A new user has just created this article, and I simply can't figure it out. That he created it fully wikified with a formatted referenced and proper link to Wiktionary is suspicious enough. On top of that, this article came complete with maintenance tags and a semi-protection template. I just have to be convinced this was copy pasted from somewhere, I simply can't figure out where. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks to be from Cool (aesthetic), with certain words changed. Already speedy-tagged. Kelvinc (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I tagged it. The article was created with a ?{{pp-semi-vandalism}}? tag by a new user. The speedy's been removed another editor; awaiting an explanation on the article's talk page. --健次(derumi)talk 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted it... the speedy tag removal appears to have been from before the revelation that this was a vandalized version of that article, so the concern expressed at the talk page appears to be moot. --Kinut/c 07:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c to Derumi)That would be me, and now it is deleted. I thought it might be a legit editor, hence the removal of the speedy and the welcome note, but it looks like a re-creation of "cool" but named as a neologism... :-\. Who knows, maybe the editor will still become productive! :-) --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is probably reasonable. --Iamunknown 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Y'all move so fast, I feel like I'm playing some weird WP version of phone tag. :) I've posted a reply to your comment from the deleted article on your talk page; if the reason I gave (even if the article should be deleted) was illegitimate, I would like to know for sure so I don't repeat the mistake. --健次(derumi)talk 07:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Recreated, and redeleted by myself, it indeed is Cool (aesthetic). -- lucasbfrtalk 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see now why the article started out with the tags in place. --健次(derumi)talk 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK
DYK needs to be updated. Three hours late. Great job, admins. Miranda 07:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely had it with this user/puppetmaster. User:LionheartX (now User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos) is at it again. (don't be surprised if he trolls this very page, I'll bet on it) This time deliberately trolling my username change request. [1] as well as starting several bogus pages to tarnish my reputation. [2][3] He was blocked in May for baiting me [4] to violate my arbCom parole (currently under review). He harassed me in ever page I previously edit in (including my userspace). His first account was User:RevolverOcelotX. He was community banned in this account (sockpuppet) User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH by former arbitrator User:Dmcdevit. [5] Dmcdevit said he not only a sockpuppet but a troll. "Surprisingly enough, people who, within one day of editing, engage in stalking and massive edit wars across many pages without productive edits, and are merely reincarnations of earlier problem users, aren't welcome here. Maybe I could have been more accurate in my block log, but I think you are a troll, and I don't use that word lightly." [6] Other socks include User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, User:Guardian TigerUser talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's (especially note the long chit-chat between this banned sockpuppet and his advocate User:Ben Aveling) and they were all banned after I reported them.
The last sock User:LionheartX took longer to block. When Durova finally blocked, [7][8], he somehow managed to get the block lifted under questionable, controversial circumstances (a behind the scene scheme by members of WikiProject:China?)
It seems like somehow, my editing record is worse than his. Somehow, he has the right to change his username from LionheartX to User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos after so many sockpuppet abuse while my username change request should be stalked, disrupted, harassed, and denied.
I was his favorite target. His long-term abuse and harassment (since summer of 2006 under various accounts) stalking, trolling, and abuse has taken a heavy emotional toll on me. (Full disclosure: I was away from 'pedia from June to November recuperating after his repeated, non-stop harassment caused a decline in my mental health) Please either permanently keep him away from me or ban him, please. If not, I got nowhere to go but to leave the project. I'm too emotionally-fragile to take this anymore. Let today be judgment day, I will leave to the community to decide who should go. Thank you. For more information please refer to User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta, User:Certified.Gangsta/RevolverOcelotX, and,User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Guardian_Tiger_Timeline--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, ironic. I'd need to do some 'sleuthing' to check all that out, and you wouldn't want that would you?--Docg 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Strike - not helpful.--Docg 10:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that I am editing in good faith, no matter if you believe it or not. I also truly care about the future of the project. Please don't play these jokes on me, especially not when I'm on the verge of an emotional breakdown.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Doc, you know what? Sometimes, I envy those who are blocked, relieved from duty like Durova, so they will not have to go through the traumatic experience I am going through throughout my years here.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good grief! (anything else I could say on the subject would be uncivil) Wikidemo (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
CG, note that User:N1u was first tagged as your sockpuppet by Nlu in May 2006, though the evidence seems unclear (I really dislike when people link to just the contribs page as "evidence" when it's not blindingly obvious). His issue with your rename request seems like a valid one, even if the source doesn't have the best of intentions: I had the same concern actually, but withdrew my comment because I wasn't sure of the procedure. - would you be OK with an entry placed in your new block log referring to all three of your old usernames? That said, User talk:Master of the Oríchalcos's behavior does seem problematic. The reaction to your previous rename request combined with this one makes the link between at least those two accounts clear. —Random832 14:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone update it please? Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism and terrorism from Jjs8 and Lalalajane
In the last week, sourced sections from terrorist Jane Alpert have been deleted, chiefly by User:Jjs8 [9] and User:Lalalajane [10].
The sourced material is always deleted after having been restored by many editors: [11], [12], [13], [14], etc.
This is a whole group of terrorists and radical feminists trying to whitewash articles about the Weathermen and taking turn to delete material; it also includes User:Historytrain, User:Tjcjaj, User:Ubothell1, and more. They've been warned on user and article talk page but they have no respect for life or law. It's going to get ugly if basic rules aren't enforced. 62.147.38.9 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
First off do not get on with assumpsition that they are terrorist accusatastion like that get innocent people arrested. But it is fairly likely that all users are socks if what you are saying is true and if it is they are breaking a guidline or two. But before I go out an say anything I wouldn't mind if an admin took a look at the case.Rgoodermote 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not see much of a problem, the users seem to have been involved in an edit war. It seems that things have cooled down. So I doubt at this moment they are much of a problem. Though they probably should be watched in case they start another edit war. Rgoodermote 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems to have stopped for the last day or so; however there is something to be concerned about here. Definitely seems to be pursuing someone. If he starts up again, a block for disruptive editing and wikistalking should be strongly considered. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's useless here, Daniel, as the stalker is on a dynamic IP that changes faster than Washington State's weather. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Another new account - same IP origin at nwrknj.east.verizon.net - is continuing the attack as 72.68.125.254 (talk·contribs). [15]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See this discussion Mangojuice's talk page, as well, This has been going on for over a month. It seems from previous discussions that there is little to do about it, but it is distressing to the prime target, Benjiboi, and those of us who are his colleagues here. Is it not possible to range block? I mean, if we can block all of Qatar from editing, can't we block a few anons who happen to be Verizon customers? Jeffpw (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Contact the ISP and tell them about the harassment and where it's coming from - I'm certain that harassing others falls under the things that can get someone's Verizon account terminated. Otherwise, we can't rangeblock except for short periods due to collateral damage. I am, however, starting an independent sockpuppet investigation page on this guy; I have dealt with him on Sister Roma. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 05:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The 2 IPs listed here are on 2 different /11 ranges. Blocking them both (if we could do it - we can't) would potentially block millions of people. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the intel, Z-Man. Maybe an abuse or LTA report is in order? And could we get someone to close the COI/N thread he's started as bad-faith? -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A sock 72.76.13.102 is continuing to add to the thread at WP:COI/N despite it being formally resolved. What's the protocol? Can we delete it as vandalism? Move to the poster's Talk page? Gordonofcartoon (talk)
The IP is dynamic, so he will miss talk page notes. I've since protected COI/N since at this point he's simply using it to troll and harass Benjiboi, leaving a link to a section on my talk page for IPs to submit COI reports. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ISI Page
I have a screamsheet on him up here. Feel free to add onto it if you have information. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Update
The diffs in the COI case were utterly unconvincing and countered his own claims. I have closed tyhe thread; can we get someone on the phone to Verizon's NJ headquarters to report this person for harassment (if possible)? -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we PLEASE get someone to contact Verizon?! -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking if someone will do it because, in off-Wiki communication, I am rather meek when asking others higher in station than myself unless I'm familiar with them. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Semi-prot review
I have semi-protected WP:COI/N to stop the person behind the IP from using it to keep needling Benjiboi. I request a review of the prot. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, Future Perfect at Sunrise mediated between myself and Icsunonove for a permanent topic ban on editing with regards to the South Tyrol page/talk page. In a very short time, it now seems that Icsunonove is showing his true colors by ignoring/violating the ban with no regard to what was reached. He seems to be hoping the few short weeks have subsided and he can go back to status quo. With this, it seems there is no honor to such an agreement? Or is it that Icsunonove does not think that he was mentioned for a permanent topic ban and can just go about his business without regard? Rarelibra (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Showing my true colors?" There was never any topic ban, and I really don't know where you get this. Can you show me where this ban was made? If not I think you should take back those offensive comments you can't seem to keep to yourself. I personally think any sort of permanent topic ban is ridiculous, unless a user is truly malicious. On this topic, if there were to be any such bans, one would have at least a dozen Editors to censure. Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Rarelibra has been banned from editing this topic because of the edit-war between him and User:Icsunonove, it indeed raises questions. Either User:Icsunonove honours the agreement, or User:Rarelibra is free again to edit as he pleases. Gryffindor 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page): Sorry guys, but as far as I can see, my proposed ban on both parties didn't at the time gain the consensus support it needed, and there certainly wasn't an "agreement" he subscribed to that he could be expected to "honour" now. I guess that's mostly due to Rarelibra's freaking out as he did, and his offence overshadowing those of Icsunonove in the perception of other admins. So, upshot is, Rarelibra's ban was a no-brainer, Icsunonove's not (unfortunately, I'd still say.) Right now, I see him editing more or less constructively, so there's nothing much to do. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So basically I am honoring the agreement and Icsunonove isn't - because he can go around and throw all kinds of insult around (as was proven) and provocation, yet continue to do as he pleases - just so I am totally clear and understanding this. It would be more suitable to ensure that he does not edit on that topic again - especially when there were more users who noticed how callous and insulting he was - whether or not my own actions overshadowed. I owned up to my actions, he NEVER has. But that's fine - I'll walk the high road. I only ask that the moment he starts to insult and slander someone off-topic that he is quickly and thoroughly stopped. Rarelibra (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, and I really thought your apologies were sincere from a few weeks ago. Take the high road? Like you are doing on here? I really thought you were going to go and do your own thing, and I had plenty sympathy if you have issues at home/work. You say I'm callous and insulting, and yet you guys are not? If you indeed want to take the high road, why did you find it necessary at the time to make those insults of "Italo-Fascist" when I was not even active on Wikipedia? Thought you might get away with it? You completely instigated this, you used profanity, you made legal threats on Wikipedia, you sent that sick e-mail. I defended myself, and I've apologized more times on here than your lot combined. So, that last sentence you wrote, I think it would be very wise if that applied to you. I just find it incredibly thick-skinned that you can do what you've done on here, offer up an apology, and then continue to try and point the finger at someone else. Find some way to relax... Icsunonove (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the thread Future Perfect linked to, I see no agreement and no community decision. I do think an RfC on Icsunonove might be a good idea; but it would be better if Rarelibra is not one of the certifying editors. Future Perfect, do you think that you and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson are both in a position to certify an RfC? GRBerry 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure (although I haven't got the time and energy to bring it forward myself). And, as I said, right now I can't see much need for immediate action. With his main opponent removed, Icsunonove seems to be currently editing a lot more constructively. Whether that is because he now has free reign for his POV-pushing, I can't say right now.
I'm also not sure whether RfC would really be of much help. We really don't need more talking about who did what and who thinks what of whom. If and when this needs action again, the only thing that will need talking about, in my opinion, is who will be banned, from what, and for how long. Be that at admin/community level or at Arbcom. No more "intermediate steps" in dispute resolution, it's been going on for long enough that this should go straight to sanctions. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fut.Perf., I really can't figure out what you have against me. "free reign for his POV-pushing"? You told me you are not involved in this topic, nor taking any side, but it seems you have some issue with me personally? Rarelibra is not some main opponent, and I don't even know why this stuff has to be stated in such a way... Icsunonove (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Before I get attacked on here yet again, lets do a little review here. I was on break from Wikipedia for quite awhile. I came back to see that Rarelibra and PhJ were slandering me to a new user, calling me an "Italo-Fascist". That's called instigation. I defended myself by pointing out that these guys have their own "history" on here, and are by no means neutral. This was returned to me through profanity and multiple threats of taking legal action. Rarelibra told the Admins he did not mean real legal action, but then sent me an e-mail through Wikipedia stating real legal action. I don't believe this was ever fully addressed. Then Rarelibra made an apology to both me and Septentrionalis/PMAnderson, stating that he had issues at home/work, and I left it at that. I'm easy to forgive and forget. Somehow he assumed that there was a topic ban, and I guess he was actually satisfied that he had taken one for the team to get at least me off of the discussions? Maybe that is why his apology was so forthcoming? I see no place that I've ever agreed not to work on the subject I care about; does he want to stop making maps?? Lastly, if there was ever to be a topic ban on this subject it could not be simply two editors. There have been many involved, including the Admin Gryffindor who arguably started a lot of these nasty debates back in 2005, and has been reprimanded many times by other Admins on his dubious actions. If you really want to start asking for RfCs I would suggest starting with Gryffindor on this topic and Rarelibra on the continued threats of legal action over e-mail (I still have the messages). They seem to have a need to go around Wikipedia stirring things up on multiple topics. I've worked a lot on these pages to come up with neutral solutions that have finally started getting the arguing to calm down and have pages that incorporate the multi-ethnic backgrounds of these places. What have these others done? All I get now is being made out as the bad guy by the German crowd? All along I've supported preserving both the Italian/German/Ladin language nature of these regions. Lastly, I do not understand why I keep getting accused of harassing Septentrionalis. I have no problem with Sep, it has been Rarelibra that has gone after him. Also, I don't know why out of the blue Future Perfect at Sunrise has laid his target on me. I have no problem with this Admin, except I do take issue with being singled out like this. regards, Icsunonove (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is, I don't instigate or get in any trouble making maps. Nor do I offer up insults, personal attacks, or other such negative behavior. Just know that any such behavior will be swiftly reported in the future - and I'll be the 'nice guy' (I guess) in avoiding the topic... no matter how POV. Rarelibra (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that all sounds very nice, but you and PhJ were still the ones who found it necessary to go around calling me an "Italo-Fascist" when I wasn't even participating in the discussion. I guess you can sweep that fact under the rug, even though it is -- you know -- documented in the logs. Or did I misunderstand you, and you are actually saying that you don't instigate or make trouble when you make maps? Ok, I'll give you that one... :))) You can accuse me of being "POV" all you want, I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased to either point of view. That is nice that you'll be monitoring me; though I still think you should spend more time dealing with your own behavior and addressing those legal threats with the Admins. Anyway, lets see if this time you all can leave me the heck alone... Icsunonove (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You fail to address your own actions. You come in acting like you are innocent. Your words of "I've always attempted to be all inclusive and not biased" smack of irony. You need to focus on your own actions. Just know that we'll make sure you stay respectful and professional - because it is easily proven across many talk pages of your own instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks. Rarelibra (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Enough already... You came on here and accused me of something I simply did not do, which only shows that you continue to make this personal. It is just another waste of mine and others' time. You've also tried to avoid your own AIN with regards to legal threats, profanity, and racist remarks by turning around and pointing the finger at others. By the way, you began this page with "instigations and unprofessional slanders and personal attacks". So much for your, and I quote, "I offer up a full apology to Icsunonove - who I ask of this, let us share the olive branch, go our separate ways, and contribute to wiki with positive and constructive vibes."; now there is some real irony! You don't even seem to realize that you are back attacking me in less than two weeks, after offering that olive branch, and for me doing absolutely nothing. Are you able to make that connection?? Is that a nice thing to do? Take some time and try to figure that out. See ya around. Icsunonove (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Enough out of you! I came on here because I thought it was agreed upon - but yeah, Future Perfect proposed it. I guess you weren't going to abide by it either way. So technically, it would still be open for discussion amongst admins - that I am abiding by it in spirit is one thing, that you refuse is another. It just shows the true colors. I am not attacking you, either - what paranoia brings that on, well, who knows. I am merely pointing out that you, as I, should respect a permanent topic ban and edit elsewhere. By the way, I haven't avoided anything - I owned up to my actions. You haven't owned up to anything... and like you state, it is easily traceable in the history of many talk pages to see your unprofessional behavior and constant personal attacks - that was observed by several others besides myself. And it was commented on here on ANI. So you best reflect and remain professional yourself. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Your apology to us was false, obviously only based on your desire for a topic ban. But get this straight: there is no topic ban; there never was. I'm not wasting anymore time on you. Your anger/home/work issues, good luck with them, seriously. ciao. Icsunonove (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Careful - you are borderline attacking me. There was a proposal for a topic ban - that we could easily ask admins for further review. It's funny how you like to put words in people's mouths or statements of gradieur. Good luck with life - you are going to definitely need all you can get. Rarelibra (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone dispute Ian's executive summary? If not, I will simply close this thread with the comment that dispute resolution is right here.--Isotope23talk 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Amen; resolving disputes is great. Icsunonove (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If capable. Rarelibra (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
– page kept, no deletion, change made to WP:CSD policy. Tiptoety (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To my understanding, userpages still fall under speedy criteria due to the fact that they are still classified as a main space, per here and here. I have marked this page for deletion multiple times and it has been denied, would like over all opinion.
Also take a look at this convo i had with an admin. Tiptoety (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I was the second admin to decline to delete. The main part of my reply to Tiptoety about this was: "Hi there - I've no problem with deleting userpage spam under G11, or userpage attack pages under G10, but if someone wants to have a bluelink for their username and is happy with just having "la" on it to prevent it being a redlink or as a test edit, I don't see the problem personally. If there's a real problem, why not ask the user to add something in line with WP:USER rather than go for the speedy button? Technically, you may well be right, but frankly WP:BITE applies too. This editor got whipped with a speedy delete warning the very same minute that the account was created!"
Comments welcome about whether I'm misapplying the criteria but, to me, trying to delete one brand-new editor's user page three times is, well, perhaps over-enthusiastic. BencherliteTalk 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above, but I would like to add that the user page seems to have nothing that would constitute as a page worth of deletion. It is not like the user pressed every key and then cussed on the page. The user simply added "le" I see no problem with that. Rgoodermote 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe WP:CSD should be revised so userpages are exempt from G1 and G2. ~Sasha Callahan(Talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I declined as well, and removed the warning templates; I've been known to tag or delete attack pages or spam, but "la" doesn't make me want to delete. There are pages like this all over userspace, and it hurts nothing. Acroterion(talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It does seem to fall under the speedy criteria, but the possible harm of scaring away a new editor vastly outweighs the benefit of saving 2 bytes of space on the Wiki servers. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that is rash, no simply put it is two letters. If it is a problem instead of speedy delete suggest to the user that they need to make it more than just two letters. But again it is not like every key was pressed and they typed random racial slurs. Rgoodermote 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Thank you for your comments, i guess i have just read the policy and was tagging it deletion because it did not meet it. I second the idea of re-writing the CSD policy. I did not mean to violate WP:BITE, and try very hard to welcome users, which i have proven i do quite often. You are right that the deletion warnings on the users talk page were a bit much, and if i could get WP:TW to stop doing that i would. Tiptoety (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need more rules. A user-page is an individual's for however they feel like using it — so long as it helps them collaborate. If they think that adding "la" to their page helps them collaborate in whatever way then we should be okay with it if it doesn't have any demonstrable harm, even if we don't understand it persay. --Haemo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have my doubts that a re-write would be affective, but I will third it if a reasonable re-write can be decided. Good Night Rgoodermote 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
How about these:
G1-Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. Pages in userspace are exempt from the criterion.
G2-Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?"). Pages in userspace are exempt from this criterion.
Just remember, userpages can still be deleted via PROD or MFD if needed. ~Sasha Callahan(Talk) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A user planning to take any action should ask himself or herself whether, apart from technically complying with policy, there is any purpose to that action? Tiptoety, what did you think that seeking to have this page deleted would actually accomplish? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As i stated above, i do not think it would accomplish anything, yet it violated policy so i tagged it. And that was that, after re-thinking maybe i could have just ignored all rules. I am all up for fixing up the CSD. Tiptoety (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would never put a speedy delete tag on a user page for something like that, especially not soon after creation. Not all of us is handy with a keyboard. The user may have been thinking up something to write when the speedy delete tag went on. I know from personal experience how confusing and alienating that can be-- the first article I tried to create was speedied because I had saved an empty page. My next edit would have created a stub, but the speedy delete tag scared me off. , Dlohcierekim 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for speedy deletion do not, and were never meant to, require that any matching pages be speedily deleted if doing so would otherwise be counterproductive. Since WP:CSD did not actually clearly state that anywhere on the page, I've added a paragraph about it to the intro, for the benefit of any other newcomers who might otherwise end up similarly mistaken. (Feel free to improve the wording.) I've also added a specific exemption to CSD G2 for test pages created in users' own user space. I think that ought to be sufficient to address this issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
CSD Policy Change
You dont think that should first be discussed on the CSD talk page first (though i do like the addition)? Also it still contradicts the sentence where it says that CSD applies to all mainspace areas (which includes userpages). Tiptoety (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I do sincerely believe that the edits I made reflect existing Wikipedia policy as currently enforced in practice. Certainly I have not seen anything, based on my participation in past discussions on the CSD talk page and other related forums, as well as my reading of other policies (such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:User page) and observation of past and current practical policy enforcement, that would lead me to believe that the interpretations of policy which I've sought to state explicitly with these edits would not enjoy broad community consensus. If you (or anyone else) believe this not to be the case, you're welcome to revert them and to seek wider community input on suitable forum — such as here, on the talk page and/or at the village pump — in order to determine consensus. (The latter is not absolutely required, as indeed few things on Wikipedia are, but it would be the polite thing to do when one is aware of the existence of a potential disagreement.)
In any case, I don't see any actual contradiction with the sentence you mention. The part about the general criteria applying in all namespaces simply means that, unlike the rest of the criteria, they are not restricted to any particular namespace but apply, as the name says, in general. Even if one were to interpret that sentence in the prescriptive sense you seem to be reading into it, that would simply mean that the general criteria, in their entirety, including G2, and including the exception to it, apply in all namespaces — G2 simply happening, thus, to have no effect in user space (as it has never actually been enforced there anyway). Anyway, you might want to note that a similar "contradiction" is already found in criterion G4 and, most blatantly, in G8. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well said, and i completely agree, just wanted to make sure the community did as well. I think we have beat this topic into the ground, and thus i will mark it as resolved. If someone does wish to argue the changes made to the CSD policy, you can do so on the appropriate talk page. Tiptoety (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CIVIL will be sufficient. If you want to add more, start with WP:KETTLE. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Calling a point made by another editor "deceptive, insulting and stupid" seems pretty uncivil to me. Perhaps if G-Dett had left out the "stupid" part it might be different, but she didn't. 6SJ7 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, 6, for your princely moderation.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that anyone could defend G-Dett's behavior in any situation, let alone in a routine content dispute when the other editor did nothing particularly unusual.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Moshe! As someone who's sat meekly at your feet and learned about cheetahs, and in an effort to learn more regarding same even posed some precocious questions of my own, I am hurt and offended.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Note Phral Phrallington has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong section I think.--G-Dett (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jaakobou, the words you quote were up for a grand total of 12 minutes before I took them down. Glad to see you're such a fan/archival completist of my work.--G-Dett (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Don't people have anything better to do than judge the merits of other editors humor/sarcasm? (No offense G-Dett. I find you highly entertaining myself, but really.) Tiamut 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I think you're making this too big a deal, honestly. Maybe a simple note on her talk page saying, "Would you mind refactoring," would suffice (and it seems would be moot, in any case). There is so much really harsh stuff that gets thrown around on a daily basis that's way worse than the above... there may come a time when the WP culture as a whole gets a lot tougher on anything that smacks of incivility, but we're a long way from that now. Also, if G-Dett really wants to be uncivil, I'm expecting/hoping for something much funnier... <<scratches head and wonders if it will be at own expense>> IronDuke 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't expect a big deal to be made of this and I could care less if she apologizes. I'd just like her to stop the routine incivility and personal attacks. WP is not supposed to be a battleground, and it appears that she needs someone outside the conflicts she's engaged in to point out that there are in fact, behavioral standards here, and why that's so. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, alright, I'm sorry. For now. To Tewfik, I dedicate a larded roast of his favorite mammal. Peace!--G-Dett (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Problems finishing a discussion
Can someone politely tell JzG and the other admins to let me please, pretty please finish my conversation with Haemo on my talk page? I got a sneaky (no warning, nor even a notice) 7 day block for 3RR, which was then made into a 1 month block for just using a "mocking" tone, which oddly became an indefinite block, again without discussion, nor warning, nor even a notice on my Talk page. Now bear in mind that even my worst detractors can't point to any "sins" by me apart from very vague accusations regarding my attitude -- which was the topic being discussed. Try to think of any other editor who got indefinitely blocked and has drawn such hostile comments without doing anything bad-bad -- no vandalism, no sockpuppets, no obscenities, no direct insults, nor any such nonsense -- just edits that have been accurate and consistentlysupported by refs and discussion on the appropriate Talk pages, with the only fault -- maybe, perhaps -- of not showing enough diplomacy at times. If you follow the discussion I started regarding my getting unblocked, you will see that it gets interrupted twice right in middle of my chatting with Haemo, first by MaxSem and then by JzG. Despite somewhat disengenuous claims to the contrary, there was no "soapboxing, etc," -- just go check.
I hope I'm not asking for too much -- I basically just want to be allowed to finish discussing my case for removing the indefinite block. I think December 1st would be a reasonable deadline -- it's just a couple of days off. And it is just my Talk page. Some of you might know that there could possibly be underlying off-wiki reasons for some of the things going on, but I promise to avoid bringing those up in this discussion -- I'll just stick to Wikipedia only topics. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (By the way, I'm not using any real "tricks" to post here -- my block is just kind of weird). -BC aka Callmebc 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're bypassing your block to request it reconsideration? I have to say that this is not very likely to help your case. If you wish to appeal your case, you can do so on your talk page or contact an administrator by e-mail to make a posting here, but you should not do it yourself. TSO1D (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
His user talk page has been protected by JzG with the comment 'Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]', so that avenue is blocked. I agree that he could have e-mailed an admin. I think we should be very cautious in protecting the talk pages of blocked users. Bovlb (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone point out the reason he was originally blocked?—Random832 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Which time? He's been blocked ten times. See [16]Corvus cornixtalk 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm, information without context is no information at all. Editing the Killian wikis is a tough, thankless endeavor. -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Callmebc was blocked for violations of WP:BLP following multiple complaints to OTRS over an extended period of time. The talk page was locked several times due to soapboxing and continuation of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy is omitting one or two minor details: the "OTRS" business involves...hmmm, how can I put this diplomatically enough....a little, some might say politically driven, "story" that doesn't seem to quite meet standards for WP:VERIFY and WP:PROVEIT (for starters) that a reference was added to back in September. There was, shall we say, a long, LONG "discussion" about how best to deal with said story by me and others that went on for a couple of months. While I was blocked from editing even my page, it was somehow decided that the discussion actually involved my casually maligning "people," so a whole bunch of redactions like this were made to both my page and the Killian wikis. And I don't quite get this "soapboxing" thing -- it seems whenever I try to defend my actions or explain anything, regardless of detail and circumstance, I get vaguely accused of "soapboxing" without any specifics given. It's like: Defending one's actions == Soapboxing. And it's a bit difficult to get a handle on there being a "continuation of the same problem" since nobody seems willing to talk specifics (or respond on point in general.) -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but I was watching the discussion and almost reverted your blanking and protection of the talk page as soon as I saw it. If Callmebc addresses the concerns, the block becomes putative rather than preventative. Haemo was giving Callmcbc a chance to change, a chance I believe he deserves, and you cut off their discussion without warning. Not the best move I've seen made. When the page was blanked and protected, Callmebc was not trolling or being disruptive. He was discussing the potential for being unblocked. - auburnpilottalk 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You and I have had our differences, so I really do appreciate that comment. I was indeed discussing some options. I had already agreed to keep content disputes off the main article and try other means like RFC's to deal with what I would consider to be false info. And even if all the Wikipedia options to resolve it fail, I'll just suck it up and leave it alone instead of creating another revert war. As an admin basically told me in an email, if the consensus is that 2+2=5, then so be it, and if I find that frustrating, I probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia -- it's just a collaborative website. I don't know if this is a generally believed wiki-philosophy, but the discussion I was having on my Talk page was just getting into the nature of my attitude, especially in regards to other editors. One thing I did for a little while on Global Warming, which has chronic edit/revert disputes, was try to get discussions going on the Talk page rather than in back and forth edit summaries. I think I can make that my more usual approach for dealing with content issues. Bear in mind that I really have strong feelings about how Wikipedia, like any reference, should emphasize accuracy above all else. But I'm also well aware that a community atmosphere and a sense of collaboration is very important to regular wikifolk, many if not most of whom spend an enormous amount of time dealing with vandals and doing many small bits of copyedit-type work. These two aspects of Wikipedia are not completely incompatible, I suppose, if I can avoid stomping on people's toes in my usually impatient rush to get things done and over with.
So there are some things, I do believe, that are worth finishing up in discussion, if I am allowed to do so.... -BC aka Callmebc 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That all sounds very reasonable to me (I'm unfamiliar with the background). Can't he be allowed to prove if he's a man of his word? Give him enough rope and all that?Alice.S 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The background, in a nutshell, is that the articles involving the Killian documents are sort of like the haunted houses of Wikipedia, with long, strange histories and seemingly derelict -- until you try to bring out the mop & bucket (never mind the hammer & nails), when things then tend to become more like the House on Haunted Hill. (Which I suppose fits in well with giving me "enough rope," eh?) -BC aka Callmebc 13:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been talking to Callmebc by email, and we'll see what happens. We're just talking at the moment. --Haemo (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring abrew
As I mentioned obliquely earlier, it looks like two editors -- mathewignash (talk·contribs) and The Matrix Prime (talk·contribs) -- are in a spat over a category name. It hasn't gotten to the 3RR level yet. Additionally, in my experience, neither one is big on talk-page discussions and both have a history when it comes to assuming good faith. This time, it's over Category:Primes and Category:Primes/Primals. Ultimately, my own thought is that the contentious nature stems from the entries' inclusion in one/the other is WP:OR; it comes down to "I think this" or "I think that" or "it's sooooo obvious this or that is true." More immediately, though, they've gone back and forth blanking one category then another and re-categorizing related articles. Take a look at the categories' respective edit histories to get a sense of it, although note that Category:Primes/Primals was earlier CSDed as being an empty cat. (per one editor or another's transition to Category:Primes.
Anyway. Toodles. --EEMIV (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an odd creature: a category that looks like an article that also happens to improperly display a fair-use image. Regardless, it falls far short of the WP:FICT guideline, so I went ahead and left a note [17] on the user's talk page. If mathewignash and The Matrix Prime cannot resolve their differences (and manage to avoid 3RR violations), you might consider directing them to WP:DR. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that mathewignash (talk·contribs) averted an indefinite block by promising not to upload any fair-use images and/or make any edits to image space articles. As is transparent from his talk page this hasn't happened. --WebHamster 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
When was the promise made not to upload fair-use images? The current fair-use warnings on his talk page are for images uploaded in October 2006, April 2007, and September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all there on the talk page. Promise made: 28 October 2007, Deleted disputed fair-use images: 22 between promise and 26 November 2007. There are also more disputed fair-use warnings that haven't been deleted. And there are 3 no fair-use warnings 26/27 November 2007. --WebHamster 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the admin who unblocked based on the promise was Steel (talk·contribs)--WebHamster 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not more clear. All the fair-use warnings I reviewed were for images that were uploaded back in April or September this year, or October 2006. None of these warnings appear to be for images uploaded after September 2007. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I did a spot-check of ten recently uploaded images, and all were tagged {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. Are you sure you are not confusing the date the fair-use warning was issued with the date that the image in question was uploaded? It often takes BetacommandBot weeks (months?) to catch up and check all the uploaded images. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell from here because I'm uninvolved, but informing all interested parties of a MedCab case is acceptable. If they're requesting those users from a specific side of the dispute or uninvolved parties, then it becomes a question of canvassing. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, first edit being to a mediation? In fact, ALL edits being to a mediation? Sounds like an SPA to me. I'm not going to block, but someone else should. His very first edit was to start a MedCab case against Hu12, and nearly all of his edits are canvasing, editwars, etc.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Ira01, he signed up with a user identity because he could not go into mediation without one. That is why his first contributions under that identity all have to do with mediation.Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Dlohcierekim 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would block if I was an admin. I would suggest just blocking anyway, Jester, as the issue is already before the community, and if anyone really disagrees. This has WP:DUCK written all over it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Rylong blocked him. Seems fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ira01 is requesting a review of their block. The block appears fine to me as well, but I am not familiar enough with all of the details of this case to handle the request. — Satori Son 21:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not requesting an unblock for Ira01 right now since it is both temporary and I think a cooling off & educational time period should be helpful. Ira01 is not trying to be a troll. He really is a clueless newb. If anyone else would like to assist in educating him about wikipedia & a handful of other potential contributors about the philosophy, culture & processes surrounding Wikipedia please join in the conversation here: http://prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=4139.0
Although Ira01 did screw some things up. I really do think it is from lack of education. This quick block process has not left him any wiser. I post in that forum as 'onthefence'. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. Gothere (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While I am sure your jesture is well ment, its quite unclear why wikipedia would need prospers.org to provide a platform for anything related to wikipedia policy and behavioral guidline?--Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree (if it matters). But then where to have the discourse Gothere suggests? NewHorizon (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason why I suggested it is because with Wikipedia discussion format is a little difficult for new people to utilize. Ira01 is clearly confused. I was looking for a little bit of expert help in clarifying matters, but if you are not interested, I don't blame you for not wanting to get tied up in another forum. In the mean time, I will see if I can convince Ira01 to sign up for the "adopt me" program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothere (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Gothere (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Want point out that there are serious conflicts of interest in all the editing that has occured.→ lendingstats.com. It appears all the disruptive editing was a result of Prosper lenders, reverting in order to use Wikipedia for promotion. clearly Violates WP:NOT!--Hu12 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Bonerific (talk ·contribs) was blocked for their username and attempted to make a case about working in a meat plant as a deboner of animals or some such possible trolling. Soon after their unblock appeal was rejected, Cocktastic (talk·contribs) showed up on the scene, preemptively claiming to be a farmer of gamecocks, etc. Essentially a similar telling of the story with slightly different parameters. So... is it safe to assume that this is likely continued trolling by the same person, or should there be a WP:RFCU? Or should I assume that the story about this editor's occupation is true? I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes here, so maybe this is an obvious block of some sort. Ideas? --Kinut/c 05:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Pretty obviously the same person. I asked Cocktastic if he knows Bonerific. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC)The story seems unlikely at best, but a block for their name is appropropriate anyway, because even if it is inoffensive to them, other people aren't going to see it that way. A checkuser would be a good idea, just to clarify things--Jac16888 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not duck but dick, I think. Such sensitivity! If it's named like a dick, who cares? If on the other hand it behaves like a dick, then take the appropriate measures (even if its name would satisfy "Focus on the Family"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds about right. And it wouldn't surprise me if the recently created Bonerfide Editor (talk·contribs) was somehow related to this too. --Kinut/c 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop listening to sob stories. If it's likely to offend, it's offensive. User:TheCockGobbler does not get a free pass because they used to eat male chickens. --Haemo (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Who, me? I've heard no sob stories. I didn't even notice what "Bonerific" might be about till I read on and was primed by "Cocktastic" in the same context. And "Cocktastic", which I did immediately understand, didn't offend me in the slightest. I suggest (i) that people have more important things to do here (let alone elsewhere) than zap UIDs that somebody somewhere might find offensive, and (ii) that anyone offended by "Cocktastic" (let alone "Bonerific") thereby demonstrates a very odd combination of readiness to see dicks and sensitivity to colloquialisms about dicks. -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
These accounts are being created just to be annoying and disruptive as evident by a recent post here by one of the various users. They are here to be disruptive. No one named "Bonerific" or "Cocktastic" is going to be a serious editor.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That I can believe. I'll buy "Username suggests that he'll behave like a dick". Still, why not wait for him to behave like a dick? As it is, people banning his usernames are wasting more of their time than his (assuming he has a thesaurus at hand), as they can never be sure which UID he'll think of next. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea this would generate such discussion. Alas, here you go: behaving like his namesake. Very mature. WP:RBI. --Kinut/c 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not a stretch for someone to see the term "cock" or "boner" as offensive. --Haemo (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't? But the person would have to parse "bonertastic" (or whatever it was) as "boner"+"tastic", and then read "boner" as "erect penis". Let's see ... my mother wouldn't have known the word "boner", and if she had she'd have merely shaken her head at this person's puerile choice of name. So who's offended here? (Shall I phone my wife and ask her if she's offended?) Yes, all in all I'm in favor of his use of a stupid UID: it's a convenient sign that he's a fool. Have him call himself something innocuous, and his edits then wouldn't ring alarm bells when they appear in edit histories. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
How else do you parse it? It's how I parse it, and while I don't get offended easily, I definitely don't feel that people running around with usernames about their erect penises is an attractive environment to contribute in, and could definitely see how someone (indeed, people I know) would be offended. --Haemo (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't parse it as I read it, just as I don't parse most people's usernames. (Incidentally, I take yours to mean "blood", which has a lot of unpleasant associations for me, but about which I don't complain.) Ah, I now see it was "Bonerific". I suppose "rific" looked reminiscent of "terrific"; I didn't think of "bone" as it has so many meanings -- unless of course you're primed by "cocktastic" or whatever (or, to phrase it unkindly, are obsessed with dicks). ¶ It's not hard for me to come up with usernames that I think would be offensive to most people (including myself). (I could for example use "lynch" and "nigger" in close combination.) I wouldn't defend such usernames. Meanwhile, the fact (in Wales's view a glorious fact, in mine a dismal one) is that any damn fool can edit Wikipedia unless he's persistently and blatantly stupid. Yes I'll agree: "Cocktastic" is the UID of a fool. Again: better that he consistently calls himself "Cocktastic" than that he pops up every day with yet another among the millions of potential ways of praising his own dick, or, worse, edits stupidly under an innocuous and thus inconspicuous UID. (In my unjimbolike opinion, much better still if everyone had to apply via email for permission to edit WP, whereupon fools like this would be around for a maximum of one day per month -- but that's not going to happen.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No offence intended but I love the irony of this thread about a phallus related username being marked resolved by an admin whose name parses as "Are You Long?" :) --WebHamster 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Dlohcierekim 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My name is parsed in two different languages and not pronounced that way. "Ryu" and "Long" are each one syllable. I'm also too lazy to come up with a more creative name.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Violation of WP:NPA
User Chanakyathegreat has violated WP:NPA. See this [18]. He commented about me 'Ota crap is a fanatic Christian fundamentalist. More religious than the pope. His version is to spread Christian propaganda. He has started multiple articles with links to fundamentalist Christian websites. He need to be banned and all the edits by him reverted'.
User Nikkul had violated WP:NPA. He commented 'This user's intentions are obvious'. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a little conflict with 71.93.222.223, who keeps re-inserting a rather POV "Critisism" section on Kitchen Nightmares (talk), linking to his own blog and breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well. I've tried explaining him why the section doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but the editor seems to ignore my arguments, and has now broken 3RR as well. I can't make any adminstrative action, as I'm now involved. — Edokter • Talk • 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have waded into the dispute. I saw the ip's edit on Recent Changes and reviewed it, then removed the section with WP:RS as a rationale. I didn't see the back and forth until I checked the history - and saw that you posted it here. Fumble on me. Is there already a 3rr report in the works, or should I leave it be? ZZClaims~ Evidence 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no 3RR report yet; I was hoping some outside view might settle things without resorting to blocking. If anything, your revert helped establish some consensus. Giving your view on the article talk page might help, as the editor did request third opinions. — Edokter • Talk • 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the editor in question. Here is some background for you to consider.
The section in question is about criticism of the TV show for portraying events in an untruthful or misleading manner. It's relevant especially because it provides larger context to the lawsuit issue which is addressed in the entry. This section was not created by me; I was completely unaware of it until I noticed hits from it coming into my website.
I came in and noticed two things. First, the cite was done incorrectly - it should have be listed as a footnote, not a link dropped in the middle of the article. I specifically did NOT change this myself, because I didn't want to be seen as linking to myself. Second, the original poster of the section had a fact incorrect. I fixed that and added two other facts.
Are blogs reliable sources? They can be. I would argue that on this subject and these facts, my blog should be considered reliable. I am a subject expert on media and television production and anyone who needs references can email me lee@stranahan.com for more. I have spoken at dozens of conferences, given published articles in various magazines and was an editor in chief of two magazines, both of which had national newsstand distribution. The cites were to posts where I reported on interviews that I had with the people involved in the show - not rumors I heard or something I read somewhere but direct interviews with the subjects. My blog contains many posts on the subject of Kitchen Nightmares specifically and at least three people involved in the show have also commented directly on my blog themselves about the show - and I spoke to them to confirm that it was actually their comments.
Additionally, there are multiple sources - not just my blog - that confirm an unusual level of fakery with Kitchen Nightmares. I was in the process of trying to cite those other sources - when the entire section was pulled down.
The admin could have asked for another cite or asked me a question. Instead, it was deleted. And when the admin states that I was "breaking virtually every other rule in the book as well" you can tell that he is going for drama, not a clear and concise explanation. I didn't ignore his arguements; they weren't valid.
Ultraexactzz waded in and stated that 'blogs aren't reliable sources'. This is not Wikipedia's position. Yes, there are reliability issues that are raised with self published material - and I am more than willing to answer any issue that I haven't already addressed here or to clarify anything. If anyone wants to check my facts, they are welcome to do so, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverting back and forth and making your arguments in edit summaries is usually not a good way to go - this applies to both sides. if you have other sources, etc, go ahead and state them on the talk page. And, it's regrettable, but people do tend to assume the worst of non-registered users, and that may have contributed here. —Random832 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the problem with reverting which is why I am not going to revert the entry again. And I also agree about the non-registered user thing, but I've stated clearly who I am...and I can't change the past.
Now the issue to me a correct view of Wikipedia policy. Stating 'blogs aren't reliable sources' without further clarification or facts isn't correct, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally, blogs are considered unriliable sources. Blogs are self-published, which makes them count as original research. See Are weblogs reliable sources?, which is linked from the reliable sources page. Also, I did not asume the worst, I simply saw an editor not understanding the rules, and trying to correct it. Had I asumed the worst, you would heve been blocked by now. — Edokter • Talk • 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I said. Generally, a blog may not be reliable - but if you read the cite you sent there are exceptions. Generally does not mean 'no blog may be a source' - self published material may be cited as a source. So - why specifically was my cite considered unreliable? Specifically, not 'because it's a blog'. Have you read the articles cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't move the discussion here, Edokter did...so I don't know, really. I asked him for a Truce so I could add references. He said no. I asked for him to switch it to another editor. He said no, but one someone sort of agreed with him he said it added consensus.
My issue is simple. What facts are in dispute? What statement was non-neutral? Where is the specific reliability issue? I keep asking for specifics - over and over - and not once has a specific example given about the facts or cite being questioned.
Usually, there's an example. "UserX cited sourceY about something. SourceY is unreliable for reasons A, B, C - plus it's a blog." I'm just getting 'it's a blog!'. Yeah, it is. Where's the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Shorter - in absence of any supporting specifics to refute the entire Criticism section, and given the history I stated above - the Admin action is 'please restore the Criticism section on Kitchen Nightmares' so that I or other can expand it. I'd consider that a truce, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(ECx2) The main problem is (un)verifyability, not truth. Facts are not important if they cannot be cited by a reliable, secondary source. Then there are other issues. First neutral point of view; No-one will dipute that the show is dramatised. In fact, it is a public secret. However there is no need to analyse this particular instance. Doing so puts an undue negative point of view to the article. Second, we have conflict of interest. It does not matter who put the link up first; by putting the link back, you create this conflict of interest, as you have a direct interest in that link being present. You wrote that blog post, meaning the cite is no longer neutral. Which bring us to the third issue: Original research. As you wrote the blog post, it's content is a direct result of your own research. Last, as all material needs to beverifyable, it needs secondary sources. Currently there are none. All these things combined makes the Criticism section over-all unallowable. I hope that explains it a bit. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
east718, given that some time has passed with no further activity, I think that there's no need for any admin action at this time. Edoktor's argument above is persuasive, but - if there's a source somewhere that corroborates the claims made on the blog - maybe some of the information can be kept. There is discussion at the talk page, and I'll see if I can contribute there. Thanks, ZZClaims~ Evidence 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been the target of some anon IP activity today due to the "Teddy-bear" incident. This is likely to continue. In fixing the vandalism, however, the inline refs seem to have got mangled. Could someone check this out & confirm this, then semi-pp for, say, 24 hours please? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a sock of Layla27. Blocked. IrishGuytalk 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, recent glitch involving tags
As being discussed on Village Pump Technical, there appears to have been a glitch involving a few tags. Some pages have been corrupted that were edited during that time frame (currently 19:16 to 19:30 but could be larger). This page was not exempt from the corruption. One sign is if the page contains the UNIQ...QINU string which is a previous tag that has been corrupted. Just making everyone aware of this. spryde | talk 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Also some discussion at WT:AN. The end time is whenever they locked the database which I remember happened after several minutes of this stuff going on. NoSeptember 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this diff: This afternoon I went to apply an {{update}} template to Comparison of BSD operating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without substituting the template. I edited the page via the standard form-style webpage editor provided by Wikipedia (no external editors or utilities) using Opera 9.24 (build 8816) under Windows Vista, and the only change I made was inserting {{update|article|date=November 2007}} (standard syntax for templates). I did not subst: the template, and I'm pretty sure I used the Preview option before submitting without noticing additional changes. I cannot explain how the rest of the changes occured, and am unsure if it's a broken template, a bug in the software, a problem with my browser, or what. Any help would be appreciated, as I am hesitant to make additional contributions to the project until I know what happened. DANKOO MULTIPASS. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I got two as well, here and here that someone else found. • Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See the section above. spryde | talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
please can you monitor and stop ongoing vandalism by agenda pushing users in the 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France) article. these people are removing sourced facts and adding false and unsourced statement instead, and they are also adding confusing characters in the said article. thank you. Cliché Online (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in the content dispute, but I have been posting messages warning Cliche Online that I will block him/her if more civility is not shown. Cliche Online has also been edit warring and accusing other editors of vandalism, though this is clearly a content dispute and the other editors simply disagree with Cliche Online regarding the content. Cliche Online's position also appears to be on the short end of the developing talk page consensus, for what it's worth. I issued a final warning to Cliche Online just before I saw this message, encouraging him to discuss the situation civilly. · jersykotalk 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Cliche Online for 24 hours for edit warring and continued incivility. Cliche Online continues to refer to the users on the opposing side of the content dispute "vandals". My suggestion is for Cliche Online to read WP:DISPUTE. · jersykotalk 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Who'm I gonna call?
OK, on the talk page of User:JNW we have recently seen an entity describing itself as User:Whistlersghost sending him comments in ye olde Englishe seemingly telling him to leave certain pages alone. Those edits have been the only edits this editor has made under this name [22], [23], [24], and [25], other than one edit to create a userpage here. Presumably he called himself something else when he was, um, living. Which of you all around here handle exorcisms? John Carter (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that this is either a new account for someone who was editing previusly on a different one at James McNeill Whistler, or someone who is just pulling JNW's leg for other reasons. JNW's edits to that article are reasonable. I can't see anything that needs administrative attention at this time, but this will change if wg repeats his behavior. Feel free to speak to the ghost and advise him that his conduct is not appropriate, and that exorcists and ghostbusters are available should the need arise. GRBerry 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for trolling and attempted harassment. Exorcised as it were. IrishGuytalk 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you all work quickly! While all manner of phantasmagoria exist in artist's studios, it is disconcerting to encounter them online. Thank you, JNW (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparent sockpuppetry
I can't do a checkuser to be absolutely positive, but it would be most improbable if these accounts weren't sockpuppets, or at least meatpuppets. User:Xantheif src created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/xantheif src at 23:10, editing it again at 23:19. Then at 23:22, User:Commonthoughty11 !votes support at the RFA (the account's only contrib). Then User:Judaspolice !votes support at 23:24 (the account's only contrib), using the same format. Putting two and two together: sockpuppets. Useight (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have checkuser and I called them socks anyway. Either way, it's irrelevant whether I called them socks or not, they're definitely socks. I just couldn't do anything about it, so I brought it here. Useight (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comments/edits seem hurried or hasten right now, I'm actually at work and can only edit in quick spurts. Useight (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bring this here for confirmation as to whether these accounts are socks or not, and I am already aware of WP:DUCK. I brought this here so the sock accounts could be blocked. However, I don't know what I was thinking (it's been a long day and I'm editing from the office so I get interrupted a lot), I should have taken it to AIV in the first place. I'll report it there now. Useight (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Upon actually getting a response from the user, I don't think there was any malicious intent in the use of socks. Just a newbie who didn't know the rules doing something silly. Block the socks, sure, but I don't believe any action is necessary against the puppeteer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
After I reported the socks to AIV, they were both blocked. I also agree that no action is required against User:Xantheif src, just some guidance as he gets started. Useight (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am having problems keeping a speedy delete template up and keeping the user from blanking the content before putting up a hangon tag. Could some one take a look at it
User:Lilsweetie07_11 also it seems that not only is his user at it but User:KyAngel7. But it seems that both users know each other in some way based off of this. Both users seem to not have any knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Rgoodermote 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
San Diego Natural History Museum, that is hosting an exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, about which Golb wrote a scathing review that was published in a website belonging to the University he teaches on
Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tourm a 3D movie playing at the San Diego exhibit, about which Golb published another scathing article based on an unpublished script of the film;
Robert Cargill User:IsraelXKV8R, the creator of the movie; who is no longer editing these articles due to WP:COI;
Critical Reader has created several sockpuppets, or has likely engaged in canvassing to attract like-minded new people which have interacted on these articles, and has already been found of using sockpuppets to promote his opinions. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Critical_Reader
In addition, the following aliases are likely meat/sock puppets for 'Critical Reader':
are single purpose accounts, editing/commenting exclusively on these articles and about the debate invlving Golb's views
created on or about the same time period
use similar style, grammar, vocabulary
all use a litigious, combative approach
possess knowledge of the debate
I came across this user and these articles upon a posting at WP:BLP/N which I monitor, attempting initially to address some BLP concerns related to the William Schniedewind article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive23). Later on I became involved in actively editing these articles, only to become the target of this user and his sock/meat puppets's vitriol and personal attacks.
I had enough now, and intend not to continue developing these articles with these people around: I do not need the aggravation. Left unwatched, these articles are likely to become a POV magnet for this user, which has already been found out to be off-wiki, a very prolific poster of the same exact arguments, and with the same style, in blogs, and in comments made to online newspaper articles on the subject. This information is available to interested admins upon request.
There are additional concerns filed in OTRS ticket #2007112710018004 by a third party.
Our friend has returned, minutes after his block, to evade it with a new sock (Myriamyst (talk·contribs)), and has been blocked indefinitely. I would recommend that he not be unblocked without a serious parole, possibly involving a topic ban. — Coren(talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Page Protection Abuse
I did an edit on the Kitchen Nightmares page in reference to a lawsuit, with a clear cite to the legal papers of the suit. An Admin took down the edit as 'original research' and put the page on protection. The Admin in question lists their status as 'Retired' and 'Traveling On Business'. [26]
I have had a miserable day on Wikipedia. Help me, Obi Wan Admin....you're my only hope. LeeStranahan (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I can explain this. You need a reliable source before you insert such information, and the admin did not protect the page just because of your edit. Checking the history, many people inserted unsourced edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So - the legal papers are not a reliable source of information about what is in the legal papers?
And if he is not retired or inactive, why does his page say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A secondary source which discusses the legal papers would be sufficient. His talk page says he's tired, by the way. east.718at 05:08, November 30, 2007
JzG's user talk page has the "re" in "retired" crossed out so it says, "this user is tired of silly drama in Wikipedia." Also, maybe you could cite a website. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok - I didn't get the Re Tired pun thing. Thanks.
I cited a web page that had the legal papers. All the secondary sources I've seen were extremely thin as to the actual content of the case - they were more 'Celebrity Sued!' types of articles.
Shouldn't have the Tired guy said some of this, however? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeStranahan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then, never mind. -Goodshoped 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really "never mind." All bots are meant to check if they are logged out, and stop if they are. Three times in that contributions log it's made several edits in a row while logged out. Probably needs a slight tune-up? - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Aron Tendler
Lobojo (talk·contribs) is readding content to this article that I feel is clearly in violation of WP:BLP. The content concerns rumors of sexual misconduct by a Rabbi who has not been charged with any crime. The reporting of rumors has no place o Wikipedia, in my opinion, and I would ask an impartial admin to review. I would note that two other admins have been involved, one of whom reverted to the rumorless version, and the other to the version including the rumors. However, the latter admin did not respond after discussions on the talk page and let the version without the disputed content stand. This is not a content dispute, as i see it, but a policy dispute. Jeffpw (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I also do not care for being called an "lazy academic infant". This user seems to have something to learn about WP:NPA. That's just one of several diffs directed at me. I also don't think it's kind to our project to be told that Wikipedia is "worse than tabloid journalism", as a rationale for adding rumors to a BLP, and referring to Wikipedia's owner as "Jimbo Christ" because of his position on BLP. Jeffpw (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This individual is apparently a brother of Mordecai Tendler, whose article was recently AFDed. The AFD, history, and talk page of the brother's article are relevant context for understanding inter-user disputes here. GRBerry 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I see the Mordecai Tendler article was Kept at the AFD.DGG (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, the article in question is Aron Tendler, not his brother. The only things relating them are the fact that they are brothers, the articles were created by the same editor, and both contain rumors which have not been substantiated. What separates the two is Rabbi Mordecai Tendler denied the rumors (apparently, anyway--there are no inline cites in the text), while Rabbi Aron Tendler has not commented on the rumors. The fact that the Rabbi did not comment makes the rumors unfit for his biography, in my opinion. Jeffpw (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Aron has not been charged or sued in either a U.S. or Rabbinical court, but his brother has. Allegations against Mordecai, although also unproven, were investigated by the Rabbinical Council of America. In comparison, claims against Aron are sourced by reliable sources to internet forum rumors. Deletion was correct. Cool HandLuke 10:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
are you saying they are more likely to be verifiable if they are denied?DGG (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that the fact that the subject has spoken directly about them makes it allowable in the encyclopedia. The fact that the subject of this article has not commented makes it even more so just rumor and speculation, and thus a violation of WP:BLP. There is precedent for this position: Just look at the discussions on the talk page of the Clay Aiken. Though media sources speculated about his sexuality, that didn't make it into the article, because he didn't directly confirm or deny it, Only the quotes he himself made were put in the article, per BLP. That same principle should be applied here. It frankly amazes me that there is even a debate bout whether this material shoudl be excised. It is against policy, pure and simple. Jeffpw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is appalling that I should be attacked in this way openly, but behind my back so to speak. I was not informed of this discussion by the one who initiated it, as I should have been. Lobojo (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anyone attacking you here, Lobojo. I see instead a discussion of the BLP policy and whether the article violates this policy. Please don't take things personally. I would also ask that an administrator explain to Lobojo what our civility and NPA policies mean. After attacking me here, and being warned here for the second time to stop contacting me on this issue, and rather discuss on the article pages, he has persisted on leaving annoying messages on my talk page. I'd like it to stop. Jeffpw (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have notified me, as you well know you are trying to create a sense of great tension around this issue. You have needlessly escalated this issue all over wikipedia for no good reason and you are making edit summaries to make it seem like I am being uncivil, when I am behaving quite properly. You should have notified me of this discussion, you did not do so, I'll turn the other cheek, since this is all no use anyway. Lobojo (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And as for the "warning" you cite above, they are just you warning me! You are simply using the old tactic of spattering around warnings to intimidate to try to provoke opponents by patronising them. The second warning was one that you just made ((!!!)) just now in responce to my complaint that you failed to inform me of this discussion! I mean really, please stop this drama! Lobojo (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I just feel that I you are trying to bully me into submission. I am not ashamed of my complaint on your talk page? Where else was I supposed to go to express my dismay at not being infomred of this discussion about me? Here it is since you erased it from your talk page. Lobojo (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to be discussing this article on ANI. An RfC is the appropriate next step. ·:· Will Beback·:· 10:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Will, there was, since there was a policy violation. That nobody on this board cared to look at it is immaterial. In any event, the problem is resolved, as the article has been deleted and the AFD courtesy blanked out of consideration for the subject. Once again, why this was allowed to stand for as long as it was is beyond me. Jeffpw (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Baffling creation of subpages
(cur) (last) 15:03, 29 November 2007 Thundermaster367 (Talk | contribs | block) (14 bytes) (←Created page with '{{db-userreq}}')
This user has done like half a dozen of these already, what's going on? What should I do (other than keep deleting them)?—Random832 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The user in question has made almost 1000 edits, more than two-thirds of them this month.[wannabe_kate] Thirty percent of those edits have been to the user's own userspace. About a third have been mainspace edits. Less than half of the edits have summaries. To be frank, although there may have been some useful edits from this user, I have to point out the Signal:Noise ratio. Now, this creating pages with ?{{db-userreq}} appears to be trolling, no? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Non admin Has he been doing it since you commented on his talk page? Maybe he was just testing, and didn't realise that there were people involved in the deletion (that have better things to do), and it is not an automated process. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted here after three appeared subsequent to that post, but on looking over things, it looks like that was due to delay in things showing up in the category.—Random832 14:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User Nikkul is falsely claiming that I have added the sentence "Conversion in India has become hard Due to anti conversion laws which were made by hindu nationalist and extremists.To propogate ones religion other that Hinduism and sikhism is an activity which could cause Death as most citizens and many government officials are always 'conspiring to kill" in Human rights in India article.[27][28] The truth is that this sentence is not added by me, but by IP user 122.169.51.217 See this link [29]. I wonder how user Nikkul can make such false claim? He is violating WP:ICA by such false claim. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See [30], [31]. Didn't realize that this user did not input that. I am not trying to accuse this user of stuff he did not do. That was my mistake. This user has failed to remove the false claim, which still lies unremoved on the page. Nikkul (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Block review of Cabin Member
Yesterday I declined a speedy delete nomination of Image:Latif Pedram 2002.jpg by Cabin Member, but on closer look found that it indeed violated the non-free content criteria and tagged it myself as {{di-replaceable fair use}}. However, his insistence that the image be really speedy-deleted [32][33] led me to suspect his tagging was ultimately done in bad faith. Seeing that he had been warned as far back as a month ago for such image deletion tagging [34], I blocked him indefinitely for this disruption. In my block summary I noted my suspicion that this is a sockpuppet account, because which new user heads straight to image space and begins tagging stuff for speedy deletion?
Today I wake up and find that even though Nat has declined to unblock [35], Physchim62 has asked me to unblock [36] because "His edits do not seem to fall under the definition of vandalism", and given that "you yourself were edit warring with him... you response seems quite excessive in the circumstances." Well on reviewing Cabin Member's contribs and deleted contribs again, I find at least one image (Image:Afghan National Army parade 2006.JPG) whose tagging appears to be outright vandalism. In addition it seems at least an odd coincidence that all his image taggings have been of Afghanistan-related images.
In conclusion although I have not come with clean hands (thanks Jreferee for teaching me this term) in seeking this block to be reviewed, I still believe my block to be justified and would be averse to anyone undoing it without a convincing reason. Pegasus«C¦T» 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any pity for editors who resort to edit warring and vandalism accusations instead of discussion after being informed why their speedy deletions were being declined. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the block and, given the obvious topic focus, it appears obvious that the editor tagged with an agenda, not to protect WP. — Coren(talk) 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Karyn Kupcinet article
Me and another editor are having issues regarding the Karyn Kupcinet article. The article is somewhat controversial and has undergone a whole lot of changes, but the two of us are attempting to get it right and up to Wikipedia standards. Long story short, a few people have been making this next to impossible. I rewrote the article last night after discussing it with the other editor (basically, there's only three of us battling it out) and we both agreed on content, sources, etc. Today, two users (one newly registered) have decided that they don't like a particular theory that is included and have set about to remove it. Yes, theories are frowned upon in an encyclopedic sense, but the reason the article basically exists is because her murder was connected to the JFK assassination. Since the theories were presented by reliable third parties, we both agreed to include them. In the past hour, DefianceofTheGood (newly registered) reverted my edits twice and called me an obsessed fan. I responded to them on the article's talk page. Both me and the other editor have attempted to have compromise with the one editor who continues to battle with us and I have tried to get the page protected. Nothing seems to be working. Short of letting people put whatever they think happened, what else can be done? Pinkadelica (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
For some reason an editor moved Bamban, Tarlac (about a municipality in the Philippines) to Sto. Nino Academy Bamban, Tarlac so that the editor could replace the article about the city with an article about a school in the city. Another editor tried to fix this by restoring the former text, yet the article about the city is still located on the school's page, Sto. Nino Academy Bamban, Tarlac. Can someone help get the Bamban, Tarlac article about the city to be on the Bamban, Tarlac page? Thanks. --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Advice. User:Vvmundakkal may have just violated WP:LEGAL. Basically, the guy has been focused on an extremely limited series of articles, one of which is Ezhava. That article had been permanently locked down for almost a month and after a ton of discussions, a good semi-clean version was there. All he has done since then is:
revert back to the old biased one[37] (note that he starts adding it in pieces later which you are telling are just copy-and-paste because its two ref tags for the same source badly done).
He did attempt to simply post a pile of OR[38] at Talk:Ezhava but I can't get him to actually discuss anything.
He keeps recreating List of Notable Ezhavas (regarding of what I keep telling him about the previous deletions), again no sources.
Tonight, he complains and warns me (User_talk:Ricky81682#Re) that he has talked on the "Orkut forums and we have planned to contact Mr Vayalar Ravi GOI Federal minster,(in order to reach a amicable solution)"
Tonight, he again post the exact same old text [39] (the problem is that sources are all lies - 2 are the same and say nothing of the sort, 2 others are online and also complete misrepresentations).
He's added something at Talk:Ezhava but frankly, I'm pretty sure it'll be the same.
Also, does anyone have any recommendations for what to do with an article like Ezhava where there are a ton of books cited but the ones I've managed to get have so far been mostly completely nonsense or non-existent? Delete and start over? Any help would be very appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
please see [40], this was he reported as vioaltion. please see my reply in detail. i am not a regular editor of Wikipedia and i have more or less infor abt wiki policies. I strongly beilive that i have not vilated any policies.
Please find [41] details added on Talk:Ezhava pointing refs for the content added.
regarding List of Notable Ezhavas
Many so called List of Ezhava Tharavads or List of Nair Tharavads deleted because there seem to be no valid resources to varify it. Now the List of Notable Ezhavas consists of entries/items which has an article in wiki. I think there are list like this [42]
There are many list like List of Nairs, which also consists of some items or entries doesnt have an article in wiki. still its there and also its just list of Notable ezhavas,(not the list of all ezhavas). Also If you see Nambiar (Nair Subcaste), its also has a large list of family names[43] and list people[44] from that community. None of these entries(in List of Nairs and Nambiar (Nair Subcaste)) are varifiable there except one or two which have an article in wiki. thank you
I'm not seeing where this user has made a legal threat, and other than that this looks like a content dispute. You may want to try dispute resolution. Natalie 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
John Michael Broadbent (notable wine chap) has been replaced with Michael James Broadbent (not notable Australian) at the instance of User:Broadbent30. Please could it be reverted. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverted (non-admin) and warning given to Broadbent30 --WebHamster 12:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying us. Note that you could have done it by clicking on the date of the previous revision, then edited and saved that revision. -- lucasbfrtalk 12:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Forwarded request
The following request for a block is being made by 213.124.168.231 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) with this message:"This IP address is from Da Vinci College in Gorinchem, Netherlands. It is full of students and will probably continue to be a source of vandalism. I recommend this account be blocked indefinitely."
note: I wasn't for sure if I should add this {{SharedIPEDU|Da Vinci College in Gorinchem, Netherlands}}
because the ip-hostmask doesn't identify the school. also this ip-address has never received a block before but has been warned many times.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If they want to block their college from editing Wikipedia they can do it at their end, through technical restrictions. No need for us to intervene. We've been down this line before, I'm sure. Pedro : Chat 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll convey the message, should I also add the SharedIPEDU template to alert admins in the future?▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 13:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
May as well. Thanks Sirex. Pedro : Chat 13:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Moldopodo
This user has already been brought once here [45] because of PA remarks against me on his userpage. He had then opposed the admin's deletion of questionable text from his page, reintroducing the text, until he was threatened with more severe action by the admin who handled that.
Nevertheless, he has reintroduced the remarks under a different form: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." I have asked him nicely to remove them. However, he does not want to respond to this, despite the fact that he has been online for many-many hours in the last 4 days, since I asked him.
Could you, please, see that the remarks are removed. I have stated clearly to the user that I have no relation to Moldorubo, and I dislike being suggested that I am related with a banned user. I asked that all references to me be removed from his page.:Dc76\talk 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You may delete my post if I am not allowed to post here. All I wanted to say, User Moldorubo used exact same edits, exact same language, exact same places, exactly at the time when user Dc 76 was off line, right after the heating with editing on Balti article, and right after Dc 76 publicly declared "I will not edit for the next hours". When I have publicly mentioned all thse details on one of the talk pages, User Dc 76 reappeared and pretended to have an imaginary dialog with User Moldorubo on Balti talk page with personal references (which may as well fall under personal attack policy) in my regard (which were at a certain point deleted from the talk page, but I brought them back). Should you (the neutral person who will review this) need more references, exact diffs, etc. please let me know on my talk page by a short notice request and I will spend the necessary time and find them all. In the meanwhile you can find all of them on my talk page and on Balti (as referred to Moldavian city) talk page. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the user apparently plays with I.P. addresses (we had just as Polish IP users editing the same edits as Dc 76 or Moldorubo, as well as Tanzaian IP users doing exact same dits at exact same places while Dc 76 was "officially offline", who surprisingy know so much about Moldova in general and even about Balti (city in Moldova) in particular, being either in Poland or in Africa, interesting coincidence. Thank you in advance.Moldopodo (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
The above text is a characteristic sample of badmouth and unsubstantiated claims by Moldopodo. I would like to state again for the record: I have no relationship with Moldorubo or any blocked users. My only possible mistake was that I considered Moldorubo a good faith editor, without checking his/her contribs, and exchanged two paragraphs. The fact that a blocked user does some edits when I am offline should not be my concern. I also am outraged at the indication that I play with some IPs. I hereby ask a sysop to perform an IP check against whomever one wishes. Recently (last several months) I edited from two IP addresses: home and office, both located in the same city, same country. I am open to provide futher information by email to an admin that needs that. I fail to understand what is wrong with the fact that someone from Poland or Tanzania does a random edit on one of the articles I edit; how can I be responsible for that?.
I also ask respectfully to review the above statement by Moldopodo, and decide whether it is not an abuse for one user to badmouth another one so shamelessly (full of falsities) as Moldopodo just did above.
After this would be done, I have a last request. I would like to ask a sysop to check Moldopodo against this person, the administrator of this site. Moldopodo has constantly pushed for the inclusion of this website as an external link to the artilce Bălţi, despite it being a commercial site, and I am afraid we are dealing with a commercial PR campaign here. :Dc76\talk 14:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
About Moldorubo, he has already been confirmed as User:Bonaparte, so the Tanzanian Ip's make perfect sense. About verifying Mold's identity, Wikipedia is based on the respect of anonymity, so identifying a user certainly should not be done. TSO1D 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So, a statement that I am related to Bonaparte should just stay on that user's page?
The proper place for this last one is dispute resolution, but I just want to add the extent to which I meant it: I suggest that there could be a conflict of interest, of commercial nature, when an user related to a company repeatedly adds his/her company in the external links of the city's WP article. Who that user is in real life is not my concern, you are right here. So, only about commercial interest, nothing more. :Dc76\talk 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
String of usernames
I am not very well versed in usernames and/or sockpuppets, so I thought it better to report this suspicious group of names and creations here (a bit too complicated for WP:UAA, probably).
Created today:
15:21: User:Annual pilgrimage
15:21: User:Insult da profet
15:22: User:Going to hell if i shave my beard (blocked at 15:33 by Pilotguy)
15:23: User:God isn't real
15:24: User:Allah is the greatest, most merciful
15:24: User:Forgive my sins
I suspect that these are six accounts by the same user (aren't users restricted to max 6 accounts per IP per day?), and the second, third, fourth and fifth are immediately blockable per our user name policy (2nd and 4th probably with a username hardblock). What to do with user 1 and 6? Leave alone? Block? Checkuser? Fram 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say block em all. This is simply a hunch, but a load of socks were attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsand its talk page. As well as my and GlassCobra's user pages. I think the only reason those haven't done anything is because I protected the article and its talk page. I may be wrong but I think there is a good chance that they are connected. They may be the Genesis vandal.KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Other than the obvious name similarities, Paradocks11 also appears to have the same fascination as Paradocks8 with Kermit the Frog. I can't see the majority of Paradocks13's edits, but his talk page would suggest none have been helpful. As far as I can tell, Paradocks14 has done nothing yet, but I would expect that the name alone would be enough of a link. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Having multiple accounts is not a blockable offense. Disruption is. `'Míkka>t 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Obvious socks of obvious sockpuppeteers that blatantly vandalize are being disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that having over 10 "alternate accounts" is disruptive in itself. — Coren(talk) 18:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Recurrent IP editing on Missouri road articles
An anonymous editor (most recently 12.74.143.212, others presumably within the same IP range) has repeatedly made edits to the articles on Interstates in Missouri (see history of I-70 in Missouri [47] for an example), generally editing against the Manual of Style and the exit list style guide by changing directions in the articles' exit list to all caps. The IP also usually signs the end of the article. Numerous attempts to reach the IP editor through talk pages and inline HTML comments, like on Missouri Route 370, have failed. This led to the interstate articles being semi-protected, but the editor has branched out to unprotected state route articles [48] and even non-road articles [49][50]. Calling it 'vandalism' doesn't seem quite right, but at this point it seems that they're willfully editing against policy - would like others' opinions on what should be done. —Scott5114↗ 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Anybody? --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Anybody? --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've soft blocked the range 12.74.128.0/19 for two weeks; hopefully this will be enough to get him to stop. --krimpet⟲ 02:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Possible Circumvention of a block by User:The King of Clay
User:The King of Clay was recently blocked on 23 November, 2007 for one week. Today, a new account was created called User:The King of Clay V2.0. I suspect this is the same person attempting to circumvent the block, as also today, an attenpt was made to add User:The King of Clay as a new participant to The Cheshire WikiProject, although it was User:The King of Clay V2.0 who added it. I think this is an attempt to circumvent the block. Could someone look into it?
I also wonder what should be done about the added name to the Cheshire WikiProject. My initial thoughts are that, regardless of the first matter, it should be removed, as the addition is not the i.d. of the editor who added it. Whether trhis would then result in some action against User:The King of Clay V2.0 would also seem to be independent of the first matter, although of course it may be superceded by what is done about the first matter. I would welcome thoughts about this and action of a friendly administrator if required. DDStretch (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok update: After a quick chat with someone, I removed the attempt to add The king of Clay to the Cheshire WikiProject stating that it was not that user who made the edit. I still the other issue needs some attention, however. DDStretch (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked User:The King of Clay V2.0 indefinitely. Leaving it to someone else to evaluate whether User:The King of Clay's block should be extended, since this could hypothetically be someone else trying to make him look bad (the 5-day gap seems strange) and I haven't looked at the contributions in depth.—Random832 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Some overlap of contribution areas, needs an admin to review style issues. Preferrably one who knows something about British independent bands ... which definitely is not me. GRBerry 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A CU would remove doubt if the two underlying ip's were sufficiently different, as would a clear positive if they are the same. A maybe leaves us back to here. My doubts would be in the matter that a soon to be expired block risks being extended for a) no real purpose, and b) via a fairly obvious alternate username... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty apparent that it's a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. As long as the account is indefblocked, I don't see any real reason to extend the original block - blocks aren't punitive, they're around to prevent damage. Nevertheless, it would be a plan to watch the original user's contributions when he gets unblocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Cobain conspiracy theory
I have been warning Jason2520 (talk·contribs) about his edits to Courtney Love. He is stating that there is legitimate debate over the cause of Kurt Cobain's death and whether or not the suicide note read by Love was real. As per WP:NPOV, I believe it is inappropriate to give such emphasis to a conspiracy theory held by an extreme minority of people and I have warned the user to please find a reliable source if he insists on continuing to change the wording. If he continues, I will have to block the user. Does anyone disagree with my interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V? Note that the user has noted that there may be WP:BLP issues, though I think if so, they are on his side. --Yamla (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion of this very issue several days ago, I think, either here or on BLP. Does anyone have a link for context? They are public figures and the dispute is real, even if not legitimate. Probably worth covering as a conspiracy theory but not for the truth value of the assertions, and not on Courtney Love's page. I think that's more of a BLP issue (on his side, yes) than an NPOV issue, but the weight is a problem too. Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that an account that lay inactive for 15 months arrives on the heels of User:Cobaincase's (since blocked, along with a vandal account) attempts to insert similar allegations into the Love article. Tarc 17:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Clarification, they are both fork/splits of List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada, last discussed at AFD in September. Somewhere along the line that got moved to List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada. Israeli looks older because that is where the original article has been moved; but both are forks. GRBerry 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
When I arrived at the discussion, in early Nov, the title was List of massacres during the Second Intifada; it was tightly titled to include every suicide bombing during the period, The title construction was such that it only covered one side of the bloodshed. What ever ‘it’ was, it was fact and commonly understood from normal media sources. It had survived two AfDs; it was also quite easily ‘listable’. The ensuing title changes resulted from discussion to remove the emotive word ‘massacre’ and an attempt to cover death on both sides. That was, from what I saw, a positive evolution, except the Palestinian deaths are not in an easily listable format, because there are many methods of death and it is a very, very long list that is ’’’not’’’ commonly understood from normal media sources. Your admin action cut this process off at the knees. Fact: Palestinian deaths are nearly five times greater than Israeli deaths, and there is no article that deals with that except here, buried in the top right info block and argued throughout the ‘Casualties’ section. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that this article has been split in two, the resulting articles have just become pissing contests over death tolls. You're never going to have settlement here; the previous article survived AfD because at least it presented attacks on/by both sides; I'd suggest sending both articles back to AfD. If the incidents are notable enough they have got their own articles already. ELIMINATORJR 00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Boy, you are right there; it started as soon as the consensus started to populate the companion list. The development of consensus took a month. But a new AfD isn’t the way to go, because they will both survive, trust me. They will argue the same points; my point has been that the common denomator is body count and the wikiperfect article should take that view. With the state of the Wiki-world as it is, that wiki-perfect article can't presently be written, so the POV fork was chosen and now there are two. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
I don't see how an AfD is a solution. Ideally, the list would have been one, not two, but since some people keep deleting Palestinian civilian deaths from the list using the argument that they are somehow not on the same level as Israeli deaths, the separation seemed necessary. I have found compiling the list useful in determining where new articles are needed. For example, I just created Iyman Hams by researching for the list article. What's wrong with making a list of casualties? Wikipedia is not paper. Tiamut 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The question is more whether having these lists is worth the effort of the resulting edit-wars which can be seen in their histories. ELIMINATORJR 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that seeking an answer to that question when the two article compromise proposed by the AfD on the one list has barely been in effect for a day is a little premature. Why not give it a little time to see if the separation allows for things to simmer down? The new article List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was a little less active (as regards to edit-warrining, that is) than the other. People still need time to digest the split and new naming scheme. Tiamut 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely premature. My very brief experience suggests that the proper action at this point is to lock out the filibusterer and his attached camera crew, not shut down progress. Time is required to build something honest and robust (i.e. NPOV); WP:AGF isn’t there. It only took God seven days to create the universe; mere mortals need at least a month to honestly build and defend an NPOV description of what has happened in the Holy Land. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is that some the delete voters from the last afd (there's actually been two afds) are outraged that it was kept, and have been disrupting the article ever since. The only options they appear to be able to accept is to either redefine it as a completely different list (deletion by other means) or create POV forks. Ironically, this was the objection to it at the afd because of a lack of massacres by the Israel Defense Forces on the list. They fervently believe that the IDF has committed massacres, however, they're having trouble finding RS support that the IDF actually targeted the civilians. Unlike the list that this one appears to have been modeled on, List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the restricted to incidents in which at least 10 civilians or disarmed soldiers were killed deliberately "bar" has been dropped to allow terrorist attacks by Israelis such as this. Apparently that still isn't good enough, so now we have this clear violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Posts like Armon's above are not a description of the problem, but a primary cause of it.--G-Dett 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know what other people did or didn’t do; I don’t give a fork, but suggest that a fork is, in fact, necessary at this juncture. I dont think ‘they‘ were outraged, severely miffed maybe, because the original article was such an un-Wiki path to start with; the article was not deleted because it was, in fact, true and defensible; but it also absolutely required a companion article, which was immediately warred upon. I accept that the effect of what appears to have happened can honestly be considered a ‘deletion by other means’, but note that if the originial article hadn’t been engineered and defended specifically to include only one side, it wouldn’t have been such a problem. This is the fault of its creators, not its complainers (which constitute the consensus). Concerning ‘their’ belief that the IDF has committed massacres, I can reasonably say that they have the RSs, that in fact, dispute what you fervently hope and apparently believe. To put it in a more specific topical light, I believe the term ‘zealous’ might be better. Concerning a similar 1948 list upon which this article is somehow supposed to have been based, I will note that 1948 is sufficient time to allow reasonableness; but 2000 to 2006 is insufficient time to allow this to happen. Simply put, 1948 is history; 2000 to 2006 is current events. Also, there is no way to simply and equitably compare ‘listable’ big blasts with an un-listable endless stream of single bullets that have created a much higher total body count. I honestly believe and hope that the WP:Point to be considered by Wiki-Admin is the total body count, not the side that is sufficiently and regularly covered by normal media sources. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Tiamut that the conflict should given time to sort itself out, since the split is very recent. I also concur with the protection by GRBerry, always wise. If the discussion cannot sort itself out of the talk pages after a few days, we can proceed from there. I'll look over the history, to see if blocks are warranted, but I'd suggest a little laxness, since the split was initially bound to cause some upset; I don't believe this necessarily reflects the probability of long-term success. At least the discussion has moved forward to trying this new approach -- that's progress. Xoloz (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments come from your previous involvement. I appreciate that. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know if I want to be here, but there are mis-understandings and mis-statements above this line that should be corrected or maybe be re-examined. Not knowing better, I have made specific comments above where they can be best understood. I have been in the discussion for a month. You don’t know me from Adam, I’m a newbie; so, read my posts, it might be helpful and I believe that my views generally represent the consensus. CasualObserver'48 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me wipe some of the spittle from my monitor and unclench my little fists long enough to type an explanation for my "outrage". The list was variously as a list of massacres, mass murders, attacks, or attacks on civilians, but it was always constructed as a list of Israeli casualties only. According to Armon, Tewfik, and one or two others, this is merely an incidental result of the fact that Palestinians target civilians, while the IDF doesn't. Or something like that - because the goalposts kept changing. First it was about massacres, until it was acknowledged that "massacre" is a term of moral outrage with no firm definition. Then it was about attacks on civilians, until it was shown that reliable sources describe plenty of Israeli actions as collective punishment of civilians, attacks on civilian infrastructure, failure to distinguish between civilians and militants, enforcement of curfews and closures with machine-gun fire first and questions never, conducting a major offensive "as though the main aim was to punish all Palestinians", "confirming the kill" of a thirteen-year-old girl with an M-16 at point-blank range, and in at least one case, the deliberate demolition of a busy apartment block with a thousand-kilo bomb. Then the new standard, apparently, became attacks on civilians clearly intended to kill as many civilians as possible with no other target, purpose, or rationale. The distinction, then, became one of intent, a nebulous and inherently unverifiable concept. And of course, no citations were ever provided to show that Palestinian atrocities were intended solely as random killings with no other rationale; it was always assumed that Palestinian actions were intended thus, and it was always assumed that IDF actions were security measures with unfortunate unintended consequences. In other words, the declared standard was a smokescreen; the actual standard was purely partisan-nationalist.
The second AfD was closed with the finding that the selection criteria were problematic but the information itself was valid, and a recommendation to fork the list into Israeli and Palestinian casualties. The question of whether such a fork was admissible was considered; it was determined that a dispassionate listing of events, divided "for reasons of economy" by national affiliation was OK. This solution was not implemented, and some time later edit-war began over the inclusion of Palestinian "massacres". I requested page protection (strange way to get it deleted...) and suggested we "simply move the page to List of attacks against Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada and drop the pretenses", a suggestion which won support from all but one party to the edit war. Tewfik and Armon started by mis-representing the closing admin's decision, describing move proposals as equivalent to deletion, and trying an Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid-style slight-of-hand based on an entirely different article listing atrocities in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. So here we are.
Not since, well, the last Israeli/Palestinian WikiWar have I participated in such an inane, hostile discussion. Armon and Tewfik simply ignored everything we said ("we" being both the alleged "delete faction" and a variety of editors not involved in the AfD, including people who disagree with the "delete faction" on a number of substantive points), complained about "incivility" (ie, calling them on their bullshit), and endlessly trolled. Repeatedly, they insisted that a list with the exact same information was a "completely different list" (see above) if it didn't take their preferred didactic, soapboxing approach. At one point, Tewfik tried a "gotcha" with a point that G-Dett and I had explicitly acknowledged several times before, indicating that he hadn't even read the discussion he was involved in. And as usual, Jaakobou was incomprehensible.
Now, I don't know what Tewfik, Armon, and Jaakobou contribute to the Wikipedia overall, but every time I see them they're tag-teaming to blank information that's unflattering to Israel, or disrupting discussions with tendentious soapboxing about the moral and political nature of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. It's not my place to draw the line between a good-faith dispute and unacceptable disruption, but somebody needs to draw that line eventually. <eleland/talkedits> 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
For a thorough, pithy, and precise summary of the situation Eleland's post can't be improved on. I would only add the minor caveat that this isn't the usual Israel-Palestine wikiwar with partisan camps editing in lockstep. Notwithstanding a wide range of opinion and ideological orientation among the dozen-some involved editors, the goal of all but two has been common: to find a way to maximize the organizational benefits of a list while minimizing the stimulus for pissing contests and edit wars. This means clear definitional criteria about which RSs are in unison. There is no definitional criteria more divisive among RSs writing on the I-P conflict than that of what constitutes an "attack on civilians." Suicide bombings are a no-brainer, obviously, but there are heated divisions among RSs about Israeli attacks. This RS-debate is far-ranging and complicated. For some writers, an "attack on civilians" by definition means deliberate targeting of civilians qua civilians; for others this is not the case at all. Most of us are trying to propose solutions that avoid this fault-line among the RSs; the proposals have included (i) a single list with the less contested formulation "attacks involving civilians," (ii) separate lists with subtly different titles reflecting the RS-consensus on one side of the ledger and the RS divisions on the other, that is, "attacks on Israeli civilians" vs. "attacks involving Palestinian civilians," and (iii) a single list with different sections and/or disclaimers about the RS-disputes over criteria. With such proposals on the table and a shared goal of maximizing usefulness and minimizing controversy, we've made progress toward consensus, progress both concrete and rhetorical. This progress has been squarely opposed by Armon and Tewfik, who want exactly the opposite result; that is to say, they want the list's criteria built directly on the RS-fault-line referred to above. In this way they hope to use Wikipedia to foreclose a debate which is wide open among reliable sources, a debate centered on questions like these: Do Israel's military operations in crowded residential areas of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including missile attacks by helicopter gunships, bombing by F16s, and heavy shelling and demolition by armored tanks and bulldozers, constitute attacks on civilians? Or are attacks on civilians by definition only those attacks that have no strategic military objective? At what level of indiscriminateness in the use of lethal force, at what kill ratio of civilians-to-militants, does "collateral damage" cease to be collateral? Is Israel's attitude toward Palestinian civilian casualties influenced by its belief in the legitimacy of collective punishment? Can "intent" be determined definitively, and is it an appropriate way of adjudicating responsibility for civilian deaths? Armon and Tewfik want Wikipedia to agree – in its official encyclopedic voice – with those RSs whose answers to the five questions above are no, yes, never, no, and yes; who say the IDF never "attacks civilians," no matter how many it kills and no matter excessive and indiscriminate the use of lethal force, because those killings may be wanton but aren't "deliberate." Any RS describing IDF attacks as "attacks on civilians" is instantly set upon by a kind of Orwellian octopus of wikilawyering, inventing ambiguities where none exist. They are both currently arguing, for instance, that a Human Rights Watch report about "Armed Attacks on Civilians" can't be used because it isn't clear that Human Rights Watch regards the contents of its report on "Armed Attacks on Civilians" as constituting attacks on civilians. No, I'm not kidding. The reason they're twisting themselves into this logical and semantic pretzel, instead of merely citing one of the many sources who contest HRW's definition of "attacks on civilians," is that Armon and Tewfik can't admit that there is any RS-debate at all about this question. Why not? Because to do so would mean throwing into question the editorial wisdom of building list-criteria along a fault-line of heated RS-division in the first place. They have to pretend that the debate doesn't exist, in other words, precisely so that they can use Wikipedia to settle it in their favor.
The most important thing for fair-minded outsiders to realize is this: no matter how vexatious, heated, and toxic this RS-fault-line about responsibility and intent in the killing of civilians is, it needn't stymie us in the least, because we don't needn't straddle it – or even go anywhere near it – to make helpful and effective lists on the subject at hand. The last thing a list should be doing is trying to settle thorny issues of intent. Indeed, it doesn't improve things for the reader one jot to do so: the reader will benefit from having major attacks grouped together in overview, for quick reference, not by having the moral status of those attacks evaluated and determined for him by Wikipedians. Armon and Tewfik want to do this because they have an argument to make, about comparative infamy in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they want to use WP to make it. But for those of us for whom the reader's interest in having well-organized information at his fingertips is more important than the editor 's 'right' to make ethical conclusions and shape content accordingly, there are any number of satisfactory ways to resolve this impasse.--G-Dett 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sensitive contact details in BLP article
Should this edit be deleted from the history of the article? Jeffpw (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It is funny that the article states "The ordinance prohibits any harassment that utilizes an electronic medium, including the internet, text messaging services, pagers, and similar devices" yet happily repeats the name of a woman who has faced no charges over the case, using solely blogs as sources for her name, basically alleging (within the article) she was responsible for Meier's suicide. Note the sources from real media sources (such as [51] or [52]) do not give the name, but Wikipedia does. The entire article is a reeking BLP violation at the moment. Neil☎ 11:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Neil, the name of the woman was only posted in the article after a reputable newspaper reported it in an article. The article itself (a link to it) is in the bio and on the talk page. But the adress never should have gotten in the article. I contacted the concerned editor, but think it should be taken out of the history, if possible. Jeffpw (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The three references (currently numbers 2, 3 and 4) given to state the woman is "responsible for the death". Not one of them state that or anything like that, merely the fact the Drews have been the victims of harrassment (Wikipedia editors who should know better have subsequently synthesized 1+1 and made 5). There's not one reliable source for giving the Drews' names in conjunction with this case. Neil☎ 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just reread the article after reading your concerns, Neil, and don't see what you are seeing. This reference names the woman, and the article basically paraphrases what the newspaper says. I see no BLP infraction. I did not make the edit, but I do not feel it needs to be changed. My concern, however, is that the woman's address has been put into the article, and even though it has been removed, it remains in the history. Does an admin feel that the address needs to be removed from the history? That is the only question which needs answering on ANI. The rest can go onto the talk page or the BLP noticeboard. Jeffpw (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw. WP:RFO states "Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. ". So if the information is not publicy available then request oversight at that board (you e-mail an oversighter and they'll make a decision). If (and only if) the information is publically available then I can't see any issue leaving it in the revision history. Pedro : Chat 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Pedro. I'll e-mail oversight with the edit. The address was found and posted on blogs, and the person has had their house vandalised as a result. I'd rather err on the side of caution. Jeffpw (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then Wikipedia certainly should not be party to publishing the address in any way. As you say, err on the side of caution. Pedro : Chat 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that caution should be exercised in cases like this (people's property being vandalised), even though it is available (and more accessible) elsewhere. The address was added in this edit so all revisions between will need to be removed. Might be helpful to include that in the email unless you've already sent it. James086Talk | Email 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing large chunks of edit history (I didn't even look, but you said "all revisions between") is a problem for the GFDL, though I hope that the oversights know this and can take appropriate measures like pasting the history entries [not the content of course] to the talk page.—Random832 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Oversight gives more information on this. It is acknowledge that there may be no simple solution at time when subsequent edits have occured in proper attribution (GFDL I'm not sure about). Pedro : Chat 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There's 26 edits to be removed but I'm sure the Oversights will figure something out. There were only 3 different editors to change the page in that time, 2 of which have edited it much more, so they are credited in the history elsewhere. The other editor was just adding a wikilink. Still, there's probably a procedure established for this. James086Talk | Email 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed the diffs to Oversight, and have added a message on the article talk page in bold, saying that the info may not be returned to the article, with links to policy supporting that. Jeffpw 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, they could just kill all revisions from the time the information was introduced to the present. That'd be drastic, but would solve the attribution problem.—Random832 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot blocked
This discussion is now closed. The issue with the bot editing incorrectly is not an issue anymore, which was the reason for my block. The bot is unblocked, and beta is attempting to identify and resolve the issue. There was never an issue with the bot's edits when it runs properly, and I'm big enough to take my part in this on the chin. Before this drags out any further I think we should just move on to more productive areas. HidingT 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've just blocked User:BetacommandBot. To my eye it is tagging images as orphaned when they are not in fact orphaned, Image:Doggy's Angels Pleezbaleevit.jpg, Image:Subpro.jpg and Image:KennethOppel Airborn.jpg are examples. I know nothing about bots, so if I am wrong please unblock it. If I am right, well, that makes a change. HidingT 20:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unblock the fucking bot, I know about it, the bot was stopped and Im reverting it. Please read my talkpage. βcommand 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Civility, Betacommand. It's a preventative measure. Can you slow down the bot a bit? 2/3 edits per second is a bit excessive. Will(talk) 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Fix your bot. You do not have a right to run a bot, it is a privilege, nor a right to run a malfunctioning bot. Your anger and your use of foul language is misplaced, even if you might insist on a right to use foul language. Hu 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And Beta, if you use this kind of language after causing damage all over, you yourself will be blocked. Please read up on WP:CIVIL. Crum375 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked the bot, the rest of you can sort out if you want to block it again or not. I've got better things to do. HidingT 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How many times will a bot be blocked before enough is enough? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Errors happen. They get sorted out. Mistakes are made. They get sorted out. Wikipedians upload images in violation of the law. The bot sorts them out. People get angry. The community sorts them out. Wikipedians go around pouring fat on any fires they see... ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What s/he said. I think this is between me and beta as much as anything, and I think we can both say it ain't worth anymore than what's already been said. I don't see the need to dissect the bones of two people's miscommunication, ignorance or whatever. HidingT 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
He. But it gives me the excuse to go off and double check. Excuse me for a few minutes. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Errors happen" just doesn't explain this. This bot has a far higher malfunction rate than comparable bots. The bot operator is unresponsive to improvement suggestions and treats legitimate criticism like personal attacks. Haukur 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I gave as good as I got, if not worse, so I think we can stick the civility in the bin. Beta has had to revert a number of edits near enough single handedly while everyone else chucked peanuts. I don't think mine and beta's whatever it was should be used as a stick to beat the bot. HidingT 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since image issues will continue to be a problem, even after the deadline passes, might it be worth investigating if editors could build an open source alternative to BCB? Like right now if BCB breaks, its up to Beta alone to repair it, since its his code and his design. But if there were an open-source bot that could tag images, then a number of editors could monitor the code and fix errors. Just a thought for discussion. Mbisanz 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
actually this appears to have been caused by the mediawiki API. I cannot seem to duplicate a false tag right now. /me scratches head and keeps looking. βcommand 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I assumed this when I first spotted the error. The bot's previous "errors" have usually been people not understanding the FU guidelines or the bot being on the other side of that weird line between Foundation policy and community tolerance. This was so straight forward, spotted by so many, stopped so quickly and was clearly so "out of character" that it was obviously an API problem. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the root cause of the bug is, the fundamental problem is that because the bot was not properly monitored by the operator, it ran amuck, and I notice that several people had to come in and clean up after him or her. Making that many edits that quickly (a couple hundred per minute) precludes proper monitoring. I really don't think it is such a good idea. Hu 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Any bot, encountering an error where the API tells it wrong information, will "run amok". It could be ClueBot, or MizraBot or any other bot. But since it's Betacommandbot and (not so) secretly people around here want Wikipedia to be another YouTube and not give a rat's arse about copyright, a pile-on appears. If we get rid of BCB, what happens? Do people suddenly start correctly tagging images? Do they suddenly stop uploading clearly marked copyvios? Do we suddenly get some backbone in the community about properly policing "fair use"? Or, more likely, do we just let it pile up until we get a DMCA notice and the WMF decides to pull all "fair use" images? 'Coz you can't have it both ways - it's either police it or get rid of it entirely. There isn't a middle ground that we can afford. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't get rid of the bot. Operators should properly monitor it and all bots. Hu 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop abusing and harassing Beta? The bot is not writing policy, not enforcing it. It is very stressful for any user to deal with something. Although two wrongs don't make a right, harassing Beta EVEN MORE over some frustration isn't going to achieve anything. Nor threating blocks. Smarten up. Maxim(talk) 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Add a stop button to the bots' page, as per other such bots. That will help stopping the bot when needed. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Legal Threat
Here. She appears to be Sasha Grey. This does not appear to be her first threat. I would warn her but I think since this involves a BLP, I will let an admin handle it as I am not sure how WP:DOLT figures into all this yet. spryde | talk 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
From July when the user was new, AFAICT, so I'm not going to block. I've blanked it instead and left a nice-but-firm message to say that help is available if asked for, but that restating the threat will lead to a blocking. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I wound up there playing Connections starting with Recent Deaths that had Emily Sander and through a whole bunch of Porn and voila. Sometimes I have no clue how I end up on parts of Wikipedia. spryde | talk 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't block her, or even threaten her, the Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats essay is quite right here. It's not proven, but she very likely is Sasha Grey, and she wrote that on her user page specifically after she was in a rather heated conflict with someone about posting very personal information on her article, back in July. That statement was actually a disclaimer, that she wasn't going to be making any more legal threats, after coming a lot closer to them. By the way, the article personal information thing was settled; she still has some issues with some mediocre photos of her on Commons, but that seems to be much less of a heated issue. By the way, putting a potential double-entendre about showing puppies on the talk page of a lady in her profession may not have been the best idea... 8-0 --AnonEMouse(squeak) 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of editing the statement on her talk page to be a bit less threatening. Hope that's all right. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, I specifically said that I wouldn't block her. I specifically mentioned that the "threat" was old. And I specifically offered her help but told her not to make legalese statements in future because it didn't help. Please don't wave WP:DOLT at me because that essay itself, used in this way, has a chilling effect on free editing. As to her profession (whatever it is, I haven't looked) vs my signature, well, if she - or you - are that touchy (and are reading something into my signature that isn't there) then I have two words that don't break the spirit of WP:NLT but certainly do break the wording of WP:CIV. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(added after ec)No, it certainly is not. Revert it. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've reverted it and am not best pleased with you, AnonEMouse. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can guess you haven't read her article. Please do. While I won't redo my edits of your comment, I would like you to consider the fact that she may be rather touchy, and would encourage she be granted a bit more leeway than you would grand another editor in this specific matter only. For us, editing the article is no big deal, it's one of two million. For her, this is her life, and it's not the easiest life. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 22:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
<---- Well, I hate to try yet again to get this through to you but I specifically said that I wouldn't block her. I specifically mentioned that the "threat" was old. And I specifically offered her help but told her not to make legalese statements in future because it didn't help. Policy would have allowed me to block her there and then. Common sense allowed me to not do so, remove the threat and offer to help her whilst warning her of the dangers of threatening to sue contributors. DOLT would seem to be requiring me to fall over backwards offering to help someone who is making legal threats. That's a blackmailer's charter and the chilling effect - I mention it again because it is very important - of legal threats and now of the (over)reaction to DOLT is making this place suddenly very cold. There would appear to be no right place to stand on this, so instead of acting on concerns about legal threats, I will now let them stay and do nothing. I'm sure that helps someone. Perhaps in Trenton, New Jersey? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I had reported this months ago, but the admins decided to ignore it then, so you can't blame her for not removing it. Jackaranga 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Note I said nothing about letting the actual lawyer comment on her user page stay and do nothing; I didn't restore it. I just hoped you would not write to her how otherwise you would be considering blocking her for it; she hasn't mentioned a thing about lawyers in 4 months. But we're veering now, the threat is gone, which is the important part, that we chastize her about it is a shame, but not fatal. I'll let it drop. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WHOA! Timeout guys/gals! Redvers made a simple statement about her userpage and nothing about the previous incident. Look at the history of the user page for confirmation. I mentioned the previous incident as I did not see it handled at that time (and if it was handled at that time, she would have been blocked straightaway). I think doing a quick note about WP:NLT and then waiting for a response is a perfectly valid way of handling it. And for the record, I interpreted her use of the lawyer statement after she reverted her page as an extension of the previous threat. spryde | talk 02:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And now is using Twinkle (JavaScript) to revert BetacommandBot edits. Day 8. For an editor who appeared so clueless on day 3, very, very unusual. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
True. I learned the basics as an anon and even after I registered I still made some boneheaded mistakes. I would watch and see if anything really nefarious happens. spryde | talk 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith for now, and pretend he ported himself from another Wiki, or is an old "good" user who decided to vanish. No harm remebering this rapid learning though, if any problems arise in the future. Someguy1221 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
AGF. I told him how to rv using Twinkle on IRC. Will(talk) 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you think that his labeling of Betacommandbot's edits as vandalism is correct? And that reverting valid fair use tags is also correct? Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, my fault. When you need to revert 750 edits, rollback->comment is too slow. (and any malfunction is technically vandalism, either by tag abuse or vandalbots) Will(talk) 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does he/she need to revert 750 valid tags? Corvus cornixtalk 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're out of the loop, Corvus. Between 20:13 and 20:19, bcb went on an orphan tagging spree on many used images. About 750 images in total. Will(talk) 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
They may have been orphans, but they were still invalid FU's, at least the last one that Thehelpfulone reverted didn't have a fair use rationale. Corvus cornixtalk 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Add the FUR tag back on then. Will(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Cannot edit
– Nothing else needs to be done here. -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ().
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://s4.[break]invisionfree.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.
Return to Talk:List of Space Marine Chapters.
I don't understand what it's asking me to do - I'm not adding any links (external OR wiki), just text asking for a citation. Darkson(Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A link was added to the talk page one and a half years ago that has since been blacklisted. I have just removed it; you can edit the page now. Cheers. Someguy1221 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I looked for the link and couldn't find it, hence my confusion.
Hello. For most of vandal fighters, we know who Bobby Boulders is. He uses MySpace[53] and other means of the internet [54] to encourage people to vandalize Wikipedia and advertise for the "ISV" (International Society of Vandals). He has around 40 sock puppets (1, 2), although some people vandalize with him. I would like to propose he be banned for the reasons I have stated. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted and blocked a number of this joker's accounts in my time. I assume that this formality isn't even necessary, since no reasonable administrator is remotely interested in letting his idiocy continue in any manner, especially by unblocking any blocked socks. For what it's worth, I fully support a site ban. — Scientizzle 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that, as socks or acolytes are discovered, they're blocked. So at least a de facto ban exists already. What more can reasonably be done? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A community ban is only "no admin is willing to unblock this user" and since actually no admin is willing to unblock this user, for obvious reasons, ergo he is community banned. Unless I'm missing something? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Tagged as banned, per this thread. — Save_Us_229 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban for his continuous, ideosyncratic behavior on-and-off wiki. This doesn't require discussion, really. He is indefblocked, and there is no administrator on the website who is willing to unblock. Except for one-time, consistent vandals, this is pretty much a de-facto ban. Maser(Talk!) 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Jajouka/Joujouka
14:28, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BKLisenbee (→sock blocks - added information on total disagreement and smearing tactics by user frankrynne & opiumjones_23)
14:23, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Frankrynne (→Lisenbee - This user has been told by administrator FayssalF not to use full names, even last names, only usernames.)
14:22, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Frankrynne (→Incidents reported to ANI - added comments from userr BKLisenbee)
14:00, 30 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Master Musicians of Jajouka (→External links - POV link removed, the only controversy was stirred up by the user who put it there.) (top)
If this sites' own admin will not engage then I must state here formally ..................deleted but acting upon...................... This would really be as to this site rather than Kenneth Lisenbee. This is causing harm and damage....please regulate.
opiumjones 23 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:LEGAL. If you make legal threats, you will be blocked from editing. I hope you will retract the threat, or else admins have no choice but to block you. Corvus cornixtalk 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I must state that admins are doing nothing for my legal rights and as there is a BLP issue it is in fact this sites obligation to protect me. this issue has been aired frequently and often so please seek advise before blocking. I have amended my comment to state that I will seek advice which I feel you can not deny to a wiki subject of article re BLP etc
opiumjones 23 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To be quite blunt, you have no rights on Wikipedia, only privileges, and I would amend the entire section about seeking legal anything otherwise I'll see to it that your blocked. — Save_Us_229 00:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
opiumjones, it's not clear to me what you're asking to be done here. I'm not even sure what it is specifically that you're upset about. Could you be more specific about what guideline of WP:BLP you feel has been broken and what course of action you've already tried to remedy the situation? Brevity would be appreciated. Tijuana Brass 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
mediation procees by User:FassalIF etc see User:FayssalF/JK plus much more archived on various pages for tyhe last two years .
opiumjones 23 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Why is it that a legal threat gets admins involved where an admin informing this page of legal issues gets igniored????? Have deleted the direct threat but am proceeding as indicated unless someone here on this admin board does more to sort
opiumjones 23 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Have just received some advice and you are responsible for this site's content
opiumjones 23 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OOOk -- don't want to jump the gun here, but that last statement seems to be straying into legal territory again. Its not taken at all lightly and you will get blocked. You'll notice that someone has already tried to help you resolve the issue; try working with Tijuana Brass (or I would be happy to help) to resolve the problem instead of continuing this line of discussion which doesn't look like its going to end well. Shellbabelfish 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have indef blocked Frankrynne, per his continued legal threats. Despite his claim above to have withdrawn the threat, User talk:BKLisenbee continues to read "Further defamations of either myself or others associated with me will result in legal proceedings.", which really couldnt' be clearer. With regard to unblocking: personally I will never unblock this user, as I consider legal threats to be an attempt to intimidate other Wikipedians; I appreciate that WP:LEGAL and the apparent consensus differ, so I defer to the community's collective judgement. I would suggest that User:FayssalF be involved in any decision to unblock, based on his experience of this matter. In the meantime I have referred Frankrynne to OTRS. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I have told Frankrynne about OTRS and suggested that, if still aggrieved (he is), he mail them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankrynne has been unblocked now stating that he rescinds all legal threats. If they continue, he has been warned that the block may be reinstated without a removal again. Regards, — Save_Us_229 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey; I think I managed to create December's protected titles page, but I'm not entirely certain I did it correctly. Could someone please double check me? — Coren(talk) 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Tijuana Brass 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How about asking User:KingMorpheus to remove all the redirects from mainspace articles that point to User:ThisDude62/sandbox? If he declines, then ask the DRV closer, User:Carlossuarez46, to delete the draft. (The draft is only there to fix problems pointed out in the AfDs and DRVs). From his comments in the DRV, it sounds like KingMorpheus doesn't perceive any sourcing problems at all in the article. A number of people with wrestling expertise joined in the AfD and !voted for delete. EdJohnston 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Cross namespace redirects are a speeedy deletion criteria. It is transparently obvious that wikilinks in article space should not go to user space. If the user doesn't remove them himself, someone else should do so. GRBerry 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The main editors to these pages are admitted employees/devotees of Maharishi, who is the originator and marketer of Transcendental Meditation. Recently, two RfCs have been lodged requesting additional non-TM editors evaluate the pages for NPOV and COI concerns. The TM editors are closely allied in their edits, and are most vocal in refusing any large changes to the article (some edit-warring on this took place yesterday - so TM is now protected). They also are insistent that their conflicts-of-interest should not dis-qualify them from being the main editors to the page, and seem to mis-understand consensus and neutral-point-of-view. One editor in particular, User:TimidGuy, has said that anyone who thinks he shouldn't edit the page should lodge a complaint with ArbCom. ArbCom shouldn't really be bothered by this, but the talk page posts approach flaming levels, so could someone please take a look at these editors and decide what is indicated?
I know nothing about this topic but I did take a quick look at this. There's more to the story. There's an obvious edit war going on or User:Ryan Postlethwaite would not have just fully page protected it two days ago. It's also obvious that editors on the other side of the coin are User:Naturezak and User:Dseer, who just got a civility warning from Jossi, which Dseer deleted as "spam", see [55]. I don't know what's going on here, but I do know a more thorough investigation is warranted. For now, I say keep the full page protection, have the editors peaceably settle it on the talk page-hopefully, and neutral admins and editors take a deeper look. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that peaceful settlement is unlikely - the COI editing is a long running problem going back at least a year. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is considerable dis-content with the current article, outside of the TM editing block - that much may be stated with certainty. Dseer apparently has a great dislike of Jossi (see my talk page), which perhaps explains that particular problem. My reading of the situation is that the fire of the current objections will eventually die down, but unless some remedy is applied, the COI editing will continue indefinitely. I have several times asked the TM editors to stand down from the articles and allow comprehensive rewrites, but they refuse - and do not seem to appreciate the nature of the problem. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue been before mediation and also COI twice already in the last year and a subject of repeated edit warring with no resolution or enforcement for NPOV, article ownership or compliance with COI Noticeboard determination that TMers have COI. Any issues with my edit should not derail the train. It is not cool heads that are required anymore, it is someone to take control and if need be enforce all policies evenly, or if you can't do this, it needs to go to Arbcom. Jossi has strong opinions on NRM/Cults and supporters and critics, and selectively enforced his opinion on civility without also acknowledging the context, and that the Civility policy itself says that NPOV comes first, then civility. I have asked Jossi to seriously consider defering to Admins who have no interest either way in cults (he considers that trolling), and I'd prefer one who can recognize fringe claims, POV, COI. article ownership and information suppression for what it is, civil or not. --Dseer (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Before this thread gets archived, could someone please review the matter? I'd rather not have to repeat this when the protection on the page expires. Michaelbusch 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous but heated (wheel) war at Wikipedia:Classification of administrators by name
This was protected following serious wars, but, as one can see, this has not abated. I think a lengthy discussion is now needed. It really is ridiculous: a war over whether a "category" is insulting. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't. And if a steward has been contacted and sees my message, please have the sense to not desysop anyone. Everyone involved with that page just needs to cool down; a desysopping would be counterproductive, as it would ignite even more conflict. --Iamunknown 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is possibly the lamest edit war I have seen on wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 08:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only echo that. This is completely ridiculous - admins should definitely know better than to engage in utterly silly conflicts like this. henrik•talk 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have an image of a large scottish man in my head screaming "ARE YE DAFT MAN!!!!". ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 08:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear God. I second Swatjester's comments. Save us. Pedro : Chat 09:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a google images search for a "big hairy scottish man" to photoshop and it yielded gay porn :( ViridaeTalk 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it looks like Jc37 (talk·contribs) and Mikkalai (talk·contribs) have been reverting each other over some section headings? Abtract (talk·contribs) moved the page to "Classification of users by name," saying "it should be open to all;" the move was reverted by Jc37, who justified this by saying that only admins should be adding themselves. As far as I can tell, Jc37 protected to their own preferred version on two fronts, and then they and Mikkalai continued reverting back and forth on the protected page (both being admins). Why on earth is this such a big deal to everybody that they're wasting admin tools like this? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want anyone de-sysopped here, but fully protecting something that only admins were interested in at the time is pointless in itself any way. Lame? Beyond Lame. Also, there was no category to put myself in, so I feel very put out :) Pedro : Chat —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You could put yourself in the "Boring" category, so long as you're not insulted by it... GracenotesT§ 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! see my ec'd comment below! Yes - boring I must be! Is there a kill joy category? Pedro : Chat 09:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a bloody "Neopian" category...sad, since otherplaces my moniker is the Neopian Doppelganger (hence the Kacheek emote in my sig). -Jéské(Blahv-_-v) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It was as a result of highlighting this page to admins that respected editor in good standing User:Jreferee ended up with a 15 minute block, that also proved contentious (see here). Much as I love WP:COMMUNITY if this is going to cause so much grief, wheel warring and "mis-use" of admin tools it may be better to take it to WP:MFD, sadly. It's just a bit of fun but we can't have this. Shame. Pedro : Chat 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, just wow guys edit warring on a humourous, and protected page?... Seriously if you're not even able to abide with the policies you are enforcing, it might be a good time to reconsider your involvement... -- lucasbfrtalk 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did some counting earlier, and I don't think either of us went past 3RR, since it involved different sections. (and I'll freely admit to sleeping in between some edits.)
That said, I attempted to discuss this with the user (as did others) here, at their talk page (now archived), noting that as the admins in question are adding themselves (one such admin reverted the user's removal), they should be allowed the capacity to decide what they feel is "insulting" to themselves. I also dropped a note on Radiant!'s talk page (since, at the time, it was a subpage of his userpage).
Slim Virgin may have crossed the line slightly [56], and though I honestly think she did so with humour (and was supported by at least one person), I did comment about it at her talk page as well.
And in hindsight it dawned on me that I could resolve the user's issues if we just protected the page so that admins could be the only ones to edit. That way her concerns of potential "vandalism" would be unwarranted. That's been/being discussed on that page's talk page.
And finally, I don't have a "preferred version", except to let the admins decide for themselves : )
I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment by involved party which is Mikkalai, classified by SlimVirgin as "Boring": I was strongly opposed the admin categories "Boring" and "Total Nonsense" on the grounds that there are jokes and there are sick jokes and in a multicultural community it is very easy to cross the line, and if someone tells you "back off, this is offensive", you better back off. In response SlimVirgin classified me as "Boring" in this page. Even my replacing "Notal Nonsense" by "Unfathomable" was duly reverted several times. A while ago a long-time active but kinda pain in the ass user was blocked indefinitely because he called someone Muntenian, which was classified as "unquestionably racist" attack by the blocking admin referrred to a "consensus" of an unknown discussion and quorum, and who firmly stood his ground despite numerous protests.
Further, in an outrageous gesture of self-isolation from the rest of the community the page was protected from edits by non-admins. And you are saying "There is no cabal". It appears there is, a self-loving and self-righteous one, with its own subculture of growing intolerance.
Wikipedia is for creating encyclopedia. I see a growing number of people turning it in a playground. If it is too boring for you to write interesting articles, and it even became boring for you to chase vandals, to delete stubs about presidents multibillion companies saying the "notability not proven" (feels good, try sometime), and block colleagues for months for minor infractions, get some real life. `'Míkka>t 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke, Mikka, which I posted because you were reverting the boring category. My apologies if it offended you. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)
After reading the comments above I just want to repeat what I said on the Mikkalai's talk page: You're taking this all waaay too seriously, and in my opinion, severely over-reacting. Whatever stress is causing this, makes me wonder if maybe you wouldn't do better with a Wiki-Break.
I don't intend to revert the sections (again), but "someone" probably should, considering that they (the admins in question) wanted their names under those headers. (Whatever happened to trusting to our fellow admins' discernment?)
And finally...
. o O (I'm a member of the CABAL? - When did that happen? And are there jackets?) - jc37 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude, what if this all is my sense of humor? `'Míkka>t 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
By "this all is", do you mean edit war drama? Well, in any case, I sincerely admire your excellent work for articles. It's great that you're able to develop content the way you do, whereas I'm mostly skilled in the technical maintenance of Wikipedia. Some people, though, find it useful to develop a community (see WP:COMMUNITY) to create a healthy social environment in which they can collaborate efficiently and discuss things openly with each other, rather than police around and, regardless of community opinion, enforce their will (a behavior for which you've expressed disdain, at least previously). There are problems with this community approach, as it often fails, especially when openness is only partial. I see that you dislike it. But, MediaWiki is social software, and Wikipedians are humans, and nothing can change that. Jimbo's question was: "Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia?" The answer: "Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki." Fine, you don't want to be classified. At this point, I don't think anyone's seriously considering adding you. Situation resolved. GracenotesT§ 08:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say that we should waive 3RR and no-wheel-warring for this page and let people take out their repressed desires to edit-war and reverse other admins and flame either other here, rather than someplace more important. For lameness, however, nothing will ever top last Christmas Eve's lengthy discussion on whether to block Santa Claus. Newyorkbrad 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This category shouldn't even exist, it serves no point whatsoever. I believe it is also a sub user page of Radiant!'s, which I do not object to, but as a category, I do. And yes, this should be added to the lamest edit wars list. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's idea would be great, except I think part of the issue is whether or not people could be added, by others, to "insulting" categories. So, I propose creating a new page, WP:FIGHTCLUB (with additional redirects WP:CAGEMATCH and WP:THUNDERDOME), where rules about 3RR, CIVIL, NPA, wheel warring, etc are all waived. There's only one rule: you are not allowed to mention another human being that has not already entered the cage. (well, there are two rules, and that's the second one; the first rule is "no talking about WP:FIGHTCLUB"). --barneca 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone tried to block Santa? : ( - jc37 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment 7 of the 8 names covered in this diff are self-added: Alvestrand, Alex Bakharev, Akradecki, Jehochman, ais523, Xoloz, TSO1D. Since this is a humour page, I think we can agree that anyone who doesn't want his/her name anywhere on the page, or in a particular section, needn't see it appear there. However, the fact that these names were self-added (indeed, the category titles were created by two of the users listed above) should ameliorate concerns about their potential to give offense. Please let's end this unproductive thread. – Black Falcon(Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Notso fast. I'm in the middle of preparing an extensive series of diffs for a community ban of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and 6 of the 7 Dwarves. --Haemo 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not the Easter Bunny! Have you no shame... Shellbabelfish 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone thrown this on WP:LAME yet? ♠PMC♠ 06:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OMG looks deeply concerned The Borg have assimilated all the other aliens, how long till my time is up?--Alfmelmac 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I still see some free Grundo o... oh, never mind, they appear to be under Combine control. D: Are there any free races still in existence? -Jéské(Blahv^_^v) 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni Giove (redux)
Community ban imposed. — Coren(talk) 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently Giovanni Giove has taken to removing talk page posts he doesn't like on the grounds that they are "personal attacks". The problem is that (a) the comments he removes are not personal attacks, (b) he edit wars over it, and (c) Giovanni himself makes comments that are much worse than the comments he removes. Examples of supposed "personal attacks" removed: [57] (edit warring over it: [58][59][60]), [61], [62] (edit warring over it: [63]), [64]. Examples of peronal attacks Giovanni has himself been making: "poor, poor idiots", "shameful lies of shameful users", "you (...) are a shame for your own country". (These are not exhaustive lists) Giovanni Giove is on an ArbCom revert parole (one rever per page per week). Whether this applies to talk pages seems to be a grey area (though one ArbCom clerk I spoke to said it probably would) but the underlying issue here - the total inability to work with other editors - needs to be addressed regardless. I am more than aware that few users in the Dalmatia dispute are saints, but one user is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of edit warring, POV pushing and generally creating conflict. I indefblocked Giovanni Giove a fortnight ago for this reason, though Thatcher131 reduced this to two days on the grounds that there were extenuating circumstances (I hold no grudge against him for that). Giovanni Giove unfortunately has not changed at all since then, has continued with his typical POV warrioring and indeed has become significantly more hostile towards everyone. I think it's time that we realise that he is unlikely to become a productive user anytime soon given his deep-seated POV and substantial history of disruption (see block log). Therefore, I ask the community to ban this user. – Steel 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the terms of parole, this is a clear WP:3RR violation (that isn't limited to articles). I am blocking for one week; let's hope that's sufficient for him to cool down. — Coren(talk)
(Added note) I don't think it's clear that the revert parole would apply to talk pages either, hence I'm not considering this a parole violation— but I'm not going to raise a fuss if someone disagrees and extends/indefs the block. — Coren(talk) 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate the action. I still think it's worth keeping this thread open to gather opinions on whether a full community ban is warranted. Seven previous blocks have failed to solve the problem. – Steel 16:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not marking this resolved yet. — Coren(talk) 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully prepared to indef this. Edits like [65] demonstrate that, in addition to edit warring and incivility, there is also a blatant failure of even trying to reach something like neutrality. This is the hallmark of an inveterate tendentious editor and POV-pusher. We ought to be banning such people far quicker and with far less prior fuss. Failure to strive for NPOV is the true bannable offense here and the true cause of all the disruption. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I can not support blocking someone because of how they treat their own talk page, no matter as a regular 3RR complaint or as a 1RR parole violation. 3RR/1RR certainly applies if the editor is editing someone else's user talk page, and it clearly applies to all other namespaces -- but not the user's own talk page. Regarding the rest of the allegations of poor behavior, I will have to look at them later. Note, however, that there are at least 5 edit warring editors on Dalmatia issues, they appear to work in groups, and only two of them are currently under Arbcom sanction. Thatcher131 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Then the solution is to ban the others too, not to let this one loose again. Arbcom sanctions or no Arbcom sanctions. If G.G.'s behaviour, as far as I've seen it, is in some way representative of "normal" standards of behaviour in that domain, then the domain needs a good thorough purge. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Where does Giovanni's own user talk page factor into this? No-one has even mentioned it. – Steel 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: The 3RR violation was on Talk:Birth Place of Marco Polo, right? Some of the other incivil edit summaries were on his own talkk; the edit warring there isn't really the issue. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's (Talk:Birth Place of Marco Polo) is why I blocked him. The duration, however, was increased to one week rather than the more typical day because of the general incivility and the previous 3RR blocks. — Coren(talk) 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, yes you're right. Removing posts from his own talk page is fine, but incivility there is not. – Steel 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And the inappropriate edit cited by Fut.Perf. was on the Jakov Mikalja article, not their own user talk page. — Satori Son 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I missed that he was reverting article talk pages. Comes of responding to messages in the middle of an experiment. Article talk pages are definitely covered by the 1RR parole (as would be policy pages, images, etc.) Thatcher131 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, if there are no other objections, I'm going ahead and extending the block. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
May I request for review ban against Giovanni Giove? Because I think so: he is valid collaborator. Regards. LEO, 1 December 2007
There comes a point, LEO, when the net benefit of an editor's contribution is no longer believed to compensate for the disruption caused by their behavior. Giovanni Giove has pretty much passed this point by now, and does not appear to be willing to amend his behavior.
A ban, however, is not a permanent or irreversible matter— Giovanni might be able to return under some parole terms, for instance, if he discusses those with an administrator who then agrees to unblock him under those conditions. Alternately, he may request that the arbitration committee look at the ban, possibly also including parole terms. In all cases, it is very likely that such a return would be conditional to a topic ban. — Coren(talk) 16:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK update needed
Looks like the DYK update is about four hours overdue. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is this an incident every time it's overdue? Someguy1221 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Because we don't have enough people doing it. I would do it, but I need a basic tutorial first.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was speedily closed only 11 minutes after it was posted. This action seems premature and heavy handed. What is the harm in letting the AfD take its normal course, and allowing WP contributors to comment? There are clearly some editors who believe this person to be non-notable, and they are entitled to have their voices heard. User:W.marsh had earlier contributed to this article, so he may not have come to this decision from an entirely neutral perspective. WWGB 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd have closed it as a clear speedy keep at that point too, so it's not that controversial a close. If she become just another statistic (ie, her 15 minutes of posthumous fame is up quite quickly), then an AfD would be appropriate in a month or so. I'd bet on that happening and the article being deleted. Just not at the moment whilst it's news.
And W.marsh's last meaningful contribution to this busy article was about 23 hours ago and even then was just tidying up, so I don't see much of a conflict of interest.
Nevertheless, you can (a) take your concerns to the article's talk page [good] or (b) take the AfD result to deletion review for further consideration [worst] or (c) take your concerns up with W.march on their talk page [best]. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with W.marsh's closure of it, and you have about as unneutral point of view bringing the issue up here as he did closing it since you started the AFD. It's clearly a notable topic right now and I don't think your point of view about it was very convincing honestly. Two speedy keeps on the AFD from one good-faith contributer and one administrator should tell you that your wrong. — Save_Us_229 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see why this can't wait a week or two until talking about the long-term importance isn't just pure speculation. I thought an AFD now would be drama with a predictable result (a keep after 5 days of sound and fury). So I ignored all rules and avoided a process that would just get people riled up with no useful result. If admins really think an AFD is needed this very minute, I don't object to being overturned. --W.marsh 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the close, easily the most high-profile murder case in months right now, if nothing else happens, relist in AFD in the future. This is a Secretaccount 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess I spoke too soon... I've been overturned. Drama here we come. --W.marsh 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Disrespective attitude to colleagues both in AfD and here are duly noted. `'Míkka>t 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your being just as disrespective Mikkalai, you can stop hammering him anytime you like now. — Save_Us_229 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Premature closure reverted as abusive action of POV pushing. Belengs to the sister project Wikinews. Shall we pump each and every newspaper story into wikipedia? This is encyclopedia, not newspaper aggregator. `'Míkka>t 23:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
POV pushing? You have no idea what my POV is on the non-policy issues. Please don't make personal attacks. --W.marsh 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your closure without any solid reason is pushing your POV, without hearing the community on the issue. IMO you are demonstrating a misunderstanding your position. `'Míkka>t 23:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"demonstrating a misunderstanding your position" doesn't even make any sense. I can't respond to this. --W.marsh 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's continue teh drama for 5 days, maybe 7 if were lucky! — Save_Us_229 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai, please drop the confrontationalism, the aggressive tone and the accusations. They aren't helping anyone. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Teach your buddy manners first. There would no drama in the first place if he admitted his mistake without irony. (see the state of the AfD now. Hardly a snowball keep.) `'Míkka>t 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So I'm... whatever slurs you've made about me so far... for wanting to speedy keep without enough discussion, yet you argue to speedy delete on the same amount of discussion? Isn't that the exact same argument you blast me for? --W.marsh 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you think quietly what the difference is between your actions and mine. If you don't see any, then you should not be allowed to be an admin. `'Míkka>t 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool it everyone. I've absolutely no idea how anyone thought this was a speedy keeper, there's no basis for that. Bad call. But that aside - let's talk this out for 5 days. And let's debate the substance not each other.--Docg 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said. W.marsh closed prematurely, it's been relisted, and that's all that needs to happen here. Please keep future comments in the proper location - at the AfD - and civil. Tijuana Brass 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got a great idea, listen. All these problems we have with confusing notoriety for notability, and being unale to establish the long-term influence of someone briefly in the spotlight could be solved at a stroke if we had a site for news material, distinct form the encyclopaedia. We could call it something like Wikinews. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Help me, I'm being stalked
User:Prester John (talk·contribs) is following me from article to article, reverting content that I've added, or deleting others' content after I edit an article.
This has all been happening in the past hour or so:
02:23, 1 December 2007Malcolm Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff Description: Removed content I had added about 'Springbok aircraft'. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.
02:16, 1 December 2007Mike Carlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff Description: Removed others' content after I edited the page. Prester John has never previously been to this page before a few minutes ago.
Please help, as he's going back though the list and deleting everything I've added to Wikipedia. Thanks, Lester 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I got to him. If he does that one more time, I will have no choice but to report him. Let me know if he bothers you again. Best, -Goodshoped 03:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just cleaning out the garbage. Lester is a serial pest on wikipedia and it is not uncommon for most of his POV edits to be reverted. articles he creates will inevitably end up at the AFD. Try to debate the edit content, not the editor. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, guy. Do you want me to bring the mediation commitee here? Apparently you two keeps edit warring. One more revert on the same page in 24 hours and I'll report both of you to 3RR. -Goodshoped 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee wouldn't intervene here. Furthermore, I find your threats against other established Wikipedians to be unproductive - please stop. Daniel 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or is User:Prester John's user page borderline soapboaxing/attacking the middle-east? --WebHamster 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I as well sensed some discrimination when reading his userpage. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, report to AIV or get him blocked right now. Apparently, he ignored my warnings. -Goodshoped 03:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that his reverts to his user page constitute vandalism, and a report to AIV. The reason why this noticeboard was set up is so that administrators can have some say in a certain incident. This is the correct noticeboard, AIV probably isn't (I'm getting tired of people using AIV as a "report so called vandals to get them blocked" noticeboard). Spebi 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
<-- Then what are we to do? He ain't gonna stop. He's just going to keep going and going and going and going... So? And sorry about the bunny. -Goodshoped 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How about both of you take your differences to the talk pages of the respective articles instead of blindly reverting each other? android79 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not used for discussion -- talk pages are. Also, if you weren't attacking the other editor in question, people might be more inclined to believe this wasn't some odd campaign you're on. You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your accusations. I suggest you stop the rapid reverting of this one editors contributions unless you can make a case for those reverts. Shellbabelfish 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Shell. You are toeing very close to the line on Wikistalking. android79 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Lester, using Twinkle to revert Prester John's edits is not cool, and neither is referencing "per ANI" in your edit summaries. That doesn't make any sense. android79 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of chores to do on Wikipedia. If you let this user go, somebody else will deal with any real problems. To both parties, when presenting a case to the community, it is most helpful if you use diffs to substantiate what you are saying. See the help articles links I've placed to the right. - JehochmanTalk 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Android79, yes, in the above listed articles, where Prester removed my contributions, I reverted them. I though I was in my rights to restore them, and I will stop if that's considered the wrong thing to do. Since then, Prester John has gone back and deleted my content yet again, after an admin warning was sent to his talkpage. I have this guy following my deleting my contributions, and the evidence is clear about who is following who. This is happening on articles that Prester John has never been to before the past hour or two. It's horrible. It's bullying. No Wikipedian deserves this. Nobody. It is continuing, and I ask again for Admin assistance.Lester 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it appears to have stopped. Time for you both to use the article's talk pages to hash this out, and bring others into the discussion if needed. android79 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andriod. It's temporarily quietened because I've stopped adding content, and Prester has been successful in removing the content that I previously added, without discussing. I point out that in the previous ANi incident involving Prester John, it ended with Prester promising he would use the talk pages instead of just reverting without discussing. As soon as the Admins stop watching, the reversions continue. When I again add new content to Wikipedia, I'll have Prester John deleting it again. It just keeps going.Lester 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Prester does nothing but revert, abuse, and disrupt. His contributions page is a good example of that. So is his award on his page, given by a sockpuppet. Timeshift 07:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say this is either edit waring or a content dispute requiring comment. What this is is pure bullying and harassment, of a type aimed at stopping me from editing Wikipedia. All editors should be afforded protection from this kind of thing. There is no reason any editor should have to endure this. Lester 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![[32]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Image%3ALatif_Pedram_2002.jpg&diff=174606382&oldid=174594706){kind=link}
![[33]](https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Image:Latif_Pedram_2002.jpg&diff=174609028&oldid=174607920){kind=link}
