Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters? Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor. I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome. --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask. --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin. Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it. But maybe it was. Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing. Who is being uncivil to you? Who is malcontent or out of line? What policy do you refer to? If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People are out of line on both sides here. DreamGuy, you aren't as innocent as you would like to think, but that's not to say that there aren't policy-breakers harassing you. It's just that not everyone who disagrees with you is one of those people. --clpo13_(talk) 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate

On his talk page, in response to polite inquiry from the guy who has mediated the compromise on the content dispute on Photo editing, DreamGuy makes clear his position:

I've made comments on the talk page. The same people out to edit war to the bad version ignored them as usual. We had a consensus version, but most of the people who built that consensus gave up and were driven off by harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere. The article is simply a battleground and not a real discussion over actual Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

— DreamGuy

In fact, he has made no comments on the talk page since July 28, and has not responded at all to the proposed compromise. One can infer that he rejects the consensus and intends to go back to unilateral dismantling of the content section after it's unprotected, if that ever happens. His view of "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users" seems delusional; is there a solution, or a proposed course of action, for such situations, or do all admins just want to continue to ignore it? Dicklyon 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

So it seems that in addition to the content RfC that he ignored, we need to do a user conduct RfC before arbitration makes sense. So I tried to open one, but the button to create it (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct) took me to an already existing page on a previous 2005 conduct RfC on him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. So that's probably what he was referring to above as "said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves." So what is the procedure for opening a new one when there is already one by the preferred name? Dicklyon 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create a new RfC about that user, create the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 with the content {{subst:RfC|DreamGuy}}. Then fill out the page as normal. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see from the link color, that worked. I haven't put any content in yet, but I got the page started. Dicklyon 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I filled in my part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for instructions on how to contribute. You'll find a link to the DreamGuy conduct RfC there. (and sorry about that last edit that got reverted; looks like I got out of sync somehow) Dicklyon 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper procedure for letting interested parties (such as those commenting above) know that this RfC is open? Or would any such be considered improper recruiting or canvassing? Dicklyon 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornplease (was: Community's criminal negligence at revelation of personal information)

While the Wikipedia community is discussing attack sites that make outing on members, a criminal troll inside Wikipedia is revealing personal information about an established user and an Arbcom member is giving a pat to the troll by blocking the victimised user. User:Bakasuprman has effected an outing on an established user, who hasn't been active over two weeks. A permanent block of this troll is long overdue. An Arbcom member Blnguyen, who btw, is the patron of Bakasuprman has blocked User:Hornplease and has thus given the go ahead to this criminal act. Blnguyen might oversight the page to save his protégé. Community should be vigilant against such moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hornplease 59.91.253.206 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Where has he done this? WilyD 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the link I gave. The troll gives enough details to locate and identify the user, if the details were true. That those details are not given by the user himself and not seen on his user page itself shows that the troll was attempting harassment by revelation. 59.91.253.206 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hornplease was blocked for using IP sockpuppets to try to bypass the three revert rule. He also states on his user page where he lives. The IP locations are easily seen by the WHOIS link after their addresses on the RFCU page you're linking to. I don't see the outing. If I'm missing something, could you provide diffs? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)The checkuser request linked above provides no more personal information than is posted on Hornplease's user page. Perhaps you misinterpreted "incidentally where the subject teaches"; to me, it pretty clearly refers to where the subject of the article in question (Michael E. J. Witzel) teaches, not User:Hornplease. If there is truly more personal information than this being posted somewhere, you're better off dealing with this thru email, rather than posting a gigantic "Look! Here Is Some Personal Information I Don't Think You Should See!" notice on ANI. --barneca (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Nor do I. Hornplease admits to being in Cambridge, and aside from the large ISPs in the area, just about the only place that has its own IP net is Harvard, which has not only dorm-based access, but Wi-Fi in all the buildings, via dynamic IPs. There's plenty of real-life people he could be. MSJapan 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, Bakasuprman, was deliberately gaming. He deliberately used the word "subject" to leave room for ambiguity. Please note that, the name of the subject of the article has not been mentioned in the page. Also,the IP that the user admitted to have used has only 8 edits, all of them on a single day in 2005. Hornplease was blocked by Blnguyen because Bakasuprman argues that the IP that reverted on Witzel article is similar to the IP that Hornplease adimitted to using on a single day in 2005. See. Firstly, the attempt to pin a Harvard IP to the user. Coupled with this is the deliberately ambiguoous "the subject" who could be the subject of the checkuser case as well. Moreover, the IP edits accused of as revert-warring were really attempts to remove ill-sourced belittling information which should go per BLP policy anyway. If I guess correctly, 3r violation is irrelevant about removing BLP violation. The reverter quoted the policy in his summaries. Also see how Blnguyen treated Bakasuprman's sockpuppetry involving multiple socks and personal attacks where indefinite ban should only be reasonable. See the first entry in this log and this case.59.91.253.250 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuntan (talk · contribs) go away.Bakaman 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go away troll. Your mimicking the dick is obscene. Mastcell, you don't need to suspect. I am the very party. I suggest you do a block range. 59.91.253.161 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kuntan, I'm not part of Korea's bulging Hindu nationalist BJP robot hindutvavadi communal cow worshipping community.Bakaman 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The CU case doesn't reveal enough personal information to be a problem. Take a look at User talk:Hornplease, and you'll see that people are trying to guess at this user's real identity; whether this is a problem, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt hornplease is Michael E. J. Witzel, but I know at least three editors of India related articles that edit from the Harvard, and one is the real Witzel.Bakaman 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that those accounts are socks, but I doubt that Bakasuprman is the sockmaster. File a checkuser request and see what happens. By the way, User:Terminador looks like a sock/SPA as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than Bakasuprman (whom I have no reason to believe is a sockmaster) it looks like socks vs. socks. I wonder on how many other articles this is the case. Even this thread was started by a sock. Plainly, our system isn't working.Proabivouac 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A very astute observation. Back then (a year ago) it was BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) vs. Hkelkar (talk · contribs), now its a degenerate arena of sockpuppets/teers/meats/COI editors.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, My area of interest is the contemporary social relations in India and if I run into authors who tend to work on similar articles its not my problem and should not be taken as a SPA.If you are Sir, in doubt please do a checkuser yourself, I am editing from Delhi, India and on a Mahanagar TNL network.Terminador 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why we have armies of meatpuppets attacking each other. The fiasco leading to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2 scared off all the legitimate editors. That is the reason why there are almost no active indian admins or legitimate editors of indian politics articles. As for terminador, his whole contribution history has been limited to stalking me.Bakaman 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Hornplease should be reduced

Using IPs to edit war is not acceptable, and since Blnguyen is a Checkuser, I suppose there's enough evidence to tie User:Hornplease to these IP edits. However, the 1-week block is clearly excessive. Hornplease has never been blocked before, and a shorter block would have been more appropriate.

The article where the supposed sock edits occured, Michael E. J. Witzel, is a BLP, and the passage that was removed, [6], while sourced, amounts to innuendo and has no place in an article about a living person. (Note the discussion at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Crimson_articl.)

Since 3RR can be violated to remove negative information, I don't think the reverts are a violation in and of themselves, though I agree that the use of IPs is problematic. Therefore I think the block should be reduced in length, perhaps to a 24 hour block. (Which is a pretty normal length for an established user's first block anyway, right?) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus as to shortening the block. I have also blocked the above dynamic IP temporarily as it appears to be in use, as Bakasuprman mentioned, by User:Kuntan. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever the community decides. However I have suspicions that Hornplease (talk · contribs) editing in collusion or at the behest of Witzel (talk · contribs). The geographic closeness as well as Hornplease's obvious POV and continued promotion of Witzel's work as the piece de resistance of Indology in my view cannot be just a coincidence.Bakaman 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is very unlikely to be a coincidence.Proabivouac 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and MastCell, and recommend reduction of the block, considering that Hornplease has never been blocked before. --Ragib 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bakasuprman has in no way violated WP:HARASS here: as he states, there's no more personal information here than was freely given already/is publically available and was necessary for the report.
• It does indeed appear that Hornplease has violated 3RR using IPs, per the CU.
• Reverts per WP:BLP "may be" exempt, and as there is valid concern, Hornplease should be unblocked now, and advised not to do it this way in the future. It's a shame, though, that anyone would have felt it necessary: it shows there is not enough consciousness re BLP, or that we don't have confidence that BLP-grounded reverts really will be held exempt - as here, they weren't.
• It's time to leave Michael E. J. Witzel alone. This seems a particularly unnecessary example, as the material added (so far as I can discern) has nothing to do with the reason for the animosity, but it just an arbitrary (and, from the looks of it, not very significant) "controversy."
• If and where Hornplease is promoting Witzel's work, as Bakasuprman alleges, it is certainly legitimate to keep a check on that; the conversation above moves me to wonder if there might not be a WP:COI factor at play (not charging, just asking.)Proabivouac 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The block is a good call in my opinion, Hornplease as an established user should know better. There is a possibility of a conflict of interest and collusion Michael Witzel who is a professor at the Harvard University, and has been involved in the California Textbook controversy. This is a grave matter and should be investigated. --Nearly Headless Nick 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be investigated. However, COI doesn't necessarily trump BLP - or does it? If someone pops up claiming outright to be the subject of an article and starts removing information that honestly does look like it shouldn't be present, I'd be pretty reluctant to block him/her. It just sounds like a bad idea on a number of levels. Something tells me that this situation must have arisen many times before; if I have this wrong, please educate me.Proabivouac 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced Hornplease's block to 1 day, less time served. So, the block will expire in 30 minutes. I see nothing in his behaviour which justifies a one-week block on a first offence. FCYTravis 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The one week block was totally justified. After all, Hornplease was holding forth on the arbcom that meatpuppetry was worth indeffing! 'Hasnt been blocked before' doesnt really make any sense. He's been here long enough and should have known better. Be that as it may, the thing that is of most concern is the possibility of COI that Bakaman has raised. It needs to be investigated with all seriousness. Sarvagnya 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. If something happens again, another block can be applied. A one-week block is grossly excessive, as there is no evidence that the offending behaviour will occur again, per our blocking policy. FCYTravis 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is one thing, but trying to hide that you are edit warring by changing identities is simply a bad faith action. 1 week seems very reasonable. Until(1 == 2) 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there an attempt to hide it? Just the other day, I reported User:Chubeat8 who was (and still is) pretending to be four different people for 3RR; he got 31 hours. Here there's a BLP concern, I see no unambiguous evidence of deception (unless he denied this somewhere?), and an editor in good standing gets a week?

And who is User:211.51.164.33/User:211.51.164.93?Proabivouac 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to inform Hornplease that he was blocked?Proabivouac 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to inform Hornplease that he was blocked? In Hornplease Wikipedia may have lost one of the most vigilant patrollers on BLPs.84.44.157.53 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the most vigilant patrollers on BLPs??? He selectively decides what is valid for a BLP and not and applies that to the biographies he regularly checks. On the case of Witzel, he is typically against anything that is anti-witzel, removing things like a Harvard contraversey that relates to his being a department head while pushing to call PN Oak a Hindutva follower when he is not accepted into that group by many followers of Hindutva. Besides, he is also quite uncivil and has often times particpated in name calling and revert wars on several articles--not caring to read citations while at times, pushing citations in bad faith, knowing well that they don't even relate to the topic at hand. see [[7]] discussion entitled "Reliable Sources" where he posts a list of 11 sources, many of which do not match what he has written.

Why is he anti-Hindu? Because he only does this type of thing on articles relating to Hindus and applies all of his power and reasoning on protecting entries of an anti-Hindu nature. He refuses to accept the same set of rules for treating sources and articles that are pro & anti-hindu as any non-partisan editor should. Kkm5848 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Michael E. J. Witzel

The article where this incident occurred, Michael E. J. Witzel, seems to get a lot of ideologically motivated editing; in fact, to me it seems that there have been ongoing attempts to convert the article into a smear job. Since this article is a BLP this is a matter of some concern. Obviously some DR needs to be attempted here, but I hope that until we can get that going a few more people could place the article on their watchlists. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, this recent edit by User:Dishivlatavish:

"Sandhya Jain of the Daily Pioneer notes that Prof. Witzel worked with Christian Evangelical groups who were supproting Witzel against the Hindu groups edits shows his anti-Hindu bias."[8]

The source for this insightful comment is a political ideologue's op-ed column on a on-line Delhi news site. Such edits plainly violate BLP, and we should not be blocking anyone for removing them; indeed, we should be removing them ourselves.

From WP:BLP:

If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal…Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Proabivouac 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jain is hardly an ideologue, she is a mainstream journalist writing for a mainstream paper. The Pioneer is conservative, but not like FOX news. Indian academics are frequently identified as marxist.Bakaman 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Romila Thapar, there are certainly historians whose work is overtly Marxist in character, in India and elsewhere; most of them will not shy away from saying so. However, the sources put forth to support this were partisan, not academic. Superficially, it looks like an attempt to reduce her involvement in the textbook controversy to political hackery. The eminent V. S. Naipaul is quoted as identifying Marxist influences in the way Thapar views history, which, judging only from what I see, looks like a completely valid point. We need more than that, though, to label her a "Marxist historian."

By "ideologue", I did not mean "stupid" or "not worth reading." You may substitute "public intellectual" if you prefer. However, I don't think anyone can read this site or this column and credibly conclude that Jain is speaking as a disinterested reporter of facts. In any event, no matter who writes them or where they appear, op-eds aren't reliable sources for facts generally, and certainly not for the alleged mental states and motivations of those they criticize. The allegation is juvenile and inane on its face. "He's only saying this because he hates Hindus!" That we should state that she "notes" his bias, rather than (baselessly) alleges it, only makes the bias in our treatment of this material that much plainer.Proabivouac 22:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case hornplease should be tendered an apology. And the offending admin should be rapped on the knuckles. 203.109.123.110 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

From the edits made by Dishivlatavish, I'm almost certain that it is a sock of someone. --Ragib 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so too, but I'm not sure who the sockmaster is; is it Hkelkar or someone else? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib can also use those eyes. Doldrums 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All three pages are afflicted by unreliably sourced edits made by editors ideologically opposed to the subjects. Consider Romila Thapar for example. The first sentence declares her an "Indian Marxist historian," and is accompanied by four footnotes, each of dubious bona fides. Contrast this now with the press release by the US Library of Congress announcing the award of the first Kluge Chair to Thapar here. It's hard to believe that a renowned historian who has received honorary doctorates from the Universities of Chicago and Oxford (degrees that are not easy to receive for academics) and is also the signed author of the 100-page long section on ancient Indian history in Encyclopaedia Britannica, can be reduced to such mis-characterization in the Wikipedia lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about BLP violations, the list of Indian lps is very large. In fact most of the notable people who object to BJP's politics. Gail Omvedt, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Kancha Ilaiah, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi,etc. etc.203.109.123.110 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its obvious why Patkar, Gandhi, Ilaiah and their leftist friends are criticized. Its because they're activists or politicians, and in some cases, bigots.Bakaman 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman, surely we can distinguish politicians and activists such as those you've just mentioned from scholars who get drawn into political disputes when activists trespass scholarly turf.Proabivouac 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Romila Thapar, yes, that's pretty ridiculous.Proabivouac 05:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

These pages have seen a lot of BLP violations for quite a long time. I'd request more admins to keep an eye into them. [[Special:Contributions/Bharatveer|One of the editors] keep reverting every other day with no explanations ... often with the "rv to previous version" summary. While that's not technically a violation of 3RR, the continuous unexplained reverts to BLP violation version must be handled soon. --Ragib 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have noted at least three accounts that have contributed to either these or other contentious pages, belonging to User:Bakasuprman, these are User: Dishivlatavish,User:Stripwaves,User:Giveover - his contributions and moral groundings need be seen in the light of these Terminador 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Belonging to Bakasuprman". Is this what BhaiSaab, Terry J Ho, and the folks at PakHub have been telling you?Bakaman 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have been threatened by someone with edits similar to the user Bakasuprman above saying "My friend, I will claim you shortly"Terminador 04:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know you can't tell the difference between myself and a sock of Kuntan (talk · contribs).Bakaman 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case declined

[trolling removed by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington]

Thank you Kuntan for that stunning conspiracy theory. Hornplease is a saint and Bakaman is a devil worshipping communal sockpuppeting hate-spewing Hindu fanatic.Bakaman 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the checkuser case was declined, and apparently I was mistaken in thinking that Blnguyen was a checkuser. Therefore, it looks like the block of Hornplease wasn't supported by CU evidence, but based solely on editing patterns. That's not enough justification for the block, which I now think was a complete mistake--the IPs in question belong to Verizon and Harvard, and could have been used by hundreds if not thousands of people.

Let me note further that we've got three accounts (User:Dishivlatavish, User:Stripwaves, and User:Giveover) that have made similar edits to Bakasuprman--should I then conclude that he's using socks, and block him? We have the same level of evidence against Baka that we had against Hornplease. Now, I don't think that Baka is foolish enough to use socks, but I never would have accused Hornplease of using socks either--and now that I see there's no CU evidence, I don't think he did. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone believes the little conspiracy promoted by these islamist trolls, they are welcome to checkuser me. Akhilleus is correct in noting that I do not use sockpuppets to edit war. However, hornplease edits from the same area (uncannily similar IP addresses), university, and interests as witzel and has attacked Hindu users in the same way Witzel has. There is a clear COI and obvious meatpuppetry at the least.Bakaman 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How has Witzel attacked Hindu users?Proabivouac 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Witzel himself was instructed no to edit his own page. However, hornplease was the one attacking Hindu users, and a couple of looks at arbcom cases titles "Hkelkar" would easily cement that assertion. Witzel himself accused me of being a sockpuppet of hkelkar, incidentally.Bakaman 04:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Baka, you wrote that, "hornplease…has attacked Hindu users in the same way Witzel has." So, I'm following up by asking how Witzel has attacked Hindu users.Proabivouac 04:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me if Hornplease is associated with Witzel, or is Witzel himself. If he's the only editor who has noticed and fought against the attempts to turn Witzel's article into a smear piece (e.g. this), he deserves praise, not blocking. As for Baka's assertion that Witzel and Hornplease have attacked Hindus, I find nothing to back this up in the Hkelkar arbitrations. Without evidence to back it up, these assertions are personal attacks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to back this up? It appears you have not made even an attempt to remotely peruse the arbcoms and are making blanket statements. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Bakasuprman and any remedy, finding of fact, etc. on the page should provide ample evidence that hornplease was acting against the community's wishes and in a tendentious, annoying, and hateful manner. Or we can go to the recent arbcom (caused in no small part due to your support and facilitation of admin abuse, misguided vigilanteism, and vindictive behavior). He voted on a remedy the sole intent of spiting me and goaded me by adking me when I was leaving when I attempted to make a good faith effort toward discussion. Dboy was in fact called an "ass" by hornplease, and hornplease and hkelkar/ambroodey/freedom skies have had many fights. Akhilleus, your reading of WP:NPA to somehow implicate me under a dubious construct of personal attacks is both wild and smacks of irreconcilable bias.Bakaman 06:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this supports your statement that Hornplease was "attack[ing] Hindu users in the same way Witzel has." Your statement clearly implies that Hornplease is biased against Hindus, and that he's made the same kind of religiously motivated attacks as Witzel has. So, where are the attacks that Witzel has made against Hindus? Where has Hornplease made attacks on Hindus?

Again, the arbitration cases, which (unfortunately) I have read carefully, do not support the allegation that Hornplease has "attacked Hindu users." It may support the accusation that Hornplease has been uncivil to some users who identify as Hindus, but you accused him (and Witzel) of being biased against Hindus in general--and yes, that's a violation of WP:NPA. I'm curious, are you going to accuse me of attacking Hindu users as well? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that you are choosing to ignore honrplease's conduct during the arbcoms. During the arbcoms it would be of note that he has been more than uncivil. Any unbiased and honest reader would notice that hornplease ran nothing short of a witchhunt to try and get me banned. Similar conduct is evident in his dealings with other Hindu users and his noting that Hinduism is problematic. The evidence is plentiful, but I obviously cannot make you come to an educated, honest, or rational conclusion. Witzel as anti-Hindu is documented in many sources but I'll stick with Mr. S. Gurumurthy (financial express correspondent) in the NewIndPress as a good example. Witzel's emails seem to show a heightened state of vitriol toward those disagreeing with his views. I called a spade a spade, does that make me a foulmouthed personal attacker ?Bakaman 06:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Baka, if that's a good example, the term echo chamber comes to mind. "Dr Michael Witzel, a Harvard University professor who is undeniably anti-Hindu…" Well, yes, of course, undeniably. No diffs on or off-wiki, just the repetition of the charge as with Jain. That second link is very interesting, thank you for forwarding it. Apparently, a number of accomplished, respected and respectable scholars engaged in Indo-Eurasian research are attempting to maintain some semblance of a scientific discussion in an increasingly politicized atmosphere. Whoever sees "Hindu vs. anti-Hindu" is seriously not getting it.Proabivouac 07:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On wiki, it is patently obvious Hornplease was anti-Hindu. Witzel as anti-Hindu is neither here nor there, but the discussion is a sample of how he holds many scholars in contempt while using the McCarthyistic Hindutva as a tool for slander.Bakaman 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that no one on Wikipedia has ever shown "a heightened state of vitriol toward those disagreeing with his views." Especially none of the participants in this discussion. And it would be nice, Baka, if you stopped calling me uneducated, dishonest, and irrational; these are also personal attacks, and a nice example of incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The content of your "painstaking research" is uneducated, dishonest, and irrational. That and you are a partisan. You passed judgment on me without looking at evidence, that should easily entail why I would call your statements uneducated. You blindly supported Rama's Arrow, that's why your statements are irrational, and you engage in consistent misconduct and the facilitation of slander, making you a dishonest. Any seasoned editor of contentious areas understands that If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and that what you term "incivility" are perfectly normal statements that are a bit spicy.Bakaman 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Accusations of anti-Hindu bias are perfectly normal Wikipedia discourse, as is calling other editors uneducated, dishonest, and irrational. Thank you for the honest and rational education. This is exactly what makes working with you such a joy. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's wrap up this unhelpful digression shall we? The thread is about Hornplease and the Witzel bio.Proabivouac 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think this digression demonstrates perfectly Bakasuprman's technique: a mass of baseless insults, accompanied by wikilinks to misrepresented discussions. There is no substance to anything that Baka's said about Witzel or Hornplease here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No it illustrates that akhilleus is a partisan, unwilling to see the fact that his friends Rama's Arrow and Hornplease are both fallible and dishonest and that he is behaving in this manner to spite me. Furthermore, there is ample evidence to show that akhilleus is disregarding the prejudices of the aforementioned friends to perpetuate his grudges against myself and dangerous-Boy. The only baseless allegations are coming from our "defender of wikipedia", with his outlandish allegations sstemming from a visceral hatred of users sympathetic to Hkelkar's views.Bakaman 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is extremely uncivil. He made incivil remarks toward me and behaved rudely [9]. Please make sure he is blocked.--D-Boy 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those comments are blockworthy, and the substance of them is quite correct. I will agree, though, that Hornplease should have phrased his last comment differently. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts

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

Resolved

I'm marking this as resolved, because it's gone as far as Wikipedia can go: basically it's a content dispute and it is not the mission of Wikipedia to make peace in the Middle East, it is our mission to write an encyclopedia. Let's get back to doing that, please. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Palestinian people#Sampling of some of the now 6,000 bytes deleted. This has been going on now for a while. The same editors tend to be involved in deleting material that is reliably sourced to exclude a particular POV. Other editors have been restoring the material. Two RfCs failed to put an end to the dispute and I feel it requires some administrative review. I don't know what else to do. Tiamat 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring content disputes to the AN/I board. And if you don't want your nonsense removed, then stop inserting it and seek consensus. The reason why your insertions are unacceptable has been explained at length to you. Instead of working with others, you just keep reverting in the same material and adding even more poorly sourced, POV and off-topic material, so that you can claim ever higher numbers of bytes deleted. You've been playing this game for months, and it's become very disruptive. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization and tone. It's needlessly aggressive (e.g. "your nonsense", "playing this game"). I encourage admins and editors to check out exactly what is being deleted, as outlined at the link I've provided above. I should also point out that Jayjg has been doing exactly the same thing at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, deleting over 4,000 bytes of material, all sourced to international human rights organizations and other reputable sources. (Check the history and discussion there). In fact, this is not about a content dispute, but rather about Jayjg's attempts to exclude a particular POV by selectively invoking policy. He is treating good faith editors as though we were vandals by mass reverting material that is reliably sourced, cited, composed in perfect English, NPOV in its presentation of the material, etc, etc. Tiamat 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat is raising some important points and concerns. i urge you to look into her concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you're the guy who keeps insisting that material can only be added to an article, never removed. That's not only not part of policy, but it makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Jayjg, I only say that in articles on controversial or heavily-contested topics, if Side A inserts material which Side B considers entirely dubious and based on wrong premises, then Side B can insert material indicating that Side A's material is heavily disputed. There is no need to eliminate blocks of text just because they come from sources which may be part of an entirely different ideology or different frame of reference. --Steve, Sm8900 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A false analogy is a bad argument. The issue wasn't with the sources ideology, or frame of reference, nor was it with "wrong premises". The material was from unreliable sources, or abused sources, or simply wasn't relevant. The only thing to do in those case is remove the material. Please desist from making spurious arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an objective description of the dispute between you and tiamat. --Vitalmove 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that Jayjg is not the only one doing this. There are three other editors that are engaged in the same process at both pages: Tewfik (talk · contribs), Beit Or (talk · contribs) and Armon (talk · contribs). I only mentioned Jayjg above since he responded. Additionally, as an admin, I feel that his behavior sets a standard for other editors and that his example is emulated by the others. Admins by their actions tend to set the boundaries of acceptable behavior here. And this wholesale reversion pattern is getting very corrosive. Tiamat 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Tiamut, you're playing a game here. People object to material, and instead of leaving it out, you revert it back in and add even more. You do that again and again and again until the total amount is "6000 bytes", then complain about "reactionary reverts". If you were editing in good faith, you'd insert any non-controversial material separately. But instead you mix everything together, to make it as difficult as possible for people to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I said, it's a game, and not a very pleasant one. When you stop playing games, and start editing collaboratively, you'll find much less resistance, and a much more pleasant experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "playing a game" Jayjg. I'm trying to add reliably sourced information with properly formatted references to an encyclopedia that claims to be open to anyone to edit. When I have tried to address my concerns about what is going on, by for example, contacting Armon (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you have posted things like this: [10]. As an admin, you should be encouraging people to respect the hard work of other good faith editors. And not protecting articles from the inclusion of POVs that differ from your own. You speak as though what I adding is completely out there. It's not. Anyone who actually reads the material deleted can see that. If anyone is playing games here, it's you. Tiamat 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, as long as you keep mixing in material that you know people object to with other material that people may or may not object to, you're playing a game. If you weren't, you'd simply insert non-controversial material, and discuss the rest. Stop playing this game. I'm not going to respond further here, as content disputes don't belong on this board anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts are not for removing some things you do not like. The page on reverts specifically states unless all of the material is contentious, that you should work within it, which you are already admitting, much of it is acceptable. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't "admitted" much of it is acceptable. Most of it is unacceptable, and Tiamut makes it deliberately hard to figure out what she has changed, so it's hard to see if any of it is acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see if any of it is acceptable too Jayjg. There are a lot of edits to that page. But I try not to simply revert "my version" back into existence. I go through the edits and piece things back together. What you've deleted is pretty clearly numbered on the talk page section for this issue: The sources are all reliable, the material is faithfully represented though it could use minor improvements. But it's practically impossible to improve when I spend all my time piecing things back together after wholesale reverts. I'm a productive editor when I don't have to waste my time fending off unfounded accusations of "playing games" and poor scholarship while fending off a string of disruptive edits by mutliple editors that just take out perfectly good material.Tiamat 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You first revert in the material that has already been objected, then insert even more stuff. It's an on-going game. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Banning Jayjg for a few months would help greatly, and have a net positive effect. He has used personal, bogus, limiting delineations concerning the scope of House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to delete much info during his mass reversions. --Timeshifter 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I can think of some people Wikipedia would actually benefit from banning for a few months, and you're pretty near the top of the list - just look at the disruptive fiasco you created with categories. You're not quite at the top yet, though, though you're working on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a Wikipedia:Character Assassination section. However I do not believe Timeshifter is correct that any of this warrants a ban. I believe a general agreement on how to deal with sources, and what is appropriate use would be better. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a little worried about the section noted, but not have the time to fully read through all that text. Some of the sources cited are from the United Nations, Haaretz and books published by Oxford and Colombia University Press, which is a little troubling that they are being removed, unless they are not citing the information they are alleged to cite. The other thing I noticed is a piece of information being deleted on the basis that Jayjg finds it dubious, however it is cited to a source, and Jayjg admits to not having read the source to check if it is correctly cited. I also noted a kind of hostile environment on the talk page, but that seems to permeate any article when acronyms are being thrown around. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Seven, I've asked for the exact quote, and non-one has been able to provide it. There's nothing wrong with challenging sources used in dubious ways, and sources that cannot be supported are removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully, however it is your job to do that responsibly, which would include finding the cited text and verifying, not challenging it on your gut and asking random people on the talk page, which are not the ones who added it, to verify it. Could you imagine if I went to a page that an editor created a year ago, one that no longer edits, and removed all citations on the basis that none of the current editors could provide matching quotes? That would not only be disruptive, but a bit chaotic. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So, that's clear enough, Tiamut restores it, she becomes responsible for proving it is verified. Regarding the rest, I haven't deleted everything added by previous editors; in fact, I take issue with only one single claim inserted by a previous editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof was met, I see you ca link it, but fail to read it "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" The item was sourced and cited, hence meeting the requirements. The section you are quoting as justification deals with "unsourced" material, not cited information. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof was not met. The policy is about reliable sourcing, and this material wasn't reliably sourced, since no quote was provided, and it is dubious Lewis said that. The policy applies to any dubious material, not just "unsourced" material. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read it, and realize policy is not something you weild to get your way. Dubious doe snot mean "things I want to remove." Further the policy deals with dubious unsourced material, yes please read the policy. It states as I quoted, so I am not sure what the issue is, that material must be cited if it is questionable, which it was. I think this type of policy manipulation and selective reading is what is causing the issue on that talk page. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The edits I am adding are being treated as though they violate policy when in fact, they do not. I'm sure they could use improvement, reorganization or editing (after all, this is Wikipedia and that's what we do) but I resent having them thrown out completely through a selective invocation of policy. Hardly anyone else on that page has their edits subjected to such stringent scrutiny by Jayjg. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an evasion of the main issue : you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. Tiamat 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is your game-playing. Stop throwing a pile of manure into the article, and insisting we have to wade through it because "there might be a bit of silver hidden in there somewhere, you never know." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to be civil, noone is insulting your edits, try not to insult others. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would note further that this incivility, which permeates the talk page as well, tends to exacerbate the problem. Calling my edits "a pile of manure", "nonsense" and accusing me of "playing games" when all I am trying to do is improve an article on a subject in my area of expertise is not helpful and it's not confined to this page. While Jayjg regularly invokes WP:CIVIL, he rarely abides by it. Tiamat 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've seen from you appears to be encyclopaedic and sound. You write well and do your utmost to act in a consensual fashion (at one point I thought you were being wiki-stalked, I discovered you'd invited people I'd think of as thoroughly unhelfpul to contribute to the new articles you were building). Your conduct, and editing, is in stark contrast to what we see in some other articles about Israel-Palestine, some of which are disgraceful and urgently need administrator attention. I fail to understand why you're treated the way you are, since, left to your own devices you'd be far more productive and do even more good to the project. PalestineRemembered 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PalestineRemembered. I appreciate your kind comments. Tiamat 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see also this diff. As I mentioned above, the mass reversion (i.e. deletion) of reliably sourced material is not confined to the article Palestinian people, or to Jayjg. Three other editors at both pages (who I have named above) have emulated Jayjg's behavior in this regard. Now, in the case of the Palestinian people article, Jayjg has often argued that my additions are "exceptional claims" and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Indeed, it seems that there is an effort to change that policy to make it even more stringent. See this diff. The problem with the proposed change which would allow for material to be excluded despite having multiple reliable sources if it is controversial is: who decides what is controversial? If there are multiple reliable sources making a claim, and none that refute it, can its non-inclusion into an article be justified? How do we make such determinations in the absence of reliable sources stating this is the case? These are just some concerns related to this overall issue. Tiamat 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested regarding this general topic at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. That's probably the way to get this resolved. --John Nagle 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The material which Tiamut is complaining about being reverted has been disputed, for various reason, numerous times. A really good example is that of using a obscure book by non-historians in order to push her POV. This article is not on an obscure topic. Printed out, the text written about anything to do with the Palestinians and/or the Israelis would likely reach the moon. There is no excuse therefore, for such poor sources. However, discussion has been futile with her because she then reverts to her version anyway, then complains when when it's removed again. Myself and others have repeatedly asked here to discuss and get consensus for her changes on talk. Her response is to express offense at the suggestion. However discussion itself won't solve the problem. At some stage, she's going to have to accept that not all of her edits and sources are acceptable. The solution is to improve them, which is the same thing everyone else has to do. <<-armon->> 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Armon, but your description is simply inaccurate. "My version" has been changed a number of times to accommodate the concerns of others. This is easily proving by examining the edit history of the article and comparing my first edits there from three months ago to the ones now. I have consistently replaced sources that others have found to be dubious or objectionable. I have reformulated the wording and reorganized sections a number of times. (This is particularly true for the ancestry and DNA sections). Instead of being treated like a good faith editor, I have had to put up with vague accusations that I am using "obscure books" or poor sourcing or other such unfounded allegations. The list of sources that were deleted are clearly outlined in the talk section linked to this page. None of them are "obscure" or unreliable. Instead of dealing with the actual text and sources I have added, people refer to old sources, old issues, and generalities in what I increasinly feel are diversionary tactics. In order to get anywhere, we have to deal with the actual content of the edits. Mass reversions, which you, Jayjg and Tewfik engaged in do nothing to help with the process. This article cannot improve when the contributions of some editors are reverted in knee-jerk fashion based on a priori perceptions of the quality of their edits that do not match the actual content. Tiamat 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK well here we go again. No acknowledgment of other editor's concerns, which have been quite specific, just more "I'm right, you're wrong". It looks to me that User:HG has come in and is helping to break up some logjams, so I don't really understand what the point of this incident report is, unless you looking for some kind of admin intervention to get your way. <<-armon->> 12:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just more of my unimportant opinion -- I tried to learn about your concern over the historian, but you didn't provide any links. I don't see how tiamat can address your concerns if you don't list them specifically, like she has. --Vitalmove 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters much, but I don't understand why jayjg and his friends believe they have unilateral authority to decide which sources are reliable or which information is relevant. After reading this section, my opinion is that jayjg's tone is needlessly aggressive and lacking in consideration for the rights of tiamat, which is amusingly apropo considering the topic of the article. --Vitalmove 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "unilateral authority" you're talking about, but if, as in the example I referred to, you present non-historians as historians on the say-so of another non-historian, I'm going to call foul. Sorry. <<-armon->> 12:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I can see nothing wrong with what Tiamat is doing, and certainly no reason for others to interfere in the aggressive fashion they're doing. I see no attempt here to explain to her what she's supposedly doing wrong. Meanwhile, I can see many articles, within the speciality of the same squabbling people, which urgently need the attention of more editors eg Battle of Jenin, which systematically misquotes the references, along with poor writing. Israel Shahak another - quotes people calling a former Israeli Professor of Chemistry "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism.". The latter article has been in this condition, protected for 3 months! The article on Lehi (group) makes them sound like boy-scouts. I fail to understand why Tiamat is being hounded, when there is so much important work to be done. PalestineRemembered 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel Shahak hasn't been protected for nearly as long as that - closer to three and a half weeks - but it's certainly been protected for longer than necessary, considering there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page since 13 July. I've unprotected it. -- ChrisO 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. How do we go about removing the "antisemitic" tag from this guy, who as far as I can tell was a practicing follower of Judaism all his life (as well as being an Israeli who served in the IDF)? PalestineRemembered 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that constant and repetitive deletion of content, especially as relates to Arab or Israeli articles, has been engaged in by Armon and Jayjg almost continuously for over a year. It is abuse of fellow editors to destroy the (well sourced and consistent with policy) content they have created. Where I've tried to balance articles skewed heavily to one perspective, I've faced the kind of behaviour described above. In most cases I didn't even have an opinion on the subject at hand! [Armon will most likely challenge my right to comment here]. This is persistent and deliberate POV pushing of the worst kind. Mostlyharmless 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has been going on for a long time. For a more recent example, see the section farther down called #Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. POV-pushing editors are removing categories they don't like concerning Jerusalem-related categories and articles. In spite of absolutely reliably-sourced info in the relevant wikipedia articles. Articles they themselves helped edit! --Timeshifter 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite nasty to tell Tiamut, a Palestinian, what she can or cannot believe about her own (terribly suffering) nation/ethnicity eg"'Palestinian' is a twentieth century idea"[11]. You or I would almost certainly suffer perma-block if we dared to be this dismissive of Jayjg and the historical roots of his identity.

And note - I'm pretty sure that Jayjg is wrong about the point he was trying to make in that clip "Palestinians have nothing to do with ancient Jewish kingdoms". But it's far too dangerous to try and have a discussion on this point, because he can and will (on trumped-up charges, or no evidence whatsoever) accuse people of "taking their views and references from Holocaust Deniers". And he is quite blatant about it - he's started it again right in the clip I've referenced, addressing Tiamut with: "except in revisionist propaganda of the worst kind. "

I'm looking forwards to dropping the matter of nasty personal allegations, but Jayjg has not only refused to do so again in the last few days, but appears to want to carry on using this tactic over and over again, even on such gems amongst editors as Tiamut. PalestineRemembered 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This "report" is merely an exercise in WP:POINT.Bakaman 00:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem

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

Resolved

I'm marking this as resolved, because it's gone as far as Wikipedia can go: basically it's a content dispute and it is not the mission of Wikipedia to make peace in the Middle East, it is our mission to write an encyclopedia. Let's get back to doing that, please. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been long-term conflict in this category. Despite the fact that Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN, there have been persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation and to present Jerusalem as the undisputed unified capital of Israel rather than a place whose disputed status is widely seen as the most problematic stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East. See [12], [13], [14] --Peter cohen 22:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually all that accurate of a statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I protected the category for a few days, of course on the wrong version; hope that's okay with User:The Evil Spartan. El_C 04:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik is saying that Jerusalem is not part of the Jerusalem Governorate! See this recent diff [15] where he removed Category:Jerusalem from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. His typical abusive, uncivil edit summary was "stop trying to sneak in a POV that is rejected in the main, reviewed entry; this is in any event factually incorrect."

Tewfik, Humus sapiens, and Amoruso also removed Category:Jerusalem from

• Category:Cities in the West Bank
• Category:Disputed territories

Jerusalem is the most disputed territory on the planet! For more info, please see the recent history and Category talk:Jerusalem.

Jayjg and Tewfik also removed Category:History of Jerusalem from

• Category:Palestinian history
• Category:British Mandate of Palestine
• Category:History of the Ottoman Empire

Please see the recent history and Category talk:History of Jerusalem

Tewfik also removed List of East Jerusalem locations from

• Category:Jerusalem Governorate
• Category:Cities in the West Bank
• Category:Geography of Jerusalem

Please see the recent history. --Timeshifter 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should not be taking place here. -- tariqabjotu 07:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a longterm problem, and the recent bout of category removals concerning Jerusalem is just the latest in a long series. There has been plenty of discussion already. Peter Cohen also pointed out the "persistent attempts by a group of editors to remove any hint of this from the categorisation"

Also, as Peter Cohen pointed out, "Positions on Jerusalem makes it absolutely clear that the city's status as entirely part of Israel is disputed by most countries around the world and the UN". --Timeshifter 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with tariqabjotu, this discussion has nothing do with this place. I think it was made perfectly clear that trying to qualify Jerusalem as a disputed area when clearly only small parts of it (those eastern parts which are effectively Arab neighborhoods constitute a small part of Greater Jerusalem) are disputed by some is not appropriate. Simple content clarification of facts. Timeshifter's only argument seems to be that this is apparently his observation that "Jerusalem is the most disputed place in the planet". Well, that might be true, but so is Israel and Lebanon according to Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Israel's existence is disputed by antisemites. Wikipedia is not a place for such propaganda of Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi websites. Most of Jerusalem is in the borders of the 1949 armistice lines, and those parts of East Jerusalem were annexed by Israel - the annexation may be disputed by some relevant sources, but not Jerusalem as a whole obviously. Amoruso 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, and please stop with the insinuations of Nazism and anti-semitism towards those discussing the disputed territory of Jerusalem. That alone should get a 2-day ban. We are discussing only Jerusalem. This POV-pushing edit war of Amoruso, Tewfik, Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and others has been going on for months. Just look at the talk pages. For example; Category talk:Jerusalem. The Green Line divides Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice lines. See also Positions on Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not Israeli territory according to the UN and most countries of the world. Wikipedia, according to WP:NPOV, can not take sides. So wikipedia can not allow this POV-pushing campaign to continue to successfully remove Jerusalem articles and categories from relevant categories they dislike. --Timeshifter 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't threaten other users of ban - that alone is a gross violation of wikipedia rules. If you read through you'd see why the position on east jerusalem can not be inserted into Jerusalem as a whole. Amoruso 11:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you implying that I was a Nazi or antisemite or a supporter of terrorist organizations? That is what I read in this diff. Do we really need to go to dispute resolution? Wikipedia editors have already noted the disputed status of East Jerusalem in multiple wikipedia articles that I and Peter Cohen have linked to. This is such a waste of time on your part, since you know that wikipedia editors will again note the disputed status of East Jerusalem, and so all the relevant categories will be used. --Timeshifter 11:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso's comments obscure the facts and try to confound a position widely held throughout the world with one taken by extremist groups. It is an example of the POV pushing to which I was seeking to draw administrators' attention. Israel is recognised by the UN and most of its members and, as Amaruso says, Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda that implies the contrary. On the other hand, Jerusalem's claimed status as Israel's capital is widely rejected and Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda that denies this fact. Very few UN members have embassies in Greater Jerusalem because most members, including most Western states, do not wish to be seen as supporting the claim that it is Israel's capital. Despite Amoruso's statement, Positions on Jerusalem makes it clear that the United Kingdom, for example, does not recognise any country's claim to any of Jerusalem and rejected both Israel's and Jordan's 1949 occupations of parts of the city. Jerusalem should be categorised as a disputed territory and as part of the West Bank, or the category of East Jerusalem should be re-instated which would require an official decision given it has previously been through CFD and deleted.--Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is not the appropriate place, where is? The talk page for the category makes it quite clear that positions are too entrenched for the editors there to reach a conclusion by themselves? --Peter cohen 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter cohen's comments only prove that this is not the place for this discussion. I'll WP:AGF and remember the rule that this is not malice, but simply lack of knowledge on his part on the issue. It's not difficult to see that Peter Cohen is talking about something completely different which is whether Jerusalem is recognised as Israel's capital or not. That issue may be disputed - how countries view Israel's capital. But the territory itself is not disputed (except neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem). That's the main difference. The question of whether countries may dispute in international law other nations' declared capitals is a disputed issue in itself, but is irrelevant to the category. It is not disputed that Jerusalem is part of Israel and will stay part of Israel. It is disputed whether certain areas of Jerusalem will become part of the Palestinian state - yes, but it doesn't make Jerusalem's status in itself disputed. I think it's quite obvious and not difficult to understand. Amoruso 11:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is divided between Israel and the West Bank. So Category:Jerusalem should be in Category:Cities in Israel and Category:Cities in the West Bank. Category:Turkey is in both Category:European countries and Category:Southwest Asian countries. Category:Middle East is in both Category:Asia and Category:Africa. Category:Russia is in both Category:Asian countries and Category:European countries. --Timeshifter 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is your friend. As this page says at the top, "This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." If you can't compromise among yourselves, I suggest you take it to mediation. -- ChrisO 11:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime Amoruso continues to remove the relevant categories even as this discussion is going on here. Please see this diff[16] from just a little while ago. Amoruso removed the article Jerusalem from these 2 categories:

Category:Cities in the West Bank

Category:Disputed territories

His edit summary was "remove offensive controversial redundant categories that were also added to other page it seems." What the heck does he mean by offensive? So now he has removed both the Jerusalem article and the Jerusalem category from the relevant categories. While we go through mediation can the Jerusalem article be put under "article probation"? What are some pages that discuss article probation? --Timeshifter 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link: Wikipedia:Article probation. --Timeshifter 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The blanking campaign is ongoing. Tewfik has now removed Jerusalem corpus separatum from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [17]. Category blanking can be considered a form of vandalism once it has been pointed out, and then still continues. Please see WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism.--Timeshifter 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik also recently removed List of East Jerusalem locations from Category:Jerusalem Governorate. Please see this diff [18].

As I said, it is a longterm, ongoing, POV-pushing campaign by many POV-pushing editors that will not be easily resolved by yet another lower-level attempt at dispute resolution. Just look at the section higher up titled #Palestinian people; Repeated deletion of sourced material via the use of wholesale reverts. There have been many, many WP:ANI reports, mediations, etc.. in this topic area. I think we need some kind of ArbCom intervention or article probation or something to get some real progress in this topic area. --Timeshifter 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Timeshifter. The list of stations of the Exodus was blanked, many articles on the persons, places, and things in Egypts history such as the Rhynd Mathematical Papyrus were reverted to the permissable POV. I saw other users complaing about the articles on Kadesh. If you look at these users contributions and diffs they are all reverts and very few contributions. Maybe the whole group should be blocked as sockpuppets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rktect (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The campaign continues. Today Tewfik removed Category:Jerusalem Governorate from Category:Disputed territories. See this diff [19]. The Jerusalem Governorate is a large area of the West Bank that contains Israeli settlements, East Jerusalem, and many West Bank towns. It is one of the most disputed territories on the planet! --Timeshifter 13:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all a terrible case of POV pushing. Jerusalem has a rich and diverse history. Some here, however, want to pretend that Jerusalem was always part of the modern day State of Israel. The reality is, obviously, more complicated. Wikipedia should reflect reality, rather than some editors' POVs. --Meshulam 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another wikipedia talk page with current discussion about this issue: Talk:Jerusalem.--Timeshifter 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it every ANE page. If its mentioned in the Bible or the Torah or Rabinical Literature then its POV protected by revert, regardless of what kind of factual information another editor tries to add Rktect 10:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Category:History of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) history and talk page. Tewfik's edits there have, in my eyes, already passed the border of what I call 'vandalism' by inserting obvious and plain lies. --Eidah 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes three Jews so far who are by implication bundled up in User:Amoruso's claims above that his and Tewfik's critics are following neo-Nazi and Muslim Brotherhood websites. Can it please be accepted that the clique trying to remove references to the disputed status of Jerusalem in the categorisation are violating WP:NPOV, that the three of us are not Self-hating Jews and that Amuroso's references to Nazism are just the same old tired allegations used by extremist Zionists that anyone who disagrees with them are anti-Semitic? Wikipedia is no place for such propaganda.--Peter cohen 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The proper way to edit is slowly and thoughtfully. Why not just block indefinitely from whatever category they chose to revert in, all those who regularly revert more lines than they have contributed to said category? Those who whine, complain, allege, act without civility and revert anything that doesn't match a distinct POV are vandalizing the encyclopedia with the hope that eventually other editors will just get tired of the agravation and let them have their way. I don't think reverts should be allowed at all without some attempt at discussion and consensusRktect 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am shocked that Isarig even dares to paste a warning template on my talk page for what is going on on Category:History of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ! Peter Cohen, Meshulam, Timeshifter, Tiamat, and other normal-thinking people - please join in. Together we can stop this nonsense. --Eidah 15:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An administrator really ought to come along at this stage and explain how the system works. It's pretty straightforward, see three revert rule, which is part of the system under which we operate. PalestineRemembered 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bloc voting, phony accusations of racism by nationalist clique

Earlier this week, a laundry list of hotels went up on AFD for discussion and were handled reasonably -- except for the ones in Singapore. A small group of Singapore-based editors, who demand that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable (and who hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources) have bloc voted on the nominations, and at least one of them, User:Hildanknight, who signs his contributions as J.L.W.S. The Special One, accused the nominator of bias/racism, assuming bad faith without a shred of evidence, and demanded Wikidiscipline against him. See, for example, [20]. Editors who behave like pack animals should themselves be subject to Wikidiscipline, especially when they organize and behave so that their favorite subjects would otherwise become exceptions to Wikipedia's general policies. Plaguedbyhordes 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, any simple votes without reasons are discounted. I would also advise you to use less inflammatory language if you wish to discuss this reasonably. Tim Vickers 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er

"...every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable..."

doesn't seem to overflow with the spirit of WP:AGF. I feel that you are still harbouring some resentment at their previous actions against you. Anyway, can you provide some diffs where they are making these accusations of racism/bias? LessHeard vanU 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but I alerted Hildanknight of this. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, Plaguedbyhordes? Your account was created today and in your first two edits, you posted this complaint to AN/I. The only reasonable explanation is that you are a sockpuppet of Russavia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make sockpuppet accusations without evidence to back them up. Neil ╦ 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to label Plaguedbyhordes as a sockpuppet of Russavia, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why a brand-new account would file an AN/I report against me about this dispute. When I requested help on IRC, TheFearow agreed that Plaguedbyhordes was an obvious sock of Russavia, and suggested I file an AIV report. I did so, but WikiLeon removed the report, suggesting I file a Suspected sock puppets report instead. However, I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser.

Shortly after being involved in a bitter dispute with Huaiwei at Singapore Airlines, Russavia mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Bad timing, or does he have a vendetta against the Little Red Dot? On all the AFDs, I voted "Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias." When Wikipedians AFD articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Singapore-related articles are particularly vulnerable:

Many articles on Singaporean shopping malls, includong Suntec City Mall (which houses the world's largest fountain) were nominated for deletion by Nehwyn.

Xiaxue (a Singaporean blogger who won a Bloggie, was a columnist for several newspapers and magazines, hosts her own TV show and wrote several posts that sparked national controversies) was nominated for deletion by N.

Chen Liping (one of Singapore's top three actresses, who was involved in the Slim 10 controversy) was speedy deleted by Mindmatrix.

Accusing SGpedians of being a "nationalist clique", "[behaving] like pack animals" and "[demanding] that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable" borders on a personal attack. I support the "inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources", and I did not "[accuse] the nominator of racism" (bias, yes, due to his disputes with SGpedians).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Russavia (talk · contribs) is not blocked, and this is not an RfA or an AfD, so the accusations of sockpuppetry are somewhat irrelevant. It's simply an editor who doesn't realize that being uncivil hurts his cause, and makes a poor presentation of his problems. Reinis^talk 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a racist asshole. Kamryn · Talk 08:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have phrased it in quite those terms, but... yeah. Raymond Arritt 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Is it common for people to throw around accusations that my account is acting as a sockpuppet without admonishment? I would like an IP check done immediately so that I can be cleared of what Hildanknight has accused me of doing. Secondly, I suggest that the people who are in the firing link with this 'incident report' take note, because I am obviously not the only one who sees some problems there. --Russavia 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see that Hildanknight has already filed an AIV [21]. What was the outcome of that report? Do I get an apology for this accusation Hildanknight? --Russavia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see any reason why Hildanknight needs to issue an apology, when the circumstances makes it highly suspect, even in the opinion of uninvolved users as he mentioned. He did not pursue with an IP check, and please be mindful that IP checks are not conducted just for users to demonstrate their innocence. I am equally disgusted by this (over)reaction on Russavia's part.--Huaiwei 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted Hildanknight, I am thoroughly disgusted in this. I didn't see above how you said your report was removed, and it was suggested you make another report in the correct area. So instead of doing so, because you can't be arsed in doing so, you come back here and continue with the accusations against myself. Should be ashamed of yourself. And if you are going to mention bitter disputes with Huaiwei on SIA articles, then I suggest that people have a look at Singapore Airlines Cargo and the continual reversions of factual correct, verifiable edits there by said user, and also have a look at this Mediation to see that this is an ongoing problem on anything to do with Singapore Airlines (note: I am not involved in that particular case). As to nominations of Singapore-related articles, don't assume that non-Singaporeans don't know about Singapore - I might be in Australia, but worked for SIA for some years, so would likely know more about the inner workings of said company than most of your wikiproject - and they were nominated because they are not notable in the overall scheme of things - some were shown to be, and most were shown to be irrelevant. And it wasn't only Singapore hotels that I nominated, but many from around the world. Time to take off the tin foil hat. --Russavia 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana blocked Plaugedbyhordes indefinitely as a "disruptive throwaway account". Plaguedbyhordes is clearly an abusive sock puppet - its first edit was to file this incivil and frivolous complaint against me on AN/I. Since the complaint pertains to Russavia's disputes with SGpedians (I'm surprised that Plaguedbyhordes singled me out instead of Huaiwei), there is a good reason to suspect that Russavia is the puppetmaster.

However, Plaguedbyhordes' statement that "A small group of Singapore-based editors...hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources" suggest that Regebro could be behind this. In November and December 2006, Regebro and Instantnood (who is now banned) were in a dispute with Huaiwei, myself and other SGpedians over whether the Lion City should be listed as a single-party state. After losing the dispute, Regebro left Wikipedia.

Of course, suspicion is not proof. Russavia has denied that Plaguedbyhordes is his sock puppet, and requested a CheckUser to prove his innocence. Although several users have advised me to file a CheckUser, I have previously stated that "I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser". To be honest, as long as Russavia stops getting into disputes with SGpedians, and no more sock puppets are created to file such incivil and frivolous complaints on AN/I, I have no interest in pursuing this further, or finding out who the puppetmaster is.

That being said, I welcome open, civil dicussion about how systemic bias is worsened by Wikipedians AFDing articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with - on the other hand, as Haemo commented, AN/I is not the place for such discussion, and I'm not sure what the right place would be.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So as long as I stop touching articles relating to Singapore, and stop nominating articles related to non-notable Singapore entities, you'll leave it alone? Do as several have done and file the check user report, then eat some humble pie and apologise. And please don't talk about being civil, when you continue to make accusations against me?!? What is that about? Absolutely pathetic. --Russavia 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this about? An attempt to extract maximum points to boost self-egos as a result of a protracted dispute? The world dosent owe you a favour. You are most welcome to edit Singapore-related articles, provided they are in absolute good faith as per wikipedia guidelines. Any signs of WP:Point will be swiftly dealt with, as it has been in the past and will continue to be done so. For you to make those comments in your opening line above also appears to be reflective of your inner concern, which if it is, would be rather tragic, I would say.--Huaiwei 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments appears to speak alot about the problems you are facing yourself, Russavia, rather than the problems you seem to think you are attempting to solve. If you are still feeling bitter over the disputes on Singapore Airlines-related articles, kindly state it matter of factly on what truly transpired instead of attempting to replicate a content dispute over here. Kindly also be keenly aware that no one has ever assumed that "non-Singaporeans don't know about Singapore" in all circumstances, even if this is true in specific cases. That these individuals know nuts about certain aspects of Singapore has no bearing on your personal knowledge of it, and I fail to see why you are taking it personally. And so you were an employee of Singapore Airlines. Gosh. So when you inserted {{refimprove}} tags in [22] with the comment all references are self-published - need more third party refer, has it ever crossed your mind that your involvement in Singapore Airlines-related articles may also be a case of "self-referencing", a representation of a primary source, and hence not prefered over the secondary sources which are introduced by non-involved contributors....like myself? :D And last but not least, you again fail to mention, that your mass nomination of hotels commenced at no where else but Singapore. Only when an admin drop a notice in your talkpage on his "past experience", did you went ahead and start mass-nominating hotels the world over, somehow thinking your actions are vindicated. Whether this is delibrately done just so that you can repeatedly quip the line "it wasn't only Singapore XXXs that I nominated", we will probably find out in due course. But until that happens, I would think you would do much better getting off your high horse and realise you are hardly in any moral high ground to start demanding any form of compensation. Wikipedia isnt an insurance company. You should be quite familiar with that.--Huaiwei 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this even here? An abusive and obvious sockpuppet of another user, currently unknown, wants what exactly? Closing admins are already empowered to disregard !votes that they feel do not have a reasonable basis, and consensus in the AfD's will be the proof, as it were, in the pudding. I suggest that both of your just walk away and let the process take its course; WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. --Haemo 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of KensingtonBlonde, continued

Regarding KensingtonBlonde (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (nee EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) et al) See this archived ANI snapshot for context. New evidence has come to light that this user is still mailbombing admins. In view of that, absent a satisfactory explanation, I can no longer support any suggestion that the user be given another chance. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not too much to add, except to second that mailbombing has continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

See also "what mailbombing?" on my Meta talk ... It comes down to this, really. Do I trust multiple respected admins who I have worked with and who have acted with integrity every time I've worked with them (you and John/Guinnog about this, Dmcdevit about the initial sockery, and a host of others) when they say things about this user, such as the mailbombing is continuing, or this user, who has admitted to sockery and admitted that he mailbombed Ryulong but denys the very latest round. Seems pretty obvious to me. The only question remaining to me was why his current ID isn't yet blocked on Meta... it is now. I'm a softie, I admit, a contrite story and a promise to change ways tends to take me in, and I am always looking for ways to turn contributors round... but not indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's created a handful of sockpuppets on his new IP here at en, with his usual joke edits with one, decent edits on another, and then sleepers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said last time around, as someone else who was taken in by this user, I would definitely now be against any further last chances for him. I applaud Lar for his patience; I'm a softie too, but this is a case of "enough is enough" I think. Perhaps they will come back in a year or two with a more mature approach, but until then I don't think they are cut out to edit here. --John 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. He's spoofing one of the addresses I abanonded because of him. Netsnipe was spammed by him, as was I, and it's set to reply to my old address.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd chance?

I've been in contact with KensingtonBlonde for the past few hours. He wants to edit. He wants to be constructive. But I'm not sure if he should be allowed to edit (he seems to want to do so as EnglishEfternamn). Should he be placed on an ArbCom-like probation and simply be watched over? Or should we wash our hands of him?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"He wants to edit. He wants to be constructive"... So he says. I hate to lose contributors that are potentially of value, and although I've sparred with him about some of his article edits he DID try to make valuable contributions. The wide swings back and forth between contrition and defiance give me pause. He has already wasted a lot of people's time. But MAYBE, if he were on a really tight leash? The leash would have to be drawn very widely (no editing anywhere else than here, as we don't have resources to watch everywhere) and I'd say at the first sign of mailbombing (our say so, not his, he has previously denied doing it when it was clear he had) or disruptive behaviour on ANY wiki, that's it. The other problem is.. Who has time to be the watcher? Absent that, I don't see it working. I expect some people will point at me, but my track record at mentorship is abysmal (c.f. Courtney what's his/her name, who played me and the rest of us but good). (oh, and don't forget user:Akradecki, another abject failure, John and my mentorship there was so poor he went on to become an admin and his article production has went WAY down ever since :) ) ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to puzzle out a more or less secure way to do this; we could softblock his IP, freezing account creation, which would allow him to use one account without letting him register a sockfarm. Just a thought, if we'd like to go forward with this. Provided we do something to avoid having this explode on us, I wouldn't oppose one last chance. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid abuse and harassment on us. It's clear that when he comes back with decent accounts, he wants to edit. However, he comes back with the bad accounts, too, but he's willing to abide by the rules and be under strict considerations.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "right to edit" and we are under no obligation to provide additional chances, or mentors or the like. Whatever anyone says about what we could or could not do, if someone does not volunteer to take this user under a mentorship, I think this will end with the user remaining blocked. I don't think I have the time, myself, and all kidding aside I'm not sure I'm very good at it anyway. The SAFE course is to leave this situation as is. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:999 back causing disruption by nominating multiple articles for deletion

I created a sockpuppet report with the evidence, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/999. Possible sockpuppet User:Kephera975 has recently nominated half-a-dozen articles for deleteion.

• Chic Cicero [23]
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati [24]
• Ordo Stella Matutina [25]
• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn [26]
• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. [27]
• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega [28]

And also apparently an unfounded checkuser case against myself without providing any evidence whatsoever: [[29]]

IPSOS (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It might be pertinent to note that User:IPSOS has made similar allegations in the past against individuals with whom he/she ends up in content disputes. I have no comment on the specifics of this case, but I felt that it's worth noting. Coldmachine^Talk 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment no matter (and we should assume) whether or not the AfDs are in good faith, they are not all just disruption, some of these are valid AfDs that deserve discussion/deletion.Merkinsmum 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: for what it's worth, while I have my concerns about User:IPSOS, it does seem apparent that these AfDs have been made in bad faith; there is room for article improvement, or merging with existing verified/notable content, and it is likely that User:Kephera975 is disruptive to prove a point. I have looked over the AfDs following the trail from here, and made separate comments. Coldmachine^Talk 21:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The first AfD in the list, Chic Cicero, was nominated by Kephera975, who is now listed as a suspected sock puppet of the banned User:999. If this were confirmed, then there could be an argument for undoing these AfDs, as they would represent the edits of a banned user after his ban. However it's not proved yet. Also, the AfDs seem very plausible, since these articles, while interesting, have weak sources. There is a current AfD running on an article called IPSOS which looks even weaker than the articles listed above. My inclination would be to allow all these AfDs to proceed, and let IPSOS pursue his sockpuppet inquiry as he wishes. If any articles are deleted as a result, they would probably all have to get an 'Overturn and relist' at DRV if Kephera975 is truly a sock puppet of a banned user. EdJohnston 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will agree that several articles are plausible AfD candidates. However, I believe the user is primary after the two strongest articles, Chic Cicero and The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. simply because he couldn't get his way at Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. He seems to indicate that he is willing to sacrifice that article if it helps to get rid of the articles about Cicero and his Order. IPSOS (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC

I think all the articles/AfDs should stand or fall on their own merits, this doesn't mean I think this user is necessarily innocent. But a couple of these articles should be deleted IMHO (the minor ones). I suppose if the AfDs are overturned solely due to the users' identity/issues, the articles could be relisted for AfD if someone felt like doing it.Merkinsmum 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The claims that User:Kephera975 is User999 are also by no means proven.Merkinsmum 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For some background: the article IPSOS to which User:IPSOS is a major contributor is also nominated at AFD. Carlossuarez46 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For some more background- it wasn't User:Kephera975 who nominated IPSOS but I believe an altogether unrelated editor. It was a candidate for AfD as didn't explain the content at all to those unfamiliar with the subject, but looks a bit better now.Merkinsmum 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN by User:Chrisjnelson

This user has continued to violate this policy despite numerous warnings. The latest has occurred Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson#Closing case, where he addressed me as "Dude", a term I have previously asked him not to use. Attacks on my sanity have been refractored from User talk:Chrisjnelson, but are still on display at User_talk:Seraphimblade#Mediation. His personal attacks are littered throughout Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, as his claims of article ownership. For specific example of WP:OWN violations, see this and this page. Please get this to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said I owned anything, so those accusations are false. I will admit that I have made personal attacks in the past out of frustration, and I'll understand if I'm reprimanded for those. As for "attacks on his sanity", all those comments were completely serious and I sincerely question his mental health. None of those comments were meant as personal attacks. But no matter what happens in all this, I take great comfort in knowing that at least I didn't go to the Administrators' noticeboard and actually whine about someone calling me dude. Hence - I win for life.►Chris Nelson 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing Personally, I believe he is completely delusional and bordering on mentally unstable. is engaging in personal attacks. Your goading above doesn't help either. Please read WP:CIV. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I won't post here anymore or share my sincere concerns about his mental health. And you're right about the goading, but the "dude" this is absolutely laughable. I guess I didn't read WP:DUDE.►Chris Nelson 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Flashback to ca.1970 when Jim Bouton's Ball Four was published. Sportswriter Dick Young said that Bouton's kind were "social lepers". When confronted by Bouton about that comment, Young said, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" Which became the title of Bouton's next book. Baseball Bugs 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Will someone please step in and do something. Warning this user has not solved anything. He is now back into edit warring (see: this edit). This expands to violations of WP:3RR, but this should be enough effort on my part to have the situation dealt with. WP:30 and WP:RFC have already supported these edits. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• On a separate but related note, I have reported a violation of the 3RR here, so someone may want to look at that as well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that Jmfangio admits in his first line of that report that I have not violated 3RR. Look at the history. Jmfangio reverted my edit without just reason, but I have yet to violate 3RR there.►Chris Nelson 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go read WP:3RR. Your violations are in the spirit of the rule. I'm done trying to be the one to get you to enter into dispute resolution. As outside parties have supported a neutral solution to the "Pro Bowl" debate, and I have proposed one...that's what I'm going to use. If you have an alternative NEUTRAL solution, please present it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Because of this edit, I have moved this to WP:AN. Please review that thread for future updates from me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Garry Denke

Concerns were posted about Garry Denke (talk · contribs) on this noticeboard a few weeks ago. I had noticed him contributing to archaeology related articles, particularly Stonehenge. He was trying to claim that there was a newspaper article in the Wiltshire and Hampshire Times, dated 1st April 1985, that claimed a 'Garry Denke' had bought Stonehenge. My first thought was that he had been taken in by an April Fool's day trick and I pointed this out to him. On closer inspection, the article had been written in a manner that indicated that unless it was an enormous coincidence, claimed that the user himself owned Stonhenge.

• I worked at Stonehenge for the National Trust and can confirm that no such sale took place, certainly not in the way the purported article describes. There is no such paper as the 'Wilts and Hants Times', the nearest thing is the 'Wiltshire Times and Chippenham News'. I can find no record of there ever having been a 'Wilts and Hants Times'. The whole thing is a hoax, seemingly written and invented by him.
• He has made a number of claims to this on numerous forums and message boards across the internet, as well as to assert the claim that the Ark of the Covenant and other artifacts are buried under Stonehenge, and even more fantastic theories, as at [30], [31], [32], [33], to name but a few. In most of these instances he has been discredited and accused of spamming. Wikipedia appears to be another forum he has found to express these views.
• He claims to be an authority on Stonehenge, and its geology, and lists a number of his publications. There is no record of him or his works in the online book catalogues of the United Kingdom, the United States, or even the university his website implies he attended. He claims association to a number of companies on his website, none of which appear to have any reference to him on their websites.
• His websites holds numerous images and the explanation of various theories he has worked out, that on closer inspection are simply copies of actual published works on Stonehenge that in no way substantiate his claims. Also on his website are claims of new theories of hbar, which have been copied from another website. One of his sources is another 'Garry Denke' who he claims had published in 1888, before Max Planck had defined h.

These attempts at original research, which are highly discredited, are now appearing on wikipedia. Amongst his questionable edits include removing actual material from articles, as at [34], where he removed information that is correct, but would not be immediately obvious to the casual reader. Part of his edits involve copying and pasting work from his own userspace onto numerous talkpages, as at Talk:Ark of the Covenant, Talk:Armageddon, Talk:Resurrection of the dead, Talk:Last Judgment, etc. Part of these includes links back to his user page for another theory he has, and feels strongly about; for example, [[User talk:Garry Denke|universal polarity flip]]. He seems to be trying to pass off his userpage as an actual article, and otherwise use wikipedia to try to promote his theories.

Many of his edits have already been removed by other editors, though some remain. Some of these are valid edits but some I am not qualified to judge. It would be useful for these to be checked by a more knowledgeable editor. I think the edits he has made promoting his theories should be removed, including those on talk pages. I am also tempted to nominate hs user pages for deletion due to concerns over them being used as a free webhost to support his theories, though they survived an attempt earlier this year.

Any thoughts on this? Thanks. --Benea 11:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC) and Cherry blossom tree 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! All of the hoax cruft on both his user and talk page needs to go. That's an amazing amount of junk which a) could easily be mistaken for an article, and b) has no valid use in creating an encyclopedia. <<-armon->> 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, providing none of the sources are reliable. Has anyone tried to talk to him about this? LessHeard vanU 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He either does not provide sources, or provides ones that turn out to be written by himself. I can find no supporting evidence other than his own postings on internet forums and message boards. User: Dragons flight has been the latest to request removal of material. However, once large swathes of material have been removed, sometimes forcibly, they gradually creep back in until the page is back as it was and sometimes longer. He created an article at Seven Spirits of God, the only external link is for a site that in no way supports the vast majority of what he writes, which appears to be written to support his discredited theories. --Benea 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked out the material collected on both his user and user talk page. Garry does make a number of useful contributions to the encyclopedia, but I worry when his views on things like magnetic reversals spill into article space. Dragons flight 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that here, he is linking to his pages at wikipedia on forums (where incidentally, he is widely ridiculed). I suggest we keep a close eye on him and his edits, in case he is able to fool people that because he has an apparent article here, his ideas have credibility. Benea 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 deleting requests to follow civility policies from his talk page

User:Otto4711 made an attack on me on my talk page using obscene language. He has repeatedly removed a request to reply with Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks from "his" talk page. Now he is shouting at me that I must never edit his user page again. I have explained to him that "his" talk page is actually a talk page about his account, not his private property, but given his hostility towards me, I would be grateful if someone else can address his conduct. Hawkestone 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• This has also posted to WP:AN and WP:VPA. Keep it to one place, please! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • His message wasn't polite, but I don't see that it rises to the level of abuse as to warrant admin intervention. And users are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages, except in unusual circumstances. Why not just ignore him? ElinorD (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Which isn't to say that I'm unsympathetic, but really, blocks and warnings for petty rudeness generally only inflame a situation more. ElinorD (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I will add this user to my watchlist and keep an eye on things. Users are allowed to remove warnings, unfortunately, but they can be found in the history. Until(1 == 2) 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm it seems like the user Hawkestone got a little upset over the fact that Otto nominated categories he liked for deletion: [35] and Otto got slightly annoyed that this user kept pecking at his talk page. I might be wrong though. Hawkestone, can you give actual exampls of Otto being uncivil to you? Systematically? CaveatLector^Talk 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A warning has been left on Otto's talk page. Tim! 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I'm not defending Otto; he was quite rude in a deletion review yesterday. But I can't see that slapping an {{Npa2}} template on the talk page of someone who has been here since April 2006 is going to have a very calming effect. ElinorD (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Template the regulars. Tim! 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Some diffs that may be relevant and helpful to this discussion: [36], [37], and [38]. I don't agree with calling editor's work "shit" and "garbage" in discussions is helpful. If someone feels the content is unencyclopedic, he or she can say that without insulting the people who spent time working on articles. Moreover, calling people's talk page comments "uninteresting" and "unwelcome" also strikes me as a bit unnecessary. None of us like to be warned, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it or put everything on the person cautioning us. I know from earlier experiences that it is more effective to listen to what others have to say than not to. Anyway, just my thoughts. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tim is nowhere near a neutral user with respect to this issue. He is effectively taking this chance to snipe at someone he has a long-standing grudge with. That is rather inappropriate behavior. >Radiant< 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

True, Radiant, though as someone who likes Otto certainly more than dislikes him, I think that a comment like this is very much crossing the line. CaveatLector^Talk 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So how will you deal with this issue Radiant!, or maybe you condone such behaviour? Tim! 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Images placed in userspace

I notice there are a good deal of Image:Wikipedia-logo.png in userspace. On its copyright and associated Wikimedia visual identity guidelines, should we be removing these from the userspace? Navou ^banter 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is currently deemed a "free image" on Commons. Until the Foundation actually takes a stance, I would recommend the image be treated (internally) as a free image. I would also like to note, as disclosure, that a while ago I removed {{Non-free media}}, which is used to generate a list of all non-free media, from {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}, based upon similar grounds. --Iamunknown 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be replaced entirely, because the image contains an error that appears on virtually every page associated with the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the Wikimedia foundation is not about to go and sue its users :) >Radiant< 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewolfstar - overturning community ban??

You may remember Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of who I know in real life - she was banned from here a year ago, if I'm right. Anyhow, she has said she would like to apologise for every single thing she did, whether it be sockpuppeting, personal attacks or insults, and has asked politely if she can come back with a new account, and move on from this.

This is a polite request, and although you might think I am a single purpose account, I will edit further, I promise. If anyone from the "arbcom" (??) is reading this, what's your opinion??

Guys and girls, this is a polite request, make of it what you will. I'm just the messenger, dont shoot me! and yes, she's stopped her vitriol now so you can relax... --IceWarriorSP 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to guess whether this is actually Thewolfstar herself pretending to be someone else? IIRC it's not the first time she did that either.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I found it, here, when she pretended to be "Lamb of god".⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Thewolfstar and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar. This is classic Wolfstar sockpuppetry.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, this is a no? Without knowing anything about TheWolfStar, is it possible to allow her back on parole even if it is simply to limit the damage that any future sockpuppet may do? LessHeard vanU 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you have your friend Thewolfstar email someone on the arbitration committee and request a review. My other suggestion would have been a listing at community noticeboard, but I don't see any support for a lifting of the community sanctions here, so Arbcom is likely the correct place for the request for consideration.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can she come up with a list of areas in which she can contribute calmly and productively? Can she articulate how she will deal with disagreements in the future? I don't see much hope of that happening, given how she's acted with such vitriol to past disagreements on topics such as anarchism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Scipio3000 going too far

Resolved

 – Both editors are talking to one another and the rhetoric has subsided. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For no apparent reason, I find myself in a feud with this user. I've pointed out the roots of European democracy in Ancient Greece (and now sourced it). This has produced a series of hate attacks, mixed up with accusations that I hate Rome. (Again, no idea why and I take exception to the accusations). First he seems to have thought I'm American and attacked America and Americans for no reason at all; we were discussing Ancient Rome and Europe. Two irrelevant but rather mild attacks [39], [40]. Then he checked out my talk page and saw that I'm Northern European and started to hurl abuses in that direction. Now I was suddenly pro-Germanic [41] although I fail to see how saying that democracy originated in Ancient Greece could possibly be pro-Germanic. All of this is a nuisance but not something I'd complain about, but this message [42] on my discussion board i another matter. I reject profoundly being accused of "hating every other group than Germanic peoples", along with all the other accusation. I've made more than a thousand contributions to Wikipedia and I've never attacked any other people nor displayed any nationalism. Accusing somebody of hatred and racism (and a host of other things) is a serious matter and deep personal insult. I hope some action is taken against the user. JdeJ 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After my last post, the user has both removed some of my comments from the discussion page about Europe (which I consider vandalism) and continued accusing me of many thing, including racism. [43].JdeJ 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the talk page and the talk pages of both of the above asking them to calm down and step back. Let's see what happens. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I thought this would pass away after JodyB intervened yesterday, especially as I haven't edited the page since that nor had any contact with Scipio. Yesterday he even seemed prepared to contribute in a civil way, so I thought there would be no further problem. Now, I find what I can only see as an attempt to pick a new fight on my talkpage. [44]. In short, it's a rabid attack on me with accusations like "it was the irrational, fanatical, hostile way you treated me and my culture, with such disdain and hatred that you wouldn't even listen to me", "The most ironic thing is you are allowed to cover your page in White protestant people and culture", "I am sure you will send me your hate mail and death threats" (if this isn't a strong insult, what is?), "many good americans are getting tired of this bias and ethnocentrism and arrogance view that you & your Faction so arrogantly show".

As this comes after almost 24 hours in which I haven't had even any indirect contact with the user, I assume he writes just to provoke me. I won't answer him, but I hope some moderator can step in as this user seems to be on Wikipedia more to pick fights than to contribute. JdeJ 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for two days. These increasingly appears to be a provocational account, or at least one where said individual lacks the emotional restraint to engage in civil discourse. Wikipedia is not therapy, ethnically-driven or otherwise. El_C 19:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to chime in with my fun experience with Scipio3000. He appears to be deleting all references to Jewish influence and most to Arab influence from the pages Sicily [45], History of Sicily [46], and anonymously on Italian people [47].

On Emirate of Sicily he complains that the article is biased [48], yet his only changes [49]are to remove the following paragraph.

"In addition to Andalusian Arabs and other Arabs, there were Berbers, black Africans, Persians, Greeks, Jews, Slavs and Lombards. Western Sicily particularly prospered with Berbers settling in the Agrigento area coupled with Bedouin, Syrians and Egyptian Arabs in Palermo."

Another part he keeps deleting from these articles is “Jewish settlements were established in Italy as early as the Roman Republic and survive to the present day."

In the end, Scipio3000 seems to be removing all references to Jews and black Africans, as well as most references to Arabs and other non-Europeans from these articles.

Now for the edit history.

He starts by claiming the deletion of the sentence about Jews was an accident [50]. Yet he never restored it and his next edit in the same minute was to delete the paragraph about Arabs, Jews, etc from Sicily[51] and from History of Sicily a few minutes after that [52].

He gives the lack of information on the Greeks as reason for his edits[53] [54] , yet his edits do not add information on the Greeks, the delete information on the Arabs and add information on the Normans.

He claimed the parts he deleted were biased [55] [56] [57], false [58] [59] [60] and vandalism [61]

From the first he accused me of harassing him [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] and being hostile [68] [69] [[70]. He accused me of vandalism [71] and of editing for personal or political reasons[72] of bias [73] [74] of slander [75] [76] [77] [78] and of making personal attacks [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

He called me a child [86] juvenile [87] bully [88] a racist [89] , said I was sick [90] and threatened to report me [91] [92] [93] while saying ‘What have I done, except sdefend myself?’ [94]

Scipio3000 has claimed ‘My redo on Sicily was the most balanced, non-biased work done on Sicily yet.’ [95].

Scipio3000 has edited his comments to eliminate signs of his bias [96] and remove accusations he has made [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]. He has deleted content from my attempt to get help from this issue [102] [103] including changing it to make look like I had made the deletions I complained about [104]Edward321 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Resolved

 – Secondary source provided

Edit war brewing on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. And admin is apparently saying the Weekly Standard is not a Reliable source? Sounds like partisanship clouding the waters... — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, it's the Weekly Standard's blog. However, I think that still falls within our reliable source guidelines. --Haemo 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary is not an admin. - Crockspot 04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was under the mistaken impression he/she was. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me that the Weekly Standard was a reliable source. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The material in question is negative BLP: that he recanted. It can not be sourced to a blog. Let alone a blog sponsored by an extremely partisan source. I have removed it per BLP. The statement may well be true, and when a unquestionably reputable newspaper prints it, it can be re-inserted. DGG (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• A secondary source has appeared, and there are sure to be more. Marking this resolved. - Crockspot 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bee Cliff River Slob

This user has repeatedly edited the WHCB, WHGB, WHGG, and WPWT pages with information that is in violation of WP:MOS, WP:NOT, WP:NOT#DIR, and the rules of WP:WPRS. I took time to state would could and couldn't be allowed in a radio station article to no avail. The user just reverts the pages back to his version, also in violation of WP:OWN. Tonight, the user is now adding links to a "critical blog" in the external links of each radio station.

I have been more than polite and patient with this user, but is has become obvious that the user is not interested in following set rules by Wikipedia and WP:WPRS.

I ask that an admin please step in and inform this user that they are doing wrong. Maybe he will listen to you all. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note, the user has removed all warnings (I typed them myself, didn't use the standard ones) from his talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot like a content dispute. Its possible if you tried incorporating some of the information he's adding instead of just wholesale reverting, you could encourage him to work with other editors. Shell ^babelfish 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If I knew that information wasn't in violation of the rules I would. But I am not sure if tax exempt status is allowed, among other things. What I do know is most management information is normally nixed, unless the person is like super important. There are direct links to the management people the user lists, so, the people in charge can be found and the page still be within the rules. For links, honestly, I don't want to do there, blogs that are not associated with the station (ie: the station's MySpace page, etc) are normally nixed as well. The Guidestar link could be taken from External Links and used with the tax exempt information, if it is allowed.

I will work with the guy and have said I would when telling him what can and can't be on a page, but that didn't do much good. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd back you up on the management info though, which simply looks like coat-racking. The WHGG article, for example, managed to mention two NN people who weren't even anything to do with the station. ELIMINATORJR 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester, his fact tags, and Johnny

Lester2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding fact tags to John Howard, a BLP. I have removed them several times, and the statements attached to them, but he is persistent in keeping them in the article, and he reverts my and other users' edits, on several occasions. I have contacted him on his talk page, requesting that he actually read the BLP policy, but he replied stating that he is leaving the unsourced statements in so others can find a source. In his most recent revert, he writes in an edit summary "observe 3RR rules and deletion of tags". Could his actions earn him a block? He has previously been blocked in the past for a 3RR violation on the same article. –sebi 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would note that you're supposed to remove the unsourced statement, not just the {{fact}} tag. It doesn't look like you're doing that in all instances. --Haemo 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to note the same thing; I went ahead and took out the bits that are unsourced. Dicklyon 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But then yet another editor (User:Peter Ballard) objected and undid my edit, asking for a little "common sense", so I can see that you do have a bigger problem on your hands there. Dicklyon 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I did remove the unsourced statements, what instances are you talking about in particular? –sebi 06:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strike: the first diff of my edits doesn't show me removing the unsourced statements, because I just wasn't completely aware of the situation. The next diff I was aware, and I removed the statements. –sebi 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed again, you did the right thing. Things purported to be a direct quote from the person, especially, absolutely require a source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG

Did anybody else notice that JzG deleted both his user and talk page [105] and hasn't been active since?--Tikiwont 08:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no, not another victim of wikistress? >Radiant< 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like he has indeed gone and we'll be poorer for it. While it is inevitable that there is a flow of people in and out, it is unfortunate indeed that not more can be done to retain strong editors like JzG, ScienceApologist and others. Eusebeus 10:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It could just be a stressful week for him. After taking a wikibreak, I'm sure that he'll be back. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Possibly. I understand he has some serious personal issues to deal with at the moment, so it may be a while. In the meantime I'm sure that we would all wish him well and hope for a speedy return. -- ChrisO 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Amen. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Very unfortunate indeed. And Sean William also left this week. Melsaran 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed this disasterous development. I would guess this misguided block has something to with it, as do the issues discussed in this statement (since deleted), which was the first inkling I had of his plans to quit. User:Tom harrison also seemed about to leave at one point, perhaps still is. These aren't just good administrators, they're our best. Both have expressed frustration at the seemingly infinite patience accorded to plainly tendentious and disruptive users, a complaint not unlike that of ScienceApologist's. This may be an unintended consequence of our desire to be maximally inclusive, which neglects the fact that quality contributors are likely to have less patience for endless battle than do POV pushers. In SA's case, Iantresman was ultimately banned - would it have made a difference if we'd arrived at this solution earlier? Certainly, it would have saved everyone a lot of time.Proabivouac 01:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a really great loss to lose him. But there is another side to the story. But now is not the time to go into it. I hope he comes back. I hope he does not restore his home page exactly as it was the last time I looked at it. We have too much drama. Get rid of all the drama queens, both new trolls and old self-admitted @#$%$#. Or was he just kidding on his homepage? WAS 4.250 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But there is another side to the story. But now is not the time to go into it. But you brought it up anyways. Very classy, that. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd noticed. He seemed to have been getting progressively more stressed the past few months. Hopefully he will return less stressed. GRBerry 02:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't exactly been very stable recently and his work as an admin suffered because of it. I am assuming stress would be the problem - perhaps some time away will be the fix. Viridae^Talk 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

Two users are revert warring me, on talk he called me a racist but I am not! he is being very incivil please help me because they are being rude, the website is very racist to Armenians that is why I remove so it cannot be used here anyone can make fake websites so it cannot be here please remove the link tallarmeniantale, it calls Armenians liars. [106] --201.130.2.178 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you editing with a different IP or username? Your current address doesn't have any edits except this one. I can understand that you may be upset if you feel a link is insulting, but things will work better if you calmly explain the situation. Is this you? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User: PalestineRemembered

Resolved

I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

this behavior seems (to me) to be a direct follow up to more general libelous claims regarding israel, an issue which i noted to him and received some stubborn responses to.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice that i am reporting this issue.

the chronological order of notes the user's talk page is:

• soapbox - list of warnings/notes
• this is getting ridiculous
• no alternative

note: i suggest going over them from the most recent

i would appreciate some assistance on getting the user to change this offensive behavior.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading through some of his postings, I am against blocking User:PalestineRemembered. He/she might have a different POV on those issues, but he/she is providing good references [107][108][109][110][111] and blocking users with a different POV will work against establishing a NPOV article. --Raphael1 11:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to blocking this user. --Eidah 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raphael1 and Eidah, and respectfully suggest that Jaakobou take this to WP:DR if he really feels that he needs to pursue this further. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Raphael1, i was refering to him making incorrect accusations about me (and not referencing them), not to the way he works with content inside the articles.
2. User:Eidah, i'd rather hear what you suggest to change his behavior over what you think should not be done.
3. User:Abu ali, this is not a content dispute, but an issue of problematic behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that all of the previous commentators have been partisans to this subject-matter (as have I). The point of AN/I is to solicit comment from uninvolved editors with a grasp of policy. Tewfik^Talk 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like some help over at that page (Battle of Jenin). I'm not sure if there will be a pattern, but PalestineRemembered just reintroduced text I deleted due to it being blatant copyvio. (I've made him aware of his mistake, but I'd rather not have an edit war started over this...) Kyaa the Catlord 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa removed the copyvio and it has not been restored, so case closed on that. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PalestineRemembered improved it so it meets out requirements rather than being a chunk of text dumped from another site. Kudos to him! Kyaa the Catlord 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion by User:Radiant!

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

User:Radiant! started an MfD and invalidly closed it speedy delete, claiming that the author had requested deletion. The essay had been worked on by other editors, and the author request had previously been determined to have been invalid (I can't link to this as it is on the talk page of the deleted article, I think), the essay had already been undeleted once. The author did not repeat his request after undeletion, and additional editors had made further additions and changes. This essay needs to go through a full MfD. IPSOS (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV is that-a-way... Until(1 == 2) 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant said in the deletion log that although others had edited it, such edits were minor. If the original author requests deletion, and the other authors have not added content, but have corrected typos, etc., then I think the deletion is valid. Bishonen did add content, but my understanding is that she is opposed to the position advanced by that essay, so I think she's most unlikely to object to the deletion. I'll leave a note at her page. ElinorD (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Suprise, another claim of admin abuse. <sarcasm> When will they learn that all administrators are out to get them and that complaning is futile? </sarcasm>. <seriousness> Seriousley though, have you taken this up with Radiant! before coming here with your guns blazing? </seriosuness>. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I also remind you of wikipedias policy on assuming good faith?. Do you think Radiant! had nefarious intent and is now sitting at his computer with an evil laugh because of what he just deleted? I highly doubt so. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate closure. No further action is necessary or appropriate. If a DRV is started on this I'll probably speedy-close it as unnecessary process. Newyorkbrad 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, NYB, since other people have contrary opinions on this debate perhaps the DRV should not be closed early. That would most likely cause a shitstorm. (was thinking of different DRV on same page) Until(1 == 2) 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When the only issue is whether an essay with one substantive contributor was properly speedied as db-author, there are not two viable positions that require a five-day discussion to choose between, and any resulting storming would be readily disregarded. Nonetheless, I will take your advice. Newyorkbrad 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but I cannot think of a time where the early closure of a DRV for a controversial AfD has reduced the amount of process, it often results in another DRV and RFCs and ANI postings and ugh! Also, the DRV is bringing up other arguments such as interpretation of consensus(He didn't count the votes right hehe). Lol, I was thinking of a different DRV on the same page. Perhaps a speedy close would make sense in this one. Until(1 == 2) 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If the DRV is speedy clsoed, i will be creating a new essay, quite similar to the deleted one, in wikipedia space. Thus an early close will serve no useful point. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, people yell "admin abuse" like one might say "Hello". It is far to common, take it to the users talk page, take it to DRV, make sure it is really abuse before tossing the term around. Ever time I see the words "admin abuse" I think, "This has about a 1 in 10 chance of actually being admin abuse" because that is about how often people are right when they say it. Until(1 == 2) 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a template for slapping on regulars who yell admin abuse before discussing said problem with said admin. irony alert. --Dweller 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the creation of such templates. Far as I've been on Wikipedia, I've read about only rare cases where sysops abuse of their powers. Lord Sesshomaru 14:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, good idea, I will certainly help craft some devilishly witty wording for such a template. Though I don't see the irony... Until(1 == 2) 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony is that this whole caboodle stems from the deletion of an essay entitled... hang on a minute, were you being ironic? Gawd, what've I started? --Dweller 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, coincidental, entangled, related, but I just don't see ironic. Where is something being expressed in a manner that is not meant to be taken literally? Until(1 == 2) 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Errr.... irony, in that I didn't mean to be taken literally, in that my statement was the exact opposite of my views, humourously expressed in the context of a discussion around an essay entitled "Template the regulars". Just to clarify excrutiatingly further, I would leave a personal message for IPSOS, rather than template him. Because written text has no tone of voice, I was unsure that it would be read as irony, hence the "irony alert" that I used. Hope it's clear now. --Dweller 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, what a pity, it is a great idea. Templates are very helpful. I guess I was just hoping you were sincere. It is not as though those that yell "admin abuse" from the roof tops for no good reason aren't in need of a good templating. Until(1 == 2) 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have undeleted this, and, for the moment, moved it to my userspace. i intend to place it back in Wikipedia space after a deletion review. i presume that radiant considers this edit trivial? I grant that that edit occurred after I restored the page, but it occurred well before he deleted, so whatever the situation at the time of the initial "author request", it was at the time he deleted, the result of significant edits by more that one person, so any "author request" rationale was no longer valid. I also point out that if an author requests deletion, but other editors find the page of value, it is normal for it either to be retained or considered at an MfD, not speedy deleted. It is also highly unusual for the same editor to open and close an MfD. I am surprised at Radient's actions in this matter. I don't want to call them "abuse" but IMO they were quite ill judged, aside from the merits of the page involved. I should also add that at the previous Mfd for WP:DTTR, (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars) the clear consensus was that both essays should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just curious if anyone has discussed this with Radiant? This really isn't the place for this until after the admin has had a chance to discuss it with those offended. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Radiant sent me a message, saying that he had already deleted the page, obviously knowing that I had earlier undeleted it, and presumably, since he examined the history, that i had edited it. He did not discuss the matter with me. I left a message on his talk page at once, before commenting here, where I found this thread already in progress. At least one other user had already notified him of this thread. I have also commented on the deletion review discussion now in progress, where radiant had already commented. I would say that he is well aware that some editors disagree with his actions, and are discussing the matter. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • DESiegel, you're no innocent party yourself. You wheel warred the deletion by undeleting it, and proceeded to canvass that I change my !vote. Your actions are just as questionable. — Moe ε 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • First of all, I promptly disclosed all my actions here, and on radient's talk page, and on WP:DRV. Secondly, when I undeleted and promptly moved to my own userspace, I was, as I saw it, restoring and moving to my userspace an essay on which I had worked, and which had been deleted on the ground of an earlier author request. If that was wheel warring, then so was Radient's deletion, undoing my prior restoration, rather than asking for that restoration to be overturned on DRV. As for canvassing, I am sorry that my brief note on your talk page annoyed you. The previous DRV discussion did not include the fact that there had been a significant edit to the essay, after restoration and before radient's speedy deletion. I do not think carefully notifying all the editors who had commented in the DRV before I made a comment mentioning that fact (which is at least arguably a significant fact, and is inarguably a fact). In general, notifying all who have expressed a view, in whatever direction, of new developments is not considered improper canvassing. Notifying only those who you expect to take your side is improper, IMO. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the template palaver above, I have dropped IPSOS a note at his/her talk page. --Dweller 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller has inspired me to create {{adminabuse}}, I used some of your wording. I of course gave proper attribution in the edit summary as required by GFDL. Please edit it mercilessly. Until(1 == 2) 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• A policy question: Is it or is it not the case that for a speedy deletion to be valid, the speedy criterion should apply at the time of deletion, not at some prior time? If so, is it really the case that at the moment he deleted it, all the significant content in this essay was by a single author, as WP:CSD#G7 says? I don't think so. A hypothetical example. If someone creates article Joe Blow, and it is deleted by an admin under WP:CSD#A7, and another admin restores it and edits it to add a well-founded assertion of significance, which was not previously present, can it later be speedy deleted on the grounds that the speedy was valid when the tag was placed? Would it be usual to do so? DES ^(talk) 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread - The DRV is now running and I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that Radiant! be censured regarding this. Let's move on and let the DRV run it's course. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a little note that I've moved {{adminabuse}} to {{uw-adminabuse}} since all the templates that go on user talk pages tend to have the uw ("user warning") prefix. The redirect's still there, of course. And don't forget to subst! Confusing Manifestation 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring to apply template fork

John Smith's (talk · contribs) is edit-warring to keep a disputed template on articles. The template is up for deletion here and looks likely to be deleted. --Ideogram 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have a personal problem with HongQiGong (talk · contribs) whom he is edit-warring with. --Ideogram 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And here. --Ideogram 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem over and done with. We started discussion on that issue we edit-warred over, and eventually I told him I did not have the time to engage in the discussion anymore, and that I would not oppose his edit. The date issue is a different issue altogether. He had been involved in some discussions about the date format, advocating for the use of BC/AD. I had only known about it peripherally until the dispute spilled over to Template:History of China, where a POV fork was created (Template:History of China - BC), one that uses the BC/AD format instead of the BCE/CE format. I don't care at all which format to use, but I am adamantly, and I believe justly, against having POV forks/duplicates of a template, especially in the existence of a dispute/disagreement. That's what he and I have most recently edit-warred over. He first mass-inserted the duplicate template as minor edits into a number of articles. I reverted. He reverted. So on and so forth. But it looks like the duplicate is heading toward deletion, so I would consider the matter pretty much resolved. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the existing template here. --Ideogram 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that that's something I have not been specifically involved with. For the benefit of others who are reading, I'd like to point out that there is a discussion at WikiProject China that is relevant to this issue. Again I want to point out I personally don't care which date system to use, but the BCE/CE format seems to have majority support with interested editors. But if edit warring on the template continues, then just protect the template. That template is in a pretty stable state anyway and is not edited very often. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user returning to harass/edit war

Resolved

69.132.198.186 was blocked not a month ago by Theresa Knott for 6 months for harassment, usurpation of my account and impersonation of me (as Ispy1981). Now, this user has returned, once again, with the sole purpose of edit warring over the inclusion of websites which provide encyclopedic content to the LazyTown article. These websites show the shows popularity outside the target age group. Would someone please take a look at this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LazyTown&diff=prev&oldid=149707501

--Sethacus 16:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether or not that IP is the same person who was harassing you (I'd need to see more diffs), but I will say they have a valid point about that section. An IMDB user comment section can't be considered a reliable source for an article citation. The fact that one person on that show has a 18+ section on a fansite is rather shaky evidence of popularity outside the target age group as well. Content problems aside though, I'll look at the IPs involved.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason the other site was added (not by me) was because, while it is a forum for Julianna Rose Mauriello, there is discussion about the show as well. It is the only active site that shows the range of ages of the people who are fans of the show. Lazytown.biz does not. The reason I gave those as examples on the talk page was, mainly, to show that there are "SFW" sites available which show this. Others were considering 4chan and YTMND. If there are articles which site the age range, I would be happy to let the other go, but, I haven't found any.--Sethacus 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still not sufficient sourcing. If reliable sources can't be found then the section should be removed. We can continue this conversation on the article talkpage though. By the way, IP blocked for 6 months. This was pretty obvious block evasion.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan article edit warring/vandalism

Hi, I am new, and I hope I am posting this in the right place. I am wondering if the Azerbaijan article can be protected and a mediator added. Some users have aggressively edit warred, and even vandalized the page, making things up. There is almost nothing from those reverts on the talk page, and their edit summaries do not make sense. They have also taken the attack to wikimedia commons and other articles about my sourced information. Please see history, and also this comment I added on the talk: I see some users are bent to attack me and remove information about Azeri-German collaboration and the picture. I am reverting this, even though this is my 4rth time. As I understand wiki rules I read, we can revert more than 4 times if it is blatant vandalism, which I undertand it is. The Article on Germany is a featured article, and they show 3 images under WWII sections. So, what is wrong with this one having one for battle of Caucasus and another for Azeri collaboration. Also, why are they starting to put information about Armenians and Georgians in this article? Not only Soviet citizens but europeans like the Dutch served in SS and wermacht, should we mention all? If anything should be mentioned, it should be about Uzbek and Turkmen, who served under same unit. I also do not understand how the picture is not important when at least 18,000 to OVER 30,000 azeris served in the Armies, and participated in Warsaw Uprising to very significant level. I do not want to fight, so I reported to Administration about this, maybe they will help.Azizbekov 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC) For example, both users Parishan and Atabek blindly reverted on the article and then self reverted, before finding a reson to revert me. Clearly bad faith vandalism. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijan" Thank you to those who listen.Azizbekov 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Azizbekov (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of some banned user. He is very well familiar with Wikipedia editing for a newbie, and his contributions are basically limited to inserting the image of Azerbaijani volunteers in Nazi army to every article about Azerbaijan. The image has copyright issues, and I see no real point in canvassing the same info all over the articles about this country. I would like to ask the admins seriously investigate this user’s behavior. --Grandmaster 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the user, content disputes are not blatant vandalism. Vandalism doesn't mean "I really, really, really disagree with that edit." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank Seraph, basically I removed that image from Azerbaijan article page, seeying strong disagreement. I never deny that I never editted wiki before, but I have been anonymous. neither is my contribution limited to collaboration of wermacht. It is my main interest for now, but I cant write about it forever can I? I have other interests too. Azizbekov 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask for independent review of situation at Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations. Azizbekov adds dubious info to the article such as this:

First they took part in massacre of 50,000 civilians in the Wola massacre, then moved to the Old Town (another 5,000 sick and wounded murdered after the Polish forces withdrew from the area, the remaining 35,000 being sent to concentration camps) and then to Czerniaków and Powiśle - along the Vistula.

and fails to support it with any reliable source. Moreover, he reverts any attempts to request a source or remove unsupported claims from the article and makes personal attacks on other users: [112] --Grandmaster 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 evading block using IP

Resolved

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading a block using 212.126.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [113] [114]. Regards Bksimonb 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP and re-started the 1 week timer on Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because he circumvented the first week. Carlossuarez46 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

IP range block

Article concerned: The End's Not Near, It's Here

July 16 2007, 3:16 - 209.226.38.231 - diff
August 6 2007, 3:43 and 3:48 - 209.226.39.181 - diff1 diff2
August 6 2007, 14:02 - 216.208.153.226 - diff
August 7 2007, 3:46 - 209.226.38.87 (blocked) - diff
August 7, 2007 13:53 - 209.226.38.81 diff

As you can see, the IPs are all almost identical, and the vandalism edit is nearly exactly the same each time. I undid the revisions from 39.181, 153.226, and 38.87 myself, and reported 38.87 to AIV because of a history of vandalism to other articles. However, about a half hour after 38.87 was blocked, 38.81 vandalized in the same way. My suggestion would be a range block for all of these; and since the dates are so spread out, it may need to be permanent as this doesn't seem exactly like a typical one-time case. GlassCobra 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a range block for that is killing a cockroach with a bazooka. It would take a pretty big range to get those IPs and since they appear to be dynamic, a permanent rangeblock would likely effect all sorts of legitimate editors. Revert on sight and request semi-protection of the article if the vandalism picks up.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it comes to that, 209.226.38.0/23 would block the ISP in question. Raymond Arritt 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that wouldn't pick up the 216.XXX.XXX.XXX though, but with only 1 IP it's hard to determine a logical range there. Regardless, there are easier ways of dealing with this outside a range block.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption continued, semi-protected page for three days. Report any spread of disruption here, or at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP, depending on circumstances. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing users

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) is adding Category:Russian Wikipedians to a lot of userpages. The editor has been asked to stop, yet is continuing. Please, someone have a word with him. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They've been blocked until they explain. -- John Reaves 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Frankly, he deserves it, after refusing to respect the wishes of the pages he edits. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Me and another user just finished depopulating the category of everyone who didn't voluntarily place themselves in this category. Frankly it should be deleted because we already have Category:Wikipedians in Russia. — Moe ε 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Use {{subst:cfm}} on the new cat to propose a merger.--Chaser - T 05:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio

I believe the Harris v. McRae article may be a copyvio see diffs. The wording was altered from first person to neutral right after being posted. I haven't been able to find where it may have come from, but it just reads suspiciously. IrishGuy ^talk 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it seems to have been taken from some liberal-leaning site in regards to abortion- it's full of POV language. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it on the web either, maybe it was an internal document that they decided to put on Wikipedia. In any case I can't imagine they intended a GFDL license for the work. I'd call it a plain copyvio. -Nard 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the editor and the diff linked by IrishGuy, I'd have to guess it came from The Center for Constitutional Rights, and given the content it is probably from the 1977-1980 era and won't be found online. GRBerry 03:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Sindel

Resolved

 – Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please delete and salt this crap? It keeps on getting recreated, and Naconkantari has left the project. The Evil Spartan 22:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Vix mouse (User:Eir Witt sock) again...

Resolved

See the previous topic about this sock of a banned user bragging about his vandalism and sockpuppetry on his talk page. Now that's been protected, he's doing the same on his user page. I was under the impression that he'd been banned with the rest of the User:Eir Witt socks when I made my original report. Obviously not. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuked it. Shell ^babelfish 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you ban him too? He's already identified himself as a sock (I reported him to WP:SSP a couple of days ago but there seems to be a huge backlog there). --Kurt Shaped Box 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Green108 while blocked for a week for sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Already dealt with.

Blocked Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing as 212.126.146.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 212.126.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See contribs and he's signed his comments "Green108", for example, here. IPSOS (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• See above. ELIMINATORJR 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblock heads-up

Per this, a couple of rangeblocks have been in operation since, and seem to have prevented any further vandalism. They also don't appear to have caused any collateral damage, and so given the persistent nature of the vandal, I have extended the rangeblocks for a further week. I will be away from Wikipedia on holiday for much of the remainder of the month, however, and so this is a request for admins to keep an eye on (a) any unblock requests from this range and (b) any Manchester-related vandalism from other sources. If the rangeblocks need to be extended after they expire, they are

• 79.65.128.0/17
• 79.73.128.0/17

Cheers, ELIMINATORJR 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to carry this over to CAT:RFU for wider response.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

67.8.45.17

Someone from the IP address 67.8.45.17 has requested I be emailed a new password for my account, which I pressume means they were either trying to gain access to it or inconvenience me. I've blocked the IP for one week and thought it prudent to note the incident here.--cj | talk 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Best to make sure you have "Prevent user from sending e-mail" selected if you're going to do that, though considering your short username, it may well be an honest mistake. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A one week block for a user with no edits seems a bit much. I get several IPs a week sending and just igonre them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For just one notice? Might be a bit much, but probably not worth arguing over, either. I'd be more concerned if they sent several, or if there was some other factor involved. It's hard to know whether this was malicious or not, there's so little to go on, it's not really something that's constructive or destructive on any significant scale, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bee Cliff River Slob Part 2

Further assistance is required with this user. Per the above discussion, the user continues to coatrack the articles of WHCB, WHGB, WHGG, and WPWT. He is also edited undering IP address 4.88.154.71, which I have taggerd as a sockpuppet and I have also issued Warn2 Warnings to each account.

Admin assistance is needed as this user shows no signs of following the rules. My thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user is removing the vandalism warnings from his page...at this time, only a Warn2 warning has been issued. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Socks needing blocks (from RFCU)

Resolved

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grumpyrob, the following socks of Grumpyrob (talk · contribs) need blocking:

• Kickstartme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Levelmeans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ccknowles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks of indef blocked User:Frater FiatLux

• User: Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SSP: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd)
• RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frater FiatLux (still pending listing)

Articles involved:

• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and related talk pages and AfDs.

IPSOS (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to block BIGCANDICEFAN

Now, I'm not just picking on BIGCANDICEFAN, but this user has some very obvious alternate accounts, some of which have also posted on Talk:Candice_Michelle. As was stated on Deep Shadow's talk page, this user lurks about, edits pages about wrestlers, starts big flame wars, then just leaves, then comes back under a new account and repeats the cycle. Alot of his alternate accounts have something to do with Candice Michelle. So I'm proposing we block him, do a Checkuser, block any alternates and maybe block his IP for a bit. He's lashed out at me and several other users. Please forgive me if he's already been blocked, I haven't thoroughly checked the Block Logs and I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I am a regular Wikia user Template:Signatures/Падший ангел

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, again

Eleemosynary is removing parts of the article, pushing POV. Edit war brewing, again. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy#Eleemosynary & POV — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Steven Andrew Miller is on a POV-pushing crusade on the page, reverting others' edits without comment in order to insert POV. He's violated 3RR with his vandalism, as well. --Eleemosynary 07:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing things you remove in this fashion is not 3RR. The links are relevant to the article. Looking at your edits and talk page you have a clear history of partisan editing and have blocking multiple times. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Elee's removed my comment to him/her on his/her talk page. I think a temporary block is needed =) (I bet he/she will delete this comment too, watch =D) Template:Signatures/Падший ангел