Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive189

User:Hildanknight and User:Dev920

I don't know the history between these two, but the history of Dev920's talk page shows some major incivility going on. Looks like a concerted effort by Hildanknight to go on a personal crusade against Dev920 (see also Dev's recent RFA), and he's been warned. Admins should probably watch the situation and block if necessary. – Chacor 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Final warning left. --Coredesat 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I just went to Hildanknight's userpage, and see that it has a semi-protected tag on it. I checked at WP:RFP and WP:PP, and did not see his [page listed. I have removed the tag, as it gives a misleading impression to editors, particularly newer ones, that they may not edit the page. I realize convention is not to edit other's user pages, and I woulsn't like it myself, but I think this is an exception as it seems a misleading tag. Please feel free to revert me if I am in error, but know I am acting in good faith. Jeffpw 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He blanked his talk page and said on his userpage that he lost all hope on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 09:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he has lost faith in Wikipedia because he was warned for violating WP:CIV, WP:NPA and for removing an administrator's comments from somebody's talk page, then I would suggest he doesn't really understand policy and procedures here. Jeffpw 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, so be it. Its his decision to just throw in the towel. Terence Ong 09:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I had no idea of the history between me and Hildanknight, but I've done some digging and it seems he was a fervent Esperanzan who I've had some interaction with here - I said that the idea of a wikiorganisation's members giving up their right to determine consensus among themselves to an elected seven member council was "a fucking stupid idea" in response to something Ed said (who I am on good terms with). Hildanknight seems to have taken it as a personal attack on all Experanzans everywhere, and pursued me ever since wherever he finds me, saying that I value truth above civility, that I'm the most incivil person ever to have walked the wiki, and that I'm anti-Muslim, none of which are true. I didn't really think much of it until he started leaving mean comments on my talkpage, taunting me because my RfA failed. Which is outright nasty, as I'm sure you will agree. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920, my use of the phrase "anti-Muslim comments" was commenting on the content, not the contributor. I did not say that you were anti-Muslim, and I certainly never said that you were "the most incivil person ever to have walked the wiki". I did make a comment that "Dev920 stated that civility is less important than truth" (I recall you saying something to that effect, but if I'm mistaken, I'll apologise). I did not "pursue [you] ever since wherever [I find you]" - I regularly lurk on RFA, but only vote if I know the candidate. I opposed because of your incivility (both the "f***ing stupid idea" comment and other examples others pointed out) and willingness to engage in people politics (nominating Esperanza for deletion and setting up the Conservatives project).

The "Whew! The Internet still doesn't suck." part of my comment on User talk:Dev920 was borderline incivil, but wasn't a personal attack. Hence, I don't think Dev920 should have removed the comments with an edit summary accusing me of "spewing bile", which Crazytales agreed was incivil, and I don't think Coredesat's "final warning" for personal attacks was warranted.

I've lost all hope in Wikipedia, not for the reasons Jeffpw provided, but because the community has become more hostile since Esperanza's deletion, and because my strongest pursuit - writing articles - is hindered by strict verifiability requirements (finding references on Singaporean topics is very difficult, due to systemic bias). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to defend unacceptable behaviour from you (or anyone!) says a lot. – Chacor 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that saying "Whew! The Internet still doesn't suck." after someone just had the disapointment of a unsuccesful RfA is more than "borderline incivil"; it is very uncivil, it is also exceedingly mean-spirited. "I've lost all hope in Wikipedia, not for the reasons Jeffpw provided, but because the community has become more hostile since Esperanza's deletion"...yes, Wikipedia has become more hostile. Your comments to Dev show that. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to Dev said it all. Your unacceptable behaviour cannot be denied. Since when the community has become more hostile since ESP's deletion? Rubbing salt into the wound and making uncivil comments and personal attacks is not a good thing to do and its uncivil. Terence Ong 10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it looks like Hildanknight has filed an RFC on himself. I'm concerned, however, that he again hides behind WP:BITE by saying something along the lines of "don't bite me for messing up" - WP:BITE refers to uncivil comments against newcomers that may drive them away. – Chacor 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:BITE remark was only for mistakes he might make in the RFC filing itself. He says this RFC is modeled after Kelly Martin's of last year. I would WP:AGF on this. I think he truly wants to improve himself here. Jeffpw 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Looking through the inappropriate usernames noticeboard, I came across this. Does anyone disagree with blanking and warning? Not so much a soapbox as a lectern complete with microphone and big flags, IMHO. yandman 16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not I. I give a wide latitude on WP:USER, but this is a big old WP:SOAP from a user who doesn't have the community input here to have earned himself/herself a little leeway. Besides, the user basically admits to being a role account... ("...extended family may also be using this account").--Isotope23 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"from a user who doesn't have the community input here to have earned himself/herself a little leeway"?!?! This user has several hundred edits, sure nothing at all compared to some other people here but also at the same time nothing that you should turn your nose up at. Mathmo ^Talk 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not turning my nose up at it, but sorry "several hundred edits" doesn't earn a free pass to bend the edges of WP:USER.--Isotope23 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a joke - the whole 'Official Dissowner' is just there to attack Muslims. Hut 8.5 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, i have agreed to change my username, and reform my userpage in a less provocative mannor, but could some wiki users please tell me specifically what i may/may not have on my page, by looking at my userpages history, rarther than just throwing guidelines at me which can be interprited in more than one way in a very aggressive manur. Please look at all of the items on a case by case basis, and note that some of them are CLEARLY intended to be jokes. --Boris Johnson VC 20:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Only some?! Nah, surely every one is, you playing Rome:Total War is just a joke right? Where is the verifiability of that you are a player of it?! Mathmo ^Talk 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Joke or not, much of this in inappropriate. Page should remain blanked until user makes a more suitable one. pschemp | talk 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.Proabivouac 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Intention is what matters, that is why we have WP:AGF. It is clear this is a joke which means the intention is not for this to be a serious matter to cause harm. Mathmo ^Talk 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is clear this is a joke. Boris Johnson VC may have intended it as such but what he sees as "tongue-in-cheek" may not appear that way to anyone else. [[[WP:AGF]] I'll take him at his word that this was intended as a joke, but just looking at the page as it stood he may have very well been a WP:TROLL or POV pusher for all anyone knows. Besides, this isn't the Wikipedia comedy festival, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here and I don't see how his userpage was furthering that goal.--Isotope23 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out Mathmo, i certanly never intended to offend anybody, and i think this whole thing has been blown right out of proportion. Basically all i want to know is what stuff from my old user page i am allowed on my new userpage, as everybody seems to have different interpritations of the rules.

P.S. I have not user hate speach, or promoted nuclear war on Iran on the page, as some guy claimed. --Boris Johnson VC 15:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a good thing Boris that you are asking about what was innapropriate in there and willing to remove it. I am not sure if you've had a look at this yesterday but i am sure you already know about Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, etc.... -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I'll keep this short and sweet:

• I removed some content from a page, DLX (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverted with edit summary saying it was vandalism, I warned him not to say that, he persisted I blocked him. Medium-length chat on his talk, he calls my mental state into question, I block for another 48 hours.
• User:Sandstein has sugested that since I'm in a content dispute at The Inquirer with this user, I should not have blocked... but the "dispute" was one reversion on my part, and the article was in the other user's preferred version when I blocked. Oh, and still is, I should add.
  

Let the bollocking begin.
brenneman 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first block was unfair - you are engaged in a content dispute, neither of you particularly covering yourself in glory, but you're the one with the block button so you block him. No, that's not right. And the extension - accusing you of being paranoid is rude, and warrants a warning, but not a further 48 hour unblock. I am going to unblock in a few minutes unless I see a really good reason not to (or you choose to unblock first). Proto::► 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll partially endorse why he was blocked, but you probably shouldn't have blocked him yourself. It was clear-cut enough, such that a request for any other admin to take a look could still have resulted in a block. However, I will not endorse any immediate unblock without input from more admins - that just makes it look like wheel-warring. – Chacor 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedantically, wheel warring would be if Brenneman then re-blocked. I'll refrain from unblocking but really do think he ought to be. I don't even think what he did particularly justified a 48 hour block, given the aggressive tone of Aaron's initial message on DLX's talk page. I do note that DLX described the edit as vandalism and it had no explanation (when it had), but Aaron applying the block feels hinky. Proto::► 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommend unblock It appears there may the perception of a conflict of interest givin the content dispute. Navou ^banter 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand at all the suggestion that I was in a content dispute with this user. Even causal reading of the histories would put lie to that:

• 00:35, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (→Nicknames and terminology - removed section - this list is unsourced an unencyclopedic, too high a level of detail, plus contains links tht violate WP:EL)
• 06:31, 29 January 2007 DLX (Talk | contribs | block) m (revrted changes by brenneman. Deleting big portions of the article without discussion is vandalism.)
• 06:34, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (rolled back massive (and totally blind) revert that included such gems as re-adding a redirect to this very article under "see also." Please try and _edit_ any sections that you have problems with.)
• 07:47, 29 January 2007 DLX (Talk | contribs | block) (Reordered, restored "Nicknames and terminology"- relevant and sourced. "Writers" are now in alphabetical order by last name.Cleaned up a bit. Did not have time to do that before, planned to do it now.)
• 12:07, 29 January 2007 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "DLX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (continued personal attacks after warning)

I reverted once over a clearly blind reversion, took it to talk, the user made the change back to his preferred version. The block was four hours after the user edited the page, and I didn't edit the article after that. Yes of course "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited" but that didn't happen here.
brenneman 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He did not like your change, you did not like his, then he did not like yours again. It appears disputed. Apoligies if I have misunderstood the situation. However, that is my impartial review as a courtesy to you. Whethere or not a content dispute, or COI is the case, this is the appearance and perception. I could be wrong. Regards, Navou ^banter 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're probably right... No one can be sure that I'm unfussed over the reversion, can they? I mean, I know I'm not, but it's the Seize-Her's wife dictum, isn't it? By the way, I don't expect my admin actions to be sancrosect, so if anyone wants to unblock don't feel the need to pass it by me. I'd only note that I have already put on this user's talk that "I'[d] lift the block if you'll recant the attacks and demonstrate some understanding of why there is a problem here." and I still believe that would be a positive outcome. But it's late and I'm off like prawns in the sun...
brenneman 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a problematic block of a long-term productive user to begin with, and in any event it appears the blocked user accepts that his comments should have been more moderate, so I would endorse immediate unblocking. I also think it might have been appropriate for the blocking admin to bring the matter to the noticeboard before extending the block. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked him. Folks, the clear solution to this kind of situation is to confer with another admin--there's no reason not to. I feel like Aaron has said this himself in the past. Chick Bowen 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamming at Talk:Oak Island

It may be that this is just a newbie who doesn't "get it" yet, but Keith Ranville (talk · contribs) has posted a long piece of spam on the Talk:Oak Island page [1]. His only edits are to that talk page. I don't want to risk "biting the newbie", so figured maybe someone here could have a look, revert the edit and explain to Mr. Ranville that this isn't acceptable? TheQuandry 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was a [[copyvio as well.--Isotope23 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look into this multiple deletion

I don't want to get into a revert war, so if the appropriate admins could please look into this and the previous three diffs, before MyWikiBiz sues us for libel. --MuscleJaw SobSki 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This account has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz/JossBuckle Swami. Gwernol 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

User:Tango posted a few days ago asking for someone to take a look at Goa Inquisition. I'd like to second this. I don't think anyone's broken the 3RR, but there's a lot of revert warring. The general tone on the talk page is fairly uncivil. There's also the possibility of sockpuppetry--Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to also be editing as 212.140.128.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and his main opponent in the revert war is Rumplestiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was recently (and inconclusively?) said to be a sock of the banned user Hkelkar. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only one three hour block on Xandar's record and that wasn't very recent. So unless the IP was active during that time it would be difficult to establish a case for sockpuppetry. Try WP:SSP if you haven't been there already. The allegation of block evasion by Hkelkar is more substantial. Could you present a circumstantial case with specific evidence? Due to the time lapse checkuser isn't a likely option. The dispute at this article shouldn't have continued this long. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the contribs of Xandar and 212.140.128.142 clearly suggest they're the same person. The only edits these accounts have made in recent days are to Goa Inquisition, and both accounts share the same attitude towards the "hate speech" in the article. However, I don't think there's any policy violation, since he's avoided 3RR--so it would be hard to say there's abusive sockpuppetry going on. The problem is more that his (alleged) use of the IP contributes to the sniping and distrust on the page.

As for Rumple, I don't have an opinion myself whether he's evading a ban or not, but the matter was discussed previously here. There also seems to be a relevant thread below.

By the way, WP:SSP isn't very useful right now, in my opinion, because of the tremendous backlog. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumplestiltskin223 has been blocked, but it looks like other users are taking his place in the revert war: [2]. Any suggestions for dealing with this dispute? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

banned user trolling through sock/meatpuppetry

I have evidence to suspect that banned user Hkelkar is trolling again through either sock or meatpuppetry. This defence forum [thread] shows a user trying to recruit meatpuppets to engage in edit wars. If you look at the forum he provides clear instructions of how to edit on wikipedia.

Why do I suspect Hkelkar? Simple:

• He calls genocities History of Pakistan a "hate site".This is the accusation Hkelkar threw at me for visiting that same "hate site" when he was here on wikipedia.

Now if you look at Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs)'s edit patterns,he already knew how to edit for a "newcomer" which gives me the impression that he followed the instructions provided on the forum. Not only that but his edit patterns resemble that of Hkelkar.

This member on the forum stated he wrote the christians in Pakistan article in "retaliation" of Pakistani users edits on the Christians in India article.

I have no doubt that Rumpelstilskin223 is either Hkelkar or a meatpuppet following his instructions and doing his work for him.

[3])

Rumpelstilskin223 is already suspected of being Hkelkar's sockpuppet as many admins and users have concluded with solid evidence.Rumpelstilskin223 even removed a suspected sockpuppet tag from his userpage to avoid suspicion if you look at the history of his userpage.What's more is that he "hasn't" launched many personal attacks as Hkelkar did,which is actually not true.He attacked user:Szhaider in Urdu.Nadirali نادرالی

Regarding this user Nadirali. See the following concerning his rather vain attempts to recruit meatpuppets of his own from hate sites, engage in repeated revert-wars, get blocked and troll his own talk page with ethnic slurs and other objectionable material against admins. Check his block log and his talk page for this. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not a newcomer but have been on wikipedia for months. Also these posts about Nadirali and his gang of Pakistani Islamic Fundamentalists is really quite revealing: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive186#Wikipedia_and_PakHub Rumpelstiltskin223 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make ad hominem attacks; you are stating that Nadirali is a sockpuppet, without providing evidence you yourself are not. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say he is a sock? he is a meatpuppet of blocked User:Unre4L and has been recruiting other meatpuppets at http://www.pakhub.info. See the ANI archive post I linked to above please. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence that's you're not a sockpuppet of this user? I have no problem blockign if needed.--Wizardman 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No I am not anyone's sock/Meatpuppet.Unre4L contacted me BEFORE I posted on Pakhub.I do confess I made a few inappropriate comments sometime ago,but I am nobody's sockpuppet.If you're not satsfied with my claims,then ask checkuser to investigate on me.I have edited under my username from to Ip's:

• my home
• my internet class at school.

If there is evidence of me being a "sockpuppet",I'll be happy to recive a block.Nadirali نادرالی

He is not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet. He has been coordinating an attack on wikipedia with Unre4L on http://www.pakhub.info. He has recruited other users such as User:MinaretDk who, I suspect, is the pakhub user "Nishan-e-Haider". I will present some inferences below to show why this is so:

[4] This post in which minearetDk addresses Nadirali with intent to coordinate a wikipedia attack If you look at Rama's Arrow's post in the link to the AIV archive above, Nishan-e-Haider on pakhub clearly said that he had a dormant account on wikipedia which he plans to use to attack wikipedia articles, which is precisely what MinaretDk has been doing since he started (and got blocked for it too, if you check his block log).Rumpelstiltskin223 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually my warning was in response to your talk page entries on Persecution of Hindus where you accused me of being an Islamic fundementalist, and another user of being anti-Hindu. You've been vandalizing pages by deleting large ammounts of sourced text, so I responded on your talk page. I can't help that you annoy many people at the same time. I'm a Bengali, not a Pakistani, btw. MinaretDk 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... I don't think the burden of proof is on Rumpelstiltskin223 (although he could be dancing in the woods somewhere singing "nobody knows I'm Hkelkar" :) - no disrespect). Besides, that discussion is being carred out in a more orderly form in a previous ANI post - right now only this anonymous (blocked) user, Rumpel and Nadirali are tossing around accusations. Rama's arrow 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do a checkuser if you must. In fact, a checkuser was done and it was established that there was no sockpuppetry at all [5]. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

the abuse continues, with MinaretDk and nadirali coordinating a personal attack spree in my home page [6] with rhetoric that is very similar to that of Nishan-e-Haider on pakhub (spurious accusations of "Hindu bias", so on and so forth,basically rhetoric characteristic of Islamic Fundamentalism, just like there are fundamentalist elements of many other religions trolling wikipedia, except that these users are getting away with it). Rumpelstiltskin223 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is continuing. You're vandalizing two pages I'm editing on by deleting large amounts of text. You're also attacking users on those two talk pages. Persecution of Hindus and 2002 Gujarat Violence. You're verbally assaulting too many people at the same time, and garnering responses for them. And then you complain. MinaretDk 00:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not throw random accusasions.If you look through the Pakhub forums,you'll see that Unre4L and I condemned Nishan-e-Haider's comments.As for me "coordinating" to attack you,where is the evidence that I "coordinated" with this other user you speak of?

Nadirali نادرالی

Hopefully we can stop this for a little while, I blocked Rumpel for an unrelated offense. If you guys can make productive edits and not fight over everything, then things will work out for the better.--Wizardman 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As moderator of Pakhub,I have access to other users IP adress.Would you like me to provide Nishan-e-Haider's IP adress?We can then compare it with this other user's IP adress if you like.Nadirali نادرالی

Minaret nobody is deleting anything. The definition of deleting is not reinstating portions of text that deal with the killing of Hindus. I have reason to suspect at least one of these users is related to an Islamofascist ip troll from the 87.xx range in England somewhere.Bakaman 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am another witness of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) vandalizing Islam-Hindu related articles with pure NPOV proganda against Islam and Muslims. Please check Rumpelstilskin223 history and all the pages he edited and see what he wrote. I have following Rumpelstilskin223 work for some time, he doesn't care about making good, balance articles, he cares about making Muslims look bad. Tarikur 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DaNewBreed

User:DaNewBreed has set up their userpage as an attack on the same person that they created an article that I tagged for speedy deletion yesterday, and for which I expressed the inappropriateness of the article on the user's talkpage. I'm not sure how userpages are covered for personal attacks so grateful for intervention. MLA 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate to use a userpage like this. I've removed the offending content from the userpage and warned the user. If this user continues to use Wikipedia to launch attacks on other he should be blocked. Gwernol 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the only two revisions were adding the PA and then it being blanked, I deleted it fully. No need for that to be hanging round, even in the history (and because of the edit summary fill feature, the same PA was in there). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Manning

This article, about the PM of Trinidad and Tobago, tends to attract a lot of crap, so it's pretty bad to begin with. Over the last few days it has attracted an onslaught of angry angry newbies. I am not willing to step into that mess, and (for a number f reasons) I should not be the one to step in. Since this has become a fairly high profile article (I have only skimmed the comments, but I get the impression that it was covered in the local press or something), something needs to be done...by someone with a thick skin. Ditto for Basdeo Panday and Ramesh Maharaj. Thanks. Guettarda 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV has a big backlog at the moment.

Please let me know if this isn't the place to list this. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blehgarga

This user has just created a bunch of redirects, some of them possibly attacks, all to Christian Potenza. It seems that there are too many of them for a non-admin such as me to deal with at this time, so can someone (preferably an admin) check this out? Scobell302 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All gone. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And permablocked the user. Enough rope, etc. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this

This User:Coelacan is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Attacks editors of having a covert method to gripe [7]. and adds user qoutes to his page mocking editors. [8] that I've personally asked him to remove. This being consider his first warning. Than I gave a warning on his user page. --Janusvulcan 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note to admins: Please look at this diff, referenced on the talk page of Janusvulcan. --N Shar 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not reference this. I beleive User:CyberAnth said this on his page to myself in reference to recent edits by User:Coelacan. WTH this has to do the actions of Coelacan I have no idea! --Janusvulcan 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This may make some sense of the "covert method to gripe" thing. Artw 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This was an essay that I put in the wrong spot. If by covert you were accusing me as being secretive... Honestly it dosent matter what was meant. It was obviously an attact on me and not the essay Wikipedia:No personal attacks!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. That article certainly seemed to be a disguised method for complaining about some particular edits and needed to go. That is all. Also you might want to check WP:OWN. Artw 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but there is nothing wrong with either of Coelacan's edits. Sorry. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. Read this Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Janusvulcan 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Coelacan's userpage is fine. So he has quotes on it. Some people quote politicians, some quote Mother Teresa, Coelacan quotes other Wikipedians. That the quote is something the Wikipedian might wish s/he had not originally written is beside the point. It certainly is not a violation of any rules. Janusvulcan would do well to spend his or her time making constructive edits, rather than monitoring other users' pages. By the way, Coelacan is one of the most hard working, supportive editors I have encountered here. If more people here were like him/her, Wikipedia would be a better place. Jeffpw 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So says you. I've looked through your contribution also [9]. You may have made the same mistakes Coelacan did. Just not against me. So I will leave that up 2 some other editor to deal with. --Janusvulcan 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's high time you start making specific points. Who are my sockpuppets?[10] What, exactly, makes me a troll?[11] If you can't make these accusations stick, then maybe you ought to re-read WP:NPA for yourself. — coelacan talk — 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For your info regarding sock puppets, I went back to the older edit almost immediately after posting. I decided not to take that path. I would’ve conducted myself precisely like you if I had Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As far as the Troll (Internet) read the first sentance. Posting messages that are inflammatory [12]. That posting pissed me off. Last time I checked PISSED-OFF = INFLAMED. Your posting inflammatory messages attacking the editor and not the contribution. Also I have not brought this up before but quoting a living person Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons --Janusvulcan 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[13]. I would now like to also add this Incident to the notice board. [14] Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons[15]. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: --Janusvulcan 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you suggesting that WP:BLP applies to talk pages? Artw 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Janusvulcan, this is neither the proper venue for such a discussion (you're looking for dispute resolution), nor are any of your complaints even remotely credible. I suggest you move on. —bbatsell ¿? 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-linking in dispute by a scholar

I have been recommended by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) to post about this here [16] so I hope it is the right place.

The problem is that Jona Lendering (talk · contribs) uses his personal website (or is it a company?) as a reference to his edits as also pointed out by another user [17] as well as agreed by Khoikhoi [18]. I believe in one case, at least for the Cyrus Cylinder (which is also section part of Cyrus the Great article), he has been conducting his own research and posting it on Wikipedia, with links to his website as references. This has been used in number of articles and also number of times even in disputes for the Cyrus Cylinder article [19].

I first discussed this by saying his articles on his websites are not academic and are only merely his own opinions (the articles are hardly use any referencing). When I tried to remind him that he is breaking number of policies also including Wikipedia:No original research, he claimed on my talk page that since he is "the only one capable of actually reading the text." (referring to the Old Persian presumably) [20] and expert on the topic, his edits are valid. This validates the fact that he is, in a way, claiming the article as his own (WP:OOA), and he keeps rolling back to his own version for his own research which he believes is scholarly accepted.

The problem is that when a scholar has already made up his own mind as for this article (Cyrus Cylinder), he chooses certain references over others just to back up his own theory (not a generally accepted one). Jona in this case has gone as far as using a book on completely different matter (Zoroastrianism) to argue that the religions of Iranian people were not monotheistic at the time, therefore this effects how tolerant Cyrus may have been to the people of his empire! [21].

This shows how an expert may treat an article as an essay full of his ideas. I think it is very important for admins to decide whether its fine for a scholar to do this on Wikipedia and decide on what to do in this case. Not to forget, this is also self promotion in this case as he keeps using his personal website as reference. Thanks! --Rayis 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that Jona shouldn't have used his own website as a source (it isn't true that he is reverting at the moment - I have done it once, though). However, as far as I can see, he has mostly cited other scholars and documents and not his own research. The fact that Zoroastrianism was hardly monotheist was certainly relevant for the article. I would also like to point out that Rayis and Surena have an obvious nationalistic bias, as Iranians who regard themselves as the descendants of Cyrus and consequently want to promote their patriotic view of history (hence it's somewhat strange that *they* are the ones talking about self-aggrandizing). I don't know abouth Khoikhoi, but he does seem to be involved in Iranian-related issues as well, so his opinion might not be neutral either. Unsurpisingly, Rayis and Surena have shown absolutely no proof (in terms of citations) that their point of view is the "mainstream academic" one and that Jona's view is the "odd" one. --194.145.161.226 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, you are generalizing anyone who may be Iranian or has anything to do with Iranian articles on Wikipedia is "not neutral"? I have never stated anywhere that I believe I am a descendant of Cyrus, or I am patriotic, or in fact that I am Iranian. Therefore this is all your assumptions. What I have stated above is my point of view of things with little or no assumptions about Jona, for all I know he is a well respectable scholar as I have stated many times before. --Rayis 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. All of you guys are not patriotic? Your interest in Cyrus' cylinder is purely theoretical? Let's be frank for a frigging second. And as for what your assumptions about Jona have been: after Surena declared to Jona that "you have some against Iranians, which all your angers and hatreds have been projected into that article" [22], thus basically accusing him of being some kind of a pathological hater of Iranians (LOL), you echoed "Exactly, I agree" [23]. Also, you have somewhat misrepresented Jona's behaviour even in the above post, as anyone who reads the linked posts should see, but I am leaving this to anyone who wants to investigate the issue. (There has been no response so far, presumably for a good reason.) To start with, you don't mention that he has basically yielded the article to you, as he has stated on its talk page (I quote: "I have sort of agreed with Rayis that he would revise the article, and I will leave it at this."), and he has been silent since then. As for me, I quit, or else I risk spending evening after evening arguing with you people (I tend to spend too much time on such "discussions", once I've let it go, and it's bad for my health). --194.145.161.226 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, because I think you have taken this matter much more personal than anyone has in this issue, and whoever you are, you are editing under an anonymous IP with only a couple of edits. You have announced both below [24] and on your talk page [25] that you spend a lot of time talking to "nationalists" from different nationalities "I am sick of all this hypocrisy, talking to Croatian nationalists, Russian nationalists, Serbian nationalists, Greek nationalists, my own freaking Bulgarian nationalists, and always assuming what obviously can't be assumed" [26].

I would like to ask you to stop making this a nationalist matter which it is not about. I clearly had an assumption about this matter and I thought it might be against the Wikipedia policy. Only after discussing it with an administrator (Khoikhoi) and seeing Surena's comments on the talk page, I felt I should post about it here. If you believe it is grounded in false assumptions, that is fine, you have expressed your opinions, but I think it is fair to say let others comment now and for god knows how many times, stop your uncivil comments calling editors nationalists. I am sure Jona would be professional enough not to see this as a personal matter and understand our concerns, in any case its up to admins to decide what to do about this --Rayis 22:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-Promotion

Re: Jona Lendering (talk · contribs) - Her/His Userpage, reads as: "webmaster of Livius.Org, and am employed by Livius Onderwijs". He is using his own website and articles (WP:OOA) as a point of reference, which is POV and considered as self-promotion. Examples: Battle of Gaugamela, Cyrus cylinder, Zopyrus, Persian Gates, Ariobarzan, etc. -- Surena 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See above for my view of these accusations.--194.145.161.226 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are not "accusations" Jona has edited these articles, and has used his website as reference for his edits as it can be seen in the links provided above and as it can be seen in the history of these articles. --Rayis 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but citing one's website does not automatically amount to "self-promotion" (read the article about it), and claiming that it does in this case is an accusation - especially in the context of the above-mentioned claims that Jona had "angers and hatreds for Iranians" or something like that on the talk page of Cyrus cylinder. Now, the *relevant* section in our case is Citing oneself, which is NOT always forbidden. Whether and to what extent it is appropriate in this particular case can be debated upon, and as I stated, I think he had better avoid it, as the relevant info can be based on other sources. However, your interpretation of his edits as self-promotion, as well as your use of the admin noticeboard in this case, are pure aggression and I have tried to explain the motivation behind that aggression here. While the lack of understanding of WP:NOR etc., also on the part of experts, is a serious problem, I also think that preventing nationalist bias is a higher-level priority. And this is my last post about this, because otherwise I am going to end up giving endless speeches.--194.145.161.226 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Before my frustration goes into overdrive...

...can some uninvolved admins please look into this ongoing dispute regarding WP:N and the guidelines they point to - WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB in particular? In December, a change was made without any discussion or consensus anywhere regarding what's viewed by some as the "central criterion" at WP:N, downgrading a bunch of long-standing criteria in the specific guidelines in the process. I've had limited time lately to pay attention to the minutiae on the actual project pages until this past week, when I noticed it, left a comment at the various talk pages, and ultimately reverted the changes, looking for further discussion on the talk pages. This has not gone well, with a few editors (most notably Radiant (talk · contribs), who's tendentious editing at WP-space pages has amped up as of late) putting the changes back, almost universally without talk page discussion or demonstration of consensus, and a number of people opposing the changes at the talk pages of the individual guidelines beyond myself - this isn't a one man crusade. This, especially Radiant's continued disruptive editing and accusations, is getting tiring, and when people start removing disputed section tags, all it's doing is escalating an already heated conflict. I don't care what side people take, but I'd like some uninvolved people to get involved before this goes completely over the top, which is close to the point I'm at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would help if you stopped throwing spurious accusations around. I note that you are misstating the situation by implying this is a conflict between you and me - for instance, on Wikipedia:Notability (people), it is a conflict between you on the one side, and me, Recury, Satori Son, Ben Aveling, and W.Marsh on the other. It is quite beyond me how you can claim that this implies a consensus on your side, when you appear to be alone in your view. >Radiant< 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the problem at this point is due to your tendentious editing. Others have actually made statements and discussion, you've simply disrupted things, not to mention your complete disregard for the facts regarding what's happening in the dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Radiant!'s post, this disagreement seems like a Village pump issue, not an admin issue. If the problem is really "disruptive editing" and "accusations" instead of the underlying policy dispute, some diffs might help. TheronJ 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's much easier to point out the three pages in question, there's plenty of evidence there as opposed to me taking 5 minutes to load diffs into the window. It's become an administrative dispute because there's been plenty of discussion and it's mostly one person creating the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one person being you, of course, and you try to drive off the people who disagree with you by calling them tendentious editors. How about you try consensus building and discussing things, instead of throwing personal attacks around? >Radiant< 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Jeff, this is an editing dispute, and referring to someone's edits as 'tendentious' are very much a personal attack. --InShaneee 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you need admins to look at this? - sounds like you should persue some form of WP:DR - have it been posted on the village pump for wider community involvement? - if policy is to be changed it's not an admin consensus that's required, but a community consensus. --Joopercoopers 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should go through DR - I figured the tendentious editing would be reason enough for some higher-level intervention (and I'm merely using terminology we use here, I disagree strongly that it's a personal attack), but I made the mistake in allowing myself to be baited, so I'll seek out other options. I still hope people will take a look at the conflict regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have such a fetish for the word "tendentious"? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I typically don't. I just can't find a better word to use regarding this situation. Regardless, I've opened a MedCab request and posted notes about the dispute elsewhere, so hopefully this will be dealt with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I want to be in the party too! Of course this does not belong here, but since it is, the primary notability criterion is the best statement we have to date of what constitutes an encyclopaedically notable subject; it also has the merit of being capable of being objectively interpreted (or at least more so than counting the number of people who say "WP:ILIKEIT" in a debate). More to the point, having a guideline that says foo means a subject is notable when an article can satisfy foo without having any independent sources, is a recipe for endless conflict. If we start from the premise that all articles need sources and move on from there to the things which are either additive (so we don't get a directory of whatever) or indicative of the likely existence of sources, then that's a consistent and reasonable approach, in a way that implying that a band is notable if it sets foot over a national border is not (I have toured internationally with my choir, we are not notable). Jeff, you hope this will be "dealt with" - it might well be, but not necessarily the way you would prefer. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass

The instructions here are useless for the simple user. I do not wish to be an editor or administrator.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass , section Background and perhaps other areas have been maliciously modified.

Firstly my apologies if the instructions are not clear. We do try our best, but it's clearly not good enough :-( Anyway thanks for reporting the vandalism. It has actually already been fixed, so if you refresh the page it should be gone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Haddyrikabi34 vandalism & cleanup

Can someone please cleanup after Haddyrikabi34's vandalism? He or she has moved pages and when I tried to move one back either I hosed something up or he or she had already done something else. I am stepping away from these edits lest I hose up anything else. --ElKevbo 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User is blocked indefinitely, and I think Malo (talk · contribs) and I fixed up everything. Nishkid64 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

a porn star race car driver The story is told in the book of Genesis....

Someone wrote this on the page for Adam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam

Just thought i would mention it.

Stuff like that is added to Wikipedia every second. -Lapinmies 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Personal Attacks, Admin Attention Requested

About User:Wobble:

• Reported to PAIN before [27] for things like calling me racialist and then saying "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." or calling me racist and then saying "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me).", etc...

• Calling me racist again [28]

• "Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring." [29]

• Calling me pathetic along with other accusations: [30]

• "I think this has got nothing to do with using swear words and everything to do with you and Lukas's attempts to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia by introducing your nasty racist POV." [31]
• He seems to call anything that he disagrees with, racist [32]

• "You are such a massive hypocrite. You really are unbelievable. You constantly "report" people because you can't take criticism (you act like you are in a school playground, please miss he disagrees with me), but you are one of the most offensive people I have ever met." [33]

Talking about accusations, 99% of what he says is INCORRECT. For ex, he accused me (as usual) of distorting biomedical research and I asked him to provide examples [34] and he provided me with a link of an edit that WAS NOT mine.[35] More such examples can be provided.

Now, some of these are recurring personal attacks and I think that requires admin attention, rather than RfC. He even admits that his behavior is wrong but blames all this on me by saying: "If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them." [36] He was warned before about personal attacks (see the PAIN report link)

He also removed my option from RfC, [37] so his behavior may be called harassment. Lukas19 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a block might be needed here, but I'm not sure how long, as the user was not given any warnings for personal attacks (though there does appear to be a fairly long history of edit warring over race-related articles). --Coredesat 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a warn by an admin? If not, His warns: [38] [39]

I don't see any rationale for an immediate block; some of these diffs are more than a week old, and the recent contribs certainly don't suggest any kind of rampage of nastiness. If more than one user is actually concerned about this user's behaviour and hasn't been able to work it out, take it to RfC. Our criteria for blocking shouldn't be lower than that of having a formal discussion. Jkelly 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3 days is recent, right?

"Oh and by the way Thukas, don't fucking call me a vandal. This is hypocrisy of the highest order given the amount of times you have tried to compromise Wikipedia by claiming a source supported your racist POV when it does no such thing. I am a very experienced editor and do not do vandalism. Your constsnt claims that other editors that do not agree with your lies and racism are either "vandals" or are "personally attacking" you are pathetic. I suggest you learn to edit in a more mature manner. Learn that you need to compromise, you need to know that Wikipedia does not exist to promote your personal racist/Nordicist oppinions. Alun 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)" [40]

Again, about incorrect accusations, I didnt called him a vandal, I just said "reverting vandalism" to one of his edits, and I dont have a racist POV, etc...Lukas19 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both users to cool off and drop the argument, since their arguing is disrupting the community and it's clear that they can't seem to stop getting in each other's faces. However, Wobble seems to have left the project (at least temporarily), though he immediately blanked my warning. --Coredesat 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think you'll find it was archived, not blanked. About as accurate and unbiased as all of your behaviour towards me. Alun 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun please calm down and try to follow wikipedia procedure. Itsokay

I've checked out Wobble's edit history and it's extremely counterproductive. All he seems to do is accuse other editors of racism and remove anything he disagrees with on the grounds that it's racist. Many articles have lost a lot of rich content because he wont allow view points he disagrees with to be included always using the excuse that something or other is racist. He contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. All he does is remove things so that only his view on things is seen Itsokay

Upon a second review of Lukas19's edit history, it seems he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page). This changes things. --Coredesat 04:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Left Lukas19 a final warning for POV pushing. --Coredesat 05:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You called me a POV pusher and gave this example [41]. How come is this POV pushing? Also, note that, I copy & pasted this part from Genetic views on race so most of what was written in that edit WAS WRITTEN BY WOBBLE/ALUN. And the Race article already did have many counter arguments to my edition, including a whole section.

I also find it hugely unfair that you apologized from Wobble and gave me a "final warning" AFTER Wobble has called me "moron" [42], "pest, whiner, etc..." [43], "racist scum, etc..." [44]. Even if you have felt sorry about him leaving, you shouldnt have encouraged his incivil behaviour/personal attacks, you should have encouraged him to stay AND be civil AND not make any personal attacks. But you have failed [45].

And why did you do this? Because of "...he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page)"? Which other users? LSLM? The one that was balocked three times because of things ranging from personal attacks to vandalism to violation or 3RR rule? Actually he was blocked once by you as well.

I also dont believe the claim that you went over my edit history twice because you said "...as detailed in your rejections of various compromises on the Mediation Cabal case..." because this never happened! Lukas19 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So? Lukas19 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously need a second opinion on this. I'm not entirely sure what to do here, and it's getting out of control. --Coredesat 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

bump Lukas19 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

bump Lukas19 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Raspor

Raspor wants to come back to Wikipedia. Geo. 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How's about a little foreplay first? —bbatsell ¿? 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey now. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo requested the same thing one week ago exactly on AN.[46] The thread is here. Daniel.Bryant 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He may do. I just think that we don't want Raspor here, and there are good reasons as to why. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That went nowhere. I have been in contact with Raspor and he is pretty desperate. He is willing to stay off ID and ID related articles, submit to mentorship, and probation. Worst case scenario, you get to laugh at stupid me. Geo. 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance regarding User:Derex

Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Wikipedia. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff link to back up your accusations? His user page redirects to his talk page and has done so for quite a while. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" [47] --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I don't follow. Why don't you want those links on his talk page? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, because I find it creepy that a man who refuses to rationally hold a discussion with me and threatens to have me banned for responding to his smears would create a personal file on me on his User talk page? Comment on the article, not the editor, remember? --Jayzel 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I notified Derex of this ANI case.^[48]. Let us wait to see how he responds to your allegations. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate [49] --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only asking for trouble to remove the links at this stage. Please wait. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm wwell I don't know why he linked to articles that you wrote years ago but merely linking to those articles is surely not that threatening. Can't you just avoid his talk page if he creeps you out? I can see there is no love lost between you two, it seems to me better if you just avoid one another. I don't know the back story of all this. How long has it been going on? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I should just remind everyone of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

• Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

[50] Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!"[2]. It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article.[51] --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 's Pattern of Removing Warnings from His Talkpage

I am another witness of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) vandalizing Islam-Hindu related articles with pure NPOV proganda against Islam and Muslims. Please check Rumpelstilskin223 history and all the pages he edited and see what he wrote. I have following Rumpelstilskin223 work for some time, he doesn't care about making good, balance articles, he cares about making Muslims look bad. Tarikur 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat similar is a group of Muslim editors wishing to denigrate Hindus.Bakaman 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New users

• There are a rather ludicrous amount of new users being created, to the point where the "Recent changes" page is mostly user creation logs. Something's rotten. JuJube 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A pattern seems to be replacing pages with '___ is a commodity'. It's happening with Wikipedia:Protection policy. Carson 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What was on the most recent Colbert Report episode? It seems to be Colbert-related. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He encouraged editors to redefine reality to be 'reality is a commodity'. the page was protected, now they're going insane.ThuranX 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the protection policy for 24 hours. God, that's the last time I watch Colbert. Grandmasterka 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person who does not find him very funny? JuJube 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He's coming from the AOL proxy network, making him a nuisance to try to block. I don't suppose anyone can write a script to automatically roll back any edit that contains the word 'commodity'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, it would have rolled back your comment above. I don't think such a script would be a good idea, if it were possible to make. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay; if the script was already running, my comment would be redundant. :D I'd actually be happy with something that just flagged any editor who used the word so we'd know which contributions to review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax, we have no worries. Zoe is gonna send him email saying that encouraging the vandalizing of Wikipedia is a federal offense, Jimbo is gonna fix it without telling us, we'll troll ourselves silly over who to block for one hour, the media will cause us to gain addition fame, the fame will result in a tripling of donations (or elephants) and wikipedia review will announce its all a clever plot. WAS 4.250 05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something along those lines myself. Excellent!! I'm looking forward to it. :-) Grandmasterka 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I'm going to realize my dream of nearly ending up in the media and nearly attaining a nanosecond of fame! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can just see Colbert flaunting the fact that his minions almost DOSed Wikipedia. PTO 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"encouraging the vandalizing of Wikipedia is a federal offense"- that can't be true, can it?Davind 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The crapflood seems to be slowing. Thank you to everyone who is on right now reverting, deleting, and blocking the Colberdiots. Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Will never watch the show again. Ugh. I think the IRC feed is lagged about 15 minutes. Kuru ^talk 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this calls for a horde of angry emails. :) PTO 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, not this again. I thought the elephants bit was bad - I saw tawker's blog post baout how hundreds of elephant-related pages had to be protected - but this again? Well, after seeing the WHCD's article featured on the front page (which was followed by a pic of the front page with the words WIKIPEDIA SURRENDERS on the Wikiality wiki), I'm not surprised... Hbdragon88 06:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Account creation is gearing up again. Carson 06:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The same show must have aired somewhere exactly an hour after the first. Antandrus (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Users and article creation

We are not done folks. The show re-airs at 1:30 am (EST,PST) 12:30 pm (EST, PST) and 6:30 (EST,PST). My current application is ignore all rules and shoot first, but be sure to ask questions later. Salting is fine and username blocking is fine, but be sure to follow-up on all contribution histories. Teke ^(talk) 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about 11:30 PST. It still hasn't aired here even once. Dragons flight 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, that's the past to me. And I love the past :) Teke ^(talk) 06:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted all the outstanding vandalism from the first wave after checking the contributions of the new users. Please protect the following pages pre-emptively:

• Reality, Real, Real number, Truth, Fact, Elephant, The Colbert Show, Wikipedia in popular culture, Wikipedia:Page protection, Wikipedia:Protection policy, Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Let's cross our fingers. --N Shar 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to program a little script that reads Special:Log/Newusers and lets me know when account creation rises above a certain limit, so I can report it here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd add Virtual Reality to those. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed some good action while I was gone. Was it really that bad, huh? LOL on the Zoe/Jimbo bit above, btw. Part Deux 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to know if a pleasant, civil letter has been written to Comedy Central or Viacom to ask that the Colbert Report writers stop doing this? While it does bring attention to Wikipedia, it is obviously also doing a lot of harm to it. --Takeel 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One would certainly hope that the WMF would do something along these lines. Once (the elephants) might be vaguely funny (though not for those who cleaned it up), but twice is getting stupid. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up after Elephants isn't vaguely funny, even the first time. (jokes aside, Kudos to all who've busted their collective humps on this. After posting my explanation above, I pretty much went to bed. I have a job that requires I'm fully awake.) ThuranX 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm glad that you're on top of this (don't forget the next rerun at 8:30 EST), but I have one request to make. When you're blocking people, please be careful of what you write in as the reason. Writing in "colbert idiocy" or "colbert crapflooder" not only encourages them, it makes you look immature. Just write in "colbert vandalism" and move on. It's much more mature, and it makes us look a lot better.

Eh, politely disagree. Crapflooding is a precise term, has been around on Usenet for a good long time, and it's exactly the technique being used here by the Colbert fans. It sounds more disrespectful than it really is. I'll stop using it though for the next round (hopefully there won't be one). Antandrus (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks as a revenge for reporting vandalism

A user who got blocked after I reported his vandalism called me "a notorious liar (see link), continous misinterprator and falsifier" and "a radical nationalist notorius liar".[61] This is not the first time. I asked him in a very polite way[62] to remove his previous personal attack ("You are agressive, hostile, and highly uncivil, and seemingly you have some personal vindictiveness or whatever childish thing against me."[63]) as an admin suggested.[64] Instead, VinceB has just added another comment,[65] implying for example that I started an edit war. His rant was finally removed by another user with an edit summary "Remove frivolous and vengeful requests on established users". I hoped it was over, but the new attack shows it is not. The user has already been blocked for personal attacks before.[66] Tankred 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As usual, I've cited all my words. Tons of difflinks are on those pages. I would expand Tankred's expanation with that, that T's report on me was also deleted under that "Remove frivolous and vengeful requests on established users" summary. But T doubled that report again, on here, this page, this time successfully. First three blocks were due content diputes. Or, can I call it a dispute, when T did nothing, but simply reverted my edits as "vandalism". Isn't it so familiar when a content dispute occurs? After 3rd block, I'd be intrested who could hold him/herself back, and keep the NPA policy? I wrote down my opinion abt T (can be read above), and several times again since that (also can be read above), and I still keep them, since I found,seen and brought a lot of evidents wich are strengthening it. T's books are unreachable, and in Slovak with some excepts. Mines are in English, and on line mainly. Maybe it's a bit hard to him to understand, that if greens are written in an article, deleting them are not vandalism, but the improvement of the article. I like to come here with the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy as an example, and to help understanding some of my edits, that even a cited content can be false, if the citation are (in my case) usually marginal or unknown writers from different states. For my last block, since there was no discuss abt it: I thought and think, those refs are only for the "restricting the usage of the Slovak language" line, not all that paragraph, since all of them are right after the "language" word. See? Content dispute. Thankfully WP:PAIN and WP:RFI were deleted, but T can not stop, and now he uses this page for WP:Block my opponent in content dispute. And T's addicted to me, his contrib list clearly shows, that he's not intrsted in anything else, but reverting me and somehow forcing me out of en WP, in wich he partially succeeded. I don't have time for this crap day-by-day, and I edit much fewer than before, and those are all as logged out. Lots of difflins are here for my statements [67], (my last comment in ste VinceB section)

B: Denying pan-slavism and the national revivals as a serious (main) factor and blaiming only H's nat.revival is an awesomly common thing amongst serbian/slovak radicals, and commonly, blaiming H for everything. No, Pan-slavism caused serious ethnic tensions and lead to the magyarization policies, and ethnic clashes also. I've cited them many times before (english, online refs mainly, not Slovak books), but they were simply deleted as „vandalism”. As all my other edits. And I still can not understand, why do they think, that I deny magyarization or such things??? LOL no, but simply, it played one role, not the only, and not even the main one, but an important supporting act. Stating this means, that you're a radical natonalist blablabla... see my talkpage for the perfect expressions. [68] archive (oh, now I reveaed, why did I gave the name of the archive "blabla" :-) ) But other roles are prohibited, "m" is the main and only, so history falsifing is flourishing here. (in fact most of the not so frequent themes are also usually in poor or acceptable condition - for example articles related to PR and communications, and marketing...pff..- , so no wonder, why these unintresting - or lowly intrested - topic like this where I edit can be in the hands op political expressions instead of reality.) And the biggest LOL is removing nonsense and far-right writers "opinions" are vandalism. Well OK, than David Irving or Ernst Zünder, orr other err..."notable historians"...should be used in the articles related to Jews or the Holocaust. LOL. And depressing in the same time. Hope CZ will be better, since WP is dead. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. My post here concerns your personal attacks against me and your unwillingness to remove them. As to all your previous blocks, you have never been blocked for engaging in a content dispute, but for sock puppetry, vandalism, personal attacks, disruptive edits, and edit warring. Your last block came after you vandalized a citation from an academic journal published in English, not in Slovak. Please, do not try to divert attention from the topic. As I wrote on your talk page, I would accept your apology if you remove your personal attacks. Since you are evidently not willing to do that, I am asking here for help. Tankred 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated replacement of prod tag in Obligations in Freemasonry

Somebody doesn't understand how prod works. Could someone please have a word with MSJapan, ALR and WegianWarrior about this? 204.122.16.13 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD has now been opened. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry. Garion96 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, there is no copyvio as claimed on the removed text. It is word for word from Duncan's Ritual on the Sacred Texts site and clearly in the public domain. Check it yourself. These guys are being deliberately misleading. 204.122.16.13 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

suspicious high-speed account creation

There seems to be some rapid-fire account creation activity going on right now. Something smells fishy to me. --Ixfd64 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New users. Must be re-runs. Carson 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the current Colbert show, which is just finishing airing. All hands on deck to help revert the crapflooding of "reality is a commodity" or whatever the heck it was. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I guess that's what happening. --Ixfd64 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits at Talk:Ustaše

Not sure how to handle the edits here. Refactor? Navou ^banter 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Blocking/Banning by Chris Griswold; and other actions

I'm saddened to list this rather sordid set of activities by admin ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs · logs), a usually diligent and forthright admin.

Over the past week Chris had taken it upon himself to run off an individual who used the apparently fictitious username, Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III (talk · contribs · logs), under a variety of pretenses -- eventually unilaterally banning and blocking him. Chris has claimed, among other things that the username was an imposter of a real, notable person -- it isn't -- and made this the basis of his perma-block. He later unilaterally claimed this user to be banned [69][70] -- although as had no basis for such an action either, nor did he have "widespread community support" for such a ban, as required by WP:BAN: "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." Further, he did not bother to post his activity to the Noticeboard for review.

All of his actions are contrary to explicit policy requirements, and were pointed out as such. He has aimed to eliminate any "evidence" by blanking the Talk page of the user, where discussions about the individual and his activities were held, and selectively removing the extensive comments from his own talk page, without archiving:

• [71] "rm" (14:35, 24 January 2007)
• [72] "Doing as the Cybermen do" (18:59, 29 January 2007)

Finally, he has supported, and effectively misled, recent editor Acalamari (talk · contribs · logs) in committing sweeping talk page vandalism -- prompting her to delete dozens of legitimate comments from numerous talk pages and archives, under the pretext that these were comments left by the IP of "Krune":

• "Yes, good idea. It's all either pointless, insulting, or disinformative. Carry on. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" (Removed Trolling from Chris Griswold's User Talk)

Now I agree that the "Krune" persona was unusual and some of his various Talk page comments verged on trollery; however he was not a vandal, and leaving an odd comment or two in Talk is not a banning offense. In this matter, Chris's use of the admin powers has stepped over the line into pure censorship; and his actions have caused at least one new user to have a grave misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. The Krune talk page needs to be un-blanked and unprotected; and the account "unbanned", until such time that the actual process for banning is followed, if it is deemed appropriate. --Leflyman^Talk 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -

I would agree; Krune was trolling, and a read over his talk page made that fairly obvious (he was here to have fun; not contribute), but it was Chris' actions were excessive. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior to trolling and wasting a number of editors' time, Krune vandalized and trolled Wikipedia for one year as 64.81.118.101 (talk · contribs) None of his talk page edits that I have seen were legitimate. They were either insults or disinformation and intentional gossip. None of that belongs on talk pages. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• A specious claim. A sampling of the comments left by the IP, which Chris sweepingly claims to be vandalism/trolling:

• Talk:Entourage (TV series) (1 January 2006, noting overemphasis by some editors to mentions of Kevin Smith)
• Talk:Elizabeth (07:38, 4 September 2006, discussing accuracy of the portayal)
• Talk:Anime (11 July 2006, listing criticism of Anime style)

Additionally, the account made appropriate edits to articles to add actual content, clean up grammar and other problems:

• Hannibal Rising (21:08, 12 December 2006)
• Cannibalism (2 November 2006)
• Mystery Science Theater 3000 (12:25, 20 October 2006)
• Adam Carolla (10:18, 22 February 2006)
• Terrence Malick (extensive improvements on 14 January 2006)

It's clear that the account made some inappropriate comments, but on the whole did make positive contributions. Yet even still, there's been nothing to demonstrate that these are connected to Krune. --Leflyman^Talk 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

64.81.118.101/Krune add disinformation to Facts of Life talk page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to some of those edits that Leflyman is talking about. I did not revert any edits he did to articles: they had already been reverted. I wasn't going to waste time reverting information that had already been reveted. I only edited the talk pages, though I did add some "citation needed" tags to Adam Carolla. Acalamari 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: The user was claiming to be this notable individual, even taking the charade to to the unblock mailing list. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the user who actually removed the messages. I've read everything that Krune wrote using that IP. Insults to other users, racist and sexist comments, questioning the gender of real people, and also rudeness about an article's subject do not belong on talk pages. On top of that, in the history of his IP's talk page, I read that he threatened to sue Wikipedia and its users if he continued to receive warnings about trolling and vandalism. Also, he vandalized a user page with that IP, calling that user he vandalized a jerk. Acalamari 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III (talk · contribs · logs) was basically an unapologetic troll who made no worthwhile edits to Wikipedia either as an account or an IP. The only beef I have here is the "ban" with no apparent discussion. I think the ban tags should be replaced with indef blocked tags for now, because (unless I missed something here) Krune isn't banned. The indef block probably should have been listed on WP:AN too for community review. Bear in mind, based on the fact that the editor's only contributions were a series of smarmy comments on talk page, I probably would have supported an indef, but Chris probably should not have done this unilaterally. None of us have the authority to ban on our own.--Isotope23 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Isotope. I will do this in the future. This block seemed self-evident to me; do I do this for all blocks? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the distinction between a block and a ban has never been clear to me. Can you help me? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. Maybe the difference is that a block is temporary, as is an indefinite block (an indefinite block means a block that is not definite), while a ban is a block that won't ever be lifted. That's my understanding anyway. Acalamari 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Blocks and bans are different. A block is a technical means of stopping a single account from editing Wikipedia. A ban is a community initiative to stop a person from editing Wikipedia under any account. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I pointed out on Chris's talk page (and he subsequently deleted), a ban is a social construct -- and enforced through a block. A ban can only be placed by action of Jimbo, ArbCom or widespread community support. Chris is confused that he does not have authority to enact a ban on his own, and the failure to recognize this limitation is the heart of the matter. He likely doesn't have support to enact a perma-block, either. --Leflyman^Talk 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't understand what a ban was, and I used an inappropriate template. I have no doubt the the block was correct, though. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging your misunderstanding. Perhaps you'll also realize that, as pointed out at WP:BLOCK that you should not be enacting a block as a punitive measure -- which is what you appear to have done. You have yet to provide a valid policy basis for a permanent block of the IP; you claimed "Username is name of Webspace CEO; pending confirmation" was your reasoning -- which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Please note, under Disruption: "Blocks for general incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial. Consider whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama"; it would be also helpful to look at Controversial Blocks to understand why I'm bring up my concerns.

The matter of what to do about Acalamari's wholesale deletion of comments, as supported by Chris, has not been dealt with. I'm concerned that among the ones excised were perfectly legitimate comments by other users, such as was just revealed at Talk:Elizabeth (film) and was only reverted after I pointed it out.--Leflyman^Talk 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected that mistake: you know that. I know that trolling messages on talk pages are to be deleted, because if they remain, they take up space, and are unhelpful. Please don't make it sound like I deleted them because I thought it would be funny. Acalamari 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I admitted that I made a mistake. All it took was an explanation rather than an accusation. Consider how you approach people. I'll leave the validity of the block up to the other editors.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly what are we going to do next? We can't leave this unresolved. Acalamari 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• This entire page takes quite a bit of time to load. To save time, I am willing to use my talk page: User Talk: Acalamari, as a place to discuss this instead. If no one's interested, that's fine, but as I'm the user who removed the messages, I thought others may want to use my talk page to discuss this. After all, my talk page doesn't take ages to load, or use much bandwidth. Acalamari 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Complex BLP issue

There have been multiple attempts to insert unsourced, probably untrue information at Francis Pym. The IPs 67.160.129.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and PyatPree (talk · contribs) have all added it within the past day and been reverted; PyatPree also removed a BLP warning message I left on his talk page. Both PyatPree and 13.8.125.11 have also been attempting to add a now-deleted picture of Princess Leia "enslaved by criminal Jabba the Hut" to the Slavery page, and both IP addresses have been trying to add a picture of Gimli to the Dwarfism page. PyatPree has also added unsourced, potentially libelous information at Christopher Soames, Baron Soames. Given that the first IP is a Comcast address in Oregon, and the second is the Xerox "uswest" web gateway (Xerox has a facility in Wilsonville, OR), I believe these are all the same person, and that this needs the attention of an administrator. Choess 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a continuing problem. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SneakySoyMeat for earlier details. (And by the way, is wp:suspsock a graveyard now?) — coelacan talk — 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PyatPree with the Leia picture,[73] which got 13.8.125.11 blocked.[74] The wp:suspsock report already lays out the case for 13.8.125.11 being indef blocked use SneakySoyMeat, so I won't reiterate that here. 67.160.129.206 making the Dwarfism edits,[75] that got SneakySoyMeat blocked.[76] I'll include all this in the suspsock report if that will help future editors; I'll wait for others' advice before I take the time, though. — coelacan talk — 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New sock, ViserysTargaryen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He should have chosen fake sources more carefully... Choess 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Except for a single edit in May, 67.160.129.206 is used exclusively for vandalism. And it's been a long time since 13.8.125.11 was used for anything besides vandalism and edits to the Xerox article. Blocks on anonymous editing and disabling of new account creation for both IPs seem appropriate. — coelacan talk — 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Darby

The Larry Darby article was stubbed by Shanel due to BLP issues and an OTRS complaint (OTRS ticket 2007012210000336). Selket is trying to restore information to the article using Wikipedia diffs and old revisions as sources. He reverts my attempts to remove the information and will not accept that a Wikipedia article cannot be used as its own source. I recommend someone else have a word with him. Frise 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a little word with him. Very simple, in this case. WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure this page's situation out. It looks like LarryDarby began editing his own entry, including some edits WAY out of Wikipolicy here, and including a number of legal threats against wikipedia, and then used the OTRS system to get it all removed. Then he's monitored the page to remove anything which while entirely factual, such cited information as his former party association, he now feels 'disparages' his character? and we're punishing an editor who is working to restore as much fully cited information as possible? Isn't this more or less gaming the system? If I'm wrong here, or should shut up and go away, please let me know. I really am confused by what I'm seeing in the edit histories. I understand that the OFFICE takes precedence, but in this case, I'm really not getting the situation. ThuranX 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely pleased with Larry Darby himself, actually.^[77] Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been attempting to help source and npov the article. However, Darby continued to whitewash and push his POV using the sockpuppet User:BopBeBop (confirmed by checkuser). I have therefore blocked the sockpuppet and left a note about this sort of behavior. Note that Darby and his sock have made repeated personal attacks and uncivil remarks. Additional admin assistance would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of charges here, some directed at me and some not, some I think are fair and others not. First let me thank JoshuaZ for pointing out to me that this discussion was going on.

I think that to get a complete picture of everything that happened, one must look not only at Larry Darby and Talk:Larry Darby, but also at User talk:LarryDarby and the conversations between Shanel and me. Let me lay out the situation as I percieved it to unfold.

I first became involved when I saw the user LarryDarby blank the page Larry Darby from the Recent Changes link. I restored the page, he blanked it again, and he claimed libel based on the page as it existed prior to my first edit. Upon looking at the page in more detail, I relized that there were severe BLP issues and began sourcing the statements I could and deleting the ones I could not. LarryDarby and I continued to discuss the allegations of libel and I suggested that he participate in fixing the article rather than deleting it. I posted a complaint to BLP. Eventually, he requested that the page be cleared through OTRS, Shanel cleared it, and I fully supported this action on both their parts. Shanel encouraged me to rebuild the article, and I indicated that I would be happy to but would wait a few days for everything to calm down.

After a few days, I attempted to rebuild a version of the article that (I'm quoting myself) (1) has a little more substance, (2) captures the controversy, (3) does not disparage the subject, and (4) stays neutral on the contested issues while still presenting them. I did not think it was complete, but I did think I achieved my goals, especially with regard to NPOV. LarryDarby seemed to be ok with my version too. I consider this important for BLP reasons.

Some other users raised concerns about two of my sources. I feel these concerns were valid (not necesarrily right, but valid); however the way they were addressed was not. The content debate centered around whether, if Larry Darby posts an opinion to Wikipedia, we can say that Larry Darby said something and cite the post. I found myself in a situation where there were three editors working on a page in a revert war, which I agree should not have happened in the first place. They each reverted the page twice, leaving their version with me at the 3RR cap. I attempted to discuss the content dispute on the talk page, but found that I got no response to my talk page postings unless I reverted the page also.

The "unsourced" statements have now been sourced, so I consider that issue closed. Although, I do think that we should have that debate at some point. I suggest everyone cool it and see how the page develops.

--Selket 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very problematic situation. Here we have a living person who has apparently made some semi-Holocaust denying claims (semi as far as the spectrum of deniers goes) which have been picked up widely. Many of the cites in the article are from Jewish-run publications, a certainly understandable thing. And since Holocaust-denying is such a sensational thing, everyone else picks up on it too. Sensationalism sells. The problem here is that this person is 50 YEARS OLD but his bio by-and-large only covers controversies. The overall effect is thus a bit of a smear. At the same time, the subject may feel he has not been able to adequately tell his own side of the story in the controversies - there is a lack of enough press reports about his side. I beleive these sorts of bios fail on WP:NPOV. I just do not think a fair bio is made of person that gives two sentences to his background and most of the rest to controversies. Yuser31415 is right. This may be a case for simply stepping in and deleting and salting, or inviting OFFICE involvement. CyberAnth 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that according to his OWN edits, he chose to focus his own rewrites on the same issues, but took a defensive 'people who hate me (Jews and the Marxist uber-cabal) are out to get me' attitude in the telling. If anything, other editors have worked AWAY from POV towards NPOV. I believe they've succeeded grandly. They cited everything in there, and tehy've done it well. The fact that it does NOT FAIL NPOV is exactly why he's flipping out, screaming accusations of conspiracy and cabalism. That said, I'm again going to ask that we notify the people who do this for a living, and let them sort this out. Everyone (me too) seems to agree wikipedia's better off without this guy.ThuranX 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about citing Jewish publications calling him anti-semetic and have said so on the talk page previously. I have been trying to make it more NPOV, but I have been treading lightly because I seem to get one side or the other mad at me no matter what I do. (I think someone once said that's a good thing) I do think too much time is spent on allegations of anti-semitism and neo-nazism for the length of the article. --Selket 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And that is a NPOV problem. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, the second paragraph. Also, he later nearly blanked the article after making edits. CyberAnth 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading new username used with apparent intention to deceive

This refer to the Passive smoking article. Recently, user BlowingSmoke has been making several POV changes to this article, going as far as falsifying a quotation to support his change. Suddenly, today, the passage BlowingSmoke was challenging has been completely deleted by "Moderation". The impression given by the choice of this name is that the change originates with some official wikipedia moderator. Actually, this is a newly created user, whose only action so far has been to remove the passage which challenged by BlowingSmoke. I suspect BlowingSmoke and Moderation may be one and the same user, or may be closely related, and the Moderation trick is yet another attempt by BlowingSmoke to force his POV text into the article, or, failing to do so, to have the whole passage removed altogether. This needs to be stopped, but I am at a loss of knowing how to deal with BlowingSmoke attacks against the article, which do not appear to be based on good faith, to say the least. Dessources 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've informed Moderation of Wikipedia:Summary style and how it supports the inclusion of the passage. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hope it produces the desired effect. I'll get back to you in case it doesn't. For the potential ambiguity created by the choice of name, Moderation has clearly acknowledged that he has no link to wikipedia, so this sorts out that part of my concern. Still, this name may mislead a number of newcomers to wikipedia, and this will remain an issue.

Dessources 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I Have indef blocked Moderation under WP:U. Viridae^Talk 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Inactive user editing as IP and gaming 3RR

I've got a problem on Obligations in Freemasonry. It was prodded almost 5 days ago, not edited for over a week before that, and today an IP editor rv'ed the article to a previous version (as his third edit, and first edit in over nine months), supposedly to remove the prod, but he misread the diffs in doing it. Given the tone and type of comments the IP editor made on the Talk page, I am certain it is the original author Frater Xyzzy (who is on wikibreak and inactive) editing as the IP 204.122.16.13. RFCU won't work, as he moved (thus the wikibreak notice) and if he reverts again he's gone for 3RR (which a user with <10 edits wouldn't know). Is there enough circumstantial evidence to get a temp block for a day for sockpuppeting? MSJapan 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just bring it to afd. Part Deux 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#5 application on XfDs?

A sock of the banned User:Wik created this AfD while in the banned state. Doesn't WP:CSD#5 apply in such cases? Also can't edits by such a banned user using a sock be reverted per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits? (→Netscott) 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If a large number of editors in good-standing have already contributed (especially if they treat it as worth consideration, as in this case) it is probably better to let it run its course rather than speedy deleting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm with you Netscott. You're an admin, right? I would close as keep due to bad faith nomination by banned user. Part Deux 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn and WP:POINT

(Note: more useless bitching, despite the fact that the 1st Amendment allows one to say what he wants, post what he wants, and/or insult someone as much as he wants, though, the latter can be called slander)EnglishEfternamn has been disrupting the socialism article and its talk page for about the last two weeks in order to illustrate that British English should be the standard dialect for articles (as per his belief on his userpage that "English-speaking editors must be required to use a universal form of spelling, date format, and grammer [sic]" [78]), that "even the most basic facts require varifiability [sic]" [79], and that the article exhibits a right-wing bias. To illustrate these points, EnglishEfternamn has been repeatedly changing the article's spelling to conform with British English, has several times added {{fact}} tags to elementary facts, has insisted on inserting {{POV}} tags simply because of "failure to participate" in discussion [80], and has falsely accused those who disagree with him of making personal attacks or having a "right-wing bias" that invalidates their opinions.

172 has already requested relief from one administrator, but that administrator, Guinnog, has since gone on a break and is unable to enforce WP:POINT right now. In his request for assistance, 172 provided a succinct account of the beginnings of EnglishEfternamn's disruptions at the socialism article [81]:

It has been brought to my attention that a user you blocked on 01:46, 28 December 2006 for "violation of wp:point" [82] has been continuing to disrupt Wikipedia, despite your warning a couple of weeks ago. In a heavily trafficked article with the disclaimer "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject," this user has been disrupting the work of "'right wing' editors," whom he/she calls a 'problem at hand.' [83] To make that point on the talk page, he/she has declared (1) "I will revert" the established version of the introduction [84]; and (2) plans for "large scale" reversions of the article. [85] To make that point in the article, the user has been flagging scores of sentences with unnecessary 'citation needed' tags. WGee, a brilliant young student who prolificially edits many articles that fall in my range of expertise, promptly explained to him/her why elementary facts do not require citations. [86] In response, this user accused WGee of vandalism, promoting WGee to direct him/her to 'WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF before accusing me of vandalism.' [87] His/her continued reversions forced WGee to explain yet again why elementary facts do not require citations: "The article's content is so broad and uncontroversial that everything can be contained in the general references at the bottom of the page or from the internally linked articles." [88] Still, the reversions continued, with the user declaring, "even the most basic facts require varifiability" [apparently a misspelling of verifiability]. [89]

Since then, several other users have admonished EnglishEfternamn, yet he has continued to disrupt the article, and with increased zeal:

• Revision as of 19:07, 16 January 2007 [90]: adds {{fact}} tags to elementary facts; changes one word to British English spelling

• Revision as of 00:47, 20 January 2007 [91]: adds {{fact}} tags to elementary facts; changes "-ize" spellings to "-ise" "to conform to neutrality standards and comply with the highest standards of grammer [sic]/linguistic arrangement"

• Revision as of 01:05, 23 January 2007 [92]: re-inserted {{POV}} tag with no specific reasons

• Revision as of 18:07, 23 January 2007 [93]: "Re-inserted template, no reason was given for its removal" (just before this, several editors explained that his insertion of the template without specific reasons was disruptive, serving no useful purpose

• Revision as of 19:11, 23 January 2007 [94]: re-inserts {{POV}} tag, saying that he has not violated WP:POINT despite the consensus otherwise

• Revision as of 20:32, 23 January 2007 [95]: re-inserts {{POV}} tag

• Revision as of 20:31, 27 January 2007 [96]; adds a {{fact}} tag to an elementary fact that is verified both in the linked article and in primary school textbooks

• Revision as of 23:27, 27 January 2007 [97]: marked edit as minor despite that his insertion of {{fact}} tags has been hotly disputed in the past

• Revision as of 19:41, 28 January 2007 [98]: re-inserts {{fact}} tag

• Revision as of 17:20, 30 January 2007 [99]: re-inserts {{fact}} tag; changes several words to British English spelling

• Revision as of 21:08, 30 January 2007 [100]: again changes American English spellings to British English spellings under the banner "Reworded for NPOV"

• Current revision (23:06, 30 January 2007) [101]: changes entire article to British English; re-inserts a {{fact}} tag

• Current revision (23:16, 30 January 2007): again changes entire article to conform with British English spellings, saying "Rv, this is not a petty game, just a matter of angry users."

• Revision as of 01:40, 26 January 2007 [102]: claims that "[c]alling my text format 'not good' is un-neutral and a personal attack," prompting 172 to remind him that "Your 'text format' is not a person" [103]

• After being explicitly directed to WP:NPA [104], EnglishEfternamn nevertheless maintains that these two comments ([105], [106]) are personal attacks. He also labels those who disagree with him as having a "right-wing bias" [107], apparently attempting to turn the discussion page into a political battleground

• In response to criticism, EnglishEfternamn says, "Thanks but no thanks, the changes needed will take place with or without your approval" [108]. This prompts Lar to remind him, "If you do not get consensus for them first, they won't stick, and if you try to revert war for them, you'll be blocked" [109].

To quote WilliamThweatt:

Being disruptive, arguing off-topic on the talk pages, writing in all caps, adding and re-adding tags that everybody else says is inappropriate and ignoring consensus will accomplish nothing except dragging you into these long, drawn-out digressions that in the end accomplish nothing and you possibly developing the reputation of a disruptive troublemaker. If you had expeneded half as much effort in making your case for the changes you desire, you may have gotten somewhere by now.[110]

Considering all the warnings EnglishEfternamn has received for his violations of WP:POINT—both from administrators and from involved editors, some in the form of blocks [111]— and his persistent dismissal of them, I think that a ban in is order.

-- WGee 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough job. I was asked by Guinnog to keep an eye on this user. He's been warned by me on his talk 3 times now, warnings that have been removed (which is fine) with not very nice claims of vandalism (not so fine). I started reviewing his contribs and he's been making less than satisfactory edits elsewhere such as here. Blocked for 24 hours. I welcome review, as always. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, I think a indefinite block may be in order shortly if things don't change, but since it has been a month since his last 24 hour block, I only went with another 24 for now... the user does have some valuable contribs so it may be worth trying. I will monitor. ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Above and beyond the British spelling crusade, the user's edits show a pattern of personal attacks, POV additions/removals of content at political articles, liberal and apparently random applications of the {{fact}} and {{Totally Disputed}} templates, and reverts and yet more reverts. It's difficult to find an edit that doesn't fall into one of these categories. The History tab shows lots of warnings and admonishments, always briskly removed by EnglishEfternamn with edit summaries like "rv vandalism, "rv harassment", "rm personal attacks". The user is not a Clueless Angry Newbie, but has been here since May 2006 and is unfortunately behaving progressively more angrily and more disruptively, despite much patience extended by other users. Lar and others have been very patient, and I agree that one can see a ban on the horizon if the pattern doesn't improve. A 24-hour block is moderate indeed. Bishonen | talk 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Lar or any other involved admin might be interested to know that this user's conduct has also been reported to the WP:BLP/N over his conduct at the Michael Savage (commentator) article.--RWR8189 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's hope this editor cleans himself up soon. Part Deux 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism of Gloucester RFC site

Hi there,

I represent the supporters of Gloucester RFC on the Wikipedia site. We have been having trouble with somebody (or some people) constantly vandalising the entry for our club, in particular the "Stadium" part of the site.

There have been comments put onto the site which are bordering on libellous. I have posted one of the tamer comments that have been posted on the site over the last week below.

"In January 2007, the club announced plans to redevelop part of Kingsholm (previously known as The Shed). This is to enable the stadium to become all-seating. A miniscule number of alledged supporters do not want to see this happen, and a stillborn campaign "Save Our Shed" or "SOS" was begun."

Is it possible for you to block the users who repeatedly change the site, or put a block on the page?

Many thanks,

Beddis 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if their edits are truly vandalism. I'll watch Gloucester RFC for a while. Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

Repeated persistant vandalism at Helen Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maybe a temporary semiprot. /Blaxthos 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally this should go to WP:RFPP. Carson 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admin needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch is a cesspit waiting to happen. It's an RfC filed by a user with an openly admitted conflict of interest, "certified" by his brother, indef-blocked User:BryanFromPalatine, by proxy (needless to say I removed that); supported by another "brand new user" with one of his first half dozen edits (I blocked that one and struck it, WP:AGF does not mean we have to be wilfully obtuse), and now regrettably certified by an actual editor with a history, who I'd have hoped would know better, in response (of course) to canvassing, which is being engaged in by both sides. The substance of the dispute may be summarised as follows: We, the undersigned pots, feel that these, the named kettles, are unacceptably black. It has precisely no hope whatsoever of reaching a resolution of the problem, but stands a good chance of simply repeating all the same crap which is currently filling the talk pages of the various articles. Even if BenBurch were a problem, we're hardly likely to accept the judgement of someone claiming to be a member of the legal team of an opposing group. The very name Fairness And Accuracy For All positively screams the intent to engage in tendentious editing, but having a POV-warriors username does not in and of itself constitute a problem. These guys ate each other's guts, and that's never going to change as a result of an RfC.

Prize comment thus far: "A plague on both your houses". I couldn't agree more. Perhaps we could rustle up a cabal and simply close the thing as being utterly pointless. Failing that I might simply go back in a week and block all those who have added an inflammatory comment within the preceding 24 hours. WP:NOT needs an extra clause: Wikipedia is not Usenet. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, is that 'Rogue admin' you're after? Artw 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

psst... WP:ROUGE —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wow - that is..well.. are they just spamming random people to comment ? (it appears that way before I gave up) --Fredrick day 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the RFC, since it wasn't properly certified. There was no evidence presented that at least two people tried and failed to resolve the dispute, a necessary prerequisite for an RFC because of the focus in dispute resolution on preventing unnecessary conflict escalation. This was just a one-on-one dispute in which both sides were actively soliciting comments from other users, and as Guy observed, that's just a recipe for trouble. --bainer (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the best thing to do...but wait, this play may likely have more than one act.--MONGO 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh I have every confidence that these argumentative people will not go away, we'll be playing whack-a-mole with this dispute for a while yet. Full marks to Bainer for an excellent interpretation of the rules there, though. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request another admin to step in

Because of this posting to my talk page, I feel I need to withdraw for now from dealing with Escambia High School and Knowledgebase11 (talk · contribs). Could someone else look in on the situation. -- Donald Albury 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watch list. Silly unsourced nonsense and personal attacks. Ugg. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Donald Albury 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan-Hernet impersonating admin, Buchanan-Hermit

Buchanan-Hernet (talk · contribs) has been making edits to Gordon Campbell, which is strikingly similar to another editor and admin, Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs). It is suspected that The funky monkey (talk · contribs) is the same user too. Can administrator please step in? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked by Grandmasterka. Bucketsofg 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkil problem, I need protection against this individual asap

[moved from WT:AN]

(Note: To any individual who considers this actually worth mentioning, it's called the first amendment)It's a good thing I noticed this. Go on my talk page, go on rocky marciano page, go under my history, I tried to reason to reason to reason with this man. He kept on putting words in my mouth, that's why I told him to watch out and not talk to me, in the beginning I never said those things. But he keeps on playing with all my articles, I can not possibly reply again over here, so go on my talk page, read it, go on rocky marciano talk page and my other history, you will know this guy is a sophisticated vandal. HE ERASES TONS AND TONS OF MESSAGES. I asked him not to talk to me in a kind way, how long and how much can somebody stand, I mean, he is driving me crazy, all of his accusations above, he is repeating time after time, in different rhetoric. I ASK FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THIS INDIVIDUAL, HE IS AFTER ME, AFTER MY EDITS. Every time he edits something, he says he cleans up things, sure he does, cleans up whole articles and case in point... recently (check my history) he was after my Nino Valdez article, he put the date of october 7 1955, the date baker fought valdez, which is not true, IT WAS DECEMBER 7, go on boxrec.com or on any archives, that was the dacy, what did he do, put oct 7, i mean, i am trying to correct mistakes, what is he doing, again, you have to follow my talk page, rocky page and things i left on talk page for others, also i do not check emails every day, so give me up to 5 days to reply. BUT I NEED PROTECTION AGAINST MKIL, NOT ONLY THAT, HE CHANCES STORY, PUTS WORDS INTO MY MOTH, HAS PEOPLE DOING HIS EDITS FOR HIM, GIVING HIM PRAISE ON HIS PAGE (AND IT MAY BE HIM, FROM DIFFERENT IP). I mean, the story goes on and on and on, again, HE MAKES MISTAKES, HE EDITS THINGS OUT, HE PUTS HIS OWN STORY, HE NEEDS EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING, MEANING, EVEN FOR BREATHING. I TRIED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME TO REASON WITH THIS MAN, BUT NOTHING, ALL TO NO AVAIL! This particular individual has time, TONS OF TIME ON HIS HANDS, I do not, i have to type fast, lucky thing I noticed this reply here. MKIL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH CERTAIN BIOGRAPHIES/ARTICLES, HE IS NOTHING BUT PROBLEM, he demands greatness link for Marciano, well in fact he is considered great by many, Check my page for link. (italian-american community e.g.). Then he puts some link under Marciano for some fake computer fight, i mean how can a computer call somebody great, we are talking here about historians. Whatever has been accepted as generally true in the world, part of correspondence of true, then it is true. He is challenging logic and common sense. I was asked by few people to watch over the rocky page back in november and december, i did not do it immediately, but I decided I will and people like mkil should not be allowed to destroy other people's good work. Not only that he destroys it but kills other people's time and effort and good will. And if I am out of line at times, he provoked me. He did not want to listen, he kept on leaving me dozens and dozens of messages on my talk page, putting words into my mouth and if something went astray gave me some wiki links and policy which have nothing to do with the situation or particular problem at hand. What else to say, read if you have time, mkil will waste your time too, BIG TIME! I did not want this situation to happen, go all the way over here, but what can I do. He simply wants things his way, that's all, i told others i do not want trouble, But I can not allow this to go on, i can not allow mkil to make so many mistakes, rewrite history!

User_talk: BoxingWear

See the above thread. PTO 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I think BoxingWear's words make my case for me. By all means, check out our user pages and the Rocky Marciano talk page. MKil 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

To illustrate that BoxingWear’s charges are groundless, merely look at these pages where he reverted my edits [112], [113], [114]. He accuses me of vandalism, destroying "tons of information," etc. Look at the edits he reversed. They all involved cleaning up sentences, correcting mis-spellings, and removing redundant information. Go ahead and judge for yourself if my copyedits, intended to make the pages more readable, deserve to be automatically reverted by BoxingWear. MKil 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

BoxingWear is now at it again, reverting my attempts to copyedit these pages and labeling it vandalism [115], [116], [117]. As can be seen on the Nino Valdez talk page [118], my edits were done to improve the writing of the article. MKil 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

The above is incorrect, I never accused this gentleman of vandalism in the first place, I simply want him to stay away from few edits and I will not bother him again, there are about 3 people he is playing around with, if he simply walks away, 99% of all problems resolved. Again, I need protection against this individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR He had problems with many other users in the past. I am not accusing him he is logging in under 58.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 I never said that, i did say however, there is a good chance it is him or somebody else, I mean, I do not care that much if he has support or many accounts, but somebody left praise under his account, some guy from ibro and he says he does not speak english, what, it's written in a great english. No, these things have been answered, they are all here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#Greatest_problem.2C_not_resolved.2C_people_who_participated_in_the_poll_do_not_know_boxing

As far as the greatest goes... The following reply has been left on rocky marciano page...

Greatness is not in a word, you can not demand evidence via some link, that does not prove much, however undefeated/untied record in the heavyweight division speaks for itself, end of story. It's self evident, a given.User_talk: BoxingWear

This is definitely true. When someone holds the “greatest record” this is generally a good indicator that they can be considered the greatest.Thedeparted123 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, mkil put some link to fake fight with ali and marciano, who cares if computer thinks ali or mkil or louis or ali is the greatest, actually computer thinks jack dempsey is the greatest, according to the radio fight from 1968. ROcky beat dempsey. And I do not think many people can beat dempsey or tunney in their primes. But, again, that's computer for you. Moving on...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#ARGUABLY_The_Greatest_Heavyweight_champion_of_all_time Others support the idea of simply adding the word arguably. And why not, most of the boxers are arguably the greatest or great. Now, the problem with this individual is, he simpy says he corrects mistakes, no he does not, he kills tons and tons of info, i have no problem if he puts citations needed in parenthesis, but he is rarely doing that, such behavior can not be tolerated. I do not want to waste my time on that. This person must be stopped asap.! Also, this is a very respectable user who agrees with me on everything (or just about) I said and she also supported the word arguably...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bitnine&diff=104455094&oldid=103679440 Read the link at the bottom. And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thedeparted123 http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=rockymarciano Certainly many people think of greatness, And when it comes to other edits, people praise my work for example... 14:50, 31 January 2007 Gilliam (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 200.179.244.89 to last version by BoxingWear) this was from one of the fighters i edited.

I am also a respectable boxing writer. (articles)

On a separate note, we need to recreate lineal heavyweight boxing champions, the vote was 5:1 not to delete that article and why was it gone, can i recreate it? So, all the future replies by mkil have been answered, he puts words into my mouth. Again, somebody must tell him to stay away now. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=7734&more=1 Answers.com has it copied from wiki but it's all wrong, that was the wrong version, later on I corrected many things there. My contributions speak for themselves, people like mkil are only downgrading it, provoking unrest. And of course, lack of civility, when it comes to that, mkil takes the case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility not to mention putting words into my mouth or never admitting he is wrong or when I am correct and that's most of the time. User_talk: BoxingWear

This is a blatant lie from BoxingWear: “I am not accusing him he is logging in under 58.8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 I never said that,”

Go to my talk page [119]: “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” MKil 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Exactly, the 58 reply might very well be you, but later i said may be you, ok, or somebody you know, that is what i mean, also, he keeps on saying he wants to correct articles, but again HE HAS TIME, I DO NOT, and he must be stopped now, he has time to take every single word I ever said and make it his case., Again, I do not mind if they support mkil but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Re:User_talk:58.64.103.227 the person who left this left it 2 minutes after mkil reverted something, not next day, not next hour. We need statue of limitations for replies! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR Boxingwear

Blanket speedy request

I really don't know much about Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, but I have a hard time believing that all of our articles about it should be candidates for speedy deletion. One user seems to think otherwise. This would be a bear to revert one at a time. Could someone who knows if these requests are valid take a look, and possibly use an admin tool to fix them all at once if not. Thanks. --Onorem 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all the edits, mainly because he'd blank the articles whilst tagging them as "nonsense". He seems to be trying to set up a mass AfD for them now, so he's obviously read the comments on his talk page. yandman 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Who knows, I might make an argument for deletion on his mass AfD. I only noticed the edits because I saw an edit summary where he replaced the page, and the speedy reason was db|nonsense fanon. I checked it because I was hoping there was another speedy argument that I didn't know about. Then I noticed that all the account's edits were made today and all of them were redirecting episode articles and/or nominating them for deletion. --Onorem 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure you got them all. It looks like there are still about 40 articles listed for speedy deletion, plus another 12 or so that were redirected. I'm going to start reverting these manually unless there's a reason why I shouldn't. --Onorem 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see there was a second page of contribs... Done. yandman 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks again. --Onorem 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I only saw one AFD nomination incomplete. I have completed it here. Navou ^banter 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Spoke to soon. There were eight other articles. I have included them into the single procedural afd. Regards, Navou ^banter 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)