivation, please specify one or more diffs that show vandalism. If the vandalism would not be immediately apparent, please explain it here.
    As it is, I looked at three edits by this user and saw nothing whatever that obviously needed to be reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Morris (Slang Term)

    A new user has just created this article, and I simply can't figure it out. That he created it fully wikified with a formatted referenced and proper link to Wiktionary is suspicious enough. On top of that, this article came complete with maintenance tags and a semi-protection template. I just have to be convinced this was copy pasted from somewhere, I simply can't figure out where. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to be from Cool (aesthetic), with certain words changed. Already speedy-tagged. Kelvinc (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tagged it. The article was created with a ?{{pp-semi-vandalism}}? tag by a new user. The speedy's been removed another editor; awaiting an explanation on the article's talk page. --健次(derumi)talk 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and deleted it... the speedy tag removal appears to have been from before the revelation that this was a vandalized version of that article, so the concern expressed at the talk page appears to be moot. --Kinu t/c 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c to Derumi)That would be me, and now it is deleted. I thought it might be a legit editor, hence the removal of the speedy and the welcome note, but it looks like a re-creation of "cool" but named as a neologism... :-\. Who knows, maybe the editor will still become productive! :-) --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is probably reasonable. --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all move so fast, I feel like I'm playing some weird WP version of phone tag. :) I've posted a reply to your comment from the deleted article on your talk page; if the reason I gave (even if the article should be deleted) was illegitimate, I would like to know for sure so I don't repeat the mistake. --健次(derumi)talk 07:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Recreated, and redeleted by myself, it indeed is Cool (aesthetic). -- lucasbfr talk 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now why the article started out with the tags in place. --健次(derumi)talk 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK

    Resolved

    DYK needs to be updated. Three hours late. Great job, admins. Miranda 07:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated. Spebi 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of WP:NPA

    User Chanakyathegreat has violated WP:NPA. See this [80]. He commented about me 'Ota crap is a fanatic Christian fundamentalist. More religious than the pope. His version is to spread Christian propaganda. He has started multiple articles with links to fundamentalist Christian websites. He need to be banned and all the edits by him reverted'.

    User Nikkul had violated WP:NPA. He commented 'This user's intentions are obvious'. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That latter would not be a violation of WP:NPA, but possibly of WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornixtalk 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, wait, I take it back, I missed the misnaming of your Username. Sorry. Corvus cornixtalk 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A request of the community's opinion

    I absolutely had it with this user/puppetmaster. User:LionheartX (now User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos) is at it again. (don't be surprised if he trolls this very page, I'll bet on it) This time deliberately trolling my username change request. [81] as well as starting several bogus pages to tarnish my reputation. [82] [83] He was blocked in May for baiting me [84] to violate my arbCom parole (currently under review). He harassed me in ever page I previously edit in (including my userspace). His first account was User:RevolverOcelotX. He was community banned in this account (sockpuppet) User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH by former arbitrator User:Dmcdevit. [85] Dmcdevit said he not only a sockpuppet but a troll. "Surprisingly enough, people who, within one day of editing, engage in stalking and massive edit wars across many pages without productive edits, and are merely reincarnations of earlier problem users, aren't welcome here. Maybe I could have been more accurate in my block log, but I think you are a troll, and I don't use that word lightly." [86] Other socks include User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, User:Guardian Tiger User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's (especially note the long chit-chat between this banned sockpuppet and his advocate User:Ben Aveling) and they were all banned after I reported them.

    The last sock User:LionheartX took longer to block. When Durova finally blocked, [87] [88] , he somehow managed to get the block lifted under questionable, controversial circumstances (a behind the scene scheme by members of WikiProject:China?)

    It seems like somehow, my editing record is worse than his. Somehow, he has the right to change his username from LionheartX to User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos after so many sockpuppet abuse while my username change request should be stalked, disrupted, harassed, and denied.

    I was his favorite target. His long-term abuse and harassment (since summer of 2006 under various accounts) stalking, trolling, and abuse has taken a heavy emotional toll on me. (Full disclosure: I was away from 'pedia from June to November recuperating after his repeated, non-stop harassment caused a decline in my mental health) Please either permanently keep him away from me or ban him, please. If not, I got nowhere to go but to leave the project. I'm too emotionally-fragile to take this anymore. Let today be judgment day, I will leave to the community to decide who should go. Thank you. For more information please refer to User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta, User:Certified.Gangsta/RevolverOcelotX, and,User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Guardian_Tiger_Timeline--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, ironic. I'd need to do some 'sleuthing' to check all that out, and you wouldn't want that would you?--Docg 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Strike - not helpful.--Docg 10:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you that I am editing in good faith, no matter if you believe it or not. I also truly care about the future of the project. Please don't play these jokes on me, especially not when I'm on the verge of an emotional breakdown.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, you know what? Sometimes, I envy those who are blocked, relieved from duty like Durova, so they will not have to go through the traumatic experience I am going through throughout my years here.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief! (anything else I could say on the subject would be uncivil) Wikidemo (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CG, note that User:N1u was first tagged as your sockpuppet by Nlu in May 2006, though the evidence seems unclear (I really dislike when people link to just the contribs page as "evidence" when it's not blindingly obvious). His issue with your rename request seems like a valid one, even if the source doesn't have the best of intentions: I had the same concern actually, but withdrew my comment because I wasn't sure of the procedure. - would you be OK with an entry placed in your new block log referring to all three of your old usernames? That said, User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos's behavior does seem problematic. The reaction to your previous rename request combined with this one makes the link between at least those two accounts clear. —Random832 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Baffling creation of subpages

    • (cur) (last) 15:03, 29 November 2007 Thundermaster367 (Talk | contribs | block) (14 bytes) (←Created page with '{{db-userreq}}')

    This user has done like half a dozen of these already, what's going on? What should I do (other than keep deleting them)?—Random832 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thundermaster367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    you mean this user..--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has made almost 1000 edits, more than two-thirds of them this month.[wannabe_kate] Thirty percent of those edits have been to the user's own userspace. About a third have been mainspace edits. Less than half of the edits have summaries. To be frank, although there may have been some useful edits from this user, I have to point out the Signal:Noise ratio. Now, this creating pages with ?{{db-userreq}} appears to be trolling, no? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Non admin Has he been doing it since you commented on his talk page? Maybe he was just testing, and didn't realise that there were people involved in the deletion (that have better things to do), and it is not an automated process. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Circumvention of a block by User:The King of Clay

    User:The King of Clay was recently blocked on 23 November, 2007 for one week. Today, a new account was created called User:The King of Clay V2.0. I suspect this is the same person attempting to circumvent the block, as also today, an attenpt was made to add User:The King of Clay as a new participant to The Cheshire WikiProject, although it was User:The King of Clay V2.0 who added it. I think this is an attempt to circumvent the block. Could someone look into it?

    I also wonder what should be done about the added name to the Cheshire WikiProject. My initial thoughts are that, regardless of the first matter, it should be removed, as the addition is not the i.d. of the editor who added it. Whether trhis would then result in some action against User:The King of Clay V2.0 would also seem to be independent of the first matter, although of course it may be superceded by what is done about the first matter. I would welcome thoughts about this and action of a friendly administrator if required.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note User:The King of Clay was actually blocked on the 23rd.—Random832 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok update: After a quick chat with someone, I removed the attempt to add The king of Clay to the Cheshire WikiProject stating that it was not that user who made the edit. I still the other issue needs some attention, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:The King of Clay V2.0 indefinitely. Leaving it to someone else to evaluate whether User:The King of Clay's block should be extended, since this could hypothetically be someone else trying to make him look bad (the 5-day gap seems strange) and I haven't looked at the contributions in depth.—Random832 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some overlap of contribution areas, needs an admin to review style issues. Preferrably one who knows something about British independent bands ... which definitely is not me. GRBerry 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A CU would remove doubt if the two underlying ip's were sufficiently different, as would a clear positive if they are the same. A maybe leaves us back to here. My doubts would be in the matter that a soon to be expired block risks being extended for a) no real purpose, and b) via a fairly obvious alternate username... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    71.93.222.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Resolved
     – No further action required.

    I have a little conflict with 71.93.222.223, who keeps re-inserting a rather POV "Critisism" section on Kitchen Nightmares (talk), linking to his own blog and breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well. I've tried explaining him why the section doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but the editor seems to ignore my arguments, and has now broken 3RR as well. I can't make any adminstrative action, as I'm now involved. — Edokter • Talk • 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I may have waded into the dispute. I saw the ip's edit on Recent Changes and reviewed it, then removed the section with WP:RS as a rationale. I didn't see the back and forth until I checked the history - and saw that you posted it here. Fumble on me. Is there already a 3rr report in the works, or should I leave it be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no 3RR report yet; I was hoping some outside view might settle things without resorting to blocking. If anything, your revert helped establish some consensus. Giving your view on the article talk page might help, as the editor did request third opinions. — Edokter • Talk • 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I am the editor in question. Here is some background for you to consider.

    The section in question is about criticism of the TV show for portraying events in an untruthful or misleading manner. It's relevant especially because it provides larger context to the lawsuit issue which is addressed in the entry. This section was not created by me; I was completely unaware of it until I noticed hits from it coming into my website.

    I came in and noticed two things. First, the cite was done incorrectly - it should have be listed as a footnote, not a link dropped in the middle of the article. I specifically did NOT change this myself, because I didn't want to be seen as linking to myself. Second, the original poster of the section had a fact incorrect. I fixed that and added two other facts.

    Are blogs reliable sources? They can be. I would argue that on this subject and these facts, my blog should be considered reliable. I am a subject expert on media and television production and anyone who needs references can email me lee@stranahan.com for more. I have spoken at dozens of conferences, given published articles in various magazines and was an editor in chief of two magazines, both of which had national newsstand distribution. The cites were to posts where I reported on interviews that I had with the people involved in the show - not rumors I heard or something I read somewhere but direct interviews with the subjects. My blog contains many posts on the subject of Kitchen Nightmares specifically and at least three people involved in the show have also commented directly on my blog themselves about the show - and I spoke to them to confirm that it was actually their comments.

    Additionally, there are multiple sources - not just my blog - that confirm an unusual level of fakery with Kitchen Nightmares. I was in the process of trying to cite those other sources - when the entire section was pulled down.

    The admin could have asked for another cite or asked me a question. Instead, it was deleted. And when the admin states that I was "breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well" you can tell that he is going for drama, not a clear and concise explanation. I didn't ignore his arguements; they weren't valid.

    Ultraexactzz waded in and stated that 'blogs aren't reliable sources'. This is not Wikipedia's position. Yes, there are reliability issues that are raised with self published material - and I am more than willing to answer any issue that I haven't already addressed here or to clarify anything. If anyone wants to check my facts, they are welcome to do so, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting back and forth and making your arguments in edit summaries is usually not a good way to go - this applies to both sides. if you have other sources, etc, go ahead and state them on the talk page. And, it's regrettable, but people do tend to assume the worst of non-registered users, and that may have contributed here. —Random832 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree about the problem with reverting which is why I am not going to revert the entry again. And I also agree about the non-registered user thing, but I've stated clearly who I am...and I can't change the past.

    Now the issue to me a correct view of Wikipedia policy. Stating 'blogs aren't reliable sources' without further clarification or facts isn't correct, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally, blogs are considered unriliable sources. Blogs are self-published, which makes them count as original research. See Are weblogs reliable sources?, which is linked from the reliable sources page. Also, I did not asume the worst, I simply saw an editor not understanding the rules, and trying to correct it. Had I asumed the worst, you would heve been blocked by now. — Edokter • Talk • 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's what I said. Generally, a blog may not be reliable - but if you read the cite you sent there are exceptions. Generally does not mean 'no blog may be a source' - self published material may be cited as a source. So - why specifically was my cite considered unreliable? Specifically, not 'because it's a blog'. Have you read the articles cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And what administrative action is required here? east.718 at 17:50, November 29, 2007

    I didn't move the discussion here, Edokter did...so I don't know, really. I asked him for a Truce so I could add references. He said no. I asked for him to switch it to another editor. He said no, but one someone sort of agreed with him he said it added consensus.

    My issue is simple. What facts are in dispute? What statement was non-neutral? Where is the specific reliability issue? I keep asking for specifics - over and over - and not once has a specific example given about the facts or cite being questioned.

    Usually, there's an example. "UserX cited sourceY about something. SourceY is unreliable for reasons A, B, C - plus it's a blog." I'm just getting 'it's a blog!'. Yeah, it is. Where's the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shorter - in absence of any supporting specifics to refute the entire Criticism section, and given the history I stated above - the Admin action is 'please restore the Criticism section on Kitchen Nightmares' so that I or other can expand it. I'd consider that a truce, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ECx2) The main problem is (un)verifyability, not truth. Facts are not important if they cannot be cited by a reliable, secondary source. Then there are other issues. First neutral point of view; No-one will dipute that the show is dramatised. In fact, it is a public secret. However there is no need to analyse this particular instance. Doing so puts an undue negative point of view to the article. Second, we have conflict of interest. It does not matter who put the link up first; by putting the link back, you create this conflict of interest, as you have a direct interest in that link being present. You wrote that blog post, meaning the cite is no longer neutral. Which bring us to the third issue: Original research. As you wrote the blog post, it's content is a direct result of your own research. Last, as all material needs to beverifyable, it needs secondary sources. Currently there are none. All these things combined makes the Criticism section over-all unallowable. I hope that explains it a bit. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    east718, given that some time has passed with no further activity, I think that there's no need for any admin action at this time. Edoktor's argument above is persuasive, but - if there's a source somewhere that corroborates the claims made on the blog - maybe some of the information can be kept. There is discussion at the talk page, and I'll see if I can contribute there. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK late again

    Resolved

    Archtransit (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone update it please? Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism and terrorism from Jjs8 and Lalalajane

    In the last week, sourced sections from terrorist Jane Alpert have been deleted, chiefly by User:Jjs8 [89] and User:Lalalajane [90].

    The sourced material is always deleted after having been restored by many editors: [91], [92], [93], [94], etc.

    This is a whole group of terrorists and radical feminists trying to whitewash articles about the Weathermen and taking turn to delete material; it also includes User:Historytrain, User:Tjcjaj, User:Ubothell1, and more. They've been warned on user and article talk page but they have no respect for life or law. It's going to get ugly if basic rules aren't enforced. 62.147.38.9 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First off do not get on with assumpsition that they are terrorist accusatastion like that get innocent people arrested. But it is fairly likely that all users are socks if what you are saying is true and if it is they are breaking a guidline or two. But before I go out an say anything I wouldn't mind if an admin took a look at the case. Rgoodermote  18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see much of a problem, the users seem to have been involved in an edit war. It seems that things have cooled down. So I doubt at this moment they are much of a problem. Though they probably should be watched in case they start another edit war. Rgoodermote  18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of WP:ICA by user Nikkul

    User Nikkul is falsely claiming that I have added the sentence "Conversion in India has become hard Due to anti conversion laws which were made by hindu nationalist and extremists.To propogate ones religion other that Hinduism and sikhism is an activity which could cause Death as most citizens and many government officials are always 'conspiring to kill" in Human rights in India article.[95][96] The truth is that this sentence is not added by me, but by IP user 122.169.51.217 See this link [97]. I wonder how user Nikkul can make such false claim? He is violating WP:ICA by such false claim. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cobain conspiracy theory

    I have been warning Jason2520 (talk · contribs) about his edits to Courtney Love. He is stating that there is legitimate debate over the cause of Kurt Cobain's death and whether or not the suicide note read by Love was real. As per WP:NPOV, I believe it is inappropriate to give such emphasis to a conspiracy theory held by an extreme minority of people and I have warned the user to please find a reliable source if he insists on continuing to change the wording. If he continues, I will have to block the user. Does anyone disagree with my interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V? Note that the user has noted that there may be WP:BLP issues, though I think if so, they are on his side. --Yamla (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a discussion of this very issue several days ago, I think, either here or on BLP. Does anyone have a link for context? They are public figures and the dispute is real, even if not legitimate. Probably worth covering as a conspiracy theory but not for the truth value of the assertions, and not on Courtney Love's page. I think that's more of a BLP issue (on his side, yes) than an NPOV issue, but the weight is a problem too. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudan

    Resolved
     – Temporary glitch

    This article has been the target of some anon IP activity today due to the "Teddy-bear" incident. This is likely to continue. In fixing the vandalism, however, the inline refs seem to have got mangled. Could someone check this out & confirm this, then semi-pp for, say, 24 hours please? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal returned

    Resolved

    Could someone check out 71.192.46.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). New run of vandalism after two previous blocks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported at WP:AIV --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I see he's blocked for a month, even though I am not an admin, I call this resolved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconstructive suggestions

    I'm aware that flaming, vituperation, and WP:POINT are the order of the day after the Durova mess. But it's hard to see how the next to last paragraph of this[98] is helpful to anyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So far as I know, that is largely a copy of a post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Everyone else, that was somewhat endorsed by at least one Arbitrator (same page, prior section). I recommend a higher thought/keystroke ratio. GRBerry 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we're now endorsing the public re-posting of private Wikipedia related correspondence? Just trying to get this straight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RA, I think posting to a blog site, so it can be "legally" quoted here is clearly against the spirit of the policy. However, perhaps, rather than condemning the page (or Giano's methods) the committee members should consider the motivation driving that page (and Giano's actions).
    What hole in the dam are people trying to plug? To me, it appears to be a sincere effort (however misguided the current wording) to fix something that is at least perceived as being broken.
    Some people have claimed that Durova would have gone to arbitration regardless of Giano... yet others firmly believe that DurovaGate would have been swept away and hushed.
    Regardless of which would have happened (since we'll never know), perception is reality. Confidence in the system has been shattered, or at least soundly shaken. Whether or not Durova had permission to communicate to the committee, she claims that (at least some) members received her email. A good start toward repairing that faith would be for those members to come forward and said "oops". This would be some small step in the right direction to restore confidence in the leadership that is supposed to be overseeing the sailing of this ship.
    There may not be a cabal, but as long as the perception exists so does the cabal. Lsi john (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But only so long as it isn't done on Wikipedia, because somehow it is better to do it elsewhere than on Wikipedia. I believe in transparency, but I can't see why it is better to air our dirty laundry on the neighbor's lawn than our own. It is being gradually edited out. More thought, fewer keystrokes, especially in dramastorms. GRBerry 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly stuff. Are we endorsing it? Well, if we're locked into silly false dichotomies, sure. If we're not locked into binaries, then we're endorsing whistle blowing and the demystification of an attempted block without transparency, and we encourage people to keep e-mail private, while recognizing that retreating to e-mail is no way to conduct Wikipedia business without responsibility. How's that? Geogre (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incomprehensible, I'd say. How do we "encourage people to keep e-mail private" by saying it's OK to post private correspondence on your own web page, or to splatter it across public forums? There's got to be a sensible middle ground between keeping everything top-secret and saying anything goes (except, ironically, posting Wikipedia-related email on Wikipedia itself). I note that the proposed guideline is in a state of flux and may yet come to a sensible conclusion. All concerned should keep in mind the principle that hard cases make bad law. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And horror vacui. (see above, arbcom has unfinished business). Lsi john (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we say, "Keep e-mail private. Keep identities secret." However, we also acknowledge that e-mail is no justification for any action on Wikipedia unless that e-mail is part of Wikipedia record. There: I never wanted to try to specify anything, but that would do. You want to e-mail me to tell me I'm a dork? Ok. You want to e-mail me to tell me you're going to block me? Well, then that, if you haven't rationalized it on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia, and you should expect me to make it public in the absence of your having done so. If you block me and say, "per my secret e-mail to super respected people and Jimbo," then you'd best expect someone to post it, if you don't provide an accurate and complete summary. Don't use e-mail to justify on-wiki actions, and then no one should reveal any of your e-mail. Don't use irc to justify or perform Wikipedia actions, and no one will post a log. Try to rationalize, motivate, or hide Wikipedia actions in these ways, and you abrogate the expectation of privacy. Geogre (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an interesting concept indeed. "If the author mentions the e-mail in any way which is used to justify an on-wiki action, it will be construed to be waiving any right of privacy to said email (or IRC log) and as such anyone may post it in full. Lsi john (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Corrado 72 (talk · contribs)

    Resolved

    Would someone mind reminding Corrado 72 (talk · contribs) to be nice? His edits and tone... are a bit extreme. [99] [100] [101]. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a sock of Layla27. Blocked. IrishGuy talk 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, recent glitch involving tags

    As being discussed on Village Pump Technical, there appears to have been a glitch involving a few tags. Some pages have been corrupted that were edited during that time frame (currently 19:16 to 19:30 but could be larger). This page was not exempt from the corruption. One sign is if the page contains the UNIQ...QINU string which is a previous tag that has been corrupted. Just making everyone aware of this. spryde | talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also some discussion at WT:AN. The end time is whenever they locked the database which I remember happened after several minutes of this stuff going on. NoSeptember 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Wacked out diff examples

    Regarding this diff: This afternoon I went to apply an {{update}} template to Comparison of BSD operating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without substituting the template. I edited the page via the standard form-style webpage editor provided by Wikipedia (no external editors or utilities) using Opera 9.24 (build 8816) under Windows Vista, and the only change I made was inserting {{update|article|date=November 2007}} (standard syntax for templates). I did not subst: the template, and I'm pretty sure I used the Preview option before submitting without noticing additional changes. I cannot explain how the rest of the changes occured, and am unsure if it's a broken template, a bug in the software, a problem with my browser, or what. Any help would be appreciated, as I am hesitant to make additional contributions to the project until I know what happened. DANKOO MULTIPASS. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I got two as well, here and here that someone else found. • Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See the section above. spryde | talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    vandalism and agenda pushing in 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)

    please can you monitor and stop ongoing vandalism by agenda pushing users in the 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France) article. these people are removing sourced facts and adding false and unsourced statement instead, and they are also adding confusing characters in the said article. thank you. Cliché Online (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uninvolved in the content dispute, but I have been posting messages warning Cliche Online that I will block him/her if more civility is not shown. Cliche Online has also been edit warring and accusing other editors of vandalism, though this is clearly a content dispute and the other editors simply disagree with Cliche Online regarding the content. Cliche Online's position also appears to be on the short end of the developing talk page consensus, for what it's worth. I issued a final warning to Cliche Online just before I saw this message, encouraging him to discuss the situation civilly. · jersyko talk 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Cliche Online for 24 hours for edit warring and continued incivility. Cliche Online continues to refer to the users on the opposing side of the content dispute "vandals". My suggestion is for Cliche Online to read WP:DISPUTE. · jersyko talk 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at a set of Israeli/Palestinian articles; admins please review my action

    Due to edit warring on List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and its new fork List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, I have protected both pages for a week, each undoubtedly on the m:wrong version. Discussion seems to primarily have been at Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, as that is the older article. Can other admins from outside this conflict area review and decide if there is a better way to handle this, perhaps by awarding blocks to some of the editors? Thanks. GRBerry 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification, they are both fork/splits of List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada, last discussed at AFD in September. Somewhere along the line that got moved to List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada. Israeli looks older because that is where the original article has been moved; but both are forks. GRBerry 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that this article has been split in two, the resulting articles have just become pissing contests over death tolls. You're never going to have settlement here; the previous article survived AfD because at least it presented attacks on/by both sides; I'd suggest sending both articles back to AfD. If the incidents are notable enough they have got their own articles already. ELIMINATORJR 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how an AfD is a solution. Ideally, the list would have been one, not two, but since some people keep deleting Palestinian civilian deaths from the list using the argument that they are somehow not on the same level as Israeli deaths, the separation seemed necessary. I have found compiling the list useful in determining where new articles are needed. For example, I just created Iyman Hams by researching for the list article. What's wrong with making a list of casualties? Wikipedia is not paper. Tiamut 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is more whether having these lists is worth the effort of the resulting edit-wars which can be seen in their histories. ELIMINATORJR 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that seeking an answer to that question when the two article compromise proposed by the AfD on the one list has barely been in effect for a day is a little premature. Why not give it a little time to see if the separation allows for things to simmer down? The new article List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was a little less active (as regards to edit-warrining, that is) than the other. People still need time to digest the split and new naming scheme. Tiamut 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue here is that some the delete voters from the last afd (there's actually been two afds) are outraged that it was kept, and have been disrupting the article ever since. The only options they appear to be able to accept is to either redefine it as a completely different list (deletion by other means) or create POV forks. Ironically, this was the objection to it at the afd because of a lack of massacres by the Israel Defense Forces on the list. They fervently believe that the IDF has committed massacres, however, they're having trouble finding RS support that the IDF actually targeted the civilians. Unlike the list that this one appears to have been modeled on, List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the restricted to incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately "bar" has been dropped to allow terrorist attacks by Israelis such as this. Apparently that still isn't good enough, so now we have this clear violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who'm I gonna call?

    OK, on the talk page of User:JNW we have recently seen an entity describing itself as User:Whistlersghost sending him comments in ye olde Englishe seemingly telling him to leave certain pages alone. Those edits have been the only edits this editor has made under this name [102], [103], [104], and [105], other than one edit to create a userpage here. Presumably he called himself something else when he was, um, living. Which of you all around here handle exorcisms? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to guess that this is either a new account for someone who was editing previusly on a different one at James McNeill Whistler, or someone who is just pulling JNW's leg for other reasons. JNW's edits to that article are reasonable. I can't see anything that needs administrative attention at this time, but this will change if wg repeats his behavior. Feel free to speak to the ghost and advise him that his conduct is not appropriate, and that exorcists and ghostbusters are available should the need arise. GRBerry 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for trolling and attempted harassment. Exorcised as it were. IrishGuy talk 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you all work quickly! While all manner of phantasmagoria exist in artist's studios, it is disconcerting to encounter them online. Thank you, JNW (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trivia issues on South Park articles

    Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III are getting out of hand. Each episode features many references to characters, so massive lists are on the articles. Anytime they get removed, they are re-added for no good reason. A poll is on the talk page: which is a joke, and basically full of editors that don't know policies on trivia and cluttered lists. Can anyone help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sections on "allusions" are valid, even if the content will need to be trimmed. The charcters lists should not be included and I have removed them. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to blank the "allusions" sections and leave an HTML comment about sourcing, though I expect to be reverted by cruft-pushin fanatics... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent sockpuppetry

    I can't do a checkuser to be absolutely positive, but it would be most improbable if these accounts weren't sockpuppets, or at least meatpuppets. User:Xantheif src created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/xantheif src at 23:10, editing it again at 23:19. Then at 23:22, User:Commonthoughty11 !votes support at the RFA (the account's only contrib). Then User:Judaspolice !votes support at 23:24 (the account's only contrib), using the same format. Putting two and two together: sockpuppets. Useight (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't need a checkuser to call these guys sock/meatpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have checkuser and I called them socks anyway. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I called them socks or not, they're definitely socks. I just couldn't do anything about it, so I brought it here. Useight (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if my comments/edits seem hurried or hasten right now, I'm actually at work and can only edit in quick spurts. Useight (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. нмŵוτнτ 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't bring this here for confirmation as to whether these accounts are socks or not, and I am already aware of WP:DUCK. I brought this here so the sock accounts could be blocked. However, I don't know what I was thinking (it's been a long day and I'm editing from the office so I get interrupted a lot), I should have taken it to AIV in the first place. I'll report it there now. Useight (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon actually getting a response from the user, I don't think there was any malicious intent in the use of socks. Just a newbie who didn't know the rules doing something silly. Block the socks, sure, but I don't believe any action is necessary against the puppeteer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After I reported the socks to AIV, they were both blocked. I also agree that no action is required against User:Xantheif src, just some guidance as he gets started. Useight (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Delete Help

    Resolved

    attack page User:Lilsweetie07 11 deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am having problems keeping a speedy delete template up and keeping the user from blanking the content before putting up a hangon tag. Could some one take a look at it

    User:Lilsweetie07_11 also it seems that not only is his user at it but User:KyAngel7. But it seems that both users know each other in some way based off of this. Both users seem to not have any knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Rgoodermote  00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review of Cabin Member

    Yesterday I declined a speedy delete nomination of Image:Latif Pedram 2002.jpg by Cabin Member, but on closer look found that it indeed violated the non-free content criteria and tagged it myself as {{di-replaceable fair use}}. However, his insistence that the image be really speedy-deleted [106] [107] led me to suspect his tagging was ultimately done in bad faith. Seeing that he had been warned as far back as a month ago for such image deletion tagging [108], I blocked him indefinitely for this disruption. In my block summary I noted my suspicion that this is a sockpuppet account, because which new user heads straight to image space and begins tagging stuff for speedy deletion?

    Today I wake up and find that even though Nat has declined to unblock [109], Physchim62 has asked me to unblock [110] because "His edits do not seem to fall under the definition of vandalism", and given that "you yourself were edit warring with him... you response seems quite excessive in the circumstances." Well on reviewing Cabin Member's contribs and deleted contribs again, I find at least one image (Image:Afghan National Army parade 2006.JPG) whose tagging appears to be outright vandalism. In addition it seems at least an odd coincidence that all his image taggings have been of Afghanistan-related images.

    In conclusion although I have not come with clean hands (thanks Jreferee for teaching me this term) in seeking this block to be reviewed, I still believe my block to be justified and would be averse to anyone undoing it without a convincing reason. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any pity for editors who resort to edit warring and vandalism accusations instead of discussion after being informed why their speedy deletions were being declined. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Critical Reader

    Critical Reader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is an WP:SPA whose edits revolve solely around the promotion of Norman Golb and the dismissal of any views that criticizes Golb's views.

    He edits exclusively on related articles:

    Critical Reader has created several sockpuppets, or has likely engaged in canvassing to attract like-minded new people which have interacted on these articles, and has already been found of using sockpuppets to promote his opinions. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Critical_Reader

    In addition, the following aliases are likely meat/sock puppets for 'Critical Reader':

    All of the above user accounts:

    • are single purpose accounts, editing/commenting exclusively on these articles and about the debate invlving Golb's views
    • created on or about the same time period
    • use similar style, grammar, vocabulary
    • all use a litigious, combative approach
    • possess knowledge of the debate

    I came across this user and these articles upon a posting at WP:BLP/N which I monitor, attempting initially to address some BLP concerns related to the William Schniedewind article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive23). Later on I became involved in actively editing these articles, only to become the target of this user and his sock/meat puppets's vitriol and personal attacks.

    I had enough now, and intend not to continue developing these articles with these people around: I do not need the aggravation. Left unwatched, these articles are likely to become a POV magnet for this user, which has already been found out to be off-wiki, a very prolific poster of the same exact arguments, and with the same style, in blogs, and in comments made to online newspaper articles on the subject. This information is available to interested admins upon request.

    There are additional concerns filed in OTRS ticket #2007112710018004 by a third party.

    I request an indefblock, topic ban, probation, or other such remedies for user:Critical Reader for repeated violation of WP:SOCK and WP:SOAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indef blocked the three new obvious sock, and blocked Critical Reader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for repeat violation of WP:SOCK. Let's hope he gets the hint this time. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our friend has returned, minutes after his block, to evade it with a new sock (Myriamyst (talk · contribs)), and has been blocked indefinitely. I would recommend that he not be unblocked without a serious parole, possibly involving a topic ban. — Coren (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Protection Abuse

    I did an edit on the Kitchen Nightmares page in reference to a lawsuit, with a clear cite to the legal papers of the suit. An Admin took down the edit as 'original research' and put the page on protection. The Admin in question lists their status as 'Retired' and 'Traveling On Business'. [111]

    I have had a miserable day on Wikipedia. Help me, Obi Wan Admin....you're my only hope. LeeStranahan (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy is neither retired nor inactive. east.718 at 04:58, November 30, 2007
    Hi, I can explain this. You need a reliable source before you insert such information, and the admin did not protect the page just because of your edit. Checking the history, many people inserted unsourced edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So - the legal papers are not a reliable source of information about what is in the legal papers?

    And if he is not retired or inactive, why does his page say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A secondary source which discusses the legal papers would be sufficient. His talk page says he's tired, by the way. east.718 at 05:08, November 30, 2007
    JzG's user talk page has the "re" in "retired" crossed out so it says, "this user is tired of silly drama in Wikipedia." Also, maybe you could cite a website. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok - I didn't get the Re Tired pun thing. Thanks.

    I cited a web page that had the legal papers. All the secondary sources I've seen were extremely thin as to the actual content of the case - they were more 'Celebrity Sued!' types of articles.

    Shouldn't have the Tired guy said some of this, however? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot or not?

    Resolved

    208.116.11.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently making bot reports on UAA. I would like to know whether it's a bot or someone impersonating a bot. -Goodshoped 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's H's bot, it's just logged out. east.718 at 04:59, November 30, 2007
    Tried to do a WHOIS and it failed. Maybe it is a bot. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The RDNS resolves to http://thor.krellis.org/ - User:HBC NameWatcherBot is operated by User:Krellis. Looks like the bot just got logged out. Mr.Z-man 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, then, never mind. -Goodshoped 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=174779451"