Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

AdultSwim is asking for a review of his block

AdultSwim, recently revealed and blocked as a sockpuppet of Lemmey / Mitrebox has asked for a review of his block: User talk:AdultSwim#Blocked. I would've suggested he do so from the original account, but it seems to have been given the {{pp-usertalk}} treatment. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Banned Constant evasive socking, keep him blocked and block on sight. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Socking, yes. But to be fair, have a read over Ned Scott's summary of the situation on the user's talk page. I wouldn't disagree with it. Mitrebox/Lemmey/AdultSwim has never done anything to attempt to harm the encycolopedia. The aim has always seemed to be in good faith, but not within our procedural bounds. The user has the potential for a future of valuable contributions. Needs a nice tutor. Keegan^talk 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I agree with Ned Scott. What's keeping AdultSwim away is basically policy-wonkery. He's a clear positive for the encyclopedia, IMO. What's keeping him out is a technicality. Unblock provided he promises not to sock anymore or to use unapproved bots. Enigma ^message 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A second account I can understand. Perhaps even a third. But five or six accounts indicates a real issue. I'd be incredibly hesitant to unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That does have me confused as well. Some of them seem just.. odd. Like LemmonBoy, who's obvious connection wouldn't even make the account useful for sockpuppeting or block evasion. Some of the others were only used for a single day and thrown away. Still, I don't see any attempt to have one sock support another in discussion, nor do I see any real disruption by most of those throw-away's. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to User talk:Mitrebox being protected, he was clearly told that he needed to contact ArbCom or the blocking administrator via email and had already had a block declined on his talk page. He chose not to, and instead went ahead and created another account to circumvent his block, and then continued to do so even after being caught a third time. Does not seem like the type of user I want editing... Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if he's the kind of editor we can even stop editing. Wouldn't it be better to at least try to work these issues out, rather than endless sock hunts? He keeps coming back because he honestly believes he's doing something good here, and desires to keep doing that. I understand some socks coming into edit war over a POV, but never to come in and fix references.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• So by all means just let him stay unblocked? If you can not beat them, then let them edit? I think not, Tiptoety ^talk 07:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have someone who passionately wants to contribute and is improving the wiki. Where is the logic in fighting that? Their "crime" was running an unapproved bot, an issue long since resolved. Threads like these are likely the reason he didn't bother with an unblock request for the original account. People get so hung up on what you've once done that they just close their mind to the possibility that someone might be good for this project. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In other words, from a technical standpoint, we can stop them, even if it means reverting after we catch a new sock. However, most people aren't going to want to revert the changes he makes, and it would be really counter-productive. We would be reverting good edits simply because he was once banned for something that is no longer an issue. We can help the situation with things other than blocks. We've not big stupid cavemen who can only hit things with their clubs. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked The value of anyone who abuses sock puppets is questionable. Jtrainor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's an incredibly shallow view of the situation. This editor has been proven to be very valuable to the project, and has never once tried to hurt it. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked Simply because the accounts we know of haven't harmed the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that he hasn't done so. We don't if it's a good hands/bad hands scenario here. I just don't trust serial sockpuppeters. He was told what to do. He should be able to show he wants to be here enough that he would actually do what people asked him to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, are you even paying attention? There's no good hand/bad hand happening here at all. He's already stop using an unapproved bot, so there's no reason his original account should even be blocked at this point, other than the evasion of that original block. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A checkuser was run, showed his accounts, and none of them were abusive, IIRC. This is a good contributor. No "bad hand" exists. I really don't understand how you could say this. "We don't know if it's a good hands/bad hands..."? Actually, we know more about him than others because a checkuser was run. Your argument of we don't know could apply to everyone, including you or me. Enigma ^message 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. I want to see him not sockpuppet for three months before I support an unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock and find a mentor. Viridae^Talk 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• (EC)Even though I'm a Pro-Block Admin™, I support an unblock in this particular case. Yes, he socked, but was it malicious? Did he harm the encyclopedia? Did he attack someone? Three NO's, right? Then probably we shouldn't consider the block on his first account as permission to shoot on sight, and give him a benefit of doubt? I support unblocking AS, or probably his Lemmey account and his bot that was certainly useful. If there are still some problems with AS's behaviour, assinging him a mentor would be really more constructive than ritual "bad, bad sock" banhammering to death. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I concur heavily with MaxSem said above...Someone who have contributed for good of Wikipeida and hitherto done/does no harm, should not be demoralized by a indefinite block...Just my 2 cents -- Tinu Cherian - 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock, it seems as though the user is essentially constructive and a net positive. Prohibit any further use of sockpuppets by him. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock, the user needs to get a mentor and restrict himself to two accounts (one that doesn't do anything automatic, one that does (semi-)automated things with community approval). We do have stricter norms for bots than for non-automatic contributions (and for good reason), and the user has to accept that or we'll have to do without him. Kusma (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment just to say that I have noticed this user doing an extraordinary amount of helpful work with referencing on a wide range of articles lately. Skomorokh 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock. If its true he is a net positive, I see no reason we cannot allow him to edit. He needs guidance apparently, like others are pointing out. If this cannot be accomplished, then reblock. Synergy 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leave blocked He has clearly demonstrated recently that he was still incapable of understanding the etiquette issue of editing other people's sandboxes, issues that contributed to his original block in February. Until he can demonstrate he understanbds why he was blocked, there is no point in leaving him unblocked. Circeus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed that is only an etiquette issue, not a violation of any policy or guideline. In fact with every edit, users are given a no-nonsense warning to the opposite effect: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I'm not convinced this is actionable (though other behavior might be). — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per most of the above, I think, at this point an unblock would be a good idea, along with a mentor. SQL^{Query me!} 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I would like to be sure that any future bots this user is to run seek explicit approval before they are run as a condition of unblock. I remember now, that this user, appeared to think there was nothing wrong with running an unapproved bot, in order to lock a page at a specific revision. [1] Having dealt with this user in two out of three of his most recent socks, I don't think this is going to happen, however. SQL^{Query me!} 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Unblock Synergy took the words out of my mouth. Per Synergy. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Based on previous interaction, I'll say I'm somewhat skeptical that this user is going to be open to mentoring; but due to the fact they are trying to be of use, I'd support one more shot, based on the conditions above by Kusma and SQL. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can almost guarantee that this user will not be open to mentoring, just look at the way he handled a request to have his username changed. He is not open to help, and more or less wants to do things his way or no way at all. Tiptoety ^talk 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I see no major reason to leave the account indefinitely blocked, and in addition, the user is not community banned (at least, there is no discussion of a banning that I am aware of). Good arguments have been provided to unblock, and I agree with them. Give the user guidance and another chance: I've only seen good things from the AdultSwim account, and I was surprised to see it blocked. Acalamari 17:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Might I just add that this user has adamantly stated and thinks that there is nothing wrong with running a unapproved bot, what makes everyone think he is going to change? Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• And yet he's also stated that he's willing to follow our rules and improve how he handles these situations. Feeling that there is nothing wrong with the action isn't a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but acting upon those feelings is. Tiptoety ^talk 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which he has not done. The only thing even close would be the block of Samuel, where he explains that he thought it was approved because it was the same task and code that was approved before. (see User talk:Samuel Pepys#WTF Mate)-- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. Unrepentant block-evading sockpuppeteer, come back when he has fixed those issues and shown a commitment to fix the other issues which led to the original block as well. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• A prime example of a drive-by admin who isn't paying attention to the discussion. He has already fixed the issues related to the original block. He has no other issues that would justify a block, and is only currently blocked because he didn't get his first account unblocked. Process wonkery caused by ignorant admins. Get off the damn war path, because you're not helping the wiki. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that last part was a bit over the top. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. As someonewho tried to cleanup the trail of destruction User:Samuel Pepys (who, lest we forget, returned as a sockpuppet to operate the bot which had already been blocked)left behind, I have no sympathy at all for this "good faith user's" ability to change. – iridescent 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've spot checked a bunch of Samuel's edits, and none of them so far have been bad. What edits are you referring to when you say "trail of destruction"? -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I seem to have found it. Seems he was editing user drafts, commenting out the ref tag to remove the page from the maintenance category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. From the comments on the talk page it seems he was able to update the bot to exclude user pages, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The bot itself was very useful, and that same code will likely be run again by someone, if not Lemmey/AS. Again, the only reason for the block of the bot is because of the ban evasion of the original account, which is now a non-issue. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked - He may be constructive, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. In addition to the original block for edit warring using a bot, LemmeyBOT was blocked twice for running unapproved tasks and AdultSwim was blocked for incivility, while I supported the unblock for that last block, his responses after being unblocked were less than encouraging. The fact that AdultSwim was created 2 years ago but only made a handful of edits before June is a bit worrying as well. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those are some very weak reasons to block someone indefinitely like this. If his bot was acting up, it gets the bot status removed. Problem solved. You just said yourself that there's no current reason to block AdultSwim for civility reasons. I've been blocked for civility-type reasons before, and I would hate to think you would endorse my banishment from the entire English Wikipedia for being human. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Basically what I meant was, he does have positive contributions, but he can't seem to go very long without ending up in some degree of trouble. Incivility is one thing, but there's also the edit warring bot, the unapproved bots, the sock puppetry, the fact that this last account looks like a sleeper account. I don't think the positive contributions he makes are worth all the extra trouble. The AGF view says that he's just a good editor with a complete inability to follow rules for more than a month or 2, but after so many block-evading sockpuppets, I'm not really able to AGF anymore, it looks like he's just trying to see how much he can get away with. Mr.Z-man 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Except that the behavior you cite has been shown and proven to improve over time. The very first block was for an unapproved revert bot. The next time he ran a bot he waited to get approval from BAG, worked with them, and was highly praised for the bot's work. Same with the edit warring. Like AS has said on his talk page, each time he comes back he makes a greater effort to improve, or as he puts it, each new account evolves and improves (or something like that). The last time we had a thread about him it was over a situation that he had already resolved with the other user. He had gotten blocked with the mindset that he might have caused that user great distress, and yet that same user came here to support his unblocking. I don't think it's fair to use something like that against him. The only issue that is continuing without "improvement" is the new accounts, which he's only making so that he can continue his positive contributions. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I never saw any of the constructive contributions Lemmey is said to have made. I only saw the contributions to ANI and related noticeboards, which while short of being disruptive or incivil were certainly confrontational and impolite. So, I don't think this is a simple case of a good-user-who-fell-foul-of-bot-and-then-sock-policy, and if unblocked I hope that any mentor would be aware of such concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock I noticed that I've only been replying to comments, and haven't gotten to make my own shiny bold endorsement. Unblock per my statement on AS's talk page, and per my above comments. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• No unblock I might be able to forgive the other stuff, but not being a Checkuser-confirmed sock of a user who posted someone's personal information. Blueboy96 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• A mistake they made over two years ago. Do you have any evidence of postings of personal information since then? Any at all? -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:East718, the original blocking admin, if he would be willing to review the first block. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

East (I think it's East.. he seems to be on a script enforced block) replies. He says he supports an unblock, but advises us to wait a couple of weeks so that people can calm down. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. So he used multiple accounts. So what? Seems to be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Unblock and let him go on about his business here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AdultSwim

Found here: User talk:AdultSwim#Response. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We saw that same type of bullshit when Mitrebox got caught running a reversion bot. I see no indication he's changed, nor any indication of an apology for his actions, which he doesn't seem to even acknowledge were wrong. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is far more than just a "Oh, I was blocked for using a unapproved bot, so whats the big deal if I sock?". Just look at this users history, he has had two years to improve his behavior and yet here we are again. Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew, how about the fact that he never used a reversion bot after that? The next bot he used got full approval by BAG, and has been praised by several good editors in standing. That's a pretty damn good improvement. Tiptoety, your statement is even more absurd. You say he's had two years to improve his behavior, except that this current block has nothing to do with behavior. This is entirely dependent on block evasion of a block that is no longer an issue. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because we had no idea he was a sock. And I'll bet that he's probably going to be socking in the future. I will not support an unblock until he apologizes for everything he's done, admits that it was wrong, and then can prove he hasn't socked for three months. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for anyone to prove that they have not been operating sockpuppets. Can you prove that you have not been operating socks? If you can't maybe you should be blocked too. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do operate a sockpuppet. Though, after looking over what I said, I agree- there's no way to completely confirm non-socking. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what was going on with the multiple accounts that were editing at the same time, but I would doubt he would make another account if he didn't need to (as in, making one so he could keep editing). The ones that were editing at the same time never crossed paths, and some were one-time use accounts (like LemmonBoy, who's existence was to simply post code for the bot). He's not creating accounts to support himself in a discussion, or to do some kind of good hand/bad hand front. If he's unblocked, which wouldn't hurt the wiki or the community at all, then he wouldn't need to make more accounts. Problem solved. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Asking people to prove they haven't done something is absurd, as I was saying above. Someone opposed unblocking because (paraphrase) "we don't know if there's a good hand/bad hand thing going on here." Well yeah, we don't. We also don't know if <insert random user here> is operating good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry. I view AS's sockpuppetry differently than I would someone who is operating multiple sockpuppets at the same time to try to sway consensus or disrupt in some other significant way. Anyway, east commented on his talk page. Enigma ^message 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I got here late... Can someone explain to me just how he was "caught"? If there were no problems with him under the current account, why was anyone even looking? We tell people - even banned editors sometimes (though usually in those cases it's only brought up by their enemies in order to attempt to subvert an attempt to appeal the ban) that it's fine to come back and start editing again as long as they don't go back to the same bad behavior that got them blocked/banned. So what the hell? Maybe I'm just dense - I go to the talk page and see a sock template posted out of the blue with no evidence of any prior controversy. --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave a shot at summarizing it on User talk:AdultSwim#Block summary, though I should point out that I'm supporting an unblock. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

User with constructive edits but a name that puts his user/talk pages in the title blacklist filter thingo. If admins can bypass that, anyone want to suggest a rename? —Giggy 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps "User:Screaming loudly" - though I don't think that was what you were asking for. Viridae^Talk 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed him on his talk page, are you able to edit it now and discuss the username issue with him? –xeno (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note explaining the situation but it may be a bit confusing for someone new. I know that if I had received that message when I was new I would understand none of it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user is probably going to need some help in figuring out how to change his name or some one may want to request a name change with the user's consent. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By trial and error I determined that the repeated "!" (three or more) is the source of the problem. The infamous User:!! (if he were still editing ) would narrowly avoid being affected by it. "AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH" by itself does not trigger anything (though it would still be a less than desirable username). — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user name is confusing (now how may 'Hs' should you type to write his name?) and should be changed. It is not conducive to accepting the user as a serious editor. Give him/her a couple of days to respond (if they don't resume editing sooner), then block as inapropriate user name and allow them to change it. -- Alexf⁴² 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to play devil's advocate, there's exactly 5 of each character... Maybe he's doing a kind of The Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh thing, but missed the R? –xeno (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, don't be playing "devil's" ANYTHING in this joint--it'll get you marked as a dangerous influence.Gladys J Cortez 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even one ! in a name will interfere with templates and that 3 !!! gets hit by the name filters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're still playing the "suggest alternatives" game, then perhaps cropping the name to AGH! would be the course involving least change for this guy... However, it's probably best if we simply say "look, you need to change your name: it's not really appropriate", let him chose an alternative (perhaps with some examples and guidance from us), and point him towards changing username. Unless that has already been done? Anthøny 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:IncoherentScream and User:IncoherentScreaming are both available, apparently :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I would too easily confuse that with NonvocalScream or whatever account he's using these days. — CharlotteWebb 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion question

Note: This is not an attempt to create drama. I would like to clarify something though. If a talk page for an article exists but only has a {{talkheader}} template with no other content, should it be deleted? I'm asking based on this [2] and other related talkpage deletions. It just seems unnecessary to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big problem is with leaving it undeleted. It gives instructions for whomever wants to post there. Unless the article is deleted (thereby making the talk page eligible for CSD - G8), I don't see the point in deleting a helpful template. Seems overcooked when there are so many other more relevant and serious "problems" on wiki. Am I missing something? I realize that talkpage was deleted, I'm failing to realize why. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You could always find a WikiProject to put it in. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stuff beans up your nose. I would rather see a red link than slapping myself every time I open a talk page which contains no actual talk. — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created a talk page containing only {{talkheader}} ought to be trout-slapped for violating both common sense and the instructions which say This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages! — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But instead of instantly A3'ing, it would be more helpful to add the relevant WikiProjects. They don't take a few minutes to find. And if the talkheader itself is misplaced, remove it. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what is so bad about having a talk page that just contains a talkheader, regardless of what the instructions say (which I hadn't seen until now). I can't see what's so vexing about talkpages that don't contain talk yet. Seems like a kind of policy wonkery, IMO. And I think its a lot nicer than redlinks, personally. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people get agitated when they see redlinks because it feels like something is missing. Some people get agitated when they see an empty talk page because it's taking up space. It's not process wonkery, but more like human nature. It's something we can't really deal with. —Kurykh 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Practical matters are by definition anti-wonkery. If a talk page is completely blank I'd like to know before clicking on it. — CharlotteWebb 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not completely blank, there's a talkheader there. What if there were a couple Wikiproject tags there as well? Those aren't discussion, but I don't think someone would delete the talk page if it contained nothing but Wikiproject templates. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Still useless. Some talk pages contain several banners instead of one, and may be less likely to be deleted, but that does not make them more useful. — CharlotteWebb 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't just for discussion. WikiProject templates categorise articles for individual projects. They serve multiple purposes. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to know whether it pertains to the {{talkheader}} template. — CharlotteWebb 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. My argument was that a talkheader could be replaced with WP templates, instead of a simple page deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This just creates more work. I pity the fool who spends an afternoon looking for the most applicable wiki-project tag to use in order to save an empty talk page with no salvageable value. — CharlotteWebb 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Well it's not that difficult. If it's a bio, tag with {{WPBiography}}. Most of the time it's blatantly obvious which tags to put on the article. For 90% of articles, it's no chore, but sure, there will be the odd exception. But my argument was in relation to strolling across talk pages. Instead of G6'ing, tag it; all biographies, for example, should use WPBiography even if there's no discussion on the page. This is especially important for BLPs. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd like to know too; the documentation says "see the talk page" for why adding this everywhere is wrong, and the talk page says "see the documentation". I could guess (Saving someone from wasting time clicking on a blue link, thinking there was discussion when there wasn't? Dragging down the server with lots of needless transclusion?), but would prefer someone who knows actually explain why it's not recommended, instead of just saying it. Quite possibly there's a good reason, but I'd like to hear it. --barneca (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c*2)Surely it is ok to have a talk page with just a banner - it provides guidance for new users on what's appropriate, how to sign etc. Seems a bit anal to be deleting pages like this, plus does it really come under G6? - Toon⁰⁵ 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I think too. It seems helpful and informative for newbies at least. I've added them to a number of talk pages just because I thought they contain helpful instructions. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If talkheader belonged on every talk page, it would be added to the interface. I remove it whenever I'm otherwise editing the talk page unless there's actual questionable discussion that it seems to be a response to. --NE2 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe the template was intended for talk pages which tend to receive comments from new users who don't understand the purpose of talk pages, generally articles about current events or very famous people or other web sites. However if we could find an appropriate interface page to contain this material (and then delete the bloody template) it would be more than acceptable as a compromise. — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Talkpagetext appears when editing a talk page. Is that good enough? — CharlotteWebb 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<--I just re-"bluelinked" this particular talkpage (which I'm well aware is one of thousands of redlinks, perhaps rightfully so). I readded the talkpageheader template, and two wikiprojects that seem appropriate. Please see Talk:Freebie marketing. Now that I've read this particular article, I find it to be rather AFD-able, but still, there is no valid reason (policy is descriptive, not prescriptive) to leave it a redlink if there are valid and active WikiProjects that may find interest in any particular article. Keeper ǀ 76 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you can help me -- How many angels can dance in a talk page with no header? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged from ANI

An admin has been deleting article talk pages. I can't see the sense in it? Don't we have enough server space at Wikipedia or something? I'm a little concerned because one page I had on watch had it's talk page deleted. So I didn't worry that much but added a cat to the page and then went to an associated page and added a cat also. Shortly after that article had its talk page deleted also. Gave me a bad feeling. So here I am. Articles are British Homing World and Royal Pigeon Racing Association. Also on my watch list with a deleted talk page Tendring Hundred Show. The admin doing the deleting is User:MZMcBride. So I'll see people here have to say about this? Oh, and I'm not sure because I cant access the deleted pages, but I was thinking one of the deleted talk pages was in a wikiproject? If not it should have been.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Talk page of the deleting admin, he's deleting Talk pages that have Template:Talkheader as their only content, since the instructions for that template indicate it should only be used on Talk pages that have other content anyway. It seems kind of an odd choice of endeavor to me, but I can't argue with his logic. Propaniac (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is disruptive. It's confusing and wastes the time of editors who have the article watchlisted as they try to chase down what happened and why. Just a glance at the contents of the deleting admin's talk page shows what a timewaster this practice is for all involved, including the deleter. It's a net loss to the project. Please end this practice. --CliffC (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I echo Cliff's concerns. Could the deleting admins at least state explicitly in the edit summary (or deletion log, whatever) the precise rationale for the deletion? Skomorokh 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, deleting the page is fine, but a clear explanation of why the page has been deleted would save a lot of time and also be much more considerate on the part of the deleting admin. Tom H (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is useful, as it gives pages with no WikiProject templates and no discussion a redlinked talk page. WE use {{Talkheader}} only where necessary (else we'd just use a MediaWiki message for this anyway). Kusma (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked talk is a barrier to new users

Has anyone considered the fact that new users might be intimidated by redlinked Talk pages? It leads them to a page telling them they're creating a new page, with no instructions whatsoever for how the Talk page should be used or formatted. At least with a talkheader template, we've got a page the user can see and which has links to instructions on what to do. It's much more encouraging to see a page welcoming comments than a blank edit window telling you to dive right into the deep end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times above, if {{talkheader}} is supposed to go on every talk page, it can be worked into the interface somewhere. Otherwise, if you're going to add it, at least add a WikiProject tag so he page will be useful. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually submitted a feature request to the developers? And I dispute that the page isn't "useful" if it only has the header. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one do this anyway? I think that talkpages should all come with a default header, as it gives everyone a concise summary of what they are for. I have in the (fairly recent) past created some of these otherwise blank talk pages, and I took them directly from the source of other (probably more populated) talk pages, because I saw it and thought it was a really neat summary and useful to your average Joe Bloggs who might be editing for the first time. At that point I was not aware that template guidance notes even existed.
I was then very concerned to see several talkpages from articles I'd either started or edited flagged up as deleted on my watchlist, with just a strange code as an explanation. I've wasted about an hour trying to find out why that is the case and whether it will remain so. Quite frankly I think the argument saying a lone talkheader is as useless, if not more so than a redlink is flawed. Maybe it was once the case, when WP was being edited by fewer people who all knew what they were doing (at least to a degree), but I personally think this needs strong consideration. At the very least, could you avoid deleting without a more self-explanatory message, because while creating (or deleting) a virtually-blank talk page takes no time, finding out why that page has then been deleted takes rather a lot of time. Hypothetically, if one's well-intentioned but not-quite-policy contributions are deleted without a good reason stated, one might be less inclined to contribute in the first place. That's my tuppence-worth. Finally, apologies if only admins are meant to post here.
--Peeky44 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's allowed to post here; it's a mix between discussion of matters that pertain to admins and a complaints department (despite the text at the top). MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is the relevant text that appears above talk pages, and does in fact link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --NE2 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The "arguments" being presented here are rather silly. As I (and others) have said, if there is information that is so vital as to require it to be on the top of every talk page, go Bugzilla and file a bug. Redlinks indicate that a page is content-less. If a talk page has no content, turning the red link blue to make all of the tabs at the top the same color is silly and unproductive. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as silly as going to the trouble of writing and running a script to turn the bluelink red again :D. As has been said above, the most sensible way to handle these (if not the quick-and-easy solution) is to add useful content to the page, such as WikiProject banners. A list of these barren talkpages would be useful, but mindlessly deleting them just so they can be recreated again at some later date (don't forget the bitey "you are creating a page that has been deleted" warning that will now appear) is crazy. Deleting pages really doesn't make the wiki any tidier - it just messes up logs, histories and pages, bloats the database, and almost invariably requires more effort to undo when the time is right. Adding WikiProject banners to ten pages would be many times more beneficial to the project than deleting a thousand of these pages. That said, I do not condone the creation of these pages with just {{talkheader}} and that practice too should certainly be discontinued. Happy‑melon 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To agree here with H-m, (I think), it is equally useless to create a page with {{talkheader}} as it is to delete a page with {{talkheader}}. Especially for the BLP articles (there've been a few). It would be much easier to type {{blp}} then to delete (at least, without a script). Every blp article should be tagged with the blp header, if not a wikiproject with it. MZM, I like what you are doing with stale (indef) usertalk, and the housekeeping is invaluable, in general. Please see the reasoning being given here though that "what's done is done". Discourage the creation of usertalk "for the sake of a bluelink", yes. But, H-m makes a valid point about "you are creating a page that has been deleted" and the ominousness of that post to someone (non-admin) who would have no idea what was deleted, or why it was deleted, or whether they'd get "in trouble" for "recreating it". Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent again) Once again, User:MZMcBride has embarked upon a massive spree of deletions that, while arguably within policy, are not absolutely vital, and now we have the fallout to deal with at WP:AN. This has happened before (here, for instance). Is it going to happen again? I hope not. --RFBailey (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

God forbid empty pages be deleted! Anything but that! But really, I always like to use these fun sessions at AN to point out more housekeeping that needs doing. Y'know, instead of mindless bantering here? This is a list of about 800 indefinitely blocked user / user talk pages that need to be reviewed and either removed from CAT:TEMP or deleted. If you don't want to do those, let me know, I have plenty of other things that need doing. Things that are far more beneficial to the project than chatting here. It's obvious quite a few people have more time than they can fill. Anything I can do to help. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New "Notices" tab?

Personally, I think it would be useful if Wikipedia talk pages could once again be used for, well, talk. Maybe a new tab could be added for templates/notices pertaining to an article. Such elements do not actually constitute "talk" and are too often used as a substitute for meaningful discussion contribution. A large amount of them are either irrelevant, condescending, unnecessary, mundane or otherwise not too useful. I think putting them onto a seperate section would greatly restore the usefulness of talk pages, and any problems with templates can at least be pushed off to a separate section, allowing consideration of talk page problems to be free of having to consider templates into the bargain. zoney ♣ talk 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BenBurch comments on the recent suit against him for editing Wikipedia

This just showed up in my watch list; User:BenBurch I suggest ppl read it. (If this isn't the right notice board for this, feel free to move it!) --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs deletion and oversight. It's pretty strong stuff. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Reading through again to check whether it fully warrants oversight. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Under what condition for oversight does it (perhaps) meet?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it does; the other party instigated the matter (if BenBurch is to be believed - per AGF), meaning there will be public records, and BB did not give the RL name of the party. The offending edits are deleted, BB has retired, and I think we can all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What condition did it even meet for deletion ??? Yes, it's strong, and includes information about a real-life legal case, but it doesn't evidently violate any of our policy that I could see. What gives? If you can articulate a policy problem with it, fine, but ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant oversight. However, the deletion was appropriate. We don't need strong records of legal action in the page history. If another admin disagrees, as always, I'm fine for it to be overturned, but I think we should just move on. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if deletion was necessary, but WP:BLP probably called at least for reverting or blanking it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any BLP related issues in the final deleted edit - a possibly sensitive name was removed by BenBurch himself before anyone asked him to, but that's it. Specifics please, on what is a BLP problem?

WP:LEGAL is all about "Don't threaten editors with lawsuits", which is not what happened here at all. BenBurch was sued (or more precisely, a restraining order filed for...), for Wikipedia activities. He reported on what happened, without including (as far as I see) any threats against anyone or any information which is private info about any participants. That someone in the community was sued is open knowledge - his report on what happened seems entirely appropriate here. How does deleting that info fall under any of our policies or help the community or project or encyclopedia? I don't see there being any point to deleting it, and though it's not "an abuse" of process or someone it seems to clearly have been a mistake that should be un-done... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's uncited contentious POV material about a living person. That's what BLP is all about, right? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The online court records appear to support this as far as they go. I am betting that if we get the actual records (Original research I understand) that they will say the same as he said here. This did not sound contrived. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I posted that here because I thought people needed to READ it not DELETE it. It ought to be restored and protected. Geeze, guys. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think Ben deserves our congratulations. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've restored and reverted back to the last revision by Sarah. I'm not sure if the deletion was a mistake, but my actions are unsupported, so I'm happy to bow to the community. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I still don't see the statement. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (edit) Sorry, I see it, I am an idiot. Arkon (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the history, the last three edits before my reversion. Per WP:BLP, his edits should not be un-reverted. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unreverted, too. It says a lot that others need to read, I think. But then IANAA. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the user's original statement. It needs to be said. Enough with the fucking WP:BLP whining, Violet was a liar and any cursory search of google shows this to be the case. I recommend any and all assist in deterring Peter's vandalism. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to war with you; I undid your edit before you came here. My edits, however, are not vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Peter, it isn't unsourced information, Ben Burch is a primary source. We need to stop censoring stuff that isn't a violation of our policies. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What Ben did was finally stand up to the pathetic whiners who bitch to OTRS, threaten to sue, and anything else just because they don't like the truth. Well the truth hurts, and this incident has galvanized my believe that we must be as apathetic as possible towards the subjects of our articles. WP:NPOV must and always will trump WP:BLP. What Ben has done is win one for the good guys. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, can you avoid describing the incident in terms this lurid? That does not help in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Are you saying his edits are NPOV? They aren't. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for all external subjects, it isn't. However, when an editor, in good standing, is sued frivolously and has his name dragged through the mud on wiki, I think we owe him the courtesy of posting his vindication. It is the least we could do, considering I do not think WMF covered his attorney fees. It was Ben who stood up for WP:NPOV in the face of an unsavory, litigious character who wanted to POV push on her own article. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I realize that this incident involves Wikipedia, so of course, we're all interested and have opinions about it, but in any other case, we wouldn't allow anybody who had a personal encounter with another person to post a long screed about how terrible that person was on their userpage. There are forums for this sort of thing (Wikipedia Review or wherever), but this just isn't one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a screed, it is a statement that tells other editors to be bold and not be afraid of those who cry WP:BLP. Just because someone doesn't like the truth doesn't mean it should be removed. I will continue to revert any attempts to remove the very necessary statement on his userpage. I'm sick and fucking tired of people whining about WP:BLP, it is time someone stood for WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And which of those supports not elsewhere reported allegations of perjury against identifiable people? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Violet filed a frivolous suit, it was dismissed with prejudice. At the very least, that makes her a liar. In order to bring the case, she had to lie to the court. Lying in court testimony is perjury. However, since you are WP:BLP fanatic, I'll excuse your oversight of these facts. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe both suits were actually dismissed without prejudice, weren't they? For the record.  :) -- Vary | Talk 01:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does not mean that. Having a complaint dismissed means that you lost, not that you lied. And it definitely doesn't mean that the loser committed perjury. You really need to moderate your tone. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Dragon, please stop the showboating. Just because Blue is clearly (and objectively) a dipshit doesn't mean we go no holds barred.Yeago (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not showboating. Yes, perhaps my language was strong, but I feel that we are under attack by those who wish to spin their biographies and those who would warp policy to fit this agenda. It is important that an editor's experience be given light to show that standing for WP:NPOV against WP:BLP is possible and that one need not cave because a subject is unhappy about it. I feel strongly that his userpage should be left in tact without being scrubbed by well-intentioned persons who have their hearts in the right places but who are taking things a little too far with WP:BLP. I WP:DGAF about Violet Blue or her feelings at this point, she had to lie in order to bring the claim as Ben pointed out. His statements are backed up by the facts and the correlation only involves minor original research. Given that it is a userpage and that many users who have retired in the past have left lengthy rationales for their departure, I see no reason that any part should be removed. He has been careful not to reveal any information that would personally cause harm, I think that is more than enough. --Dragon695 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to move this out of the realm of original research completely? I see only one matter at issue here; Her name(s) and age. And I did spend some time (not much was required) with google, and some of the people-search engines out there and even without paying money it would appear that the allegation is likely to be actually true, there being several aliases for this person with a matching age. But at what time does using search products available to the public, and which come from public records themselves, constitute original research, and when is it just plain old research? I see that we are allowed in some ways to use primary sources, but I am confused by the limitations of that use. And at some point isn't it perverse to maintain that we cannot use obviously-true information at all? Will some of you setters-of-policy expound a bit upon this? --Betta Splendens (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• SIGH - I hadn't intended to come back HERE at all, but an admin wrote me asking that I do so.

Here are source documents for this case. We do not have the ruling or the minutes of the hearing yet;

[3] [4] [5] [6]

Here is the court log of action in the case;

[7]

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm DONE here. --BenBurch (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sadden to see you go. In my mind, you did the right thing. Please know that there are users and editors who appreciate what you have done. Thank you for standing up for our rights! --Dragon695 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

heads up NonvocalScream (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Um, this is lame. Ben was sued by a litigious and distinctly odd individual (who ha salso had spats with Boing Boing and other places). I don't think there's much to be gained from writing up the case report on his user page, but I certainly can't see that he's done anything wrong or actionable here. I don't think we sanction people for being attacked and exonerated n the real world, do we? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted on seeing phrases like Her claimed fear of violence was, at best, delusional and, at worst, a lie. Even if not deleted, I think that the page (and some comments in this thread) might need to be edited for tone. Winning a lawsuit (or getting a case dismissed) doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want about someone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

The first section seems distinctly odd: "She also sought an order that I could not "harass, attack, strike, threaten, assualt (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, [or] stalk [her or her partner Jonathan Moore], destroy [their] personal property, keep [them] under surveillance, block [their] movements, [or] contact [them]."....[1] She lost on all counts.[2]"

Surely you are entitled not to be harassed,attacked or assaulted regardless of whether or not you have an order to say so... Lemon martini (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen an old friend's restraining order against her abusive ex, such language would seem to be boilerplate for such a thing. IANAL. YMMV. Do not bounce Happy Fun Ball. --Betta Splendens (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

I'd like to propose a community ban of PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been through numerous mentors trying to curb his behaviour and yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles. I actually blocked him a few days ago because he came back after four days off the project and made three article edits, all of which were reverts. He's well known to edit war to get his point across. He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action, but there's still a problem with this as shown in his block log. Numerous users have tried, and failed, to lead him on the right path, but he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. Thoughts would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite and broadly interpreted topic ban on all articles related to the Israeli-Palestine conflict--if only because judging by his edit history, it would have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I will support such a topic ban. I don't think he needs a siteban, and he might decide to contribute constructively to other topics. However, he has demonstrated an inability to adhere to NPOV editing on PIA-related articles. Horologium (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A topic ban could work, and I'd certainly support it, but I just have concerns that he'd simply take his problematic editing to other pages. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I think that a topic ban will certainly become a de facto site ban, it does look like there are no options left to keep the warring down. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally we do topic bans when an editor has a problem with one area and a productive track record elsewhere. No opinion on the proposal (due to my mentorship of another party PR has been in dispute with), but suggest PR's productivity in different areas merits review since both options are under discussion. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I got this idea from WP:RFAR/Waldorf education/Review, in which a mostly single-purpose editor was topic-banned in a way that had the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy do I remember that case... Durova^Charge! 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban Not everyone is knows all the details. Therefore, I oppose community ban unless and until the proposal details what are the objectionable edits (recent diffs, please) and what non-objectionable edits have been made. The prosecutor (person wanting the community ban) should present the material in a neutral fashion and not slanted toward community ban. There is mention in the beginning of this thread that the ArbCom case was closed with no action. Thus, banning may be bucking ArbCom.

I could change my mind if the proper background is described. Based only on the information above (and not doing extensive original research), I must default to oppose. Presumptive (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Presumptive. Can we have some actual evidence of disputed conduct, please? I'm a little concerned that we seem to be rushing to a topic ban without any discussion of specific issues. I couldn't in good faith support such an action merely on the say-so of an admin (sorry Ryan, nothing personal!). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I thought this was an extremely well known problem with his editing. Numerous admins have been involved with him before. I'm at work today, so I won't be able to provide more details until after work, but I'll certainly get the diffs out when I've finished. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I've seen mentions of his name before on AN/I but I would imagine that most of us won't have much awareness of what's going on with him at the moment. If you could cite specific problems that would be a great help. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• PalestineRemembered is, I believe, precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed. A textbook case of an agenda-driven account. If he wants to contribute productively to other areas then fine, but his involvement in articles related to Israel and Palestine is, as far as I can tell, a substantial drain on everybody else concerned and serves to perpetuate the state of dispute on those articles. I'd be prepared to rethink this position if anyone can show me evidence of PR proposing a moderate compromise in any dispute, and that compromise achieving consensus. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of his last 100 edits, most are not in article space. He seems to be involved in many discussions on talk pages and noticeboards, but isn't editing articles much. What's the specific problem? --John Nagle (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The specif problem is that his article-space edits are either reverts, or tendentious editing based on bad sources, and that his Talk-space edits are soapboxing, which does not improve articles. In short, he is a net detriment to the project. Canadian Monkey (talk)

• Since joining wikipedia, PR has been blocked 13 times, by 9 different administrators. He has been assigned mentorship as a result of an ArbCom case against him, but has exhausted the patience of 4 different mentors, of whom Ryan p, the nominator of these sanctions, is the latest. I don’t believe I’ve seen any other editor on WP with a block log quite as long as his – almost all of which is related to disruptive editing on I-P articles. I find myself in agreement with Guy on both points he makes – that this is precisely the kind of editor who the arbitrators had in mind when the idea of broadly constructed topic bans was developed, and that this is a textbook case of an agenda-driven account, which PR himself admits. I would support a topic ban from all I-P related articles, and if PR wants to be a positive contributor to the project, there are 2 million other articles for him to work on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the history, could someone please explain what spurred this move recently? I understand if people think that in the past PR was uncivil. I do think s/he takes a harsh and unconciliatory tone. However, in recent months I have mostly encountered him/her at Battle of Jenin, and I guess other than taking a harsh tone, I can't see what the problem has been recently - s/he has not engaged in edit-warring there.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• support topic ban Given that he has gone through 4 different mentors and that the latest is now calling for a general ban on this user, and the length of PR's block log, I really don't see a reasonable answer. PR makes occasionally good edits, but most are just POV pushing. Also I have some hope that a topic ban might teach PR to work better within the community framework so that he can eventually return to these articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per everyone else. PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful. He has been guilty of calling Zionists "proud of their murderous racism,"[[8] spreading Zionist conspiracy theories,[9], comparing Zionists with Nazis,[10] comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,[11][12][[13] and basically committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. Enough is enough. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GHcool, I just took a look at the links you inserted re: the nazi comment and "murderous racism", thinking that if indeed PR said these things, s/he should have been blocked at the time. However, forgive me, but I did a search on "nazi" and "murderous" and did not see the comments. Could you please specify where the comments are? Thanks much, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For that first diff, scroll down to the section on Norman Finkelstein, open it, and then take a look at PR's comment (the last one in that section). He does indeed use the statement GHcool ascribes to him. I've not looked at the others, but if they are similar to the first, the search function will not find keywords inside collapsed comments. Horologium (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just spent 15 minutes more than I should have to try to find a single one of the alleged comments, and did not.Please link directly to the relevant page when quoting incendiary comments of this sort. In fact, if you could do so here and now that would be appropriate. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: GHcool's links are from December 2006 to January 2008. People may prefer to look at the diffs Jayjg provides below, which are from July 31 to August 1, 2008 (besides the SPA link of 13 May 2008). Some of GHcool's links are not diffs. Here's the "murderous racism" diff: 31 December 2006; PalestineRemembered was blocked the following day. Here's a diff from the 3rd link GHCool provided: 29 December 2006. Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It would help to give links to the ArbCom case, which I believe required that PR be placed under mentorship, and the main AN/I's etcetera about PR, esp those dealing with mentorship. Note also that the Ryan himself has been PR's mentor for some time. The specific history would help put concerns over editing in context. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Both GHcool and Horologium are adducing evidence from an exchange between a certain Rubin and PR that took place in December 2006. Rubin was wrong, and PR was right in that exchange, since the former was trying to bracket the fact that Finkelstein is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. The remark about 'Zionist racism' in that specific exchange, refers to 'Zionist politicians' not to Zionists, and in this regard PR has been intentionally misrepresented, apart from the fact that evidence from two years ago should not be dredged up to push a complaint regarding contemporary behaviour. It should not have been said, but that the allusion is to Israeli politicians whose pages had been strongly defended from any attempts to annotate both their racist beliefs, and murderous past is evident. PR's point was that Finkelstein, a son of Holocaust survivors, had been subject to relentless attack because he was critical of Israel's record on human rights, whereas Zionist politicians with a past <BLP vio removed> have pages less prone to editorial assault. Ryan must have good reasons, on contemporary evidence, to make his complaint. That evidence will no doubt be forthcoming, and it is that which must form the basis for an eventual judgement. It should not be contaminated by evidence from prior cases (like the misrepresentations used here). The remark that troubles me in Ryan's charge is this:'yet he still continues to push his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.' Off the top of my head I could think of a dozen bad editors who push, in edits, a singlemindedly pro-israeli POV, and have records expressing disdain or contempt for the other party that is supposed to be represented. They have overall enjoyed far more hospitality than people who are said to mirror their bias on the Palestinian side. They are edit warriors pushing an extremist pro-Israeli POV, cripple pages and making life difficult for serious contributors, and no one moves a finger. Perhaps they stick around because their opponents do not complain as much as they do. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to add a note or two. GHcool and Horlogium are absolutely not edit-warriors in any sense of the word. That term needs to be used with a little more care. you can bet that I will not We cannot allow this proceeding to degenerate into name-calling of any sort.If action is desired on Palestine Remembered, I urge the committee or other ruling body to issue a strong statement on his actions in regards to proper procedures. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Sm8900: I believe Nishidani was talking about "a dozen bad editors" and not GHcool and Horlogium when he was mentioning mirroring PalestineRemebered's alleged bias and getting away with it. I disagree with his "one-sidedness of wikipedia" assessment but do agree that some of the diffs have been a bit old and more of a reminder of why he was assigned forced mentorship than examples of recent misconduct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good point. thanks for the clarification. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to thank Jaakobou for the precision with which he read my remarks and the intended meanings. It was very decent of you, thanks. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I will retract my comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point. I would add, however, that Nishidani appears to have done exactly what PR did years ago, except he named a specific living person as "murderous" and "racist." I'd like to request that he immediately refactor those remarks. IronDuke 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, prefer a long block - perhaps 3 months? Agree with Jaakobou about the diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Due to the very heated nature of this subject, I propose that ALL parties in this discussion and everyone involved be banned for 5 days effective 4 August 2008 until 9 August 2008. No block would be made in the record but if there is ANY editing, a formal 5 day block would be placed. Since I have commented here, I would be included. Let's all stop fighting. Spevw (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. The "violations" cited by Jayjg are painfully mild, and mostly occurred on talk pages. Considering that PalestineRemembered has pretty clearly been targeted for intensified scrutiny for wrong-doing in the past, the weak evidence suggests that he/she has truly given very little cause for complaint. Ryan Postlewait clearly should not be mentoring her/him, however. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Support. I don't understand the issue to begin with; User:PalestineRemembered was an admitted SPA whose every edit is propaganda and every Talk: page comment is a typically irrelevant soapbox, often with WP:BLP violations thrown in for spice. In other words, the editor behind the "PalestineRemembered" account is saying that the account is a secondary account used only to edit I-P related areas. I say was an admitted SPA because the fact that he has started to edit articles outside of the I-P area indicates that User:PalestineRemembered is now merely a garden-variety sockpuppet account, rather than an a supposedly legitimate WP:SPA. As for examples? A quick glance through his past week's edits show a BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali", a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard, and some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor[14][15] in which he claims, inter alia, that "everyone agrees that [Rudolf] Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens". This is the kind of tendentious nonsense User:PalestineRemembered liberally spreads on Talk: pages and articles. In reality, historians don't agree on this at all, and the latest book on the subject concludes that he was a war hero who saved 12,000-18,000 lives.[16] The book, by the way, won the 2007 Nereus Writers' Trust Non-Fiction Prize, and was shortlisted for the 2008 Charles Taylor Literary Prize for Non-Fiction. As for 3 months, if one thing characterizes the editor behind User:PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge everyone to read the diffs posted by Jay - that's exactly the behaviour that's problematic. He summed it up when he said PR uses WP to soapbox - to me, it looks like one of his only aims here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Entirely possible that your interpretation of PR's behaviour is true. However, that does not emerge from Jay's diffs in the least. For example, attempting to trim overuse of the very marginal Paul Bogdanor, who has compared Vietnamese land reform to the Holocaust and Noam Chomsky to Holocaust deniers, is hardly problematic. Quoting what was close to the standard view of Kastner, a man for whose tragic story I personally have tremendous sympathy, is hardly grounds for a ban. Tendentious nonsense is not, of course, limited in this area of WP to PR. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, fucking please. “He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV" – what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place. Take Ryan off PR's mentorship and keep an eye on Jayjg, who has a troubling record of harassing PR and lying about his editing. PR has a bit of a WP:SOAP problem, but it is nothing next to the deceptions of his accusers.--G-Dett (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And with that post, G-Dett violated WP:No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL and committed the tu quoque logical fallacy. I ask that he refrain from committing fallacies of relevance and violating Wikipedia policy in the future. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to congratulate the community for not attacking anyone daring to defend me. This makes a startling and very welcome difference from everything that has happened before on countless absurd and evidence-free "disciplinaries" raised against me. It's no wonder that not one of those people (ie everyone who has known me here longest and found me a careful and cooperative editor) dared to speak earlier. PR^talk 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GHCool, I’m not sure what you mean here by tu quoque. I do not think PR’s transgressions – which consist chiefly of a querulous, windy, SOAPy style of talk-page engagement – merit a permanent ban. If he were doing this in an area of the encyclopedia where quiet, polite, high-quality collaborative editing were the norm, it might be justified to move thus against him – but he’s not. He’s editing in an area of the encyclopedia where hackery, demagoguery, policy distortions and even large-scale hoaxes are the norm, where the most talented and energetically fair-minded admin finds himself article-banned for a month, and where the most prolific and influential editor – an admin and former arbcom member, no less – is a full-time propagandist. It is this latter admin whose thoroughly (and I do mean thoroughly) discredited charges against PR last year resulted in the snarled web of litigious pseudo-drama of which this thread is only the latest example (see Jay’s deliberately deceptive posts about PR on Ryan’s talk page in recent weeks, which Ryan appears to have taken at face value). Had Jay done the decent thing and retracted his spring-2007 accusations once they were thoroughly exploded, the matter would have been cleared up and we wouldn’t have so many editors and admins still stumbling around in a fog. But he didn’t. Instead he repackaged his accusations as insinuations, thus throwing a cloak of deniability over his ongoing crusade against PR.

It is this snarled web, not PR’s talk-page speechifying, which represents the real drain on the community’s resources. Notwithstanding his guilelessness, PR is very well-read in the subjects he edits. His occasionally breaches of citation etiquette (things he finds in secondary sources he seems to want to cite to primary sources, I don’t know why) could ‘’easily’’ be cleared up by good-faith editors; instead, his detractors pounce upon innocent mistakes and rev up the engines of insinuation in an effort to get him banned. The reason they want him banned – make no mistake about it – is that he is pro-Palestinian and they are pro-Israel. Sadly, there are a number of good-faith, neutral editors and admins who have had the wool pulled over their eyes. As with 80% of the editors on I/P articles, including you and me, PR’s edits come from a discernable point of view. But there is an oft-forgotten yet absolutely essential distinction between editors who make POV-edits (bad partisan edits justified by spurious policy arguments) and editors whose good edits reveal, in the aggregate, a partisan point of view. PR is the latter kind of partisan, and he wears his politics on his sleeve. He is the target of an ongoing campaign of harassment by the former kind of partisan, who disguises his politics in a high-concept, even baroque form of WP:GAMEsmanship, with all of the predictable consequences.--G-Dett (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Exasperation shared. Ryan evidently is exasperated, with mentorship, and is in his rights to complain. Many are exasperated by the nonsense adduced to sustain his suit, particularly by Jayjg. Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest, and the mastery of wiki rules you display evinces an instrumental use of them to keep out material you think damaging to that interest, and, in my experience, is rarely employed to the advantage of creating a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia. If I've broken some rule in saying what most editors on my side of the line believe obvious, by all means take the requisite action.
• Are those who rush to judgement familiar with the intricate literature on the subjects PR alludes to? Jayjg clearly isn't, his screed and diffs are a travesty, with a certain specious gesture towards evidence, but which, read against the historical literature, are just that, a clever piece of selective culling of highly partial evidence. It is a matter of context, and one's instincts about where editors are pushing things in defiance of broad historical knowledge. All one need do is wonder why he, otherwise so insistant on links, does not link us to Rudolf Kastner, or to Paul Bogdanor, or Mitchell Bard, etc. Jayjg holds to ransom a large number of potential edits I or anyone else could make on numerous pages Baruch Goldstein, Israel Shahak, Israeli Settlements, or Judaism, and his refrain is, you need an area specialist on every occasion to qualify as a reliable source. Thus I cannot cite a book that was not shortlisted for a minor literary prize but shortlisted as one of the best books of 2007 on Slate, because its author David Shulman, one of the foremost academic experts on Dravidian languages, a peace activist fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, Israeli academic, with years of work in the Occupied Territories observing settler violence, is not a qualified expert on settlers, according to Jayjg! Now neither Paul Bogdanor nor Mitchell Bard are anywhere near reliable sources (they are people without a proper academic grounding it the subjects they airily descant on), and PR's dismissal of them was a correct call. For Jayjg to hold Pr to ransom on this is to question the quality of civil language employed in order to obstruct an appropriate edit on content, as is usual. It is, in Jayjg's case, a matter of the pot calling the kettle black, to challenge PR's dismissal of sources like those, and yet challenge, as Jayjg invariably does, academic sources critical of Israeli policies whenever they are no compatible with the strictest reading of WP:RS. The same for the Nereus book winner book on Kastner. What PR says is what Eichman said in his memoirs: '(Kastner) agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation. if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' (for Eichmann and co, who got $1,600,000 in exchange for allowing 1600 Jews to survive out of the 750,000 listed for extermination. Anyone who was not Orthodox, Zionist, prominent, an orphan, a refugee, a paying person, a member of Kastner's family or a revisionist had no chance).PR, like the large majority of historians on this figure, and like Judge Halevi at his trial, is appalled by someone who, privy to the doom awaiting hundreds of thousands of fellow Jews, 'sold his soul to the devil' by not giving them at least the chance to know what awaited them, to allow them to flee, resist, fight, and kept them in ignorance of their fate while getting out a few, including his relatives, 'useful' for Zionism.
• Neither Bogdanor (whose viciously bitchy and mendacious nonsense on Shahak's page Jayjg apparently supports) nor the Hungarian lady in question meet Jayjg's criteria for reliable sources. Neither is a qualified historian or area specialist, in the sense he invariably adduces before allowing an edit on a sensitive subject where Israel's image is concerned. I happen to disagree with PR on many things (while wholegheartedly sharing PR's view that a very large number of I/P articles are disgracefully unbalanced), but there is absolutely no doubt that for some years Pr has become a standard target for many editors who desire a permanent ban. It is irresponsible to run to administration every time PR returns, over a small number of edits (and the material cited is extremely thin), and scream 'raus'!!! Form is increasingly what trumpts substance in these altercations (ChrisO's recent problems egregiously underline the absurdity. Vassyana's criticism of Eleland, on unbelievably narrow grounds another. Look at his recent florligeium of remarks made by many respected editors from the Jerusalem Talk page, and judge the material PR is accused of in the light of the harshness of their remarks and insinuations). Once more appeal to proper 'form' is snuffing out content. PR indeed has a problem with the exacting wikiquette forms (who doesn't?). It is true however that on more than one occasion in the past, good (adversary) material PR has come up with is not wanted by many on those articles, and PR's deficits in 'attitude' are the excuse employed to block the material PR might post. I say this as someone who has reverted PR, supported people like Tewfik against some of PR's edits, and as one who thinks PR's failure in the past to learn not to lead with one's chin is disappointing. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered speaks: User:Ryan Postlethwaite has urged everyone read the diffs posted by Jayjg, a most excellent idea.

• Examine the light-weight source with which Jayjg seeks to defend Kastner - a man who undoubtedly deceived to their deaths some 450,000 (400,000?) Hungarian Jews on behalf of the Nazis. (For profit according to most people, and at a point in the war when many of the Jews could almost certainly have saved themselves).
• Examine the way Jayjg defends the blogger Paul Bogdanor, and the (apparent) propagandist Mitchell Bard. So much for writing an encyclopedia to WP:ReliableSources. (Where shall we discuss many more examples?)
• I have no problem with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (as I said at the time). But people could be very interested in the discussion that Jayjg references. Again, I'd seem to be on the side of WP:POLICY, scholarship and good writing.
• I attempted to deal with the broad sweep of these allegations (eg the claim that my 3 or 4 real mentors had any problems with my conduct) on my TalkPage, have people missed it? I have more offers of a mentor - even the shocking experience of those who went before doesn't stop brave people and lovers of this project coming forwards.
• Lastly, please ponder the logic of these accusations of sock-puppetry. If we didn't know better, we'd think people were desperately casting round for any excuse to get rid of a really useful and scrupulously honest editor, with a strong preference for good sources. PR^talk 06:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that PalestineRemembered chose to defend himself largely by using tu quoque logical fallacies. I hope he doesn't expect the Wikipedia community to be swayed by this ill conceived tactic. --GHcool (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My fellow editors might like to know that "tu quoque" is Lation for "a hypocritical accusation". They will have doubtless realized by now that I don't lie, I don't cheat, I don't sock-puppet and I have a passion for good sources. Nor do I edit-war, make false accusations of vandalism or tell people that a highly regarded and very well-cited son of Holocaust survivors "is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst" - what price RELIABLE SOURCES when this goes on? GHcool's objections were dealt with above - his attitude to WP:RS and BLP appear to be the diametric opposite of mine.

I'm sorry that User:GHcool's UserPage has been deleted and re-created by administrative action without warning, it's long survival over all protests might have been a useful precedent to name and shame cheats. All assistance to put integrity back into editting will be very welcome. PR^talk 08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per Nishidani in section "A Review of the evidence. What evidence?" below. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussions, sect 2

Support topic ban for user to review and understand what is required of wikipedia editors For the record, I am the editor who suggested the mentorship that prevented PR from being indef banned last time. Since that time, I am aware of enough times where PR has deliberately skirted, or outright ignored, policies, guidelines, and the advice of his various mentors in order to continue a pattern of POV posting and subtle user harrassment. I have been in contact with his mentors, most recently Ryan, regarding these issues, and, to my chagrin, have never seen anything remotely like remorse, a desire to do better, a desire to work with other users, especially those with whom he has fundamental disagreements. As one who deals with the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts as a mentor and one who tries to defuse inter-editor issues behind the scenes, I have had little other than frustration from the direction of PR, and I have lost the ability to believe that his edits are in good faith and meant to better the project. Rather, I believe he has acted as a self-employed agent provocateur and POV warrior, and his continued presence in Palestinian/Israeli articles will serve no other purpose than disruption until such time as the community and project can be assured that PR will edit in a manner befitting and becoming of the encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, where is the new evidence, Avi? Without substantial new evidence, this is beginning to look like a very odd scalp-hunt for an old target, using pretexts to rid a good researcher, albeit with a loose tongue, whose outlook others dislike, simply in order to thin the ‘opposition’.

I have reread all of GHcool’s diffs, and fail to understand how his description of them corresponds to their real content. I was totally unaware of what G-Dett now remarks on, the evidence-gathering campaign by Jayjg waged on Ryan’s page recently. but if so, then I suggest Ryan ignore it, drop the mentorship and leave it at that.

The only evidence raised so far is a shabby hodgepodge of trivia, in part trawled from ancient archives (2006). The rest is Jayjg's handiwork, patently instrumental and question-begging, since he demonstrably employs the same techniques he gives out as deploring in PR recently. If PR is a 'pov-warrior', what is Jayjg, now his/her main accuser? Had Ryan pressed the case on his own, instead of delegating the 'proof' to such a completely unreliable source as Jayjg, this complaint might have warranted respect. Not one of you lift a fingers in editorial activity to emend the disgraceful state of a page which Jayjg has done much to reduce to a medley of vicious innuendo, a page smearing a Jew of great learning, humane passion and critical witness (according to all those who knew him personally), something which PR has consistently drawn attention to, a wiki page not one of those who wish for PR to be banned cares to improve beyond its present state of being a savage indictment by innuendo and vicious whispering of an honourable and distinguished Jew, a page which should not be tolerated on an encyclopedia. How easy it is to pick off fellow-editors by formalstic cavilling, while preening oneself in insouciant disregard of the substance at stake. As long as many persist in jumping at editors for 'tone' and 'civility' while airily waiving aside the substance of that editor's complaint, or refusing to improve the pages whose disgracefully unbalanced quality that editor protests, all of these calls for a ban will sound hollow. You are all supposed to be wedded to an idea of encyclopedicity, which means, precisely, forsaking national gamesmanship in order to secure comprehensive neutral articles. Where is the new evidence? So far we have nothing other than Ryan's fatigue with mentorship and a patchy screed by a 'POV warrior' on the opposite side, who watches his p's and q's meticulously while objectively stacking texts with a partisan slant, in contempt of the ideals of encyclopedicity. Where is the appropriate wiki link for the practice of schadenfreudlicher scalp-taking?Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, Did you see the links that Jayjg gave out? I don't think July 31, 2008 is old news. I have not taken the time, nor do I have the time to go through it all and look at the whole situation, but please don't say there is no new evidence without mentioning the stuff that folks have put forth. You can claim that those links are not valid evidence, or that they are not the whole story, but lets not ignore them. Doing so only makes the waters muddy. —— nixeagle 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to check through all the links, and can't remember a thousand unsaid things from past conflicts which relate to how all participants here read what's going on, there's little point in making the remark you made.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is very much a point. You seem to be telling me and everyone else watching that there is no new violations, but above I see people saying there are new violations, they even provide diffs. What I was telling you above was to make sure you saw those diffs, as it appeared to me you had not seen them. Doing so only muddies the water. —— nixeagle 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed the stylistic variation between your two posts. 'makes the waters muddy' and then 'muddies the water', but the aesthetic frisson was somewhat spoiled by reading 'there is no new violations'.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are free to assert that, however you are not explaining why what some people are asserting are violations, are not violations. Anyone can say there are or are not violations, but just saying that does not make it so. You have me confused, you said there were no recent violations, yet I'm seeing posts from July 31 being offered as evidence. I don't think that is "old". If it is not evidence, please explain why it is not, concisely. —— nixeagle 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A general point. Most of the problems in the world arise from communities consolidating their identity by trusting in the in-group hearsay. Democracies survive when there are a sufficient number individuals dedicated to questioning the commodified clichés of groupist thinking/ideology/ whatever, who actually check things out with their own eyes, reason by their own lights, and measure the world by their real as opposed to hallucinated experiences of it in circulation. This tempers the irrationality of hearsay, and collectivist imaginings. So, like others involved, read through the diffs, when you get the time, preferably look at the page's whole context also, then make notes on each diff within its context, check the inferences made about what PR is said to be violating in those diffs, and then form your own judgement. Do not rely on what I, or Jayjg, or GHcool, or anyone else says. Form your own judgement and then report back.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point, however I was hoping for some kind of backup to your assertion that there is no new evidence. A starting point so to say for others to see what you mean. I see plenty of cited recent evidence from those saying there are violations, but I'm seeing nothing but wordplay from those that say there are not any violations. All I'm asking is someone point out why the diffs as presented are wrong. If I have missed the counter evidence amongst the sea of text, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it. Thanks :) —— nixeagle 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I have been in contact multiple times with Ryan via e-mail, as some of the issues relate to other editors. You may check Ryan's talk page history for some of the more obvious and open issues. Regardless, this is my opinion based on the time since August 2007, when I prevented PR being banned then. I do not believe he has taken the proper advantage of the mentorships he was afforded, and the chances he was given; I believe he continues to edit in an openly POV style; and I believe that his edits detract from wikipedia significantly more than they add. While I was cognizant of the positive edits that he has made back in August 2007, my reasoned opinion based on the intervening time, the number of times I had to be approached by person(s) I mentored, and the contradistinction between edits of people that I know are trying to act in accordance with our policies and PR's edits, have convinced me that the mentorship experiment was a failure at this time, and that PR needs to take a long-term break from anything like Palestinian/Israeli articles, if not the project as a whole. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then most should take a long holiday, because in human terms, these I/P articles have little to show after several years of intensive work. Who's to blame, a few people like PR? Come now. PR's behaviour is merely an infinitesimal part of what is problematic in this area. You can drive him or her off, and the structural impasse, which is one of diffidence, suspicion, and refined edit-warring while keeping mum on motivations, will remain, and wiki articles in this area will retain the reputation for slipshod tendentious amateurishness they have in academic circles.

I'm familiar with the record you allude to. I am also familiar with something missed here. I've tangled with PR on several occasions, and thrown the weight (in nanograms of course) of my judgement against PE and in favour of her opponent, who was a strong pro-Israeli editor while active. Now PR was no doubt perplexed by this, but did accept that my judgements were not grounded in some 'bias', and took note. I have my biases, as do we all. PR flags his/hers: many of PR's opponents go out of their way to finesse their obstructive editing by meticulous care for the rulebook. The result is, PR, leading with the chin, has copped a large number of administrative raps on the knuckles (mixed metaphor), whilst many of those editors whom both PR, I and many others regard as destructive editors in terms of the criterion of 'encyclopedicity' have a clean police sheet. If there were a minimal regard by many of these editors to revert bad edits made by peers from their own side, much of the frustration that PR displays, and the rest of us more or less hide, would wither away. There isn't much of that around. There is a very strong tendency to stay silent, and leave the management of conflict (a conflict on POVs) to respective members of opposing sides. That loud silence lends substance to a sense that a collegiate atmosphere is operating here on one side, solidly determined to ignore the old Jewish dictum, expropriated by Christianity,quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides. I regard that as a recipé for disaster, and, in the I/P area, one reason why so many articles languish in a deplorable state. I have had severe problems with Jaakobou in the past, and it was with relief that I had occasion to note, before my withdrawal, one or two occasions where, unprompted, he reverted a bad edit by a poor contributor on his own side. This is the spirit that should be cultivated by experienced and reliable editors on both sides (and I addressed my remarks to you because you qualify, as far as I have interacted with you, as a rational editor of considerable experience). It is the edits not dutifully made by so many editors that disappoint, as much as the pettifogging obstructionism. The problem is not PR, who increasingly looks like an example with which to illustrate René Girard's theories: the problem is a lack of will to monitor I/P articles for encyclopedic quality by reining in anyone, from whatever side, editing out of a nationalist perspective, rather than an NPOV perspective. An embattlement mentality will persist in the political area for decadess to come. It should not be reflected here: Israel has no more to lose by a clear-eyed impartial approach to history than its communities had by moving out of the shtetl under the auspices of the haskalah. Indeed the gains to be gathered in are enormous. The genius and generosity of spirit of Judaism's multitude of scholars, thinkers, poets and writers is absent from these articles: there is almost no trace here of the wit, intelligence, acuity of refined judgement one instinctively associates with that tradition, and that is alive whenever Jewish people argue with each other. This is soap-boxing, irrelevant, a violation of WP:this and that, no doubt, the useless drivel of at least on editor who has given up on wiki articles (as opposed to an occasional critical kibitz). If only one had more interlocutors that mirror this heritage, so much of the frustration that blocks the expeditious drafting of I/P articles would fade away, and these incessant recourses to arbitrative sanctions over trivia would die on their feet. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nishdani, I apologize for my lack of time, and thus inability to continue this discussion at length. I do not argue with you that there are systematic issues with P/I articles in toto, but I do not see how allowing editors whose methods seem to be more uncivil than is the norm serves to help the situation. I think that most everyone who is heavily involved should sit back for a while and take a break, and then approach the articles with the idea to make them truly NPOV, which is to have the major points of view described in proportion to those points of views proliferations; to remove WP:UNDUE-class statements from the articles where they are sued solely to further one side or the other, to use respectable, reliable, and verifiable sources, with indications of what those sources are, to try and remove any overly-colorful adjectives, and to allow the reader to follow proper source links to the original information to allow the reader to make up their own opinion. There are shades of color within the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and, mirroring the real world, the articles may be contentious for a number of years to come. However, there is no possibility of a working consensus (Avi's definition #22: A working consensus is the version of an article that is the least offensive to the greatest number of editors) unless the back-and-forth and discussions are performed with exaggerated civility and cordiality. We have to do our best to minimize (as prevention is impossible) the ideological struggle using wikipedia as its battleground, on both sides. Which is why, I return to saying, that from my recollections, PR has not acted in this manner and I have had more than one editor complain about what they perceive is a double-standard when it comes to PR's ability to seemingly be less careful about WP:CIVIL than other editors. PR is a very intelligent editor, that is obvious. I only wish that he used some of that prodigious talent to work with people as opposed to against them. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Avi and I apologize for having unfairly drawn on your time, since I am no longer involved in editing. One point however, which perhaps you can explain to G-Dett by email. I have disposed of most of Jayjg's charges, which is what Ryan advises us to consult. The Ali Hirsi remark is on a Talk page, as is the remark, which I fully endorse and find innocuous, that 'Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial'. That is true, by any objective standards. In any case, wiki articles should be seriously sourced, and he should never be cited on those grounds alone.

PR here is not editing into the page on these people the judgement expressed. She (sorry PR but it is not obvious to me that you are male). The Ali Hirsi remark should have, out of pure curiosity, drawn requests for sources that justify PR's suggestion that Hirsi admitted to lying (if this is improper on a talk page, please review the Saeb Erekat archives for repeated suggestions he is lying, not sanctioned, and in my view rightly so because what is said on talk pages must be distinguished from what is edited in on articles. On Talk pages all kinds of material and suggestions should be broached, and not be subject to sanctions). Secondly, the Ali Hirsi contrast is made against what occurs, I insist on this, with the shockingly violent treatment meted out to Israel Shahak's memory in the meat of his article. That page is full of irresponsible trash, by half-baked polemicists who conspicuously and mischievously misrepresent the truth. Jayjg is holding PR's fortune's hostage to a judgement about Hirsi which he considers a 'violation of BLP' (on a talk page), while, at the same time, defending vicious crap about a dead person widely regarded by many eminent Jews and goys who knew him personally, some of whom I have corresponded with, who find that page infamous, and wiki beneath contempt because of this kind of editing. So, pal, this particular suit does look ugly. There is so far, not a skerrick of evidence to warrant the extreme measures requested. Much here is racking over a few bits and pieces and reading them in the light of past ANI records. Best wishes for your work. I do hope, sometime in the future, wiser minds prevail to secure working conditions that allow present and future editors to stop frigging about with personal battles, and enjoy working here, instead of feeling as though they were colleagues of Tantalus and Sisyphus. You, and many others, have more stoicism than I can afford to muster. If I stayed on in I/P, I'd only be lynched for being tempted into exclaiming 'fuck!' with a more colloquial colour than the exquisite G-Dett allows. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Avi, I have a great deal of respect for your editing and am a little taken aback by this, but would genuinely reconsider my position if you were to provide some concrete evidence of bannable offenses in PR’s work for me to look over. I would be especially impressed by evidence supporting the claim that (a) what he does is out of the ordinary on I/P pages, and (b) that his contributions cannot be productively modified and absorbed by editors keener on collaboration than score-settling.

I wonder if meanwhile you might also consider the possibility that mentorship has had negative consequences for PR. There are a lot of passionate and, shall we say, colorful characters on I/P pages; he doesn’t strike me as out of the ordinary on that score. He was treated with malice and bad faith in many of his early encounters with relatively powerful editors on Wikipedia, and these encounters left a taint on him for editors only glancingly familiar with the background. His editing and etiquette could certainly stand some improvement, so the case for mentorship seemed to make sense, but insofar as it has tended to codify an undeserved taint, he understandably chafes at it, perhaps resulting in worse behavior.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I will try and respond with instances for you, but via e-mail to spare all involved, within the next couple of days, and if I do not, please remind me. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I've been gone for a while, but if the ordinary for IP pages is what I'm seeing here, then the ordinary needs putting to rights. There is no excuse for bad behavior, from anybody. If the behavior in this area has deteriorated so badly, I suggest that you guys consider moveing up the dispute resolution chain and go to arbcom. —— nixeagle 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban. PR's attitude toward editing may not be ideal, but we need to put his behavior into context. Let me give my experience with editing some of the Israel/Palestine articles. I need to give some details, so I can't be brief.

I was involved in editing the Hamas and Hezbollah articles until last year but I left because of the attitude of the editors, which is very confrontational. Almost everyone sees editing these article as a game to get as much of their POV included in the articles, the rules of the games are the wiki rules such as the one on reliable sources which can be bent almost as far as you like. I did briefly edit the Hezbollah article this year in March when I saw a very strange statement, saying that Hezbollah has admitted being responsible for the terrorist attacks in Argentina, in that article that every regular editor should know was wrong (if true that would be breaking news, so you wouldn't expect it to read about it somewhere burried in an article on court proceedings).

To my horror it was GHCool who had edited in the sentence. Although GHCool and I had disagreed on many things, I did have the feeling that GhCool was more reasonable than most other editors. I argued a bit with GHCool about that edit, but GHCool told me that the edit was allowed (quoted from a reliable source). I was disappointed about this attitude and I decided never to return to these articles as that is clearly a waste of time if even the best editors are behaving in this way.

Now, I actually decided to stop editing these aticles a bit earlier after two frustrating incidents last year. On the Hamas page I tried to find a compromize on a sentence saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks". This sentence is problematic because the source isn't clear about how this was determined to be the case, it is just the opinion of the author and after some time passes and the suicide attacks become more of a thing of the past. Who knows, perhaps Hamas is now "best known for being in power in Gaza"?

So, I tried to argue that it would be better to write a sentence that conveys a hard fact, like "Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings against Israel". There are plenty of sources that back this up and it will remain a fact forever, no matter what happens in the future. So, you don't have the problem that the fact changes while the sources are lagging behind.

To my horror, most of the pro-Israeli editors opposed my move. Only Avi supported me. Humus Sapiens accused me of vandalism when I reverted back to my version, because I was removing "sourced information" (of course my version was sourced as well). Anyway, at first it wasn't clear why my stronger statement was not welcome in the article. Later it became clear to me what was really going on. Both sides are playing a game in which they want to have as much freedom to use sources to edit in dubious statements. So, if such statements get removed in favor of hard facts it constrains the freedoms of the editors, and they don't like that.

The final straw for me was when finding a compromize on the Hezbollah article by me was considered to be edit warring and I was refereed to this ANI board. I as not banned, but I was asked to stop behaving in that way by SlimVirgin. What was I guilty of? Well, some editor (forgot his name, he was not a regular on the Hezbollah page) included some facts on the Hezbollah page. Nothing wrong with that, but it was all under a new section called "Terrorism". Although terrorism is a "word to avoid", we can certainly call an acts of terror "terrorism". But the section contained more than terror acts alone. So, I made some changes, but I did keep all the facts that were edited in (I made a new section in which I mentioned the things that are not, by definition, terrorism).

But this is considered to be "edit warring", "violation of 3RR because of multiple complex partial reverts" etc. etc. Well, I guess that if one sees editing through the narrow window of defending/attacking Hezbollah, then that may well be the case, but then I'm not going to be involved anymore. So, I left, only to briefly return on March this year.

So, it should be clear that my opinion about the way the Israel/Palestine articles are edited is very negative. The fact that PR is being attacked by other involved editors who, with the exception of a few, are not any better themselves speaks volumes. The problem with these articles is huge. There are many Admins with problematic behavior as well, so the entire Palestine/Israel sector of wikipedia is a big corrupt mess that has to be sorted out. But banning PR will do noting to improve the situation, as that would be similar to Al Capone tipping off the FBI about rival mafiosi to improve his strategic position. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no effing way, we all know how this discussion goes: Those on the other side of the fence to PR cry bloody murder, and bring up his block log (take a look at it: The first few are completely over the top, and were placed by involved admins; after that, there are a number associated with the ArbCom case). They'll bring up the ArbCom case, which I urge everyone to read: It was not a case of PR coming oh-so-close to being banned; he was accused of something he clearly didn't do. Jayjg's and Ryan's actions in and around that case can be described as nothing short of disgraceful.

A number of PR's supporters will claim that PR has never done a single thing wrong, and will defend his actions to the hilt.

A few moderates will point out that PR is far from perfect, but that anything he does wrong can be sorted out with blocks.

This is never going to be anything but a partisan debate, and is yet another attempt to get rid of a thorn in the side of some editors that happen to have a different (just as extreme) POV. -- Mark Chovain 01:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said above, and I will say again here, I propose that those involved consider making an ARBCOM case on this article if the editing is really as negative as you guys imply it is. However I must point out that PR is a role account (this is admitted back 6 months ago at the initial community ban thingie. I've been gone so long I don't recall exactly when that was :S ), and not the main account of the editor. If that means anything at this point I'm not sure. However I'm dismayed to see that this much dispute and namecalling is the norm for this area of the encyclopedia :( —— nixeagle 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PR commented on the SPA thing here. -- Mark Chovain 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For those opposing further admin action, would you suggest that PR be placed with a different mentor than Ryan, or that the mentorship requirement be dropped? Perhaps you could clarify or, better yet, make a cogent counter-proposal, since the current arrangement with Ryan seems to have run its course. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think nixeagle's suggestion is right from the dispute resolution side of things (take it to RfArb). As for mentorship, I think this thread kind of puts a bit of a hole in the current arrangement. IMO, PR seems to work much better with a mentor, so I think it'd be worth finding another. That said, I think he should be able to keep editing in the meantime, perhaps with a 1RR restriction until a mentor can be found? -- Mark Chovain 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC?

I'm making a new section here as this is a new idea. My suggestion to you all is to open a request for comment on PalestineRemembered. I think its better to attempt to come to a resolution there, rather then here on WP:AN. Should the request for comment fail, there is always arbcom. Unless an administrator acts on the above conversation (the above 3 sections), I think it will do the community better to continue this discussion and put alternatives forth at an RFC. —— nixeagle 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the whole case be dismissed as a piece of roguish abuse of wiki policies, prompted by one user whose evidence Ryan, who is busy, evidently hasn't checked. I will open a section below with a complete review of the evidence, or rather the mockup of pseudo-evidence to settle old vendettas and get a scalp. What, in short, nixeagle requested me to do. There is simply nothing here (Avi may have evidence which is far stronger than what we have here, so my remarks are limited to the material on which everyone who has participated here has made their respective calls). Gentlemen, this has been a disgraceful operation. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of an RFC is to make it clear if there is an issue or if there is not an issue. —— nixeagle 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan ends his complaint by a request for comment (what has occurred here is an informal RfC). There have been many comments, and 2 sources documenting the reasons why a ban should be made. GHcool's evidence is ancient history, a few diffs from two years to eight months ago, and so wholly irrelevant to a complaint about PR's recent behaviour. His whole effort to get at PR is an abuse of appropriate evidence and proper process. Jayjg's evidence consists of innuendos about SPA accounts and sockpuppetry, blather (WP:SOAP per tu quoque) over Bogdanor and Kastner which is neither here nor there, since Jayjg, as shown, misread PR's remark; plus two elements of evidence of violation of BLP recently. All we have then, is two putative instances of violating BLP to secure checkmate, a permanent community ban. What do they consist in? Ayaan Hirsi Ali's public record is compared, on a talk page, to Shahak's, to illustrate by analogy bias in that I/P article. Mitchell Bard is contested as a proper source, correctly, since the remark quoted from him is obvious nonsense not fit for a serious encyclopedia article: and it is on a talk page. So what's the problem? So far we have these two bits, and the points made by PR would never form the basis for an ANI complaint had anyone else made them. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Review of the evidence. What evidence?

1.Ryan calls for a community ban. His complaint is that mentoring Palestine Remembered has failed to stop PR from push(ing) his pro Palestine POV on numerous articles.

This is startling. The majority of editors who underwrite a permanent ban will not be offended, I think, if I remark that they ‘push their pro-Israeli POVs’. No one on the other side regards User:Jayjg as anyone other than an edit-warrior with a powerful pro-Israeli POV. That is attested in every edit I have seen from him over the past two years. In the rules, as far as I understand them, there is nothing wrong with pushing a POV, most I/P articles are compromises (messy) made by parties with opposed POVs, which each side pushes. To deny this is to deny the obvious. Therefore, Ryan’s complaint, expressed thus, suggests a misapprehension about how I/P articles are written.

(b) He's well known to edit war to get his point across. This is vague. Does it refer to past reputation or to present behaviour? If the latter, then this must be documented. Anything to do with PR's past behaviour is wholly immaterial to the ban requested, which must logically relate to recent behaviour.

(c) He was subject to an arbitration case because of a habit in using extremely poor sources to push his POV - the arbitration case was closed with no action. G-Dett replied to this in the following terms, and no one has challenged their veracity:-

'what a load of hogwash and balderdash. PR was subject to an arbitration case because a rogue admin made bogus claims about his sources – claims which were unanswerably discredited within an hour. His accuser lacked the decency and honesty to retract his fatuous accusations, and Ryan lacked – and continues to lack – the competence to understand what happened in the first place.’

Since no one has challenged G-dett's recall of the instance, Ryan's remark self-cancels, and can be thrown out of court. In fact if anything it testifies more to the behaviour of the 'rogue administrator' who happens here to be the chief prosecutor for the case now under consideration against PR.

(d) he continues to make poorly sourced contributions, and edit wars to keep them in place. This repeats (b) and is unsubstantiated by recent evidence. Ryan’s point is also that numerous editors have failed to get PR to toe the ‘right path’. Perhaps true, but numerous editors who appear to enjoy hauling PR under administrative sanctions, have no idea of what the ‘right path’ is, since they are happy POV pushers themselves.

2.Ryan calls for comments. One comment was that Ryan’s own complaint comes after Jayjg had worked Ryan’s page to raise, for the umpteenth time, apparent problems with PR’s return to editing. I haven't checked it, but then again, no one has protested the veracity of the assertion. Ryan himself did not produce evidence for his claims, but, subsequently, when Jayjg made his own case, Ryan underwrote Jayjg’s suit, as containing more or less the gravamen of his own charges. Thus functionally, Ryan’s complaint is a proxy complaint authored by Jayjg.

Administrator Blueboy96, Horologium, Administrator Coren, JzG (Guy), JoshuaZ Canadian Monkey all immediately supported a site or topic ban, though no evidence has been forthcoming. They trusted Ryan’s description, or recalled PR’s archival record. Durova is commendably neutral.

Presumptive, asks for evidence, as does ChrisO. John Nagle checks 100 recent edits and can’t see the problem. LamaLoLeshLa asks why at this particular point is PR’s past beinfg raked over? Where is the new evidence for this old complaint?

Only with GHcool is an attempt at supplying evidence made. The evidence is:

(a)Ghcool’s opinion that PalestineRemembered's edits are largely disgraceful.
This emerges as the only reason GHcool has to press for PR's ban, personal dislike.

(b) He has been guilty of calling Zionists proud of their murderous racism[[8]

The link takes us to December 2006 where in reply to Robert E.Rubin’s attempt to discredit the fact that Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors, PR replied:

'There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghcool thus distorts the record. PR had it in for Zionist politicians (one presumes Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon <BLP vio removed>, not Zionists(potentially all patriotic Israelis). The remark was in any case duly punished with a 24-hour ban, which was fair enough, though it should have been longer for the solecism in PR's remark. This is again evidence from 1 and a half years ago.

(c) spreading Zionist conspiracy theories[9]
The link refers to a comment made 8 months ago, to Jaakobou:

'I trust you'll not present yourself as having any understanding of the developing situation. The Saudi inititative is a two-state proposal that leaves Israel intact within the Green Line borders, but it does have to abide by International law (as mostly written or re-written by the US in the aftermath of 1945). And the Saudi proposal has more support amongst Palestinians than does the undefined 'two-state solution' they were offered in that poll. It might be time to start writing this article to WP:policy and reliable sources. PR^talk 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth this completely acceptable statement has to do with the crime of spreading ‘Zionist conspiracy theories’ is unclear. This is a howler, and no one picks it up.

(d) comparing Zionists with Nazis,[10]

Again, the link goes through a time-capsule back to December 2006, and in reply to an editor who asks ‘why no mention of terrorist attacks on Jews’, Palestine remembered wrote:

You could probably write a number of very good articles on oppression aimed at Jews. Unfortunately, most of your allies will either be Zionists (who are provably a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945) or anti-Zionists (who are appalled that the Holocaust is used as justification for the crimes of Israel). I'm not sure how you'll get round that one - you could start by expressing your outrage at Zionists who, whatever crimes are alleged against Israel, immediately blame the Jews. They fail to recognise that the Jews have suffered quite enough from false allegations in the last 2000 years. PalestineRemembered 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This again is malicious misrepresentation, since there is no equation of Zionists with Nazis. However you wish to construe what PR is saying, note that PR writes 'Zionists who..' not 'Zionists, who...' This now becomes a pattern with Ghcool’s evidence. None of these diffs support the dramatic tabloid titles he supplies them with in glossing their ostensible content.

(e) comparing Israeli historians with Holocaust deniers,[11][12][[13]

(e.i)Note 11.Takes us to an innocuous exchange of views that are far more nuanced that what Ghcool would have us believe. It dates to September 2007

Ghcool is satisfied with the state of the ‘causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus’. PR replies.

'I think it's terrible, gravely distorting what historians say about this business. We seem to have quotations in there from "historians" even less credible than David Irvine. We have historians who believe one thing quoted as if they believed the opposite - and editors claiming that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. PalestineRemembered 18:29, 9 September 2007

I.e. David Irving is not a credible historian, since he is a denier. Neither is Schechtman, since he, in a different vein, denies obvious facts (and creates malicious untruths passed off as historiography)

There are two David Irvings. One was the highly regarded historian of the German military praised by all academic specialists in the 1960s, the other is the Holocaust-denier. PR is referring to a number of Israeli historians of the early postwar period who were responsible for creating a completely false mythical account of the reasons for the exodus, a myth exposed as early as 1961 but which was repeated right down to the 1980s, and which found honourable mention in the aforesaid article.

(e.ii) This refers to an exchange on Jan 14 eight months ago. PR writes:-

Yet again, we agree. But I worry the ArbCom don't know what appalling souces get rammed into I-P conflict articles. We quote Joseph Schechtman in that article saying "Until ... May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." I'm confident (and User:GHcool has never denied) that that clip, alone, is worse than anything ever seen from David Irving. While illiterates stalk our articles, the I-P conflict articles, and the conduct surrounding them, will disgrace us. This is a problem we can fix - but only when the ArbCom protects scholars like User:Tiamut. And also User:Nishidani, recently hounded from the project when his patience and good-nature was trashed. PR^talk 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the lather, PalestineRemembered again considers Schechtman worse than David Irving. Both deny or affirm absurd things. Pr quotes a notorious piece of propagandistic nonsense by Schechtman, with no basis in the historical record. No one there confuted this. What Schechtman wrote was crap, and Ghcool is only offended at the comparison with David Irving. So?

(e.iii) Again Ghcool takes us down the time tunnel, January 2008. He complains of this remark on the talk page of ‘Jewish Lobby’:-

I'm somewhat handicapped discussing hate-sources because I avoid them like the plague. But I'd be surprised if David Duke is as bad (either on grounds of hate or grounds of "gross historical fabrication") than two sources we seem to use a lot, Joseph Schechtman and Shmuel Katz. The former is even quoted in a WP article with this astonishing nastiness: Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. (From his book The Arab Refugee Problem) Prove to me that David Duke have ever come out with anything so outlandish. PR^talk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, PR, though guilty of hyperbole (actually Katz and Schechtman can, with extreme care, be harvested for information, as I once noted, though one must keep in mind their partisanship for terrorism) is expressing contempt for Irving and Duke, but saying to pro-Israeli editors, if you can’t stand lies against your community by holocaust-deniers, why push rubbish by Schechtman and Katz (both associated historically with an organization, the Irgun, that used terroristic methods to achieve statehood) that fabricates vicious untruths about Arabs comparable to the vicious untruths fabricated by Holocaust deniers against Jews. This is the rhetorical strategy. It may be fervid, ineptly put, but the technique is normal in persuasion by analogy.

(f) committing logical fallacies and spreading disinformation left and right. -GHcool (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think this needs comment. Most of the newspaper sources from mainstream press that, for some, form a staple of I/P information, don’t stand a moment’s scrutiny for logical coherence. If logical fallacies were the basis for including or excluding editors, wiki would lose 95% of its regular contributers, from the most brilliant to the average editor. The information on PR provided by Ghcool therefore is void of substance, full of thin historical reminiscence of past behaviour that, in context (don’t read the bolded green patch in the link: read the whole flow and all comments for each diff) has not been exceptional on I/P articles in the past. Strongly worded, opinionated, but to the point, and often rationally argued or sourced reliably.

Then, LamaLoLeshla notes that his tabloid headings are not backed up by the diffs. Horologium tries to be helpful, but his indications in no way clarify Ghcool’s bad diffs. Since Ghcool’s charges are ancient history, Coppertwig twigs us to a copper in the wings, as Ryan did, by telling us to at Jayjg’s forthcoming evidence based on PR’s recent editing.

I in turn make a point about the vagueness of these charges, all old history, no evidence. Jaakobou, also notes that the diffs are insufficient. Both PR and I have had a past record of conflict with him, and his remark at this point is to be thoroughly commended. He is judging this case on the merits of evidence, reading what is said closely, and making his own call. Our differences are enormous, but here is an editor who, though he has a very convinced pro-Israeli point-of-view, is measuring the evidence, against the claims, by his own lights. PhilKnight agrees with Jaakobou's call, but suggests a 3 month ban, nothing as drastic as that originally proposed.

(3)As the case for a community ban wobbles towards a crash, Jayjg finally shows his hand.

(3.a)Palestine remembered is a self-confessed SPA, a propagandist and soapboxer. Like Ghcool Jayjg has a perfect memory and can testify that PR has never made, even once, an edit that is not propaganda.

(3.b)A technicality allows Jayjg to raise a specious impression that PR is guilty of sockpuppetry. It is nothing more than that, a play on words, used for the subliminal effect 'sockpuppetry' has on administrators. Wink,wink, nudge,nudge

(3.c)Here we finally have contemporary evidence from the last week. WP:BLP violation against "the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Jay jigs up the following tremendously damning smoking gun from PR's recent edit.

'Shahak did less to Judaism (in far more measured terms) than the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali do to Islam. Compare the two for reliability - Hirsi Ali is known to have lied (she's admitted it publicly) about what Islam did to her life, re-inventing great portions of it even including her name and date of birth. (That was in order to leave the perfectly safe Germany and settle in Holland). She's either chucked up or mysteriously distanced herself from the plum think-tank job she landed in Washington .... safer back in Eurabia than Washington? Whereas Shahak is more respectable in every way, surviving Belsen (1943 aged 10), going to Palestine, serving in an elite regiment of the IDF. He went on to become a professor of chemistry at Hebrew University. I think it's only in 1967 he came to question his faith. Nishidani proves again (above) that Shahak's criticisms of his religion (while hard hitting) bear no resemblance to those of Hirsi Ali, they're veritable models of reason in comparison. Now compare the two for the tone of our treatment - we quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali enthusiastically (as do all sorts of blatant Islamophobes and racists) seemingly delighted to have her say of Islam "Violence is inherent in Islam, it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder". In Shahak's case, we ignore the points he has to make, pour scorn on his testimony, and quote his critics saying "world's most conspicuous Jewish antisemite... Like the Nazis before him". Then we further defame Shahak because his words were picked up by racists - even though we know it's completely irrelevant. Moshe Sharrat, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel is also extensively quoted by the antisemitic - so? It's almost as if we're writing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. PR^talk 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the enormous crime by wiki criteria in this first piece of evidence for PR’s horribly recalcitrant propagandistic editing? Jayjg, read the whole Shahak page and archives, has it in for Shahak. Shahak was a Popperian liberal, a Holocaust survivor and secular critic of the ultra-orthodox threat to the development of Israel as a modern democracy. You cannot even begin to understand his critique unless you are familiar with Popper's 2 volume masterpiece, 'The Open Society and its Enemies' and Hadas's theories about Platonic influence via Hellenism on certain currents of rabbinical thinking. He wrote several books on the oddities of rabbinical halakhic and doctrinal traditions. Because he translated and divulgated extensive swathes of opinion from rabbinical sources that will strike most secular minds as bizarre, in a state where Judaic religious identity is still not disentangled from Israeli Jewish identity, Shahak came in for a huge amount of flak. Jayjg has supported cramming the page with poor sources that smear, insinuate and slander the man. Many, myself included, have given up and allowed the mess to stand as a monument to the kind of editing Jayjg rides shotguhn over, while he jumps at people like PR for not respecting Wiki ideals, and retailing 'propaganda'.

PR simply said that proIsraeli I/P editors are enamoured of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says of Islam, yet hate what Shahak says of Orthodox rabbinical thought. Both often say the same thing, that these respective religions shackle human liberty with the queerest of mystical theories. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is hailed as a heroic figure because her enemy is Islam. Shahak is despised as a Jewish antisemite because his enemy was a mode of rabbinical doctrine and thinking he thought tyrannical and totalitarian. Hirsi Ayaan Ali is known to have lied (PR says) and this does not alter the esteem in which she is held. Shahak is said by his bitter enemies to have lied, and this is showcased on his page. The point PR makes is the point made with Irving. I.e., pro-Israeli editors get on their high horses when Israel or Judaism is attacked, in this case by a Jewish critic, and allow the page to carry a large amount of preposterous insinuations from unreliable sources, whereas figures like Hirsi Ayaan Ali critical of Islam (Israel’s putative enemy) are left untouched, when not hailed for their critical boldness in taking on religious obscurantists. To entertain both positions is hypocritical, the duplicity of double standards is disturbing among editors of I/P articles, because one set of criteria is used with regard to Israel, another set used with regard to Israel’s putative enemies or antagonists, even when the situations in both cases are strikingly analogous. PR is thus vigorously deploring nationalist bias in I/P articles. Jayjg thinks this, apparently, deplorable, as deplorable as a man like Shahak, whom the Council of Foreign relations in Washington thought highly enough to consult with regularly over the 1990s. This is, finally, an analogy, of considerable merit, made on a talk page to illustrate what is wrong with Jayjg's editing, and not a violation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography.

(3.d)'a BLP violation against Mitchell Bard'

Again as before the following comment occurs on a Talk Page (Arab Citizens of Israel). The contested remark is:-

Bard comes across as a serious propagandist with a particular interest in denial. His "Myths and Facts" contains such gems as MYTH: "Settlements are an obstacle to peace." He should try and persuade Condoleeza Rice of that. CAMERA's single-mindedness and attitude to integrity doesn't need further discussion, there's been an RfC on it and other action. PR^talk 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well? Bard is not a reliable source. The remark he is cited as making is a nonsense, since every Israeli government (bar Netanyahu’s perhaps) has, in its negotiations, allowed that there is a problem with settlements, and every world body consulted thinks so too, since they are not on land legally belonging to the state of Israel. With comments like that, one can only reply: ‘Non c’è trippa per gatti’. PR’s remark is innocuous, and a correct call to boot. It is not a BLP violation of Mitchell Bard to say, on a talk page where his irrelevant views are pushed, that he is a ‘serious propagandist’ who denies what Israeli negotiators admit to be the truth, i.e. that settlements are the central issue of contention, and an obstacle to be overcome, in peacetalks. Talk pages are full of such comment, whenever bad sources from second raters in the commentariat are being pushed in.

(3.e)'some sort of weird attacks on Paul Bogdanor[14][15]'

(3.e.i) refers to a long discussion agreeing with another poster, on technical questions of branding people ‘deniers’ of genocide. It concludes:-

Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that the claims made in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. PR^talk 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(3.e.ii)Interacting with Relata refero on his talk page, PR mentions Paul Bogdanor:-

Hi Relata - I came across this from Paul Bogdanor's web-site - he's re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) that looks pretty much like gross historical distortion to me (everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis - and almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens). I then discovered that his reliability was recently discussed here. From the WP article on Bogdanor I found and checked The 200 lies of Chomsky, much of which also appears to me to be gravely distorted. I wondered if this discussion should be taken to the board again. PR^talk 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what’s the ruckus about this, where's the huge violation of wiki policies involved here. A note on Paul Bopgdanor asking for a second opinion. Bogdanor is a hack writer, without any competence on Kastner, or anything else to do with I/P articles (in Jayjg’s own severe standards on WP:RS) and PR asked for advice to confirm her own reasonable impressions. Those who track and sort out who’s saying what to whom on I/P articles have clipped this out as damning evidence, of what? That PR, like a large part of the serious commentariat, thinks anything Bogdanor has to say can be safely ignored without drastic loss of wisdom?

Jayjg protests at PR saying 'Everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated. He thinks, evidently that some people do not agree that Kastner collaborated with the Nazis. But Everybody does agree, however, that Kastner collaborated with Nazis, since he did. And to say he didn’t would be to controvert a huge mass of contemporary documentation. It is not a claim, it is a matter of fact. In the second part of PR's remark to which Jayjg takes exception, we read:

almost everyone thinks that, late in the war, he tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens.

What Jayjg ignores, crucially, is that almost. Ignoring that almost wilfully then allows him to make a Mountain out of a non-existent molehill, a fuss about the ostensible exception to PR's generalization. i.e. Anna Porter’s 'Kazstner's Train: The True Story of Rezsö Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust', which argues that Kastner was a hero. So? PR said almost, not everyone. Almost, Jayjg, in English usage here, means, contextually, almost everyone (except Anna Porter, for example). I won’t go into the Kastner case, and the large literature on that episode, as, I think, Relata refero redmarks, that it is a very complex case (the tradition behind sacrificing a large community to save a few however has been studied, not least by Israel Shahak, a taboo he and Raul Hilberg worried over all their lives, and for which many have never forgiven them for having voiced their malaise publicly) but I would suggest that Jayjg instead of whipping up froth and foam out of PR’s truism, meditate on the interview his link directs us to where Anna Porter is quoted as saying:

'He's the only Jewish Holocaust survivor who saved lives. There isn't anybody else really.'

I.e. Porter who shouts her ignorance in this remark, is also saying that of the 2 to 4 million Jews who survived the Holocaust, no one, except Kastner, lifted a finger to save a fellow Jew. And you have the brashness to assert, after reading this extraordinary generalization, that PR makes remarks characterized by tendentious nonsense?

(3.f)Jayjg concludes his shabby brief with the following ex cathedra judgement:'Tendentious nonsense . . characterizes the editor behind PalestineRemembered it's his dogged and dogmatic persistence; he waited out previous lengthy blocks, and returned from them completely unchanged. I see no reason to think a lengthier block will produce a novel result. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To use that language on the strength/weakness of the ostensible evidence, rigged up out of a few lame diffs, against another wikipedian is probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. All I can see here is an attempt to finish unsettled old scores, a vendetta, personal dislike, and factitious material jerryrigged to waste another editor, whose faults, acknowledged by many, are venial, and certainly not conspicuous, in the record placed before us here. Nothing adduced here warrants such comments on PR's recent behaviour as both GHcool and Jayjg have attempted to document it. This is, therefore, a farce.

But, in fine, Jayjg, examining this travesty of evidence, one can only sigh with a slight infraction of metrical proprieties, with Horace (Serm. Lib,I, 1, 69-70), in parsing the intemperate language and characterisations of congenitially poor editing you have brandished here against PR: Quid derides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered's edits are frequently out of proportion to the sources which he cites. he often writes with clear political predilections and agendas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But these topics are politically very sensitive and there are equally valid but completely different opinions in the reliable sources. Compare PR's behavior to your own behavior some time ago on the Global Warming page. In that case the reliable sources (i.e. the peer reviewed sources and not the unreliable blogs) are very clear, yet we have to put up with editors who refuse to recognize the basic facts. See here for a recent RFC on such a problematic editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

gee, thanks. not only do i get a whole new editor casting aspersions on me, it's on a whole new topic to boot. thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to your Armada? :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your insertion of irrelevancies and non sequitirs here, in order to throw aspersions at me, seems a bit uncivil and not completely appropriate here. We are trying to discuss specific topics here. (By the way, if your armada reference was meant to be humorous, I can take some wry humor here as well as anyone here, but it did not appear that way, and seemed like an unfriendly act. I don't mind some off-topic conversation, but it seemed like some sudden negative material unrelated to the topic at hand. if you are trying to strike a light note, I feel you should try to do so differently.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

I'd like to bring us back to the criteria for a community-wide or topic-ban. What are indeed the criteria? Cheating, and edit-warring, PR says. I'd have to agree with him/her that I don't see evidence to that effect. So, please, as someone who's only been here for a few months, could someone explain to me, with an emphasis on recent concerns, first, what the specific charges are here which merit permanent banning, and second, offer support. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl, that was long Nishidani. I'll try to be much briefer:

1. I actually do know a fair bit about Kastner and the allegations raised regarding him, having written most of the Malchiel Gruenwald article and contributed significantly to the Rudolf Vrba article. No, not "everyone agrees that Kastner collaborated". Kastner negotiated with the Nazis, trying to make a deal to trade Allied goods for Jewish lives. Whether or not this negotiation ever had a chance of succeeding is a matter for debate amongst historians, and there are some writers who think that Kastner knew they had no chance, and was only in it for himself - Vrba and Gruenwald primary among them. However, that is certainly not the consensus among historians, far from it. Yehuda Bauer certainly does not agree, nor does Martin Gilbert. But if Nishidani thinks that "almost everyone" thinks that Kastner was a collaborator who betrayed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and that Porter's award-winning book is bunk, let him produce the many reliable historians who say so. And no, despite your citing Adolf Eichmann as a reliable source on Kastner, I nevertheless do not consider him to be one.
2. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mitchell Bard, and Paul Bogdanor are all living people, and Wikipedia discussion regarding them is covered by the WP:BLP policy, regardless of your personal opinions regarding them.
3. PalestineRemembered claimed that his account was a "legitimate" SPA, used to edit I-P articles. Since he is now using the account to edit other articles, it is no longer a legitimate SPA, but instead, merely a second account, which in Wikipedia terminology, is called a "sockpuppet". It no longer possess the alleged "legitimacy" it once claimed.

Finally, regarding your claim that "Jayjg, every edit of yours I have observed over two years looks like a defence of a national image interest", in the past month I have written these two articles: Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), East Midwood Jewish Center, brought the following article I created to GA status: Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, created three Did You Know articles, including Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana) and Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania), completely re-written and tripled the size of Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem to save it from deletion, written Congregation Beth Israel (Gadsden, Alabama), Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York), Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania), Temple Beth Israel (Bergen County, New Jersey), and 34 stubs. Your powers of observation do not appear to be very good. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, In regards to point 3, could you possibly point out where the evidence is that:

1. PR uses multiple accounts; and
2. simply having multiple accounts is considered sock-puppetry? My reading of WP:SOCK's lead suggests otherwise.

It seems a pretty big leap to go from "What used to be an SPA is now editing other areas of Wikipedia" to "The user is deceptively abusing sock-puppet accounts". Even if PR did have another account, I would see no problem, as long as never the twain shall meet.

-- Mark Chovain 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I had always believed from his statement that he was an SPA editing only I-P related articles that he was declaring PalestineRemembered to be a secondary account, as per Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. I see now that it was an assumption on my part. Perhaps he can clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh... he said he is (or was) a "single-purpose account", which is what we call people who show up only to promote their band, categorize railroads by state, or block bad usernames. It says nothing about having another account. --NE2 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just stated that I now see it was merely an assumption on my part, based on my quite possibly erroneous inference that he was using the account for Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, reason #1. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Short-version. Judging by the evidence so far, to file for a community ban on ANI without evidence that stands up to scrutiny looks like barratry to me.

Long-version'. I'll answer in Hysteron-proteron sequence, for convenience.

'(My) powers of observation do not appear to be very good'

Perhaps. What I do have is a fair competence in construing sentences in a few languages to determine what they mean, and how, in a sequence of discursive exchanges, the logical content of the respective sentences flows. You make the same mistake above as you did with PR's comment on Kastner. I said, addressing you, 'every edit of yours I have observed over two years' . You now list many edits you have made which, 'since I never track anyone, I haven't observed, in order to disprove a generalisation made strictly in terms of my own experience. I.e., as is normal in low-key banter, there is little trace of logical coherence between what I stated, which remains true, and what you argue in a specious reply, which addresses something I never said. The hypothetical statement, which by your misprision, you attribute to me and then rebut, takes the form, 'Every edit you have made on Wikipedia, Jayjg, looks like a defence of a national/ethnic interest'. Since I never said this, your reply, while interesting, does not answer to what I said.

I know a lot of people here hunt each other, check each other's logs, email around, etc. I don't. I make my calls strictly (if naturally subjectively) on the evidence of what I see. Permit me to add. That you enrich wiki with many contributions on Jewish topics is something you can justifiably be proud of. That your edits on anything regarding Palestinians overwhelmingly strike many others as bordering on a pretextual (i.e.wikilawyering) censoriousness that seriously damages the highest aim of this collaborative endeavour, (encyclopedicity) may equally yield a sense of self-satisfaction. It would be ungenerous to deny the justifiable pride with which you document your contributions to the Jewish side of wikipedia. It would be dishonest to hide one's feeling that the satisfactions of impoverishing otherwise good work on Palestinians are to be deplored. To illustrate (hmm.tracking me?), since Fiamma Nirenstein makes films for Italian TV, and endlessly dominates talkshows here on Palestinian terrorism (is it a violation of BLP to say here that she never allows anyone to get a word in edgewise?), that edit I made months ago on her page, indicating that she lives in Gilo, on the West Bank, is pertinent. It simply allows the reader who may check, to know that Nirenstein happens to be, herself, a 'settler' on Palestinian territory. I see last night you have eliminated it, I can imagine with, let me be ironical, a mow of triumphant schadenfreude?. Nirenstein will thank you. People who know nothing of her background will now check wiki and not know that when she speaks of settlers, she has a conflict of interest. Good job.

Kastner. Collaborate? Cooperate? In the first edition of his masterpiece, Raul Hilberg uses the words interchangeably. Later, he preferred 'cooperate', because, I presume 'cooperate' lacks certain wartime nuances associated with 'collaborate'. Substantively, however, c'est la même différence.

Your remarks on PR's sparse comments re Kastner make up (since they gather in Paul Bogdanor etc.) almost half of your comments, which were supposed to supply serious evidence. They are (a)immaterial to any brief on PR's putative violations of WP rules, except if one wishes to raise a comber's lather over WP:SOAP. (b) You are contesting the veracity of a generalization made by PR on a talk page. That's within your rights, but on the relevant talk page. At least half of those editing pages I am familiar with do not seem to have any background knowledge of the subject, but simply take off from reading preexisting links on the page. That's why one needs extensive comments on Talk pages, such as, in this case, PR provided, esp. with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

You will differ with PR on Kastner, as, in major key, Raul Hilberg differed with Yehuda Bauer on these issues. To make a challengeable, historically questionable, generalization (were this the case, which is arguable) on a talk page does not constitute a violation of wiki rules. (Sir Martin, an extraordinary historian, is a generalist on this, and not pertinent, by the way). You did make a major error in construing almost everyone as everyone, and in generalizing from a statement that syntactically allowed for the very exception you then adduced to rebut PR, you committed a serious oversight of construal and logic, which sunk your subsequent argument about Paul Bogdanor and Anna Porter. You now say, standing corrected, that even almost everyone is not true. Even were that so, nothing is altered. PR was entitled to make that judgement on a talk page.

Therefore, though it is absolutely immaterial to the question under review, and should never have been raised in the first place, I'll respond to your remarks on Kastner. The point is indeterminable, since it depends on a subjective value judgement, how third parties view the decision of one Jew to save himself, his family and 1600 other Jews, in exchange for collaborating/cooperating with Nazis (because deemed inevitable) 450,000 other Jews to die unwittingly. A variation on Sophie's Choice. Jews who descended from those he and the Judenrat saved, will thank him. Non-descendents of the 450,000 Jews (Jewish Communists and the poor were often the first to be sacrificed) were often are not around to express their aborted feelings. More than 1 in 40 or 50 would probably have survived had the Judenräte dropped their age-old 'Am Yisrael chai' outlook, and told everyone, rich and poor, affines and strangers in the Jewish communities alike, to scram, shoot back, refuse to make, let alone wear the yellow star, since they were to be murdered, instead of conning them about new prospects for emigration in the East. Kastner's choice bartered several thousand for half a million. Some think one should refuse to play god, if asked to do so by the scum under Satan's hegemony in a topsy-turvy world where hell rules paradise. Kastner's choice is understandable, to some, perhaps. But there is nothing heroic in it, as it appears Porter's book argues. Faced with this dilemma, Adam Czerniaków blew out his brains. I wish he had not wasted the shot, and asked for a final interview with, and killed, Hans Frank instead. The result would have been the same, but had the likes of Kastner shot at the Eichmanns of this world, they would have set an heroic example for their communities, instead of deceiving the overwhelming majority to march in lockstep towards that 'elsewhere' the Kastners they trusted knew to be Auschwitz. It has been often argued by eruditely reasonable men that, as a consequence, in Israel, extreme overcompensation for that fatal error of compliance under conditions of Holocaust is what has shattered every prospect for a wholly uninvolved people, the Palestinians, in their struggle for statehood (yes, WP:SOAP).

As for Bard and Bogdanor, this is an encyclopedia that aspires to quality. Neither of them even nudges the midget's calypso bar for intelligent analysis of I/P issues. If PR saw efforts to use them on general articles, (s)he did well to protest, on Talk, at the use of factitious, blindly partisan sources. You are, rather exquisitely, hoist by your own petard here: since elsewhere you refuse to allow any citation from any academic, even of world-wide repute, on a topic he hasn't appropriate doctoral qualifications for, you cannot hold PR hostage over BLP for applying exactly the same criterion (which you yourself insist on) when PR notes someone pushing Bogdanor or Bard. You roast PR for dismissing quarter-baked minds in a tiresome commentariat on some pages, and, with what looks like a theatrical volte-fa(r)ce for bemused onlookers like myself, exclude first-rate minds (David Shulman, Ian Lustick to cite just two examples) on others. You are culpable here of pushing WP:BLP to defend bad sources (on a talk page discussion), that favour Israel, while availing yourself of WP:RS, in the strictest imaginable definition, to keep eminently good sources from being harvested for other (Palestinian) articles. One should not, as here, use the wiki rulebook as a convenience tool, to be cherry-picked for strategic advantages, according to what you yourself want to see, or not see, on a page. PR's analogy of Shahak's disgraceful treatment, which you support, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was a very intelligent piece of talk commentary, ìlluminating for the way it brought out the scandalous partisan nature of ethnic-interest editing on I/P pages. People should not have the rulebook thrown at them when they make intelligent remarks. Wiki is not a democracy, but it ain't Aldous Huxley's morocratic dystopia, with the intelligent comfortably enisled off the soma-doped mainland, either (so far). Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of evidence too long, but did read

Too long, but did read. The argument that PR has done nothing - at least nothing mentioned by his "opponents" - worthy of a ban is pretty persuasive. The problem is that everyone involved has a strong opinion, and it may be hard to avoid having one after reading enough to contribute to the topic area.

As he was mentioned above, I read about Rudolf Kastner. It's an interesting story, and I can honestly say that I cannot judge him, at least based on what's presented in the article. Whether it's wrong to sacrifice many to save some is a very complicated moral question. But I also found that the article concentrates too much on that moral question and other unanswerable questions and not enough on what he actually did (or what people say he did), and that hurts its quality. For instance, the "assassination" section contains this weaselly sentence: "But the idea that the killing was a government cover-up has been described as "absolute nonsense" because the head of the intelligence service was a close personal friend of Kastner."

What's really needed is a committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation to get involved, and possibly arbitrarily make decisions to improve the quality of the articles. Unfortunately, we don't have something like that, and I really have no suggestions. --NE2 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NE2's notion of a "committee of people with no strong views but the desire and ability to learn more about the situation" is a good idea on its face, but it won't work in this situation. There are literally two mutually exclusive bodies of "truth" regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with its own library of "reliable sources," etc. Any effort at getting to the bottom of things will inevitably convince the subscribers to one or the other perspective that the party making an objective assessment of the facts has become compromised, whether it has or hasn't. Tegwarrior (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered comments Thankyou for the careful attention you've paid to the evidence and details of this case, the project would benefit hugely if others were doing the same.

Regarding "a Committee", unfortunately, WP is currently structured on no interference with "content disputes". However, all is not lost, because each of the discussions above demonstrates that editors care passionately about "cheating" (even if there is wild disagreement over what it covers and the word itself is very much frowned upon). The project has proved that it can (sometimes) deal with at least one form of cheating, abusive sock-puppetry (unfortunately, its record is less than perfect even there).

My opinion is that the project needs to take cheating much more seriously - the problem is so serious that even declaring one's own integrity (as here) is the very must unpopular thing one can do. It leads straight to calls for total muzzling (as here) even from those who are not personally implicated in this lying and cheating and covering-up. Well, I say there is no element of cheating in that example - a call for the most severe sanctions possible on an editor clearly being witch-hunted would turn the stomach of at least some people. PR^talk 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Long post by Moldopodo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, includig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, expressing uncovered racism while saying that Moldavian nation, language, country, history, etc. do not exist and it is all Romanian anyaway, including basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this namely following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby could I hve been blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity? Below yu will find the detailed diffs.--Moldopodotalk 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Indef block You have been indef blocked for repeated disruption and arbcom violations. See Wikipedia:AE#User:Biruitorul and the two ANI cases linked to therein. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to one month to comply with Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC) User:Rlevse, I would like to ask you to explain this please. I would also like to remind you, that there is nothing uncivil fpr you, to apologise when you commit a mistake (procedural mistake regarding indef and monthly block). Thirdly, I will certianly contest this monthly block, as there was no justification for it provided. The most absurd is that the Digwuren request was filed against User:Biruitorul by me for User:Biruitorul's uncivil behaviour, irrelevant comments and disruptive editing, for which I have provided clear diffs. Moreover, as this request was pending, User:Biruitorul continued disruptive editing by removing, moving, deleting, reverting Rulers of Moldavia article. Speaking of all of this User:Biruitorul kept continuing posting diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard.--Moldopodotalk 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) First unbock request: Please see the talk page for explanation as well as for the check user request from here till the end of the talk page Decline reason: The things you cite are accusations of other individuals being uncivil to you and requesting a checkuser on one of them. You do not address the reason YOU were blocked though for your disruption of the AE pages. Please show how you did not disrupt thing, not why others are bad, if you would like to be unblocked. — MBisanz talk 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Second unblock request: Unfortunately I cannot address the reason why I was blocked as it was not even addressed by the blocking admin. No diff to suport the block was provided. It is is nice to see how you refer to Wikipeda rules stating that what I say does not lie in the unblock request' scope, but I would also appreciate if you referred to WP rules the same way while evaluating the reasons for this block as well, knowig that this block of my user user account was a result of the request for Digwuren arbitration enforcement against Biruitorul, and... after communications of User Biruitorul with User Rlevse[17], [18], and this. As for the user check request, I have written it here, as as of now I have no capacity to file it myself. --Moldopodotalk 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: There is ample evidence of your disruption, and no indication that you plan to stop. — Jehochman Talk 13:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Diffamatory, slanderous, irrelevant and unfounded statements and accusations User:Biruitorul Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Biruitorul Notes [19] And, further to Andy's report, may I point out this user's disruption here, here, here, here, here, here and here, just in the last couple of days? This goes beyond a mere content dispute. There are false accusations of incivility, disruptive moves, redirects and move requests, distorting of primary sources, dismissal of reputable secondary sources, a hostile attitude, and above all an effort to conflate Moldova with Moldavia. Given the user's growing block log and damage to numerous articles, it's possible the at wit's end point of the Digwuren case has been reached. Biruitorul Talk 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) From the references provided, it is clearly seen who reverted first, how many times User:Biruitorul moved and removed pages, and the absence of any justification whatsoever, for these disruptive edits by User:Biruitorul. Please, note, I have also explicitely asked User:Biruitorul to stop this at least while I was writing the article and also my request to use the talk page. [20] I appreciate the fact that this is not the place to carry out mere content disputes. However, the problem is rather graver than that. Moldopodo, for no good reason (other than, I suppose, to deflect attention from himself), has hauled me before AE on totally spurious charges. And despite a final warning to cease the type of disruptive editing he has been engaged in for a long time, he goes right on, in this case continuing to try and cloud the distinction between Moldavia (to 1862) and Moldova (1991-). That should be addressed, right? Biruitorul Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Please, see how User:Biruitorul maliciously and grossly interprets my mere error of placing the initial arbitration enforcement request in a wrong place. Please, note, I have initially created a new section and clearly called what it was "arbitration enf. request", before the User:Tariqabjotu twice deleted and merged it with the rest of the discussion, and then finally saying me: Please use your own user talk pages or the talk pages of relevant articles to carry on this dispute. If either of you think arbitration enforcement is required here, there is a separate noticeboard for that. However, neither of theses noticeboards is for debating the content of articles and carrying on your dispute. -- tariqabjotu 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [21] Simple - the article is at Moldavia, for now. If it gets moved to Principality of Moldavia (which it won't), then by all means carry out the move. And by the way, Moldavia ceased to exist as a principality in 1862, so sooner or later, the recent additions of post-1862 rulers will be erased. Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I think it is useless to comments on this "which it won't" and all the previous moves by User:Biruitorul of such articles as Cinema of Moldavia, Moldavia,a s well as on the consequent capacity of this user to contribute constructively to Wikipedia or even to have the capacity to have the desire to listen other users--Moldopodotalk 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Neil As for User:Neil who wrote the "final warning" on my page Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Neil Notes [22] If you read his block log ([58], he keeps getting unblocked by fooling admins into thinking he won't edit war again and this time he means it, then promptly starts edit-warring again. I am going to be watching his contributions closely from now on, and have given him a final warning, and I really mean my final warnings - one more bit of rubbish and he is indefinitely blocked. Neıl 龱 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Briefly. Nothing I have said has not been civil. There are a number of Moldovan users on en.Wikipedia. The diffs you have asked for are on your talk page. Note I didn't even raise the cross-Wiki spamming you carried out a few weeks ago. Neıl 龱 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The references provided by User:Neil do not explain, if simply not contrary, what User:Neil tried to support with them ("final warning") Irrelevant unfounded "warning" of User:Neil Accusation of "Cut and paste moves": Please see the history of Cinema of Moldova how, when and who started and further continuously moved and copy pasted pages and talk pages. (cur) (last) 07:59, 19 June 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Cinema of Moldavia: NPOV move-warring - country is called Moldova on Wikipedia [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (cur) (last) 00:20, 19 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (Please see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLEGROUND.) (cur) (last) 23:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (I started the articel, the person who moved the articel has never explained anything on the talk page and never contributed to the article. Nor, was there any notice that the redirect page was deleted) (cur) (last) 20:01, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rv - redirects exist for a reason; we should not have two virtually identical articles for all naming variants) (cur) (last) 17:58, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,699 bytes) (→Cartoons: Maria Mirabela) (cur) (last) 17:57, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,409 bytes) (→International recognition) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,260 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,263 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:51, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,274 bytes) (→Cartoons) (cur) (last) 17:50, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (please, stop this total disruption. I'am writing the artcile, please use the talk page. Pleas stop moving the artcile around as I am in the middle of writing it.) (cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Bogdangiusca (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (rev -- Moldopodo, don't move an article by copy & paste) (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (Please stop disruptive editing. You are NOT contributing to the artcile, but only messing it up. Let me write the article please. Should you have any questions, use the talk page please) (cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (please stop being disruptive) (cur) (last) 17:28, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (3,977 bytes) (cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of Moldavia to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: The country is called Moldova!!!) History of talk page of Cinema of Moldavia (cur) (last) 03:56, 19 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (rv - please try reading Wikipedia:Redirects (and yes, i did leave a comment on the talk page, it just is only visible in the wikicode) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:53, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (1,155 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 23:52, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (Undid revision 220211375 by Girolamo Savonarola (talk) Please stop this, Explain on the talk page) (undo) (cur) (last) 20:02, 18 June 2008 Girolamo Savonarola (Talk | contribs) (1,092 bytes) (per redirect policy) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:46, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (833 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:30, 18 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (311 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:20, 18 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes) (moved Talk:Cinema of Moldavia to Talk:Cinema of Moldova: The country is called Moldova!!!) Message from the talk page left by User:Biruitorul: This page has gone through various incarnations, including Cinema of Moldavia and Cinema of the Moldavian SSR. However, I submit the present title is best because Moldova is the current name of the country, even though it was called Moldavia in the past. Just as Cinema of Ukraine also deals with the Cinema of the Ukrainian SSR, so too we should maintain this simple, recognisable title rather than forking one article for every change in regime. In any case, I ask that future moves be made using WP:RM. Biruitorul Talk 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Biruitorul has never tried to reach any consensus or exhange any opinion neithe on the contents of the article nor on its title. He just decided what it will be according to his own personal view without regard to anybody nor anything else, moved, copy pasted the âge just as I was writing it, ignoring my numrous requests to use the talk page to explain his reverts and moves along with deletions, as well as requests to simply wait until I finish the article. This is by the way, typical of the banned User:Bonaparte.--Moldopodotalk 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC) History of the Cinema of the Moldavian SSR: (cur) (last) 16:45, 24 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (←​Redirected page to Cinema of Moldova) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:37, 22 June 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (6,547 bytes) (Date the maintenance tags or general fixes) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:16, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (→International recognition: re-arrange) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,412 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:57, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,517 bytes) (rearrange) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:49, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,117 bytes) (→Actors) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:48, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (6,116 bytes) (→International recognition: actors) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:34, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,967 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:21, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,956 bytes) (→Cartoons: costesti film festival) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:15, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,706 bytes) (editing) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:14, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,693 bytes) (→International recognition: stork) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:11, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,546 bytes) (→Cartoons) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:07, 20 June 2008 Moldopodo (Talk | contribs) (4,310 bytes) (undo) (cur) (last) 02:52, 20 June 2008 Biruitorul (Talk | contribs) (31 bytes) (moved Cinema of the Moldavian SSR to Cinema of Moldova over redirect: let's not content-fork) Accusation of "Nationalist edit-warring": User:Neil provided following references to support his grave accusation: [23], [24], [25] I could not establish anything nationalist in these edits, other than providing totally neutral scientific and other sourced information, often countering reverts of User:Bogdangiusca baldly erasing these edits, calling them as "original research" with no explanation why...--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Accusation of "AFD disruption": User:Neil provided following references to support this another grave accusation: [26], [27], [28] I would like to note that other than another absurd unfounded accusation, slandering comments in my regard were kept on the very same disuccion page for days and surprisingly User:Neil did nothing about them...--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Accusation of "Nonsense articles about the evils of Romanians" Romanian crime in Europe‎ I would like to note that the article wa snot about "evils of Romanians", but about the unprecddented rise of criminality rate, exceeding in Spain and Italy the rate of crimes committed by local nationals, about very important phenomenons and societal disturbance caused by legal and illegal immigrants arriving from Romania into UK? Germany, France, Finland, Italy, Spain, also about effects of Romanian crime in Denmark. The article was sourced, if not oversourced, inlcuding scietific research, statistics provided by police reports, media coverage, official state public statistics... Numerous users have also expressed their wish to keep the article, but to imrpove the contents' presentation. I have created many other articles and none of them is a nonsense article. This acusation by user Neil is another grave unfounded accusation.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Irrelevant mention of "Notice re Digwuren restriction:" [29] I would like to mention that this restriction was contested by me on the ANI Board, and the admin in charge explained it it was applied for the usage by me of the term "wicked" describing the numerous repetiive intentional disruptive edits of a user pushing through an explicit uncovered pan-Romanian propaganda, disregarding official data. It is not clear for me why the referecne for this restriction was placed here. Moreover, I consider there is a malicious intention from User:Neil in placing references to this previous restriction, which is not relevant to the present debate, nor have I violated Digwuren restriction on any counts in this case as well.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Slanderous statement: "Blocks being released early due to hollow pledges of good behaviour:" [30] I would like to note that adminsitrators have clearly taken their time to look deep enough into the matter and presented their excuses for the unjustified block.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) "Final warning stands. I have little patience for wikilawyering, so don't waste your time. Statement proving that User:Neil did not look deep enough into the matter, nor has he checked the diffs he provided himself. This statement also proves that User:Neil does not apparently and unfortunaltely have any desire to look deeply into the matter.--Moldopodotalk 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) User:Bogdangiusca Diffamatory and slanderous statements in my regard posted by User:Bogdangiusca Notes [31] Moldopodo readded that a couple of times. It includes various insulting phrases toward the Romanians like "todas las rumanas son putas y les gusta la polla". (All the Romanian women are...) bogdan (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC) These are the comments, which readers of the most read newspapaers in Europe left after reading the articles describing the Romanian crime in their respective country. "I" did not add thiese comments. However, I have copy-pasted these comments to the discussion page, as the admins previously did not do anything to remove insulting comments from other users in my regard, starting from "Anti-Romanian" to "racist", etc, etc. When I asked the same admins why this double standard, no answer was provided.--Moldopodotalk 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC) User:Rlevse Diffamatory and slanderous statements posted by User:Rlevse Notes [32] I find little merit in Moldopodo's claims. However, I find much in Biruitorul's against Moldopodo. Couple this with Neil's warning to Moldopodo only two days ago that if his disruption continues, he'll be indef blocked, I have little choice but to indef block Moldopodo, so I've done so....next day, changed to a month to comply with Digwuren. In other words I do not care for looking through the diffs provided, so I won't mention them in my decision, and anyway, since there was an earlier block (also by enforced by me), there will be a later one as well, why not?. Is this the way a reasonable adminsitrator justifies his/her decision?--Moldopodotalk 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC) [33] I explained, you didn't get it. Calling someone "ethno-racist/fascist" when they've said they find it offensive is disruptive and incivil. How would you feel if he called you that? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) [34] Xasha (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for racist and disruptive comments. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Checkuser request - strong suspicion User:Biruitorul follows commonly the same pattern of the banned socket-pupetter User:Bonaparte, although the language used is milder sometimes by user User:Biruitorul. Although, I do not know what language used User:Bonaparte before being blocked. The same pattern results from: irrelevant to the subject of the discussion, diffamatory and slanderous accusations on any talk page and administrators' noticeboard discussion related to me the same pattern of moving, removing pages, changing formulation, inserting POV statements (or reverting them to the previous - identical ones) ignorance of the talk page discussion, arguments and sources provided both on the talk page and in the article itself, ignorance of the requests to stop removing and moving pages around as I am editing/writing the article (Balti Steppe/Balti depression - Cinema of Moldavia/Cinema of the Moldavian SSR/Cinema of Moldova good knowledge of Wikipedia rules and capacity to delete pages in order to rename them.--Moldopodotalk 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, includig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, expressing uncovered racism while saying that Moldavian nation, language, country, history, etc. do not exist and it is all Romanian anyaway, including basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this namely following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin.

How technically possiby could I hve been blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity? Above you will find the detailed diffs.

Just to clarify, the tone used is different (sometimes), but the diffamatory and slandering accusations, their posting all over where it is completely irrelevant, moving removing, deleting pages as I am writing them - all of this brings to the exactly the same result. I think it is totally probable that User:Bonaparte and User:Biruitorul are one and the same person (Biruotorul means "Winner" in Moldavian language).--Moldopodo^talk 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you make your point in under half a page, I am not reading all of that. Chillum 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. If possible, summarise it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same issue discussed here: [35]? Chillum 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put is simply. People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction. Chillum 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all thank you for finding a way to put it nicely in a hat. Secondly, yes, please, you have to read all of this as it namely explains you why the described statements and actions violate Wikipedia policies and qualify as slander and defamation. Blindly stating People pointing out your behavior is not slanderous, diffamatory, or even defamatory. It is a common reaction - has not much value, because there is not one diff proving what you say, and to the contrary, tons of diffs provided by me stating exactly the contrary.--Moldopodo^talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ask Mikka, he can spot a Bonaparte sock at fifty paces. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are much more of other points in my notice, sockpupetting suspicion being only one of them.--Moldopodo^talk 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Moldopodo perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One can only come to a conclusion after checking the evidence, and evidence I have presented abundantly. When someone says first "I am not reading this", but then, nevertheless, draws the conclusion "it's a common reaction" (slander, defamation, violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures - is this a common reaction?) - how much weigth to you give to words of such a person?--Moldopodo^talk 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that some time passed between those posts. I did read through the passages you quoted, and all I saw was criticism directed at your behavior. Chillum 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading this all through. "Criticism" - is certainly a strange conclusion in my mind, in light of the evidences and diffs I have presented. May be you could indicate me one diff where this "criticism" is expressed? I guess we read different definitions of what criticism and what lies, slander and defamation are.--Moldopodo^talk 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, perhaps somebody will come to a different conclusion than me. Chillum 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. I wish you were there with your judgement when I was blocked for calling obvious repetitive disruptive edits as wicked. I am sure you would have qualified it as criticism, wouldn't you?--Moldopodo^talk 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I asked the last time Moldopodo filed one of these frivolous reports linking me with Bonaparte and accusing me of all manner of crimes: where's the beef? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The answers are all in the diffs I have provided - which all show how you openly lie about yor actions, how you started moving and removing pages, edit warring, spreading slanderous statements and defamation in my regard. It's all there. Just click on "show more" up above.--Moldopodo^talk 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. Speaking of the diffs you hold so sacred: this and this aren't very helpful to your cause, and neither is the above remark accusing me of being an "open liar", "slanderer" and "defamer". Especially considering that you're on your last warning, you really shouldn't be making these sorts of distortions, assumptions of bad faith and quasi-legal threats. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as.[36] He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Amerique^dialectics 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Amerique^dialectics 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Wikipedia to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Wikipedia is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.

That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as [User:House1090]] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Amerique^dialectics 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Wikipedia is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard

How many of you watchlist or otherwise monitor WP:CCN? It doesn't seem particularly active....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed. We have too many damn noticeboards again...John Reaves 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny... that's what I said, as I gently trolled the noticeboard's creator. But now, rather hypocritically, I decided to post to said noticeboard and noticed it hasn't been active for more than a week and that the last query posted to that forum was completely ignored (or at least not responded to on the board itself).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it either, but I'm not surprised. It seems even some WikiProjects have their own noticeboards these days... - auburnpilot talk 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When the student is ready, the master will appear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Going on Wikibreak; somebody want to take over my watchlist?

Well, okay, not the whole thing, but there are a few places where I flatter myself to believe that my absence may cause some difficulties, and if another admin or two would keep an eye on them for the rest of the month, it would help me sleep easier:

• Mountain Pointe High School - for reasons I don't understand, somebody keeps making this edit to the article. I was assuming good faith until they fabricated a source, and now I'm blocking on sight (and tagging as sockpuppets of User:Keeweeman-ape). Article's currently semi-protected until August 10.
• Ctrl+Alt+Del - there's debate going on here about what to include in the "criticism" section. I'm staying out of it, because I lack even the vaguest understanding of the subject matter, but periodically somebody will add in a vicious BLP violation about the comic's creator. Article is currently semi-protected until August 25.
• Shivraj Patil - an IP has recently been inserting BLP violations here (on the premis that they're cited, which they are, but they're cited to opinion pieces and presenting these opinions as fact is obviously not okay).
• Marc Ravalomanana - somebody keeps inseting information suggesting that the subject is over-eager to close Madagascar's ports (at least, I think that's the insinuation - it's not quite clear).
• Rick Reilly - this person seems to have a lot of enemies for a sportswriter, with the enemies in question occupying themselves by inserting imagined "controversies" into the article.
• Tinnitus - people keep making uncited additions to the list of sufferers, and also occasionally insert quackish theories about its causes.

I'd really appreciate the help on this. Otherwise, see you all in September, when you can fill me in on the latest developments in the Cla-FM-SV arb case (assuming that the latest developments at that point don't still date to early July). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Developments in the Cla-FM-SV case" - bahahaha. You really are well named :) I've watchlisted all the articles you listed; give me a poke when you get back, and have a great break. Neıl ☄ 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! can we do that? I can sure use some help on a few watched articles of my won. Can you help me too please? Please keep an eye on Valley of Peace initiative and also Titanic alternative theories. Appreciate your help, ok? thanks. by the way, the first article is 99% stable; I just don't know if anyone else is watching it right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't! I've watchlisted your two, too, Steve. My watchlist has now doubled in size from yesterday, and stands at a muscular 14 pages. Neıl ☄ 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. —Travis^talk 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting vandalism for the IP 125.175.214.29, and finally posted him/her on the Admin intervention page. Unfortunatly, I don't think anyone is doing blocks currently, so I'm asking for someone to check him out...and possibly block the IP.

L337*P4wn 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, the IP is actually using very detailed edit summaries, and when they tried to discuss it with you on your talk page, you removed their message with "rvv". If you disagree with their removal of trivia sections that have been tagged for more than 9 months, then discuss it with them. If they refuse to discuss it, then we have a problem. But right now, you're just blindly reverting everything they do. --barneca (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. So the IP actually only has one count of vandalism. Not four. Thank you for telling me of my mistake.

L337*P4wn 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm really pretty sure that one "vandalism" was just a mistake; in one instance they blanked a large portion of the page, and when ClueBot reverted them, the second time they just removed the trivia section. --barneca (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I feel horrible now! I've just reverted helpful edits. L337*P4wn 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Today's Featured Article

Just wanted to let you guys know that I semi-protected TFA for one hour. Feel free to unprotect if you think my actions were unjustified. If not, can someone remove the template when the protection expires? Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

...and reinstating move-protection would probably not be a bad idea either. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that TFA should always be semi-protected, so obviously I approve :-) Tan ǀ 39 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, if you protect TFA, don't set an expiration time. First, it doesn't give the vandals a specific time target to wait for; second, you can't accidently lose move protection. I've unprotected, as time was almost up. --barneca (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-protected it, as he/they came back. Anyone can unprotect whenever they think it wise. --barneca (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Arjun MBT thread

Resolved

 – Not vandalism, but a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arjun MBT thread has been vandalized by multiple users. The Quality B article has been compromised.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Links to articles and diffs are always useful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a content dispute taking place at Arjun MBT, which is a tank being built for the Indian army. Admin Jauerback has joined in the discussion at Talk:Arjun MBT. I'm marking this resolved, since the edits are not vandalism. If editors can't reach agreement on the Talk page, they should follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours; behavior didn't change after warnings. lifebaka++ 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these contributions considered spam? I'm leaning towards, "yes." 216.163.255.1 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thinking it's spam, per se, but it's certainly disruptive and not terribly useful. Warning user again. lifebaka++ 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Jauerback added {{uw-spam3}}, which was what I was going to do. I'll keep an eye on the user, though. lifebaka++ 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this thread from this user's talk page. What a pain. All the edits should be reverted. I'll keep an eye out, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted all of the "references" as it was all link spam. Various other accounts were involved in the spamming:

• 75.163.239.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.163.236.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conrad.pramboeck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Using the link search, I got all of them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegan^talk 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

template:ImageUpload

What is up with {{ImageUpload}}—it seems to be linked from a lot of pages and seems to have a recursive loop, but no history to revert to? G.A.S 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It included itself twice. Besides that, it was a test page, so I deleted it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's up the links, but probably they can be removed. {{ImageUpload}} is probably a useful thing to have, but all the versions of it (all three, one by me cleaning it up) have been crap thus far. There might've been instructions put in to use it at WP:UPI or something for a while, but it doesn't seem to be usefully used on any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the links. It seems to me that this template is used on Commons as well, but is a blank protected page (Protected "Template:ImageUpload": Used by MediaWiki:UploadForm.js [edit=sysop:move=sysop]). It might be that this page is used for the same purpose here; in which case it might be a good idea to recreate here as a blank protected page; as it is transcluded onto the image namespace pages that are recreated here for use on the main page. G.A.S 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Avenger

More eyes would probably be useful at this festival of sockpuppetry; the votestacking, off-wiki canvassing and accusations are already starting to fly and it's been live less than 24 hours. – iridescent 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this is also at ANI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following was moved from ANI:

CANVASSing

Hi. There seems to be a bit of an off-wiki canvassing situation at this AfD. See here. (The top comment on the journal, as well as containing a direct link to the AfD, says, "The Southern Avenger article in wikipedia is being disputed for deletion for questions of notability. Please vote for no deletion.") I wouldn't be surprised, given the amount of SPA participation, if canvassing had taken place elsewhere, too. I tagged the AfD {{notaballot}} and marked the {{spa}} contributors (but assumed good faith on those who just seem to have quite suddenly stumbled upon this AfD after a period of inactivity.) Is there something else that should be done? Or could be? This is a new one on me! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to post a reply on the blog, to discourage people from !voting because of that, but it was caught by a spam filter on the comments. No idea what's with that. Still, with luck it'll go up and SPAs will curb, though I wouldn't count on it. Maybe just pointing them at WP:ATA would help, so they at least make valid arguments. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

everything above this post, and below the previous "small" post, was moved over from ANI Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008

We're 4 months out from these elections, and the wiki pages have been unprotected to facilitate discussion etc. - I think it'd be great if everyone with time, energy, and particularly experience, could take a look, and help organise stuff well in advance.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I wonder why an arbcom-sanctioned and previously banned former sockpuppeteer is taking it upon himself to make up the election pages? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not helpful. Enigma ^message 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity

Resolved

 – Heading toward a solution at Talk:Fraternity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Wikipedia policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?

Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ABN Amro. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as LaSalle Bank. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. Minkythecat (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO according to the kamer van koophandel, but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on WP:MOSTM and WP:UCN. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank. That's why I raised my objections later. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in Talk:ABN AMRO as there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Wikipedia through editwars. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, it isn't a critical issue. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --barneca (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the Bank of America and LaSalle Bank articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Smyth we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that User:gidonb, and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --barneca (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy volunteered that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to WP:COI as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. Ronnotel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming WP:COI on the name because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, WP:BRD - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be wrong just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. Ronnotel (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it after discussion. And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If User:gidonb had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content much at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. Keeper ǀ 76 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my favourite corporate organization wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some blockheads insist that it be known as Lego instead. OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in... However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Ceiling Cat

Resolved

 – Let's see...TenOfAllTrades nailed the underlying issue...No one is going to block Ceiling Cat...SandyGeorgia, nobody blocked Raul, that's an old block from before he usurped it...Guy and Duncan, relax guys...Did I cover all the main stuff? --barneca (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think so, thanks :-) I was so busy looking for a pet gorilla that I didn't read the block carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A user, Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Can someone delete her user-subpages that she created? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr.... am I missing something here. Apparently this is a legit sock of User:Raul654 Pedro :  Chat  11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be unblocked. He spammed only people he knows on IRC (e.g. Cream) or people he's associated with on-wiki (Sandy). Sceptre ^(talk) 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Sceptre (note, Sandy does not do IRC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The account was blocked in 2006, but it's missing it's unblock log. Given that Raul has used it since, the account is certainly unblocked. From what I remember, Raul usurped it before the time block logs moved, so this is the block log from the old account holder. When the account was usurped, the new account name will have been automatically unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that it doesn't show up in the block log though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that account is treating this site like MySpace (WP:NOT#MYSPACE), I don't see many actual article contributions to the enyclopedia. If it is a legit sock, it should be used constructively. I don't see anything constructive about that account. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly account, it's not hurting anyone, and it's rather amusing. Let's just leave Raul654 to whatever cat-related-humor he likes, eh? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We usually do block such accounts which behave in this way. I hope this account is not going to be treated differently just because it is operated by Raul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we? It seems accounts like Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs) have been here quite some time. - auburnpilot talk 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase, we usually block such accounts when they aren't operated by popular or influential editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. - auburnpilot talk 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)We usually block such accounts when they're created by editors who don't show any sign of wanting to contribute to the project. Generally, we grant more leeway to people who have voluntarily given hundreds or thousands of largely thankless free hours to working on the encyclopedia. If 99% of what Raul654 does here is constructive work to mantain and build this project, I'm not going to begrudge him the 1% of the time he spends on somewhat silly things that don't cause anyone any harm.

It's right there in the userpage policy:

The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.

Until such time as the account's activities become genuinely disruptive, there's no need to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Raul had put the cat jokes on his own userpage would we even be having this conversation? Yes we don't akkow peopel to use Wikipedia as Myspace but we do allow editors a bit of fun if it does no harm. And Raul is an editor is he not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I personally don't care what Raul does with his Cat account. It doesn't seem particularly disruptive or harmful to me, and I'd just as soon close this thread and move on. It's a running joke, which I believe started on Talk:Main Page (at least that's where I first saw it).- auburnpilot talk 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen loads of accounts with similar edit histories blocked before. I'm not saying it should be blocked, but rather that double standards don't contribute to a positive atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I only remember seeing editors with similar edit histories getting blocked (I might be wrong though, but I'd be disappointed if we did that). I really can't care less if editors create a secondary account for a joke, as long as it's not breaking any rule. Maybe someone could raise his concerns to Raul on the use of this sock, if they feel the need. (I can't believe I'm wasting my coffee break talking about this :)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There's not a double standard. Editors who primarily work to build the encyclopedia (like Raul654) are allowed to use (very small amounts of) project resources to have a little bit of harmless fun. People who come here to use us as a free webhost or MySpace substitute without any apparent intent to contribute to the encyclopedia are offered the choice to contribute or leave.

This is no different from the way things work in the offline world. If you're in the office and you take a fifteen minute coffee break in the afternoon to chat with the guy in the next cubicle before you go back to work, it's no problem. If you spend all day every day playing solitaire, drinking coffee, and wandering about the office having conversations, you're going to be asked to pack up your stuff and leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at first, I didn't even realise it was Raul, I just seen that account make an edit to a userpage that's on my watchlist with the edit description "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ"; which made me think an obvious troll (not saying it is a troll, but that's what it seemed like to me at first). Then checking the contributions, it seemed to me that it was created numerous subpages for no reason. The accounts that AubornPilot pointed out earlier, Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs), actually all seem constructive, so there is no problem there, they are there to help with the encyclopedia, I don't see constructive with Ceiling Cat. Also someone called it a "silly account" - if any other account was caught doing that, a block indef would probably be coming their way. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have accumulated a list of all the people that care, but unfortunately it was deleted as WP:CSD#A3... Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow day at the office Guy? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not especially. Why? Guy (Help!) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's jolly decent that you can edit Wikipedia at work. More employers should support voluntary work by their staff. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Want some vinegar for that chip? Or is your naturally acidic personality sufficient? Guy (Help!) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't falsify deletion debates when closing them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that please.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban of the cat. He's been...watching me. Friday (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sakes, what is Wiki coming to when I don't even realize Raul's cat left me a message, because someone else reverted the message, and I have to find out about it on WP:AN? What's next, do I have to step back through all the diffs on my talk page to find out when friends have left me fun messages? I can't believe someone blocked Raul's cat: is Bish next? We need to add a big cluestick to admin school, including some basic Wiki history. I think I feel a sock account coming on; I'm starting to feel left out without an animal account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No one has blocked it. Read the thread above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. Why wasn't my talk vandalized? This account is clearly biased and needs to be blocked. /end joke. Synergy 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Maggot here, seriously, this Cat is too biased. At the very least, it needs to have a session with Therapist Cat... Lucifer (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ApprovedI concur with the diagnosis. Synergy 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this thread closed? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I come across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I came here to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was Raul's "cat" until someone mentioned it in this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We understand that :-) You did the right thing, but there is nothing more to do now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarified in the blog log [37].--chaser - t 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Treat him like anyone else and block the account. Accounts that don't exist to improve the encyclopedia and merely indulge in foolishness should be blocked, and the user should be warned on his or her main account to refrain from such behavior in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My sockpuppet account has done a little here and there to improve the Encyclopedia, but admittedly not much. On the other hand, it has certainly not disrupted the encyclopedia. But if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind. Raul654 (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion is intriguing, Raul! Would you like to present a proposal? Everyking (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Lets put an end to it. Synergy 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I am touched by this blossoming Everaul654 friendship! El_C 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<- While I'm sure Raul's done more than enough to be allowed some indulgence, let's be at least a little serious here for a second. What's a new user meant to think, and indeed do, when she sees Raul's MOAR KATS efforts on the Main_Talk page? You've many friends in the project and therefore many, many talk pages on which to share the 4chan humour that will not cause confusion. Could you perhaps limit your self expression to just those situations which don't have the huge potential to confuse the newbies, Raul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.166.245 (talk • contribs)

lol -Pilotguy contact tower 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf - stalking and harassing

(note:readded as not answered as of 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

(note:readded by User:JRG without my prior knowledge but still needs to be addressed. Cbsite (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of Chris Barnes (actor) and the fact that the user then went on to nominate the article for deletion, presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about his hometown.

He received a warning about his abuse of Twinkle, which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."

He received a complaint on his talk page today from two other editors.

I admit I lost my cool after a while and left an uncomplimentary message on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that an administrator would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. Cbsite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One article does not a stalker make. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He nominates for deletion at his own whim, reverts as "vandalism" edits that offer a rationale for the image's presence and harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: [38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43].[44].

And read his comments as he tries to get the article deleted: he's got an ax to grind, and he's not about making constructive contributions. Cbsite (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The misuse of Twinkle should result in him not being allowed to use it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any Twinkle abuse after the warning, so we could jyst WP:AGF and assume he learned from the warning... Kusma (talk)

OK, this has been here for three days and this is the best you can do? This guy continues to get a free pass? The Teflon Deletionist? Cbsite (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem that requires urgent admin intervention, given also that Damiens.rf hasn't edited for two days. Kusma (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He's not an admin so nominating does what harm exactly? an admin needs to agree to delete after all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people here are probably considering the source, too. You have a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. Tan ǀ 39 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to you. Cbsite (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your block log is quite telling. You should drop this and move on. Kevin (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI

I was not satisfied with the way I presented my part of the story. Here again for the record, I am giving a full picture of the story. The content was not added by me, I just defended its inclusion. Here is the first time it appeared (case 1 and case2). Following is the content in dispute.

"A copy of the book was found in the home of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist shooter Jim David Adkisson.ref1 and ref2."

The content cites two references one, a original "affidavit in support of search warrant" submitted by investigator Steven Still. You could find the title of the books in his handwriting in the last page.

Reference 2 is a newspaper Knoxnews (a reliable source) which picked up the story and reported the same.

Let me point out some facts and you can make your own judgement. The title of the books are Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. This is the killer in his own words "During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years."

I have to be fair to point out that it is not yet established whether the killer has ever read these books and the responsibility of the books in his actions. Because of that, all that was included in the article (like mentioned above) was that those books were found in his home.

Additionally, an important instance which convinced me to support inclusion was when an annonymous IP address in the talk page pointed similar circumstances in wikipedia articles such as The Turner Diaries and The Catcher in the Rye. Now having presented the full picture, I am not going to insist on the inclusion but i thought I make sure that issues are not misunderstood. Docku^Hi 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in editing of Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. The user CENSEI is removing a well sourced edit referenced to this article. I reverted the edit explaining that WP:BLP can not be invoked for article on books. He reverted them again and the edit summary he provided was "I can and I have". Please have a look at these links for reference.1 2. Thanks. Docku^Hi 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all content which concerns living people; the nature of the article's subject is not relevant. CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too. CIreland (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you pls cite and explain the policies it has problem with??? Docku^Hi 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that Book X was found in the house of notorious blaggard Y is doubly problematic. On the one hand, it serves to imply that the book is dubious by association. On the other hand, it also implies that Y is an adherent of the ideas in the book. Both ways round, this is problematic with regard to neutral point of view, original research and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To the extent that it implies something about a living person, WP:BLP is thus also relevant. CIreland (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you'll find it's blackguard. But I agree wholeheartedly. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And so you might find blaggard informative, too. - Dravecky (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That article qualifies for a template:

Sadly the problem is the book as much as the article... Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point in the removal of this is that it does seem to be guilt by association, and the worst part is that its Wikipedia editors making the association, not a reliable source. 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CENSEI (talk • contribs)

CIreland, you have just summed up my on-going battle. I pointed out that WP:BLP applies, particularly since the book consists of the authors opinions and the author is living. Further, wp:blp points out that guilt by association should be avoided and that a clear demonstration of relevance should exist. This isn't a case of where the murderer quoted the book, it was merely present in his home. There isn't even evidence that he has read it, nor anything in the book that advocates violence as a means of political change in the US. The only thing anyone has claimed as "evidence" is that the title calls it a "war of liberty". Yet none of those same editors would claim the "war on poverty" or the "war on illiteracy" advocate violence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial vanity spammer

• Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage)
• Ashok rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekbal anuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage), this diff and so on)
• Prem chand pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem C. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem Chand Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), flagged by William Connolley, whose field it is, as fundamentally unverifiable as written.

This individual has now reached the point where his serial vanity spamming is actively counterproductive, obscuring whatever notability may attach to the subjects he uses as coatracks on which to hang his resume and that of his family members. The Banerjee center is, according to Benmjiboi, being "targeted by removal of sourced content", but actually that was William checking the sources and removing bogus ones; this individual has manipulated sources to the point of outright falsification, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot attack

Resolved

 – all accounts blocked

Semi-retired in my case doesn't mean I won't log on and check things once in a while. The user creation log is being bombarded by random character usernames which in turn are creating others. One in particular is adding cleanup notices to random articles at lightning pace. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like they've been clobbered. See you 'round sometimes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for letting us know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please be add more "semi" to your "retired" status. We need more good editors. Chillum 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See related IP User talk:82.5.162.85. Maybe someone should run a CU and do a rangeblock... Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't get to reverting all the edits by Special:Contributions/82.5.162.85. Can somebody else go through the list? I tackled the bottom few, but have to get back to my RL job. DeFaultRyan (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all done now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• When will vandals learn that we can undo vandalism easier than they can create it? Chillum 17:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some will never learn. I've seen vandals get blocked, reset their router, create a new account, open ten tabs then vandalise like mad for about a min. I block the account, go to their contributions list, rollback everything, and delete thier userpage. Takes me seconds to do, takes them minutes, It's kind of unfair really. We should give them 10 minutes headstart ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfair ehh? That sounds like about how it should be. Let them spend minutes for what it takes us seconds to undo. The world has so many childish people, it is only to be expected that we get our fair share. Chillum 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we could give them a head start to even the odds. To be sporting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College

I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on Bramson ORT College since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Spam blacklist. Specifically, on m:Spam blacklist. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. Sasquatch t|c 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{db-copyvio}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by User:Alansohn. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the WP:COPYVIO claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Wikipedia, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per WP:COPYVIO, a revert to a previous version should only be done if "all [emphasis in original] of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Wikipedia. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the Bramson ORT College article is not evidence of a WP:COPYVIO. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per WP:EL. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from here, I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bzuk is WP:OWNing Howard Hughes

User:Bzuk feels that cite templates are useless and because he/she has majority he/she knows what's beset. See here: [45] The user has also been warned with {{uw-delete1}} and {{uw-own}}. Can someone remind him of MoS (cite templates are preferred}} and make him/her aware of WP policies especially WP:OWN. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

El Greco began an edit war. He was asked to stop the disruption. My reply is no one is owning the article. Cite templates are neither preferred nor recommended; editing can be done by anyone. Another editor changed all the recent edits to his style, I changed them back to another style and made corrections. This editor continued to template me after I asked him or her to stop. FWiW I posted to his talk page, he templated me. Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Ah no, you edits reverted another users contributions that were bringing the article up to par, that's WP:OWN. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the edits made were about citations and references, you reverted everything, errors included. The article is being edited, you treated this as a case of vandalism, using reversion. Edits were corrected not reverted. You revert only when there is vandalism involved and then you treated me like the vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

No I didn't treat it as vandalism I treated it as a user trying to institute his/her will on the article page. By undoing good-faith edits by User:Emerson7 Why did you undo his edits? Was he vandalizing? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, who is this User to tell enough with warning him of WP:OWN: [46]. If you breach it, you will get warned. Note the previous revert (archive) on User:Bzuk's talk page [47] and [48]????? Obviously it would be nice to talk on his talk page, but they vanish. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits were not reverted, they were corrected. There were simple errors made throughout the entire article in spelling and punctuation. The cites were established throughout the entire article in one style, I followed that style, especially when the new edits introduced ISO dating which was not consistent with the date format being used, and since the template can't easily change to that date format, it had to be rewritten with no changes made to the actual information as I used the exact wording that was used by the earlier editor. There were also errors in the reference section that I also corrected. You simply reverted all the changes not looking at anything that was done. I never change other editor's work arbitrarily but that wasn't they way you operated, you instead immediately reverted, claiming that MoS was being at stake. Then you went after me in templating me as a vandal. FWiW, I left you messages on your talk page, you left me warnings and vandalism templates. Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Oh right. I posted a delete notice and an own notice on your talk page, which you should make yourself familiar with them, which you then fully deleted, for the sake of what, explain that? Another user notifies you by using WP standard warning template and you revert and then act like the boss on that user's talk page, yeah that's being WP:CIVIL alright. Have I reverted your edits on my talk page? User:Emerson7 simply went and changed all the bare refs to cite web/news, etc. as is done in many other articles and even by bots, but what do you do? You claim WP:OWN entirely revert his edits, and not even bother to explain in an inconspicuous edit summary. And then when I undo you edit to change them back you get all defensive and state: "Read the edit history of the article; I am the primary editor, the other editor changed the style of my edits to his preference." If that's not a WP:OWN violation I don't know what is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think these guys will sit here talking to each other before they notice no one else is joinig in because they can't get a word in edgewise? --barneca (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD, guys. Bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, go to ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI... I have set up a section on the talk page just for you: Talk:Howard Hughes#Citation style. If discussion doesn't work out, check out WP:DR. Problem solved, quite Solomon-like I think. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to explain the reason for the edit in the edit summary and then sent you a note as you had concerns, your reaction was to template me with vandal tags which is not conducive to discussion. Read the edit history, the edits made introduced some correct changes but also introduced errors in consistency by using ISO dating which is inherent in a cite template. I tried to rewrite the template but it didn't work, and that is why the citations were written out in "scratch" cataloging to preserve the exact wording. No edits were reverted, they were changed, that is the difference. I do not revert edits unless there is a clear case of vandalism. I was about to leave the edits as is but then noted that there were tiny errors throughout the entire passage and changed these, then made it all consistent. I began the revision of this article when it underwent attacks, at that time, due to the numerous editors involved, a style was selected that was established by the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group for consistency. Although Howard Hughes is an international figure with many different interests, the project style that was used was a consistent one. Cite templates are rife with small errors and in correcting the ISO dating, it was not possible to change the date style to meet the standard already in the article, so it was rewritten not reverted. All the information that was presented earlier was retained and put back in the same manner that the cite template would have presented it. You are reading something into this article revision that just isn't there. I am not a vandal, I do not change edits arbitrarily and I do not like being treated like a vandal. FWiW, Sorry for even getting involved in this discourse, it is illogical and idiotic of me to get baited like this. Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

They are not vandal tags. They are warning tags, understand that. If you want vandal tags go here: {{uw-vandalism}}. Well then take up your comments about the cite templates on their talk page. And if you're going to refuse to use a cite template because of bad date formatting, that's a weak reason and/or excuse. I've never seen anyone revert a user's edits for replacing bare refs with cite templates. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What you have here is a content/style dispute, with civility and Wikiquette overtones. As far as I can tell, neither of you has asked for any administrator action and I can think of none that would be necessary. WP:AN is not a step in dispute resolution and I would advise both of you to go to WP:DR like barneca suggested. Alternatively, you can keep going along the road you're going until you do need admin action, which will probably end up falling on both of you. (Incidentally, I would advise El Greco to read WP:DTTR, while I also advise Bzuk to realise that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook

Resolved

According to Help:Moving a page, if there is an issue with moving an article over a redirect page, then an administrator should be contacted, which is what I'm doing now. Anyway, I'm attempting to move Aaron Cook (baseball) back to its original form of just Aaron Cook (and then add proper disambig tags afterwards), but it appears as if Aaron Cook is simply a redirect page to Aaron Cook (taekwondo athlete), which was part of a move that I previously made. I probably made a mistake, which is why I'm obviously seeking admin help. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook has been deleted, so you should be good to go. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to view a deleted article

Resolved

could someone here enable me to view the deleted article "List of Deus Ex machina examples" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deus_ex_machina_examples_%282nd_nomination%29

--Ted-m (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it--I just restored the article for review >.< --jonny-mt 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redeleted it under both CSD G1/A1 and common sense. We don't maintain blank pages in articlespace so non-admins can casually look over the history. If someone wants the content they can have it emailed to them. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea when they have e-mail enabled--when they don't, it's kind of difficult. Leaving a blank, orphaned page in userspace for a short while seemed like a good compromise, but if you're in a rush, then you're in a rush! --jonny-mt 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange set of sockpuppets

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Undercovergals, seems to have an obsession with feet, which rings a bell somehow. Anybody know of a sockpuppeteer that fits that profile? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Seasideplace had an obsession with bare feet, but it doesn't quite fit. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, probably who I'm thinking of. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The walrus vandal

Resolved. Blocked by Tanthalas39. Keegan^talk 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They're now using Walrusman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which first vandalized the article back in January and never got a vandalism warning. Corvus cornix_talk 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost AfD

Resolved

 – mandatory short wikibreak/nap

Can anyone find the log that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts is currently in? I relisted it, then went to comment it out of the old log and add it to the new one - and I can't find it. It shows that it started on July 30, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old it's listed under the 29th... and I can't find it in either. Maybe I'm too tired. Tan ǀ 39 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it is currently #3 on the 29th listing, but of course that may change. It occurred to me that maybe it just didn't get listed in the logs and DumBot dropped the ball... but then why would it be listed on /old at all? Weird... Tan ǀ 39 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it, I'm too tired. See y'all in the morning ;-) Tan ǀ 39 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Abusive User: Noclador, his impunity and the unacknowledgement of his actions

I have waited this long to raise this here because I was allowing the due process of the wrongful sockpuppetry accusations and WQA concerning myself to transpire. I have been left disappointed at the end of it (conclusion here) .

Noclador conducted a sockpuppetry investigation on behalf of Wikepidia and I was one of the accused. During the process I was subject to a myriad of personal attacks, flippant comments and manipulative character assassinations. This included the completely misrepresentative action of pulling together portions of statements from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). There selective use of “false/manipulated evidence” to incriminate me from a page that also had information that would contribute to prove my innocence. I have presened all the details at this link. This includes a summary of all the abuses and further links to all relevant pages.

Moreover I was initially not directed to the correct evidence pages nor was I notified of a later, related, ANI compliant. It was categorically shown that I was not a sock (at link & link), yet there was no apology, nor any acknowledgment for the mistake.

It now cannot be disputed that his evidence presented against me was poorly researched. It can also be speculated that there existed some kind of personal vendetta on the part of Noclador. At the evidence link I have detailed how several of my contributions were deleted by Noclador (some under the pretext of claimed vandalism), only to be undone by others. Even over the last few days he has deleted my cited contributions (from a couple of months ago) along with another editor’s recent addition (compare this and this this; I have interjected with thisand this ) and claimed it to be non-consensus!! The aim appears to be to target the other editor’s content, but in light of Noclador’s behaviour towards me I see this as a convenient attempt to remove some of my citations. After all, he omits me (the main driver of the subsection, modified from an earlier attempt to include verifiable information) when he lists other editors as having made the consensus contributions.

Furthermore, others involved in the investigation were prepared to overlook the abuses by Noclador and impinge me for making personal attacks (plural). This is a baseless claim because the only thing I said was that Noclador was lying and manipulative (which can be (and has been - at the evidence link) demonstrated to be an understatement). I certainly do not claim perfection on my part, however, this is, quite frankly, a glaring double standard.

I asked for several things during the WQA discussion and as a sign of good faith modified the statement on my talk page to not include mention of the abuses that were carried out by my “accuser”. I received nothing. (See the two links, as mentioned above: here and here) So I see this as another one sided outcome. But I appreciate and respect the efforts of those who tried to mitigated the situation - they have been forthright.

Given that Noclador has been able to flout Wikipedia rules and guidelines with respect to his conduct, and has received no warning or sanction, then there is no reason for anyone else not to be allowed to do the same. After all, why should some of us have to follow the rules and live up to the Wikipedia ethos when others do not?

Romaioi (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce#Notes

There seems to be an error in formatting here. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – am I missing something? – iridescent 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone else rv the vandalism here. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass pointy AfD noms

Could a bored admin go through Sceptre's contribs and close the dozens of AfD nominations he's just made. He's nominated dozens of criticism/controversies pages for the simple fact that the word criticism/controversies is in the name. I think we all know the proper forum for these debates is the article talk page and a little help from WP:RM. I'm out the door in 15 mins and don't have the time. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They're not pointy at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the AfDs were nominated in good faith. People may find them misjudged, but they are not that obviously and grossly misjudged to warrant a speedy close, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointy or not, they're likely to WP:SNOW in a day or two. I believe consensus is against you here, Spectre. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of rollback

I have removed Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s rollback for abuse of the function at [49] and notified him. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A regretable action, but one I have to fully endorse. Pedro :  Chat  15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good call. His explanation that removal of speedy tags should only be done by administrators is wrong and even more so when Sceptre had made such a weird call. Why couldn't he have just removed the parts he saw as an attack? Seriously though,a complete abuse of rollback and Sceptre should have known better. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would require deletion of the whole article. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I made a mistake in assuming {{drmspeedy1}} applied to all users. The rollback and AIV progressed from there. What the hell happened to AGF? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume good faith when you've been acting like a dick for the past week. Cut it out now or you're going to be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Main thread is here - best to keep this in one place I think. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)