Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

Minutes after I add Category:Kurdish inhabited region to a half dozen articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], User:Cool Cat nominates the category for deletion.

This is confusing, because Cool Cat contacted me via IRC to get me to create just such a category. Unless I'm misrembering (I _am_ getting old, you know ;-) this. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? It seems that his objection is not in the category's existence but in its use. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8#Category:Kurdish inhabited region

User:Cool Cat has a history of #POV editing, and has been enjoined from disruptively editing articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds.

He has vociferously sought the deletion of all categories related to Kurds:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 17#Category:Kurdistan
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3#Category:Kurdistan

plus the current votes:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 30#Category:Kurdish provinces
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Kurdish cities

During the second CFD for Category:Kurdistan he stated: I dont care about this vote at all. I have no reason to keep nonsense like this on wikipedia, I will eventualy get it deleted, watch me.

Category:Kurdish inhabited region was created by User:Ed Poor as part of discussion on Category talk:Kurdistan where User:Cool Cat has been adamantly opposed to all efforts to establish consensus on usage of this category. User:Francs2000, whom User:Cool Cat asked to comment, ended up telling him that you need to change your attitude.

I agree, he needs to change his attitude. --Moby 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree entirely with Moby's summary. Cool Cat's disruptions do it hard to write articles about anythings related to Kurds. And it is indeed not an extenuating circumstance that user themselve stated, as quoted above, that they intended to sabotage the Category:Kurdistan, as it during the debate for its deletion was clear that it would stay. I hope some action will be taken, since the alternative seems to be continuing of disruptive edit wars. Bertilvidet 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom verdict which you've posted above says that he should be blocked for up to 3 days if he engages edits disruptively in Kurdish related areas. We've got several people saying he has done so, therefore I block 2 days. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position here, Cool Cat invited me into the discussion claiming that he was having POV issues with Kurdistan related articles, implying that he had received death threats from other users as a result of the discussion getting heated (see here). I got involved and made some progress with the other users in getting some agreement over the inclusion of Category:Kurdistan in articles, and this I believe has led to some of the sub-categories such as those listed above being created. I have since stepped back a bit due largely to real life events. I will say that although Cool Cat had some valid points in his arguements against the inclusion of material in articles about the disputed region, the way he went about making his point was unnecessarily aggressive, in my opinion. I also stand by telling him that he needs to change his opinion, after he stated (and I paraphrase) that he would be unable to negotiate a consensus on certain subject areas. -- Francs2000 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the comments you're referring to as death threats were targeting you (for reasons I have no clue about) and had nothing to do with User:Cool Cat or anyone else involved in the Kurdish categorization discussions; I certainly made no such threats. And thanks for your comment! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. As Cool Cat's mentor I'm banning him from editing articles, templates and categories related to the kurds. He may still edit related discussion pages. This ban is initially to run for one week, to be made permanent subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ban includes creation or nomination for deletion. See the announcement on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this is to be kept it should be called Kurdish inhabited regions as per the naming policy to use plurals in categories. How long was this ban on Kurdish related articles for Coolcat? (Mgm - not logged in) - 131.211.210.16 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of plural makes sense to me, I'll suggest it on the CFD. Thanks! --Moby 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of a message I posted to Tony Sidaway:

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (which is in my opinion even more disruptive -- bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The nomination of Category:Kurdish inhabited region was the action that prompted me to start this discussion here, but the disruption has been on-going on pages such as Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey for some time. He has removed Category:Kurdistan from many article (awhile ago...) and has been rather clear about his intent to oppose all efforts at categorizing Kurdish articles. Given his history, I would think a ban on Kurdish-related editing an apt remedy. An hour ago I left a note on his talk page and he screamed at me. I don't see him as willing to work with others on this subject. --Moby 10:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentors I see it as our main jobs to keep Cool_Cat (talk · contribs) editing effectively and to avoid another rendezvous with the arbitration committee. As always, it is not Cool Cat's judgement on content that is in question but the way in which he interacts with others on some subjects. Yesterday he was blocked for forty-eight hours by Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a result of the complaint by Moby_Dick (talk · contribs). In Lethe's view, Cool Cat has edited disruptively on the subject of the Kurds so arbitration remedy 5 is invoked.

This isn't the first time since the arbitration that we've had trouble with Cool Cat over Kurds. From early March he has made some unconstructive AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

and some unconstructive comments on others:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=44203127

There is an ongoing concern, and I think a valid one, that Cool Cat permits his edits on such issues to be influenced too strongly by his sympathies with Turkish nationalism. He repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia.

Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so.

It is for this reason that I announced the one-week ban.

However, User:MacGyverMagic is also one of Cool Cat's mentors, and although in this case I have acted alone I do not intend to take actions with which any of my fellow mentors disagree.

In view of MacGyverMagic's opposition, I rescind the ban pending further discussion. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting these other activities; the scope of the issue is greater than I was aware (and I now understand the restaurant references).

While I disagree with User:Cool Cat's judgment on many of the Kurd-issues here, it is his attitude that is most troublesome. In his response below I see no sign that he sees any validity to the objections others have raised -- he appears to be simply digging in his heels. If no action is taken on this issue, what's to stop him from continuing to obstruct efforts involving Kurds in the future? Presumably this whole incident will have been noted by a variety of people, but I don't expect many to involve themselves in the issue (which I would welcome).

I understand that banning someone is a serious step and should not be taken lightly. I will avoid editing any of the Kurd articles and categories against consensus. If a clear direction on an appropriate course to take on Kurdish categorization comes out of this whole dispute I'll be pleased. --Moby 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Batman, Turkey

A review of the editing on Batman, Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the last two months will reveal that User:Cool Cat has edit warred and generally disrupted all efforts by a number of editors, including myself. He has repeatedly removed categories related to Kurds, and sources and statements about Kurds, and he has been joined by anons that make the same redactions that he does. At the moment the article is protected due to an edit war (that I was not involved in) over the addition of a paragraph about the killing of a Kurdish child by Turkish Security Forces (I did add the paragraph and a source). While it was anons that edit warred with various users, it was User:Cool Cat that argued on the talk page against the inclusion of the paragraph . --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And you have declared the place predominantly kurdish when neither a census nor any other reliable source to base this on is avalible. You have also declared many other cities predominatly kurdish.

My 'disruption' is explaining that a census was not held even though the BBC claims the place is predominantly kuridsh (in a random news coverage)

--Cat out 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding that incident, if I recall correctly davenbelle had it on his userpage... Something about a "bullet riddled child". Admins can check the delet history. --Cat out 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think adding a cunk of 'sensative information' irrelevant to the topic covered is most certainly not in the best interest of wikipedia. It only leads to a revert war as we can observe. --Cat out 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be recalling some other "bullet riddled child" -- Fatih Tekin was killed recently.

According to the EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence, on March 30, 2006, Fatih Tekin, a 3 year old boy, was shot and killed by Turkish Security forces during a police raid on a civilian house in Batman during a series of violent clashes in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.EU-Turkey Civic Commission Submission on Recent Violence on khrp.org

--Moby 06:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Has to be a coincidence... Now what did I say about coincidences...

How does this "bullet riddled child" expand the article? How does it give the reader a better understanding of the city? As unfortunate and tragic the boys death is, wikipedia is not a memorial and the incident has no significance to the city to be on the article. It might have been an interesting wikinews article, though I am not even certain of that. It is equaly irrelevant to talk about that kurdish boy pkk shot and killed or that teacher that died due to a heart attack.

Recently two little girls were abducted, raped, and murdered in texas (IIRC). No referance to the incident is made in the article about the region as it shouldn't.

--Cat out 08:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's response to all of this

It is quite pathetic when one has to defend himself to his mentor... I'll list the articles, categories, and templates I have placed for deletion below. I am going to include ones Tony Sidaway did not include as well.

I'd like to point out the reason why we do not do polls for deletion. All deletion processes are a concensus gathering process. However on occasions disruptive behaviour such as Vote Stacking do happen.

Hence I will explain all of the deletion votes I started or participated. I will try to be brief for all of them.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan
  • Article was originaly talking about two countries that have supposively existed. One only lasted 2 years while another lasted less than 6 months. The article(s) barely occupy a paragraph and had two sections I believe.
  • Article at a point was comparing the british goverment with saddam as "the british goverment gassed the kurds".
  • I was in contact with Tony on IRC about this deletion, I do not recall the details but he did not say or imply such a deletion would be disruptive.
  • During the vfd the articles quality was improved sligtly
  • Perhaps article is much suitable to be a section on an article with the title "Modern History of the Kurds" as article cant grow much even when inflated with lists of cabinate members.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykonos (restaurant)
  • When I placed this article up for deleteion it was talking about an insignificant restourant which two kurds supposively had been shot. At the time the article barely could be considered a stub. After the deletion article was slightly inproved and renamed. It became a historicaly significant incident and hence became article worthy as an incident rather than info about the restourant.
  • I discussed the possible afd of this article with Tony Sidaway on IRC and he said it was pretty useless and that he said it wouldnt probably survive a deletion.
  • The result of my Afd is a better article with a better title.
  • This article should be a section at "Modern history of the Kurds" as article is too short and cant grow as the incident was quite minor and all details have been presented.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan
  • Other editors, one being Gruntness feels this article exists soely as a pov fork. Syrian Kurdistan was deleted for that reason
  • There was a case of vote stacking over 14 people were notified of this afd of which all but one voted favorably to the advertisier (user:Bertilvidet) with keep. My complaint about a vote stacking generated milimal response and no action.
  • Article currently gives a short intoduction to kurdish history which is a copy of History of the Kurds and a number of articles. Kurdistan is not oversized and we do have a Kurds in Turkey if we are to talk about the kurds. We can talk about Kurdish nationalism in its own article.
  • If we had a sensable deletion process this article would have been deleted. If you think otherwise please provide a rationale at what purpose does this article with pov titile, Turkish Kurdistan, serve that cant be achieved through Kurds in Turkey and Kurdish nationalism.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic origins of the Kurds
  • It is a strange article. I believe this article is nothing but pusedo science and promotes racisim. When I nominated this article for deleteion there was a VERY LARGE dna picture and it was less than neutral. it might be a nice addition to a section under Kurdish people. BUT etnicity is a cultural concept not genetic. Genetic would be race and last time I checked Kurds were just an ethnic minority.
• Category:Kurdish terrorists
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe Abdullah Ocalan is a Kurdish terrorist. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Category:PKK victims
  • I got this category speedy deleted.
  • I personaly believe PKK is a Terrorist organisation and anybody they killed is a victim. Hence my nomination is in conflict with my personal views.
• Template:Kurd-politician-stub ^(vote)
  • I participated in this vote expressing why the stub category is pov. Stub types have very explicit guidelines.
  • I'd like to point out comments of some of the people voting keep... They are by far intruguing
  • I have not initiated this deletion
  • The "unless we consider kurdish a nationality and kurdistan a country which would be pov not shared by international treaties" comment tony highlighted is in parallel with stub guidelines.
    • While a Category:Kurdish politicians may be approporate. I would however prefer a categorisation similar to the format politicians in United States is covered such as Category:African American politicians. Tagging a Kurd in Iraq and Turkey under the same category would be problematic and confusing. However I do not intend to do anything about it as my block is proof wikipedia is not worth my devotion anymore.
• Template:Kurdistan-politician-stub
  • Speedy deleted as per vote mentioned above.
  • User:Retau created this
• Template:Kurdistan-bio-stub ^(vote)
  • Probably will be deleted as a back log as per stub sorting practice.
  • User:Retau created this
• Category:Kurdish provinces ^(vote) and Category:Kurdish cities ^(vote)
  • We do not categorise provinces, cities, or other landmarks based on ethnicity. I do not see why kurds are treated diferently from rest of wikipedia.
  • If demographic information about an ethnicity is avalible it can be presented in an article.
  • Who determines which article fits in these category or not? Kurdistan does not have defined borders nor are there any reliable data on Kurdish population.
  • Categories are navigation aids. The basis of such categories for provinces and cities is based on "who owns the place". Categories are not tools for territory grab. We do not tag every province and city in mainland china under Category:Taiwan just because the goverment claims it. Kurds do not even have a country to claim territory from.
  • User:Retau created both of the categories
  • See User:El_C's comment about User:Retau on the next section.
• Category:Kurdish inhabited region ^(vote)
  • Originaly intended to be a comprimise to Category:Kurdistan. I requested its creation from user:Ed Poor via email and/or irc.
  • I later changed my mind as categorising based on ethnicity still is a poor practice. No example of ethnic tagging exists in articles like New York or California.
  • It is more problematic as we do not have any reliable statistics regarding the Kurds. We do not know how many kurds there are let alone know what fraction of the population they occupy as no census about ethnicity was EVER held in the past 7 decades at least to my knowlege.
• Categories I haven't touched nor intend to touch Category:Kurdish people, Category:History of the Kurds, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Kurdish politicians, Category:Kurdish writers,... List goes on I am well aware of many other categories, articles, and templates related to the kurds. So I am definaltly not trying to delete everything related to kurds at random.
• My actions are infact reactions to mass creation of many contraversial categories all only exist soley to grab territory. I also raise concerns about tiny articles that have no way of growing. None of my actions have "distupted" the articles in question unless you consider improvement as disruption.

--Cat out 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On at least one matter of fact I must correct Cool Cat. He and I discussed the article Mykonos (restaurant) and I edited to add a reference from a Time article. I told him at 2007 UTC on March 1, 2006, that, as with all deletion candidates I edit, "I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted." I had told him at 2000, "the case is obviously notable. It led to an international incident" -Tony Sidaway 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actualy interprted that as the article has a chance to survive as much as a snowball in hell. In any case my nomination was for a non-notable restourant. Overal the nomination improved the article, not disrupt. For instance it was renamed as it was not about this random restourant. --Cat out 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see in retrospect that my wording was unclear. I can see how this unintentionally misled you on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I do however owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. I can also finaly understand why you kinda acted wierdly (from my perspective) at the time. Having said that, I am curious on what you think of the evidence I presented below? --Cat out 22:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, User:Cool Cat has responded here while blocked [7][8]. His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him. --Moby 09:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would just like to say that I support Cool Cat on this matter. The Kurdish categories were deleted before by nominations because of the vagueness of the borders of the proposed "Kurdistan" region - which had lead to edit wars in the past, they were created again by the User:Retau (Who may be a sockpuppet of User:Xebat according to CheckUser [9] - who was banned recently for a year according to the Aucaman ArbCom [10]). I believe User:Moby Dick has turned this simple matter to something very personal which I regret to say that will not help the matter. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [11] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [12] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [13], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [14] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [15] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [16]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[17], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.

The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [18] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [19] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:

Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"

Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."

I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.

There certainly is a problem here.

At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [20], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [21], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.

I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, look who showed up. Yes, I opposed your RFA -- what were you thinking, with blocks just last week?

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

I do thank you for your praise of some of my edits; hope you don't take offence -- In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is a wonderful book.

Also, you did comment on the matter involving User:Cool Cat and Kurds -- remember now?

--Moby 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (who is not a troll, thank you)

You sound just like a pouty child trying to lie his out of a fix by pretending it's all Cool Cat's fault. Give it up. I'm not impressed. -Zero^Talk 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While I believe that CoolCat hasn't looked especially open to compromise, it is unfair to declare that all of these actions are "disruptive" - it is unfortunate that he changed his mind about a compromise category but changing your mind should always be allowed. There is no general consensus about ethnic-geography categories. Indeed, these Kurdish examples seem to be the sole example of the type; presumably because most people find the idea of an ill-defined ethnic-geography category a bad idea. I am open to the idea if implemented properly, but the three ethnic-geography categories CoolCat has nominated were all, quite simply, dire. They had POV issues. They were poorly defined. The most recent one even had a grammatically incorrect name! I do not believe it is disruptive to nominate for deletion something that, in the reasonable opinions of many well-respected Wikipedians (and there are many who agreed with CoolCat - see the votes), does not belong on Wikipedia. CoolCat has not been mass-deleting Kurdish-related articles. He has not been attempting deletions of neutral, generally accepted, Kurdish categories. He has made a contentious attempt to expunge ethnic-geography cross-over categories, but these have widespread opposition from many sources so I don't think that it is genuinely disruptive. Nobody should be forced to compromise on the issue of ethnic-geography categories, since many Wikipedians reasonably disagree strongly with their creation - failure to agree on a compromise isn't necessarily a sign of disruption if you honestly believe (especially with something as "binary" in nature as a category) that something is a harmful or damaging idea. The fact that many of his nominations were speedied is an indication that he isn't being entirely disruptive, perhaps the restaurant and genetics AfDs were the closest to that mark. The thing that seems to be the real problem is that CoolCat isn't making a secret of his personal views. While sometimes he edits in a way that shows he is actually being a "Good Wikipedian" and going against personal preference in the interests of the encyclopedia (e.g. with the Kurdish terrorist category) when he is making a positive, useful contribution that seems "in tune" with his views, he looks like a disruptive POV-monger. Which in turn makes people vote against him unthinkingly... It would be better, perhaps, if he kept some of these topics at arm's length and merely brought these instances to the attention of Wikipedians known to be neutral on the Kurdistan question, to allow them to decide whether to make a deletion request or not. I simply can not believe that anybody would have cut any slack to Category:Hispanic inhabited region for instance: it would have been wiped off the face of the 'pedia without any second thoughts; however, the fact that it is CoolCat and the Kurds has meant that this category has a surprising number of keep votes. However, whether CoolCat wants to take this degree of extra care (and restrict his editing accordingly) in cases which are fundamentally non-disruptive should really be for CoolCat to decide, not any of us. TheGrappler 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

1. User:Moby Dick has a total of 344 edits as of the preparation of this report.
   • I'd normaly consider him to be new to wikipedia as he has been a wikipedian since december. This alone is not a problem though.
   • User:Davenbelle's last edit was on 03:20, 6 December 2005, User:Moby Dick made his first edit on 01:29, 23 December 2005
2. On 03:02, 26 January 2006 users makes his first edit into the wikipedia namespace and it is opposing my RfA [22]
   • He seems to have located my RfA conviniantly. It his his 84th edit. He also makes a very professional edit by incrementing the oppose counter. Its something often oldies fail to notice
   • We have not edited any articles in common meaning he did not know me at all.
   • He participated in a total of 2 RfA aside from my own. One for Megaman Zero (as oppose) and another for Khoikhoi (support). Both are figures I know. He is definately not a frequent voter.
   • User:Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
     • One of these RfAs were filed by MegamanZero
     • User:Davenbelle managed to oppose it before the nominator, megaman zero, could support
3. On 07:57, 25 February 2006 MobyDick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page [23]
   • Long ago, on 20:05, 2 January 2006, User:Megaman Zero complained about User:Davenbelles behaviour on User:Davenbelles talk page. [24]
   • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap. It is strange to say the least.
   • User:Davenbelle gave User:Megaman_Zero the award.
   • This incident had made its way to the ANB. This is mobydicks first post to the ANB [25]
4. On 07:21, 10 March 2006, Moby Dick informs user:Aucaman about my RfAr [26]
   • It is possible that he could have learnt about the existance of the RfAr from my 3rd rfa nomination as I have mentioned it there. However a key question is why did he tell this to Aucaman. He has no edits in comon with Aucaman. Nor was he involved with anything related to the kurds.
   • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [27] [28]
5. On 02:41, 11 March 2006 [29] [30] user participated in his first deletion votes, both were initiated by Megaman Zero
6. On 05:09, 11 March 2006 this user oposed the copy vio nomination I made [31]
   • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
   • Davnbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practicaly opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entier contribution.
7. On 05:58, 11 March 2006 [32] user opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
   • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
8. On 02:51, 13 March 2006 [33] user got involved with an article about kurds for the first time on Batman, Turkey article. He has repetively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on
   • user:Bertilvidet is one other party desperately working to force "Kurdish dominance" to the lead.
   • Davenbelle also prefered to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [34] and [35]
9. On 02:20, 1 May 2006 user created the KHRP redirect. [36]
   • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at [37] you will see Davenbelle had initiated the article redirect leads to.

These are the coincidences I have found on frist sight. There are of course other cases I can post but I want to keep my report brief.

Among 6,899,557 many articles and 48,148,095 number of users, MobyDick's edits intersect with Davenbelle on more than one ocasion. Would make a great statistics research paper.

I wont come up with conclusions but I find the material I just posted very interesting.

--Cat out 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I actually liked this evidence gathering. Interesting indeed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Telex 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too long, indeed -- however I felt obliged to read it. User:Cool Cat is making this false allegation in order to divert attention from the issue of his behavior and, it would seem, in order to entangle me in his arbitration case. It is also not the first time has has made this sort of claim: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cool Cat. While the factual details -- who has edited what, for example -- of his accusation appear to be accurate (I've not checked), his spin and interpretation are entirely self-serving.

I believe I first encountered User:Cool Cat on the first CFD of Category:Kurdistan and did not like his obvious intent of limiting Kurdish content on Wikipedia. I have used Wikipedia as a reference for years and its greatest problem is inconsistent accuracy of information and it is the behavior of editors such as User:Cool Cat that is responsible for this.

User:Cool Cat's implied accusation (which he makes explicit here) can easily be explained by the fact that articles and users he refers to are all related; they involve Kurds or they involve him. He expresses concern that my edits are too "professional" for one so "new" -- as if this were the only wiki in the world.

I would add again that he does not appear to be interested seeking a consensus. He efforts here only serve to make the editing environment hostile.

--Moby 10:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting argument. What wiki do you normaly work for? Tonikaku, I may have been wrong on Amask's case but that has nothing to do with your case. Amask has participated in only two votes and one or two articles. Since the nonsense I had to deal with davenbelle, I had been somewhat jumpy... Lets consider your statistics.

• You have participated in a total of 3 rfas, the first one you have ever voted was my rfa and you voted oppose, just like davenbelle. After Coincidentaly the other two rfas are people who I know about. Of that MegamanZero is the person that told Davenbelle to stop stalking (See User Talk:Davenbelle). The other RfA you participated was for Khoikhoi who at the time in dispute with me. Lets call all that circumstential evidence and discard them.
• You have participated in a total of 8 deletion votes. 5 of them opposing me, 2 of them opposing megamanzero. So thats 7 out of 8 deletion votes we have in common. Again lets call that circumstential evidence and discard it.
• There is this hole case of you and megaman zero. You were complaining about something megaman zero recieved from davenbelle. MegamanZero at a point modifed the bycycle award to an exceptional newbie award long ago at 10:50, 18 January 2006. I Had to dig through the userpage history to discover the actual modification of the award and I knew what I was looking for.
  1. So we have an award given to MegamanZero by davenbelle.
  2. We have MegamanZero warning davenbelle to stop stalking me on a much later date. (a motive for davenbelle to seek "revenge") as MegamanZero and I had been close and still are close.
  3. We have megaman zero modifying the given award in 12 january (hey he can its his userpage)
  4. We have you detecting and "correcting" it on 25 february.
  5. We know you never met megamanzero on any article, meaning you didnt know him.

  So among 48,148,095 registered users, you found Megaman Zero at random. You also discovered "forgery" of an award on his userpage which required me to load a dozen diffs even though I knew what I was looking for.

• You make edits such as this or this. While to an untrained eye it is a simple vandalism reversion. Davenbelle was also very interested in the contravercy surrounding the Southeastern Anatolia Project ^([38]), an article I mostly wrote. Among 6,899,557 we meet on the same article as davenbelle edited on the same section.
• We also have you removing/objecting a copyright issue I posted concerning a letter and the Armenian Genocide [39]. It spikes my curiosity how on earth have you noticed that post? And if you are so concerned about copyrights why havent you ever commmented on another copyright issue?
• I noticed recently. So you have randomly discovered an edit of mine and since it is a redirect that is among 4,190,567 pages. You have reverted an edit of mine from 04:20, 12 April 2006.

You are complaining about me creating a hostile enviorment... How productive is you complaining about megaman zeros award? How would you describe your attitude?

Coincidences? Sure. A striking question is why would a user who had only edited articles about the novel featuring the whale Moby Dick suddenly start to edit articles related to Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey practicaly opposing me on every opertunity?

I said I wouldnt come up with the conclusions and I wont, however if davenbelle made edits like yours... he would be considered stalking in my view.

--Cat out 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and before I forget comments such as the one below create a hostile environment. Not just that, it is also very incivil.

As to being your "shadow" -- hardly. Yes, you are on my watchlist and have been since you deleted my legitimate comments from your talk page. Please do not feel that I consider your talk page surveillance-worthy -- it is mostly extremely banal chatter about video games. Your poorly-affected adult-English, however, does occasionally provide some amusement, as does your spelling.

Wikipedia prizes itself for its coverage on topics such as hard science as well as video games and Anime episode descriptions. Founder of wikipedia had made his view on this issue quite clear.

--Cat out 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, consider an ethnic group of twenty-odd million people to be a bit more encyclopaedic than a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters. --Moby 10:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your opinions. I for one consider all topics equally relevant and important. Certainly you appriciate fiction on wikipedia. You contributed a great deal to articles such as In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. I do not understand why you think so 'lowly' of articles about 'a bunch of doe-eyed adolescent cartoon characters'. The ethnic group of twenty-odd million people is no more significant than Chaos theory. --Cat out 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex is not fiction. --Moby 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well it isnt fiction and is 100% factual. --Cat out 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You think I'm stalking you? I want nothing more than to be rid of you. You are the one who seems to have studied every edit I've made, and who will spin any yarn it takes to minimise Kurdish coverage. --Moby 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not blame me for 'exposing' you monitoring my edits. I merely reviewed your contributions. I never accused you of stalking, I told everyone I wont be making the conclusions.

First step of any kind of investigation is to determine a motive. Based on your statement you confirm that your intentions are simply 'to get rid of me'. Thats not exactly an example of a friendly enviorment. Davenbelle was also pretty desperate to get rid of me.

--Cat out 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please to not misrepresent what I said. I said that I wanted to be rid of you not that I wanted to get rid of [you]. The meaning of what I said is that I do not want you opposing everything I or others try and achieve on articles and categories related to Kurds; you spun it so that it sounds like I want to put you in a river. --Moby 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I frankly do not see the difference in your comment. 'to be rid of you' and 'to get rid of you' sounds pretty much same to me. So you want me to leave the topics you disagree with me? Are you suggesting that I can't disagree with you? --Cat out 17:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat has problems with Kurds and Kurdistan. I remember reading a comment by User:Cool Cat stating how Kurds had a president in Turkey and what else could they want. I've asked the user politely to stop contributing on the PKK article because this user had a political point of view. But told me I couldn't ask him this. Ozgur Gerilla 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ozgur you have a "I support PKK" userbox, so you have a POV too, in order to maintain WP:NPOV on an article both view points should be presented not just yours, please try to understand this. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you have got it all wrong. What you need to understand is that my support has nothing to do with WP:NPOV because I believe that could be controlled by a person. But I told User:Cool Cat that I did not contribute to the PKK article because I thought it will be wrong and asked him to not contribute too. Ozgur Gerilla 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh but he doesn't. You cannot possibly expect any editor to cease editting a article simply due to the withdrawal of your own insertions. I have a stupendous point of view on Keiji Inafune, but that does not interrupt my ability to leave my feelings at the door. However, it is known that Cool Cat is somewhat aggresisve on this subject, and a small amount of leeway for other subject matter would behoove him. This certianly dies not mean he isn't a valuble contributor to these articles. -Zero^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who gets categories like Kurdish terrorists AND Turkish terrorists deleted. I will 'agressively' remove Category:Kurdistan from articles related to turkish provinces and cities (reasons have been discussed to death). In parallel I will also 'agressively' remove "terrorist" referance from Kurdistan Workers Party even though I belive it is indeed a terrorist organisation. I am impartial when applying NPOV. --Cat out 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I wasn't aware of a few rules or the way people behave on subjects such as this one because I was a new Wikipedian. I was making a point to User:Kashk despite its correctness. What I mean is, if there is information users want to add to the article no user should restrict the individual from doing it; I have only ASKED CoolCat to stop contributing because I saw this user making offensive comments on KURDS not the PKK.

CoolCat, I think you need to learn when to use your anger. Agressively removing Category:Kurdistan from articles related to Turkish provinces and cities isn't the right way to act in my thoughts because many unbiased books have used the term for the region. Ozgur Gerilla 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a classical "wrong version" argument there. Oh and btw, I am not an emotionaly motivated person. What offensive comment are we talking about? --Cat out 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Kurds Turks and others use the same fountains, they can elect their leaders and be elected, hell there was a Kurdish President, even Americans dont have a Latino or Black President." that's from you. That's offensive. I don't know where in Turkey you've lived and for how long but in east and especially in southeast Kurds are discriminated and there is evidence for this. So instead of classifying my comments try to understand other point of views on the issue. Ozgur Gerilla 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Which part? Forced labour camps or the Colored seats/fountains? Take a look at 1960s and the US will ya?

For all you know I could very well be a kurd. You can't criticise me for my opinions on some random talk page. I cant even remember when I made that comment.

--Cat out 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The part where you say "hell there was a Kurdish president" as if thats enough for the Kurds and they don't need anything else because they had a president. You probably visited Turkey for a month and you're talking from that experience I've lived there for years and I've seen how many Kurdish politicians or artists can be successful in Turkey. Yilmaz Guney, Leyla Zana and Ugur Mumcu some of those who were killed or jailed because they were Kurdish. Oh, you more likely to come out to be a MHP Turk then a Kurd with comments like those. I am free to criticise you on a comment because your later on actions are pretty aggressive on Kurdish articles. I can remind you when you've made those comments if you think I've made them up. Ozgur Gerilla 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Slur is not welcome. Calling someone a "MHP Turk" in my view is more than a violation of WP:Civil and perhaps WP:NPA too. Something tells me your intention was not a compliment.

FYI, I visited turkey for over two years and I was in the SE region. I am not affiliated with any political party in Turkey or outside. My comment was pointing out the obvious, a kurd was elected as president in Turkey. I find that it is fascinating for a member of the ethic minority supposively discriminated to be elected as president. If you are offended by that I cant quite help you.

You are under the impression you are free to do whatever you please. WP:ANB/I is not a place where you get to discuss politics. This is also not the place to criticise anyone. Take it to a talk page, not here.

I will not bother responding to your comments posed here further as per the warning on top of the page. Best to ignore.

--Cat out 10:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead ignore me. I am not here to discuss politics I am here to tell people that User:Cool Cat is disrupting the Kurdish categorization efforts. You've said, for all I know you could be a Kurd and my opinion is with that attitude towards the Kurdish articles you're more likely to be a ultra nationalist Turk. Ozgur Gerilla 12:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

'Aggressively' removing Category:Kurdistan from articles related to Turkish Provinces and Cities constitutes disruption in cases where Kurds are, and have long been, the majority. --Moby 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its probably the tenth time I am posting the same argument... but here it is:

Do you have a census to back that up? No. Do we have any 'traditional' borders? No. Then it is disrupion to add a Category:Kurdistan as it neither has defined borders nor basis. Every corner of the United States or North America is Native american territory with that analogy.

Kurdistan is a proposed political entity (country), kurds are a cultural entity (ethnicity). My problem is with the proposed political entity in the light of wikipedia policies and guidelines.

--Cat out 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strawman argument again; no one is characterizing it as a proposed country -- Kurdistan is a geographic and demographic region. --Moby 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh really. So PKK isn't campaigning for a country called Kurdistan... Seems like a pov fork attempt to me. In any case, I will not be pulled into this useless 'debate'.

The questions still are:

• weather or not User:Moby Dick is stalking me.
• weather or not User:Moby Dick is a User:Davenbelle sockpuppet.

If both questions answer a Yes, then an admin intervetion is definately necesary and perhaps more serious mesures.

--Cat out 14:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the stalking sock/question

• oooooo "the Stalking Sock"... coming to a theater near you......Wallie 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can understand people not commenting much on the evidence presented, as it's hardly short and simple. However I think Cool Cat deserves it to at least be assessed. I'm not at all familiar with this dispute, or the history of either editors editing. There is probably far more to this than I've had time to look at (although I have tried!), so I certainly don't feel confident enough to take any specific action. However, the evidence presented by Cool Cat with regard to "weather or not User:Moby Dick is stalking me." and "weather or not User:Moby Dick is a User:Davenbelle" does seem fairly convincing. It is a shame that for technical reasons the checkuser was inconclusive, so it can't be verified that way. There does seem to be far too many co-incidences listed above to suggest Moby Dick is a new user that had nothing to do with Cool Cat before registering, and does seem to be paying just that bit too much attention to his actions.

I also note that as Moby Dick as stated a desire to 'to be rid of' Cool Cat, and I can't imagine Cool Cat wanting Moby Dick to stay around him, I suggest that both users take each others pages off their watchlists, don't check each others contribs, and don't make any effort to interact with each other (and actively try and leave article disputes to other editors if you come across each other that way). Outside of this situation a quick glance at contribs suggests very different interests, so there should be plenty of editing to get on with away from each other.

Please note by me saying this I am not commenting on Cool Cat's behaviour with relation to the Kurdish related disputes. I don't know enough about that, however he came here with a request for admin review on this specific issue and I feel it should be addressed one way or the other. Petros471 09:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not monitor "User:Moby Dick", I wouldn't have had the time to prepare my evidence has "User:Moby Dick" didn't get me blocked and give me the free time. As per advice of User:InShaneee I have initiated an RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick as the matter is complex in nature and requires more than a short review here as you point out :) --Cat out 09:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have also assessed these coincidences, and have come to three conclusions:

1. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Moby Dick was a real newbie when the account started to edit in December 2005.
2. Moby Dick is someone with a previous grudge against Cool Cat.
3. I don't know how likely that makes it that Moby Dick is Davenbelle. Pretty likely, I guess, but I wouldn't undertake to say. But I suggest that Moby Dick needs to avoid Cool Cat from now on, or he may find himself in ArbCom trouble in his own right, quite apart from the Davenbelle question. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I am fine with this suggestion but under the circumstances I feel checkuser data of User:Moby Dick should be kept longer than a month (of course concealed from the general public as per privacy reasons). User:Moby Dick, weather or not he is Davenbelle, now knows how to evade detection.

I guess The matter has gotten me quite paranoid, but I'd see this as a wise precation. What do you think?

--Cat out 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and harmless. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

I have already stated that I am not User:Davenbelle's sockpuppet. And I am hardly stalking User:Cool Cat. I believe I first noticed him on the CFD for category Kurdistan and took a dim view of his attempt to minimise Kurdish related material. I feel that the Kurds deserve to be fairly presented on Wikipedia. I have looked at his history and this is how I learned of his arbitration case and users like Davenbelle. I also noticed User:Megaman Zero on both of their talk pages.

This whole discussion is supposed to be about his disruption of Kurdish issues and I believe that his accusations are merely an attempt to change the subject. Since I reported this, he been all over my editing, showing up on pages I've just edited and badgering me (see: [40])). He has been hyper-aggressive in all of his talk towards me - I could easily make a counter argument that he is stalking me.

What I want out of this process is a clear path to proceed on towards a consensus on the various Kurd issues. He does not seek a consensus, he seeks his way. --Moby 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of this sub section is "back to the stalking sock/question", and hence I am under the impression you are trying to change the subject.

My "hyper-aggressive" tone in question is only demanding sources for the 'contraversial' section you have restored. I am not condoning ruzgar in any way but in order to restore a section on an article, you should have a basis I suppose?

As for the 'stalking' argument, hardly. I monitor many articles related to Turkey, Kurds, Armenian Genocide, etc... especialy high profile articles such as politics related ones. I noticed a revert war on Nationalist Movement Party (I have a script for that). I was suprised to find you as the other party revert waring. Thats one way to seek a consensus... more like force it. What caught my attention most was the false rv vandalism claim by ruzgar. I am not willing to stop monitoring articles I had been monitoring for months just because you have started editing them. My topics of interest currently is limited to Star Trek, Kurds, Turkey, various anime... surely its not all that much...

--Cat out 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to imply that you have some sort of priority over me in regard to Kurdish articles? --Moby 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see where you got that idea. I monitor a large number of articles for vandalism etc... My bot also monitors every edit made to wikipedia on over 12 languages for vandalism... --Cat out 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am involved, I have investigated the talk page of the article in question. It is definately a smart move to place the kurdish flag on the talk page of an article about a "far-right nationalist political party in Turkey". How would you define your tone and actions? --Cat out 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ruzgar stated that there was no Kurdish flag and I showed him that there is indeed such a flag. I would characterize my tone and action as polite and encouraging. --Moby 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Firstly, revert wars are bad taste. I am sure there are better ways to discuss the article rather than pouring gasoline on fire... I am not going to bother discussing the content here. --Cat out 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

MobyPenis and PenisMoby

It would appear that someone created these accounts based on my username:

MobyPenis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PenisMoby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--User:Moby Dick 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then report them in WP:VIP. I have gotten 44 such accounts blocked. Shanel had 212 such impostors --Cat out 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

both had been blocked already for several hours before Moby Dick even reported them here. ;) Syrthiss 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably by either my or Curpses script... --Cat out 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

The stalking question and the unanswered question of whether Moby Dick is Davenbelle are quite important here. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek, the following remedy was passed:

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs)

2) Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat (talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

Passed 6-0

If Moby Dick is performing substantially the same function as were Davenbelle, Stereotek and (to some extent) Fadix prior to the arbitration case, then his behavior is of a kind that is clearly described as problematic by the Arbitration Committee.

If Moby Dick is Davenbelle himself (and I think there is a very strong circumstantial case for this) then substantial penalties are merited.

As a corollary, Moby Dick merits a strong administrative warning, which I now issue in my capacities as a sysop on English Wikipedia and Cool Cat's mentor.

I warn you to keep away, as much as is reasonably possible, from articles, talk pages and other pages edited by Cool Cat. There is substantial evidence that you are following a pattern of stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat, similar to that described in the arbitration case. Should you continue on your current course, substantial remedial action may be necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this question already. As to the view that I am stalking User:Cool Cat, I feel that it is an unwarranted description. I will not belabor the point.

I have no interest in dealing with this disruptive user. I will remove his page from my watchlist (Zero's, too). While I can hope to not encounter him again, one can not know the future; if we do meet again, I would ask all to carefully look at whether one of us followed the other into an article. I will avoid editing articles that he has recently edited. I can hope that he will show me the same courtesy. --Moby 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that and your next edit is to Category talk:Kurdish inhabited regions, a category I "negotiated" its creation as an alternative to Category:Kurdistan with User:Ed Poor, my infomral mentor...

In your words, what would you consider stalking?

--Cat out 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was anwsering a question put to me by User:Hattusili. Please do not stalk me. Uncle Ed said that his offer to mentor you didn't work out. --Moby 13:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Now he accuses me of stalking him... I am not stalking you. I am merely watching articles, categories, and templates especialy the ones I create or help create, edited etc as I have done so since long before you even registered.

He said that to you didn't he. FYI we straightend it out the misunderstanding via email, a matter of no conern to you....

Oh and btw "text-decoration: blink;" is annoying, please don't use it.

--Cat out 15:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As a participant in the ArbCom case against Coolcat, I would like to comment on this. The first thing that should be mentioned is that Tony Sidaway should read the decision of the ArbCom again, and accept the fact that any penalties can only be issued as a consequence of "subsequent proceedings", that find that I, Davenbelle or Fadix has done anything that is not according to policy. The ArbCom decision doesn't give him any right to use his adminship and mentorship, to harass and issue "warnings" to any user that oppose the POV editing that the ArbCom mentioned that Cool Cat had engaged in, and perhaps still might be engaging in. Sidaway has no right to issue any "administrive warnings", and demands that editors such as Moby (or any other editors) should not edit any articles that Cool Cat is interested in. If he believe that Moby or other editors do something wrong by opposing Cool Cat's editing in some specific articles, then he should start an RfC or an RfAr against them instead of engaging in any such threatening behavior. Tony Sidaway should accept the fact that he is Cool Cat's mentor, and not the mentor of any editor that might oppose Cool Cat's POV editing. He doesn't have any special authority over any editor, except Cool Cat, and he should stop pretending that he has that. -- Karl Meier 15:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your participation wasn't voluntary on the arbcom case last time I checked.

Is it pov to suggest that a census determining ethnicity hasn't been preformed in Turkey or is it pov to remove pictures of corpses from PKK. Thats the entirity of my edits in articles related to Kurds, Turkey, Armenians that one can vaguley start argue about the controversial nature... I also "disrupted" categorisation efforts by gathering concensus (regardless of the number of politicaly motivated keep votes) that over a half of the categories were inaproporate.

Lets assume I was indeed pov pushing for the sake of argument. What did MegamanZero do to deserve Moby Dick's special care?

Arbcom desicions on occasions have had direct impact on policy. Behaviour arbcom found inaproporate will still be inaproporate weather or not if arbcom has a ruling spesificaly against a person. Constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy and hence falls under harassment.

--Cat out 08:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do I claim that I volunteered to participate in the ArbCom case? You should stop making such false and irrelevant claims. I have no opinion on the specific matters that you have been disagreeing with other editors such as Moby Dick, because I don't know the details of these disagreements. What I do know however, is that the ArbCom found that you have a history of POV editing in articles re Kurds and the Turkish state in general, and I should be surprised if you have changed your ways and ended your violations of NPOV. The fact that you are getting yourself intro trouble and POV disagreements when editing the same articles that the ArbCom declared that you have been POV editing on, just make it more obvious that you continue your POV editing, to promote your pro-Turkish government/anti-Kurdish POV.

Regarding your claims that editors that is opposing your editing, which you have a history of POV editing on should stalk you, harass you or whatever, then that is something the ArbCom should make a decision about. There is nothing in policy that support that a admin can block anyone, just because such allegations has been made. -- Karl Meier 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have no opinion on the specific matters that I have been disagreeing with other editors such as Moby Dick, because you don't know the details of these disagreements, why are you here?

We are here to establish weather or not Moby Dick is stalking and/or is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle, at least in this sub section and your comments are not helping us determine either way.

There is WP:Bold which allows admins to block any disruptive behaviour not necesarily covered in policy and a WP:HA that does cover stalking.

--Cat out 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My inclination, along with Tony Sidaway, is that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Davebelle and Moby Dick are the same editor. I have reviewed the evidence posted and have discussed this matter with one other editor and I see a preponderance of evidence that indicates that not only has Moby Dick wikistalked User:Cool Cat, but User:MegamanZero as well, and that Moby Dick is a sockpuppet of Davenbelle.--MONGO 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock investigation

• A sockpuppet check through checkuser to compare davenbelle and moby dick is not possible due to technical reasons.
• Similar editing behaviour between Davenbelle and Moby Dick has been presented above.
• We have been told by davenbelle that he lives in Bali which according to the article is +8 UTC
• According to [41]
  • Davenbelles most active times are 3:30 UTC (11:30 bali time) and 9:00 UTC (17:00 bali time).
  • Sharp drop at 5:00 UTC (13:00 bali time). Looks like a lunch break given its afternoon
  • 14:30-16:30 UTC (22:30-24:30 bali time) appears to be the time where lowest number of edits are observed. Not too early to sleep
  • Number of edits increase after 24:30 which is odd but he said he was traveling so it may actualy be consistant if he was traveling 3, 4 or more timezones practicaly shifting day/night a few hours... Smaller volume implies that he was temporarily in this location.
• According to [42]
  • Moby Dicks most active times are UTC 9:00 (17:00 bali time) and 12:00 UTC (20:00 bali time). 17:00 spike is identical to davenbelle.
  • Moby Dick edits after 6:00 UTC (14:00 bali time) with minimal numer of edits prior.
  • Sharp drop at 15:00 UTC (23:00 bali time) to 0. 23:00 is not a bad time to sleep.
  • Edit pattern resumes at 1:30 UTC (9:30 bali time) not a bad time to wake up.

Data is consistant with a person editing from +8 UTC... Or at least editing at same hours.

--Cat out 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridicules. It doesn't prove anything regarding time zone, and of course absolutely noting regarding the identity of the editor. I remember that you have also accused me of being Davenbelle (and Fadix) and even demanded that it should be investigated in connection with the ArbCom case. Some months ago I was actually editing from + 8 UTC (Cebu City, Philippines in my case) so according to your logic you should now have a strong case that I am Davenbelle. Or, even better Cool Cat, maybe you should just accept the fact that every editor that oppose you is not the sockpuppet of somebody else. -- Karl Meier 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The statistics are based on the percentage of total edits. In order to have a "spike" you would have to make hundereds of edits at the exact 10 minute span... That would still not reduce your other "spikes".

Besides why are you trying to get involved in a case in an attempt to disrupt my efforts to present evidece given this case does not involve you in any way? What would you consider as "stalking"?

--Cat out 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination by PZFUN, and Speedy keep of several articles by Slimvirgin

PZFUN nominated 36 Judaism-related articles for deletion in what, to be honest, looks like a WP:POINT (though I want to AGF), apparently supported by NicholasTurnbull, who also voted to delete, and was on most of them the only person other than PZFUN to do so. Many of the articles seemed to be legitimate, although some could use tidying; for example, there were pages about important rabbis like Dovber of Mezeritch, one of the most important figures in Hasidic Judaism. This almost certainly has to do with a recent row between PZFUN and User:IZAK, where IZAK objected to PZFUN's AfD nomination of another Jewish article, and the row led to harsh words, which led Nicholas to block IZAK, and a fuss ensued. This seems to be some sort of follow-up. I've closed the AfDs as speedy keeps, which is not to say that there aren't some that might be legitimate noms (I did find one that clearly was, so I didn't close that one), but these bulk deletions coming so soon after an argument seem inappropriate. I'd welcome other input on this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I would tend to agree that some of the articles nominated do seem non-notable, I do question his motivation behind the mass of nominations, especially due to the timing. --InShaneee 15:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, should a user or admin be slowed down, just because someone else has been uncivil at them? He's been doing cleanup, by the look of it. If I had looked, I might have even speedied some of the nominated articles, as they simply do not establish notability at all.

I agree with Slimvirgins Ignore All Rules speedy closure, just to keep the peace for now, but those articles really really need review. (some of the articles so speedy kept had like 5-10 delete votes on them... not normally a speedy keep :-) ) Kim Bruning 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some need to be tidied, but it might have been better to do that than nominate them, and in some cases just as fast. For example, all that was really wrong with Ben Zion Halberstam (The First), a notable rabbi, was that someone had added a long list of his descendants, so I deleted the list, [43] and the article, or stub, is fine now. It's not exactly an FA candidate, but it should certainly survive an AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the situation, the closes were a poor idea, IMO. They certainly weren't speedy keep candidates, they had opposition, and some of them certainly wouldn't meet standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the closures were a bad idea. Most of those articles clearly needed review. --Strothra 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I too agree. Irrespective of the motivation for a nomination, once an article is AfDed, the discussion belongs not to the original nominator but to the community writ large; where other users have expressed support for delete on legitimate grounds, the debates oughtn't to be closed (to be sure, where all "votes" were keep and where no legitimate reason was given for deletion in the nom, a speedy keep, per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR is in order. Finally, the timing of these AfD is, of course, rather interesting, but we ought to continue to assume good faith; one often finds that, after a vociferous debate has ensued apropos of a given AfD, other similar articles may be AfDed, primarily because, in looking at one article one thinks to be deficient/unencyclopedic, one often finds articles that share characteristics with that which one has AfDed. Joe 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of them were speedy-keep candidates. But regardless, the row between PZFUN and IZAK got pretty nasty, and then Nicholas blocked IZAK for NPA, so it's inappropriate for those two editors to try to delete 36 articles that IZAK probably cares about just a day or so later. I'm assuming good faith here (I don't know PZFUN but I understand he's a good and trustworthy editor, and I know Nicholas is), but you can see why they might look like bad-faith nominations, and the appearance of that should have occurred to them. If the articles are that bad, someone else will nominate them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Which ones were speedy keep candidates? Like, how so? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, while you have a bit of a point, it would mean that to prevent a legitimate (set of) edit(s), all one has to do is start a row with the editor in question. :-/ Kim Bruning 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take that point too. I think perhaps part of the problem here is that many of these figures are not written about on the Web, or not much, and so much of the sourcing is in books. It would help in future if the editors on these pages could make sure they add full citations for their sources, then editors reviewing the articles can at least see that someone has done careful research, even if they can't immediately check the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) Kim Bruning 17:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some difficulties with these personalities with reference to finding references. Most of the legacy of a particular Rebbe will be various teachings that have been passed down and quoted, and the mythologies of tales told about them. Often they will be collected in a book, but in some cases not. If they are collected in a book, it may well be in Hebrew or Yiddish - their communities are often quite closed and isolated. You will likely find mention of a rabbi (or of their magnum opus, by which they are often known, or of their title ("Kotzker Rebbe", "Skulener Rebbe", "[the first] Bobover Rebbe")) with reference to a particular teaching used in an article. On the other hand, these personalities could be treated like royal families- they are members of dynasties where patrilineal descent plays a major role in heirdom: for some of the more minor personalities, they may only be mentioned in a listing of the chain of Rebbes in a Hasidic group. In this sense, while Wikipedia has articles on even the most obscure members of some royal families, the chain of descendency of Rebbes should definitely be kept, as long as their existence in that chain is verifiable, even if no extensive references on the individual can be found. jnothman ^talk 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That completely flies in the face of Wikipeida:Verifiability. We can't and shouldn't have articles that are based solely on hearsay, particularly on hearsay that cannot be proven or even demonstrated in any way. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I only said it may be hard to find any verifiable sources. It is clear that these people exist. Even some facts about them may be findable and verifiable. But even those of their teachings or stories that may only be "hearsay" are still noteworthily associated with that person. Wikipedia documents myths in great detail - although their subjects may not be verifiable, the existence of the myth about that subject is highly verifiable. I certainly hope that more accurate and verifiable written information can be found, but I'm not sure where to look. Still these discussions on the difficulties of finding highly verifiable information on these personalities doesn't in any way excuse your nominating 16 of them on the basis of no references, specualativity, sounding like an ad and non-notability, when these factors were often simply untrue: see my arguments below. jnothman ^talk 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating so many articles for deletion at once was a bad disruptive thing obviously, but I think SlimVirgin doing a mass-keep was not a good idea either. That gives the (most likely false) appearance that an administrator is using his/her adminship position/leverage a bit beyond what one should do. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While discussing of policy is great fun, what needs to be done now is to actually get these articles cleaned up. Preferably to featured status, of course ;-) Any suggestions that might help with this? Kim Bruning 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel SlimVirgin's action was wise, even though obviously not conforming to standard policy, and indicated for the greater good of the Wikipedia project. --Lambiam^Talk 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that SlimVirgin's intervention was justified; among these AfDs there were articles that were very obviously not reasonable candidates for deletion - Dovber of Mezeritch - and that casts the other nominations in a rather bad light as well. I do have one minor quibble though: maybe it would have been better to close the AfDs by explaining why the bulk nomination was a mistake, rather than by saying "the result was speedy keep" - as that was not where most of the actual deletion debates seemed to be going. David Sneek 18:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the Speedy Keep action. It seems heavy handed, given that there was no consensus, even if you ignore the original parties. Yes, it makes sense that old rabbis are notable, but their articles are not exempt from the same scrutiny and process as all others. If they have verifiable sources, the sources should be cited in the articles - they don't have to be instant Web or google sites. Same goes for the schools and camps, although one would expect those to have a google-space presence. WP rules are there to be followed even if a mass AfD nomination casts doubt on AGF. Crum375 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating 36 articles like this is disruptive behaviour, which can only cause bad feeling with editors involved in them. The proposing editor should have considered the likely inflammatory effect on others of such a mass proposal deletion and made some attempt at communication with those likely to be affected by it, if only to make the reassurance that there were genuine grounds for making so many all at once. The articles I have checked have nothing at all on their talk pages. This situation can only be interpreted as AGF, if one also assumes that the proposing editor is quite insensitive to others. The mass speedy keep of the articles was not ideal, but it does allow a breathing space, instead of provoking a war. Tyrenius 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" was definitely the most appropriate thing to do under those circumstances. Nominating for deletion Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Hassidism, was so obviously contrary to WP:POINT that no result other than speedy keep could be expected. We already have a precedent when mass AfD nominations by Striver done to prove a point in a discussion on List of Muslim athletes were speedily kept. Going through the entire procedure of voting, commenting, and closing during such mass nominations is a waste of Wikipedians' time. Pecher ^Talk 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with your point about Israel ben Eliezer, and anything like that (if any) - and in that case I would second a Speedy Keep of course. But at the same time I would probably warn the nominator and follow with a block unless the behavior can be explained away, unlikely in this case. But I think the Speedy Keeps of other, unsourced articles is improper. Crum375 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps, I'm in the process of going through the articles to tidy up the writing and request sources. It'll take some time given that there are 36 of them. From what I've seen so far, some are taken in part from the public-domain 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is written in a style that's completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, so that explains some of the writing issues. As for the unsourced ones, if the requests for sources aren't answered fairly soon and/or if I can't find any, I'll put them back up for AfD myself, so hopefully that'll remove any lingering unease. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is PZFUN's explanation, which seems rational enough to me. But I am sure SlimVirgin acted in good faith and her constructive response above makes sense too. So let's hope all these articles are cleaned up or deleted as appropriate. Crum375 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm just wandering since when AfD supplanted {{verify}}, especially when it comes to established editors. This en mass wave of deletion strikes me as rather discourtious, possibly even a provocation. The question arises as to why the user in question did not place pertinent tags, pose querries on article and user talk pages? [Incidentally, I authored 30+ IDF-related articles yesterday, none have any references whatsoever. Damn, I probably shouldn't have said that.] Also, as a secular & atheist, I recognize quite a few of these names, perhaps to the (dis?)credit of the IBoE. Anyway, what I wish to bring to Kim's attention (why am I picking on him? let's just say I gots my reasons! :p) is that en mass acts which are likely to involve heated emotions, should best involve a centralized discussion prior. Basically, established editors are entitled to some fair warning when their entries are not viewed as being up to par, and an AfD isn't the first step, it is the last. El_C 21:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, however the attitude by the previous editors has made it quite clear that non-Jewish or non-Jewish imput is not welcome, as per IZAK's comments on a previous AfD: "People should stick to their areas of expertise and not stick their noses into subjects"[44] Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is rather striking to me, that on the one hand, you appear to agree with me on AfD being the last recourse, and on the other, you justify the need to do so by quoting material from an AFD. But what about the monolithic ("reads like an ad"?), en mass nominations? El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel a speedy keep was the only option here. Although some of the noms might have turned out to be okay, it is clear the PZFUN decided to nominate these articles in bulk without forming an objective opinion on each one. It looks even worse since most of these articles were actually created by IZAK and were linked to his userpage. I am also a secular/atheist but unlike El C I have had no formal Jewish education and even I recognize a lot of these name. All of this gives the appearance of the worst kind of WP:POINT.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I find this discussion slightly disturbing. While it is true that IZAK and I did have a row, that had nothing to do with my abilities as an editor here. Some have said that I disrupted Wikipedia to make a POINT, but what point was that? That there are many articles, regardless of what they pertain to, that merit listing on AfD? The subtitle of WP:POINT is "dont' disrupt Wikipedia to make a point," which I did not do. I listed articles which many agreed with as meriting deletion before SlimVirgin Speedy Kept them. While the merits of SlimVirgin's actions there are debateable, I'd like to know what kind of disruption I made. And to reply to the allegations of bad faith, I will copy what I wrote on IZAK's talk page:

"Uh, I have a lot of Jewish family members, including my father. If you want to make this personal, so be it, but it is hardly bad-faith to list articles that currently meet none of the Wikipedia checkpoints, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Sources, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Just by merely saying "If you were Orthodox, you'd know him" does not make something notable. Such statements need to have third-party references (ie, they can't just be on their personal page) and must be verified, in otherwords, they must be proven to exist. When an article has no sources, it cannot be assumed by a secular institution that something is indeed encyclopaedic. As for groups, there is a certain level of Wikipedia:Notability requirements; in other words, just because something is there, doesn't mean it necesarily deserves an article. There is no article on my Street Association because I can't prove it exists since we've never published anything, nor would an informal organisation of 500-1000 people be encyclopaedic. Please read Wikipedia policy before accusing me of bad faith." Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN: I'm not sure I can take the argument, "what point was that? That there are many articles, regardless of what they pertain to, that merit listing on AfD?" as sufficient. As I noted when voting "strong keep" for many of the articles, you had completely false claims in terms of your reasons for nomination. For instance, you used on many of your nominations "No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia" including on the nominations for Moshe Zvi of Savran, where there was a clear reference and the article did not read like an ad, and on Dovber of Mezeritch, which - if you put in any thought before nomination - you should have found that "not notable for Wikipedia" is clearly false as well. It is similarly strange to claim "utterly non-notable" to an organisation with a membership of 8000 (if we have high schools and small townships included in Wikipedia, surely this should qualify), and others with multiple international branches and an 80-year heritage. If you were not making a WP:POINT then you were simply being reckless. jnothman ^talk 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is very much WP:POINT — marking tens of articles for deletion with the monlithic, copy-paste "No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia" line, regardless if there are references. What I find surprising is NicholasTurnbull's participation in these, with the equally robotic "Delete as per PZFUN." This is highly questionable, at best. El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of them I withdrew after having further discussion, however I might bring up Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any withdrawals when looking now. Feel free to bring up verifiability, but until you go and borrow from the library the books referenced clearly at Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam or Moshe Zvi of Savran, you can neither claim lack of references, or verifiability, or notability. They are clearly referenced! jnothman ^talk 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The mass deletion request, particularly of articles created by IZAK, smells of personal vendetta. The fact that a number of them are indeed referenced and the subjects quite clearly notable makes things worse. Speedy keep was obviously the right action under these circumstances. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly would have done the same thing; likely in a less nonconfrontational manner. El_C 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I support SlimVirgin's move. A note on PZFUN's talkpage might have helped, but the WP:POINT was showing. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is to be commended for her quick and judicious response to these malicious actions not in the best interest of Wikipedia. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, she did it to prevent all kinds of nasty people from making this kind of personal attacks against PZFUN. Unsuccessfully, it now turns out. Kim Bruning 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nasty people"? Hmm. HKT 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Haha! I doubt that I am the original writer or creator of any of the articles that were nominated for deletion by PZFUN, and which ones link to my page? Rather, I may have edited a few of them at some time or other over the years, and perhaps I placed them in their respective categories at some time or other, so it is not because of that that I brought this entire exercise into question. My concern/s remain to protect articles and stubs that contain valuable and notable information related to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and NOT to lose them in a hasty drive of "The New Deletionism" that seeks a shortcut to Wikipedia's normal process of seeking improvement and sources which should NOT be pushed aside in favor of hasty deletionistic tendencies which merely create a short circuit, and causes more harm than good as the potential for conflict between editors is raised. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your ideals but not with your methods. Kim Bruning 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was it inappropriate for PZFUN to nominate those articles for deletion, and for me to support his various nominations? There was a disagreement between PZFUN and IZAK over a particular AfD, granted, and I did once block IZAK. I accept that. But I can't see really how that had all that much bearing on my ability to vote on Judaism-related articles, and more importantly how that renders PZFUN's nominations illegitimate. If I was forced to stay away from all subjects which I'd ever been in a dispute with a user over, I would almost not be able to edit Wikipedia, if I counted the various cases I've mediated, and the same goes for PZFUN I believe as a very experienced Wikipedian who has contributed a lot to the project. Really, I think it's awful that standards of Wikipedia article quality are somehow suspended merely because the articles in question fall within a single category, or more importantly a category which has heated connotations I suppose. The amount of bad faith cast against PZFUN is even worse, in my opinion, and is quite at odds with the culture of Wikipedia:Assume good faith that we inculcate on Wikipedia. Especially since, at the time of writing, PZFUN appears to have decided to leave the project, deleting his userpage - for merely trying to nominate articles that were substandard for deletion, in accordance with both policy and Wikipedia standards of editorial judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Christopher: If an article is below par, and at the same time also has importance to a significant sub-set of editors (and hence readers) who understand its notability, the logical thing to do is to request that that article be IMPROVED but not to rush headlong into rash VfD votes which, as you can tell, enrages people. Articles or stubs that in some instances took years to collect should not be mass speed deleted willy-nilly, a symptom of the "New Deletionism" which needs to be slowed down to a c r a w l (where is everyone rushing to exactly?) Obviously some fairly wise and knowledgeable editors are willing to give these articles time and the benefit of the doubt because they know something about the subject. Assume good faith, plenty of articles will improve in good time, Wikipedia was not built in a day. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let me begin by apologising for posting here if it is not appropriate, as I am not an administrator. I was dragged into this mess by Kim Bruning, and now feel that it is appropriate that I state my case here.

I first encountered PZFUN at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First American-Romanian congregation, where PZFUN was nominating a religious group with over a century worth of history for deletion, and mine was the only keep vote. After several days of monitoring this discussion, as well as PZFUN's contributions, it occurred to me that I should mention PZFUN's recent history of nominating Judaica-related articles for deletion ought to be mentioned, viz: [45]. The strongest language used in my comment was as follows: Much as I like to assume good faith, I can't help but see an agenda here. After reading the discussion here on AN, I see that it is largely agreed that my reaction was exactly what should have been expected as a result of such a mass nomination.

I did (sort of) apologise to PZFUN, but I did so largely because Kim Bruning told me to do so on my Talk page. This in and of itself bothers me. After reading this AN discussion, I do not think that my reaction was unreasonable, and I do not think that Kim Bruning's comments on my talk page were appropriate. This was not simply a matter of sub-sorting. A user who, as far as I could tell, had no user page or talk page nominated Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, and over thirty other Judaica-ralated articles for deletion. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk is a name that I've known since I was twelve years old, and I'm not even Jewish (see my userpage; I'm Hindu). I stand my my assumption; I think that it was reasonable; I think that PZFUN's actions did violate WP:POINT, and I'm offended that I was asked to apologise for having stated such reasonable opinions in such a gentle manner. ergot 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talk page, I think you did the right thing apologising. Kim Bruning 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ergo: Thank you for your wise words! IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN and Jewish Summer camps

Why is it very hard to assume that PZFUN is acting in GF when he basically nominated the entire contents of Category: Jewish summer camps, but left the non-Jewish ones in Category:Summer camps alone? --Shuki 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "...[T]here's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others.... This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." HKT 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This campaign by User:PZFUN and User:NicholasTurnbull attempting to massively delete articles pertaining to one particular ethnic group is highly disturbing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See below, basically it was a stub category cleanup. Thank god he didn't try to cleanup the schoolsstub category. Kim Bruning 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim: By the way a number of the articles in question are clearly NOT stubs. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness, because even more people would have attacked him without reason, that is. Kim Bruning 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be routine stub-clearing. The timing (and specificity) of the multiple AfDs reflects what is most likely a personal jab at IZAK. Regardless of prior provocation and incivility, passive-agressive editing is inexcusable (not to mention that it contravenes WP:POINT). Additionally, cursory (5 second) research of some of the articles listed for AfD (such as Israel ben Eliezer) would show that "No references... and reads like an ad" itself reads like a bad joke. As such, one may fault PZFUN, beyond violating WP:POINT by deciding to particularly AfD some of IZAK's interests, for either malice or irresponsibility. Assuming good faith when even marginally reasonable leads me to assume the latter. (By the way, IZAK's recent conduct deserves extensive scrutiny, as well.) HKT 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• HKT: NO need to point people my way, they have their own views by now in all probability. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re MPerel - It was not a "campaign" - PZFUN merely went through the Judaism categories and found articles that didn't conform to Wikipedia standards of quality - things like copyvios, uncited sources, NPOV issues, lack of notability, etc. all of which are common standards within Wikipedia. That's why I supported his various nominations, because I think there are too many crap articles on Wikipedia. That's all there is to it - I couldn't care less whether the articles were about Judaism, or anything else (vacuum cleaners, road systems, Pokémon, sex toys, etc.), it just happened that PZFUN had found a whole load of bad articles. And besides, PZFUN is of Jewish extraction anyway, so the implication that it the move was ethnically-motivated is frankly ridiculous. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nicholas: To be repeat: I for one do not believe the issue had anything to do with ethnicity or religion. Let's put that aside. This is a about KNOWLEDGE, FACTS, and LOGIC all of which are essential to function as a respected and honored editor. (People will definitely sense very quickly if one is genuinely knowledgeable about a subject or not as Wikipedia has many experts in many fields and they are quite capable.) Rather I believe the crux of the issues here are about Wikipedians' modus operandi and how Wikipedia functions, how it solicits articles, organizes, digests them, and then finally presents them to the world. I see the creation of Wikipedia articles as a "birthing process" and just as you cannot produce instant humans and expect them to become adults at birth, often what is required is a show of patience and nurturance allowing the material to evolve and grow. This can't be rushed! The way to deal with issues of quality, NPOV, sources, and notability spread out over more than fifty articles is not by seeking the remedy of "The New Deletionism" whereby articles are nominated en masse for deletion. Each article is different and deserves unique attention. The ones about Hasidic Rebbes were written by many Hasidic editors whom we are happy to have, even though they may have a lack of good English writing skills, they bring invaluable information to Wikipedia that cannot be found anywhere else, and we have made great strides. The ones about the Summer Camps are written by more liberal Jews some Reform, Conservative, secular, Zionist writers, basically editors who come from all walk of life, so it's false to label them all as having this or that collective failing when each article needs its own remedies, but does not deserve to be lumped together with all sorts of others not connected to it. You're not being fair when you blithely associate a discussion about Judaism with "sex toys etc" as not all of us are willing to go so far afield. To talk like that is to belittle our seriouness of purpose and challenges our ability to be true Wikipedians always trying to meet the required NPOV standards. It is perfectly correct, logical, and Wikipedian for editors to restrict themselves to areas they feel most comfortable with and not wander all over the place stepping in invisible minefields and causing inevitable disruption when none was necessary. IZAK 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that none of the articles nominated for an AFD were verifiable is clearly erroneus, as is the claim that an objective opinion was formed for every single article, almost every single nomination summary was the same, it was a clear cut-and-paste operation. Many of the articles had sources, they just weren't on the internet, they were books that were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Even if it was true that they had no references that does not make the subject any less notable, you do not nominate an article that is about the founder of Hasidism for deletion, you request more sources, or possibly a cleanup (although many of the AFDs didn't even need that). Also the idea that being part Jewish makes his actions any more valid is ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me, Nicholas, that you didn't actually evaluate the individual articles and voted on the basis of their nomination by PZFUN. That is not assuming good faith, that is following in blind faith. I had assumed that PZFUN was making the nominations for the sake of Wikipedia, and had thought him sincere, but he didn't seem to put enough care into making his nominations truthful. jnothman ^talk 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tough on notability (in my opinion there should not be any articles on summer camps, whether Jewish, Christian or secular) and I would have supported the deletion of many of the articles, but I declined to participate. Nominating several similar articles at once is okay sometimes, but mass nominations are disruptive. People comment on the articles that matter to them and nominating so many articles at once wears them out because they'll want to participate in many or all of the discussions (also they probably have other things on their plate, like creating articles and/or real lives). Most likely, they'll eventually resort to a copied and pasted comment or just say "keep", or they'll assume bad faith never even try to justify the articles on an individual basis. This upsets the nominator and he or she thinks that they are just voting keep because the articles are all about Jewish, Christian or Pokemon topics. Another problem is that some truly notable articles are often nominated along with the cruft, like in this case. This makes the other side think that the nominations were bad faith and makes it even less likely that they will participate in the nominations in a normal manner.

My advice is to not overload AfD participators by nominating too many articles at once. Also, make sure that there is not even one notable article in the group. Don't count on AfD to sort it out. People will probably think that all of your nominations were in bad faith and all of the articles will probably be kept because of that reason. Also, I think that people should assume good faith even if some notable articles get mixed into a mass nomination. Although some nominations may be so blatantly bad faith that this does not apply. If possible, editors should participate in the AfD as if it was a good faith nomination. If there are just too many articles to do this, the nominations should be closed and the truly bad ones should be renominated slowly and carefully. -- Kjkolb 09:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Morale!

I have been doing some small investigations, and I know exactly where to look. Certain people, mainly admins, are taking a decidedly adversarial stance with users, when coaching is what is needed. HRM would not tolerate this in a large Corporation. The result is that decent people are being driven away. I look at certain people's talk pages, see repeated confrontations, and blocking, when the admin can't get his (yes usually his) way. I look at the other party's user page, and guess what... "I've had enough." "I'll never come back" etc". The good work that many many people, both admins and users, in building up morale is being quickly dissipated by a few bad eggs. This CAN be rectified NOW. What are you going to do about it, guys? Wallie 20:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Drink a milkshake and watch television? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not funny. Wallie 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I got a giggle out of it. --InShaneee 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You would! Wallie 21:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Any editor can be a mentor; it's not only up to administrators to teach new users how to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 22:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nothing's gonna' change the world," said the one man in the last century whom everyone thought capable of making a difference. There will always be a few bad eggs, and the only thing you can do is to try not to be one yourself. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The blockings will continue until morale improves. --Carnildo 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Tony took this seection away, saying it is trolling. This is not trolling, at least that is definitely not my intention. This is a serious issue to my mind. However, if it is in the wrong place to discuss this, then say so. Thank you. Wallie 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How can blockings improve morale? Wallie 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, Wikipedia is unusually polite with vandals. First they get the nice {{test}} message, and then the {{test2}} message, and only by the time things reach {{test3}} are the messages even threatening. Then they're blocked for maybe 24 hours. It takes major obnoxiousness to be blocked for an extended period. If anything, the ease of repeat vandalism is driving away serious editors. There are articles that have to be fixed several times a day, every day. This is bad for morale. --John Nagle 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

31 hours :P. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I clearly agree and empathize with that. I guess that admins get upset and have morale lows too.

The main point I wanted to discuss was that people are getting banned or as least annoyed over edit wars in which an admin or his (usually) friend is one of the participants. If an admin disagrees with another editor, irrespective of who is right, the admin pulls rank and bans, warns, or is insulting to the competitor. The other person feels very hurt, as one does when slapped down by your Line Manager. Wallie 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallie is complaining about the banning of User:Aidan Work, who in his brief time here engaged in personal abuse, homophobic rants, widescale vandalism, posting libellous comments on his talk page about a politician (I think it was) and insulting everyone who wouldn't let him write in extreme right wing POVs into articles or wouldn't let him delete non-extreme right wing edits. Work was finally axed after a reign of abuse. Wallie doesn't seem to understand the scale of Worth's behaviour and thinks that a gang of nasty admins ganged up on poor elderly Mr. Work, beat him up and kicked him off ruthlessly. Some incautious comments were made about Worth by some users in sheer frustration at his abuse of them (often he laced those comments with extreme homophobia and rascism). Adam called him a "homophobic slimeball". That user may well have been tactless and offensive, but given Work's comments against gays (and everyone else to the left of the KKK) it pretty much summed him up. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 09:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. OK. I will be a little specific, while not going into too many grubby details. I was objecting to one particular guy who I though was still trailing after Aidan, baiting him, and I thought gloating. I hate that sort of thing. Yes, I had crossed swords with him in the past too. In Aidans case, I always say if you do the crime you do the time. No more no less. As for the slimeball remark, I was just using this as an example that we can all get annoyed at times when baited. I can fully understand why he said it. It is the baitor I have an issue with, not the baitee. The "victims" I referred to in this section do not include Aidan. Wallie 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to Wally): When you have concrete cases of admin abuse bring them here. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia is not a corporation, but an encyclopedia. We do not have a strong hierarchy. Essentially, everybody who has been around productively for a time can become an admin. If some admins "pull rank", they are wrong. I have not, however, experienced that more than once or twice in my 2.5 years on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some points here, in response to Wallie: (1). If you compare Wikipedia to other community-type websites, you'll find that we're actually more tolerant than most when it comes to not blocking/banning users. For all but the most egregious offences, we give warnings (usually several) before blocking. That's more than, say, the average video game forum will do. (2). Wikipedia cannot really be compared to a corporation, as corporations often have high employee-acquisition costs. However, you'll find that corporations are pretty quick to get rid of bad employees too. If FearÉIREANN's statement above is true, and you're posting to protest the banning of someone for homophobic and/or racist remarks, then you'll find that coporations have NO tolerance for that sort of crap. (3). An admin taking a bad user under his wing and slowly but surely rehabilitating them and turning them good is a nice story, but it's basically just that: a story. Admins don't get paid here, and most of us have jobs and/or school and social lives outside of Wikipedia. Homophobic and racist feelings tend to run very deep, and getting rid of them could take years even for a trained counsellor, which wikipedia admins generally are not. We can't expect to purge the world of all its racists, homophobes, or other miscelleneous bad guys through "coaching". What we're here to do is make a great free encyclopedia, with as little trouble as possible. No more, no less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Sir. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia you get lots of warnings before banning/blocking, that's true but some other websites you can get away with extremely bad racial/religious trolling. Have you gone to http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport, go to the cricket section, the message board, and looked at what goes on in the South Asian noticeboard??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. Just to clarify. I was not actually thinking about the case that Jtdirl is mentioning. That is a separate issue, and is definitely outside the scope of the issue here. I also agree that you can't have as you say "this sort of crap", and I don't think admins should have to or are up to counselling of that sort. I am not suggesting that either. That is the dilemma... if I make a general inquiry, it is up to interpretation - someone may get the wrong idea. If I give a specific example, then attention gets diverted onto that case, and everyone focuses on that, and not the general issue. Anyway, back to the topic. This is meant to be a general observation, not a specific case study. Thank you. Wallie 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Our way of dealing with the general problem is to look at each case individually - for simple cases by discussion here, or through conflict resolution.--Stephan Schulz 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• What it comes down to, I think, is whether "coaching" is really a task suitable for administrators. Let's imagine a possible scenario: I'm patrolling recent changes, and come across the Martin Luther King article, which a vandal has blanked and replaced with racist remarks. What would my most reasonable response be? (1) To revert and warn the user, then block if it reoccurs? (2) Or to take the user under my wing, try to find the reason for his hostility toward blacks, and through tender care and love, rehabilitate him into a respnsible citizen? Even if successful, the second option would be an enormous investment in time, which in my case would be better served writing and editing articles. At the very least, to expect "coaching" from admins is asking a lot. Worse still, it could actually make the situation worse, as few admins are trained counsellors or therapists, and few have the qualifications necessary to properly rehabilitate miscreants. What if I did try to coach the imaginary MLK vandal, and botched the job so badly that he went from vandalising wiki pages to burning down black churches? Wouldn't that be partly my own fault? The responsibility of transorming wayward people lies with their own parents, school guidance counsellors, church leaders, etc. It's unfair (to say the least) to expect website admins to do the job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Soliciting votes

Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is soliciting votes for a WP:TfD vote. Anyone care to block him? True to form Schuminweb is blatently breaking WP rules (if he isn't unilaterally blanking templates he is trying to tell his friends to vote for the ones he wants. Some things never change. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 09:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When his spamming hit at least 20 and rising, I had to take immediate action. As I was initially involved the vote I am taking no more part in the discussion. I only intervened because at 20 and rising, the spamming had to be stopped immediately and no other admin seemed to be around. But the vote is probably worthless in any case given that he has rigged it. Plus ca change. lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain, he only asked them to give their opinion, not to vote one way or another. Without further knowledge of the situation, I'm reluctant to comment further. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything, John. If for instance I go around and find 20 people who have said nasty things about Tony Blair and tell them an article on criticisms of Tony Blair's foreign policy is up for deletion, then I'm trying to influence the outcome of the discussion. Even though I haven't actually instructed them what to say, I'm still taking action with a reasonable hope,and an obvious intention, of influencing the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the template belongs to the WikiProject Anti-war, and all of the people User:Schuminweb was contacting (along with himself) are listed as members of that WikiProject. This seems legitimate to me, as opposed to cherry-picking spam targets based on previous *fD votes, for example. Of course, leaving a note on the project's talk page would seem the more sensible course in future. I've contacted Jtdirl to suggest unblocking. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems better, with the caveat that I suspect that there is an issue of whether the membership of that wikiproject is a suitable criterion for selection. Wouldn't you expect editors who put their name to such a project to have a slanted view of warfare? I would. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as a member of several WikiProjects, I would certainly like to be informed if any of the project's templates were up for deletion (although probably on the project's talk page more than on my talk page). Is the topic a WikiProject writes about grounds for discriminating between it and another WikiProject? --bainer (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually providing a page for communication and coordination is precisely what WikiProjects are for. If you want all members of a wikiproject to know about something relevant to that project, put it either on the project page or its associated talk page. It will show up on people's watchlists. There is never a need to spam people about a wikiproject. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, could you point out where Schuminweb was warned about not page spamming? I can't seem to find it, all I see is an abrupt block without any warning whatsoever. I'm assuming good faith that you did warn him to stop, and he persisted. (as blocking without asking him first would be assuming bad faith) PS which arb case did talk page spamming come up in? Regards, MartinRe 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Regards, MartinRe 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have informed members of the Wikiproject-antiwar of votes for deletion of pages covered by the project before not knowing that this was controvercial.

While I appreciate that there is a case against informing people on their talk page about deletion votes because of vote rigging, informing people who have expressed an interest in the topic in question by joining a wikiproject on that topic seems to me to be appropreate. Yes it is true that a message could just be put on a the project talk page but users are often slow to check that page, checking their talk page more often.

I think that we need to have a debate about the issule in general. If such a discusion has allready taken place please point me to it.--JK the unwise 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI move warring (shocking, I know!)

So I create a page,[46] and then SPUI comes right along and moves it,[47] despite many, many warnings that moving these pages pending resolution of the dispute is a blockable offense.[48] Is there anyone here who entertains even a fraction of a shadow of a doubt that he's going to move any other pages that I create, thumbing his noses at you guys yet again, if he is not blocked for this stunt? —phh (^t/_c) 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to check, you're absolutely certain that creating pages like that given the current situation isn't just a teensy bit provocative? —Phil | Talk 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been creating missing pages, one every few days, in numerical order, for several months[49] [50] [51] [52] [53], so I would have to say… no. It is true that I chose a name that is consistent with the standard that was in place before Freakofnurture moved them all in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to be disruptive regarding a matter that's currently before the ArbCom because of his and SPUI's actions. I was asked, and agreed, not to try and move the pages back in the meantime, and so I haven't. But I certainly have no intention of rewarding Freakofnurture's and SPUI's bad behavior by adopting their pet naming convention when I create entirely new articles. I've put a lot of time into creating missing articles for the WP:WASH project, since long before SPUI decided to start move warring with everyone, and I don't intend to allow two editors' disruptive behavior to stop me from continuing to do so. —phh (^t/_c) 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While it may have provoked SPUI into moving by creating these new articles at the name he current says we're all stupid for using, that's no reason to for him to go on a move spree, AGAIN. JohnnyBGood t c 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope - nothing wrng with his creation of these. The naming conflict shouldn't affect the writing of articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Editor being attacked for cleaning out a stub category

PZFUN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) recently cleaned out Category:Judaism_stubs, putting many articles that did not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria on Articles for Deletion.

But now people are attacking him left and right and assuming bad faith and whatnot.

Good grief!

Kim Bruning 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and he got mad and deleted his user and talk pages. Happy joy joy. Kim Bruning 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What does being a featured article editor have to do with anything? This gives him/her no more or no less power, authority or credit than any other editor. The fact that PZFUN is on a campaign to remove ONLY articles about one ethnic group is problematic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Try again Zoe. PZFUN was cleaning out stubs. Stubs are divided into sub-catagories these days, and he happened to be working on the judaism stubs catagory. If you had cared to actually check the links, you would have found that the articles nominated on AFD are all precicely in that cat. Kim Bruning 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he was just lucky he didn't try this in an area people really care about like schools. There is a reason bulk listing for not meeting Wikipedia:Verifiability genraly isn't done (in fact bulk listing is generaly a bad idea for whatever reason when it comes to articles).Geni 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(Apologies for my reply above being slightly unfriendly, I'm fairly angry at the moment.) Kim Bruning 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, the reason featured article writers are important is because they are involved in the minor&controversial activity of writing a great encyclopedia ;-) We should chase them all away as quickly as possible and rename the site to wikimyspace. :-P Kim Bruning 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone uninvolved should go through the recent stack of speedy keeps of Jewish this-and-thats and re-nominate the obvious deletion candidates on AfD. It would make all the invocations of "good faith" (PZFUN in nominating them, SlimVirgin in closing the nominations) more credible. Just a suggestion. Dr Zak 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for volunteering to do that! :-) Kim Bruning 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominating major Hasidic Rebbes with random summer camos was something of a faux-pas. Anyone remember Asterix on Corsica, when Asterix and Obelix are in that cave and Obelix mistakes a Corsican chieftain for a boar? ("Never had Corsican chieftain for dinner, and please don't stare at me like that, it gives me a headache!") Per Kim's suggestion I'll go and close all of PZFUN's nominations and will then re-list the non-controversial ones with a suitable note. Dr Zak 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Zoe above - Frankly, I am appalled at how a well-meaning, experienced editor on Wikipedia can be accused of poor faith to the degree that they feel it necessary to leave Wikipedia, when merely carrying out a task that is perfectly legitimate and in pursuit of improving the editorial quality of the articles in question. To accuse PZFUN of a "campaign" is quite wrong; it was merely a case of having "cleaned out" articles from a particular category, that did not otherwise conform to Wikipedia editorial standards such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research, etc. I supported PZFUN in his deletions of the various articles, because I agreed with him about them, and we'd talked about them on IRC. I'm not terribly happy with many of the nominations being speedy delisted especially since some had already received delete votes from other participants. I think Dr Zak is correct in his suggestion above. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly disturbed by the accusations made about me for stub-cleaning. While some have chosen to view such pruning as an attack on their religion, such a conclusion is entirely erroneous. I am not an anti-Semite. My grandfather is a Holocaust survivor, and I have no place in my life for anti-Semitism. That being said, I am greatly disturbed that nominating articles that do not meet any of the current Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as an article, notably notability, verifiability, and referencing has been met with such hostility and anger solely because the articles pertain to Judiasm. As a thank-you for trying to clean up some of the JudaismCruft to be found in [[Category:Judaism stubs]] and other related categories, I have been extremely angrily attacked and had accusations levelled against me that I have either been a Crusader, a POV-pusher, an anti-Semite, etc, all of which are bogus. The only WP:POINT I had to make was that there are a lot articles related to Judaism on Wikipedia that do not meet any critera for inclusion. If that is a POINT made in bad faith, as I have so been accused, then Wikipedia is in a far more unhealthy place than I ever thought possible.

At no point were other users unable to make their views known in a healthy, non-confrontational manner on all of the AfD pages, on my talk page, or anywhere else: had I really wanted to make a POV-push or make a POINT, I would have circumvented community imput and listed them as Speedy candidates or just deleted them myself. Yet I remain deeply disturbed by the lack of regard for one of the few policies that have yet to make an appearance in this debate: Wikipedia:Ownership. Neither Jewish editors nor those involved with the Judaism WikiProject do not own any article nor the right to edit it. If this is the welcome given to anyone who attemps to clean up articles within their scope, then I am not surprised that the article quality remains low throughout.

I am more than happy to apologise for some of the things I did. Yes, perhaps some of the historically rabbis should have had tags applied to their articles before being listed for deletion. But I do not apologise for my attempts to clean out what has become an unhealthy part of the Wiki-verse. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that no one called you an anti-semite, your claim that none of the articles you nominated for an AFD were verifiable is clearly erroneus. Many of the articles had sources, they just weren't on the internet, they were books that were properly cited at the bottom of the article. Even if it was true that they had no references that does not make the subject any less notable, you do not nominate an article that is about the founder of Hasidism for deletion, you request more sources, or possibly a cleanup (although many of the AFDs didn't even need that).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the articles that PZFUN nominated and the notion that the AfD nominations were a matter of clearing out a stub category is not upheld by the array of articles that were nominated. For instance, Moshe Zvi of Savran and Eliezer Zusia Portugal (there might be more; I stopped at finding two) were not tagged with the stub template at the time that they were nominated for deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They were, however, in Category:Hasidic rebbes, which is I expect where PZFUN looked, browsing from the top level of Category:Judaism downwards. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Which makes one wonder why that category was chosen to be the one to be "cleaned out". User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the user was just interested in those subjects? It seems like there is a lot of jumping to conclusions here.... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking to the stated assumption that the user was concentrating on clearing a stub category. Evidence does not support that assumption. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll repeat again: this seemingly arbitrary, en mass "reads like an ad" nominations of major Hasidic Rabis was highly questionable, at best. And Nichola Turnbull's equally robotic, "delete as per PZFUN" worked to legitimate these disruptive edits. El_C 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Though I'm skeptical myself of the notability of summer camps, I think the problem here has been that PZFUN took a "broad brush" approach, determining that there was a group of "problem editors" rather than some articles with problems. Personalization is never a helpful thing here, but I can only think that that was the emotive factor behind the AfDing of so many articles on really obviously encyclopedic Hasidic rebbes, something that I think PZFUN is conceding now was an error in judgement. That said, the "this doesn't smell right" comments were unwarranted; bigotry should be the last motive we ascribe to a fellow editor, reached only after we have exhausted the other much more likely possibilities, e.g. pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.--Pharos 04:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the only motive that could rationally be applied to PZFUN's actions is gluttony, and possibly a little bit of sloth.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See, isn't this avenue of criticism much more productive? :)--Pharos 21:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

While camps seem clearly dubious, and likely a good find, it far from offsets [On closer look, it appears many of the camps are notable, but this is not the same thing as systematically nominating articles from Category:Sufis or Category:Hindu religious figures, and so on] [T]he insultingly-phrased mass nominations of "really obviously encyclopedic Hasidic rebbes." What PZFUN, Nicholas, and Kim fail to appreciate is the extraeditorial act itself. The talk pages of those articles were not employed and individual attention was not accorded to each entry. Nor were querries placed in other, more central places: the category talk page, the PJ, etc. By entrenching themsleves in their positions, they're setting a bad precedent. El_C 05:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this got taken wikiwide, so the best viable option now was to entrench, which is far from my preference. This could have been handled more diplomatically all around from the get-go, I totally agree. I think that that's the take-home message here. Kim Bruning 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm getting too good at managerese :-/

The problem is the entrenchment; it is the lack of introspection. Otherwise, I'd pass it for errors in judgments that can be overlooked. El_C 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

*blink* I just said that, didn't I? I thought I sorted this out with Slimvirgin and PZFUN on saturday. We even got a third party to recheck and renominate articles that were clearly bad. But people still continue to assume bad faith, even after that point. Even though basically we have the whole thing sorted out. And every time we need to explain. But it is hard to explain, and I'm sort of stuck on what to do about all this. <hmph> Kim Bruning 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not. You said "the best viable option now was to entrench," that's the opposite. El_C 22:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now you've twisted me around so far even I don't know what happened. And I'm sure I have the logs ;-) Kim Bruning 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere, in order to demonstrate to you that I am not evil, and am in fact, good, I will be proposing a specific set of reforms to AfD in the near future. This will involve a two-part effort: 1. Better clarifying the guidelines in terms of the minimum steps necessary to file an AfD for single and multiple articles. 2. Better organizational structure. Once we defeat the aggregate nature of AfD, it will become drastically more accessible to outsiders and especially, respective experts. So watch out for my proposal soon. El_C 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we established that you are not evil yesterday already. ;-) Even so, this is great :-D . Kim Bruning 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I for one find it refreshing to see people blowing up over the mass deletion of something other than userboxes. :]

Seriously though, I think we all have particular topics which we care about and there are always going to be a few who go ballistic when their interests are 'attacked' (or looked at funny). One of my favored topics has unimaginable tons of unreferenced cruft that we are slowly trying to sort out and organize into lists and sub-groups and whatnot, and I would certainly be less than pleased if someone came along and nominated huge chunks of the admittedly unencyclopedic/unreferenced/et cetera stuff for deletion before it could be cleaned up. Lacking verifiability, notability, et cetera are reasons to delete individual articles... not entire topics with dozens of articles. There is almost always going to be another option. For instance, these 'Jewish summer camps' might not be notable individually (I really have no idea), but an article listing them and explaining why such camps exist or how they are different from other camps would seem to be more notable... thus a discussion before taking action might have resulted in an amicable agreement to merge some of the articles or efforts to add references and explanations of those which were notable, et cetera. Ditto the rebbes (sp?). Any mass action at odds with the efforts of some group will lead to disruption and anger. Not may, not could... will. Is that 'unfortunate' and 'unneccessary' and 'bad'? Yes... but railing against that which is inevitable (unless we replace all the humans with robots) is equally pointless and 'bad'. Accept that all humans are jerks - it allows you to feel indifference on those occasions when they prove it and surprise and admiration on those occasions when they don't. :]

I look forward to seeing El C's proposal in regards to the 'mass actions' issue. --CBDunkerson 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a minor aspect of my proposal for AfD reform. Please take the time to review it here. El_C 13:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just posted a proposal at the Village pump. (First time I post a proposal, please tell me if all is done right!) Read all about it here. Dr Zak 22:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Flagrant disregard for discussion and consensus

The user WikiStylee has practically threatened vandalism to keep his site on an external links list despite ungoing discussions for it's inclusion on the Talk:Spore (video game) page. Especially in the xSpore section, and especially through this edit. If someone can look into this, it would be useful. Thanks Chris M. 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Users from the site xSpore.com have been repeatedly editing the Spore article to add a link to their site, and remove the one to the SporeWiki.com. There is a heated discussion in the talk page, though frankly the only ones supporting their actions seem to be people directly affiliated with xSpore.com, who seem to have it out for SporeWiki. It just hit the stupid point, though:

(From Talk:Spore (video game)): Well maybe you should consider not contradicting yourself before making discussion. Should you continue, we will be more than happy to continue adding our links back. When both sites are treated fairly, then things will be alright. Until then, we will continue with our said actions. And as for the action against our IP addresses, go right ahead as we have access to thousands of ip addresses to make edits from, thank you. So treat all sites fairly and don't contradict yourselves otherwise you will be facing a lot of heat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiStylee (talk • contribs) .

He's threatening the site with repeat vandalism. That ain't nice, or civil. WikiStylee is directly involved with the xSpore.com website, and has something against SporeWiki.com, as evidenced from the previous discussion. I might go to the RfC with this as well, but I figured I should definately mention it here because of WikiStylee's threats. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just get it added to the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the site itself is o-kay and eventually might be worth including, so that is probably too harsh. But if that is the common practice then that's okay. Chris M. 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-Opening closed AfD's

• User:Homeontherange seems to be reopening a whole bunch of AfD's ([54] and [55] for example) that had been closed as Speedy Keep relating to the User:PZFUN controversy..... I assume that he's not supposed to be doing that... - pm_shef 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it probably wasn't the best way of going about it, but it's worked out OK as they've been relisted. Stifle (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo, diff needs deletion.

(diff removed) --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try attempting to delete this page with such a huge history. I've removed the diff for several reasons. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But... I like the feeling. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeat. Click me to beat me up IRL!--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done Will (^E_@) T 06:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Redjax88, vandalism, evading block

User:172.194.65.210 seems to have taken up where the blocked user User:Redjax888 left off - I think it's him evading the block. He keeps removing a link on Bob Brinker that is critical of Brinker. A short history: another user was adding multiple critical links, all to the same website. I reduced it to just one link for balance and to keep the article neutral. Other user seems fine with that now. Redjax888 was blocked for removing all user comments on the talk page (seven times), but he was also removing anything critical of Brinker on the article page, and he's doing it again with this IP, I think, evading the block. I have no horse in this race - I just happened to be on vandalism patrol and have spent a week trying to keep a balance between two edit warring editors who don't seem to know much about Wikipedia, except that they can edit as often as they want. If User:172.194.65.210 is the same as Redjax88, can IP be blocked? ॐ Priyanath 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:172.194.65.210 has now removed an entirely appropriate opposing view link 9 times in the last 24 hours. Is there any recourse? ॐ Priyanath 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked pretty clear to me that that was redjax888's ip, so I tagged it as his sockpuppet and blocked it for 24 hours (the length of the block on redjax888. Syrthiss 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! ॐ Priyanath 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, someone acting much like Redjax88 is continuing to delete the same material at Bob Brinker. I've reverted and placed warnings at the IP talk pages of User:172.193.217.144 (same IP block as the other sockpuppet of Redjax), and User:168.103.72.5. ॐ Priyanath 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User persistently uploading copyvio image

Rick lay95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded Image:ManualStadium.jpg three times today. So far it's been deleted under CSD I7 (bad fair-use claim), CSD I3 (by-permission or non-commercial only), and it's currently tagged with the clearly incorrect tag of {{PD-self}}. The user has a long history of uploading images with problematic information (see the flood of notices by OrphanBot and others on his talk page), and he's been warned about uploading images with false copyright information. --Carnildo 04:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted & warned user. El_C 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Iasson blocked indefinitely

User:Iasson has returned with the sock User:Gorbown. Since I'm sure we are all tired of having to unblock and reblock every time he does this, I have just gone ahead and blocked this account indefinitely. Please review, and reduce the ban to one year if you feel this is inappropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is in keeping with existing practice: people who repeatedly use sockpuppets to evade blocks find those blocks turning into indefinite bans. I wonder if we need to codify this common sense provision? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• No, you've done the right thing (I was considering it too). Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect this might be an imitator rather than the "real" Iasson. Notice that they don't seem to have the weird grammar Iasson always used. Even so, I advocate indef blocking of both the real Iasson and this new one, whoever they may be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Xino

I have blocked Xino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely based on this edit [56]. The linked post followed a sustained pattern of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Looking at his history and general contributions, he depicted a clear pattern of disruption and inability to construct productive edits. Also see this and other stuff. -Zero^Talk 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He currently has a WP:RfAr going, actually. You might want to offer to dictate his reply to it on his talk. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not paticularly relevant. He's blocked indefinitely, and Fred has rejected because of that. Please note that the user has neglected to respond to the rfar. He's an obvious indefinite block canidate. -Zero^Talk 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly agree with this block—one need only look here. RadioKirk talk to me 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. Extraordinarily difficult editor. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am just a user. But wouldn't it be better to block a user for say, 6 months, or even 5 years. Indefinitely seems too strong. Wallie 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Wallie 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Indefinitely" essentially means, "you've demonstrated that you need to be blocked until you convince the community that your block should be lifted." Indefinite and permanent are not synonymous. RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "until hell freezes over..." comes to mind.Wallie 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Like this? :) RadioKirk talk to me 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting images

User:Nv8200p continiously deletes the image Image:Tpb.jpg in spite the fact that it is properly tagged, contains the license text as well as source information. The image was tagged for deletion by another user, but the full license text was added later. Nevertheless, User:Nv8200p still deleted the image and continues to do that. Please help to protect the image and to stop the vandalism.--Nixer 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The licensing is in Russian. I have no idea whether it says "This license means that the media can be used commercially and allows for derivative use" or not. Perhaps a Russian speaker can translate the license and confirm that the image is properly sourced? Jkelly 16:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rough translation: Here is a list of my photographs found in your project [list of images]. This list is exhaustive. Other photographs from my site must not be used in your project (with free resale). If you do not have the opportunity to place a direct link to my site under each photograph, then it would be best to delete them from your project. Respectfully. Eugene.

IANAL, but it doesn't seem all that clear. The text isn't a license per se, but a note forbidding Wikipedia's use (allowing for "resale") of any images but the ones listed there; there's nothing explicit about derivative works (or even explicit permission to use the listed images, for that matter). Kirill Lokshin 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So User:Nv8200p was quite correct in deleting this. We have no justification for publishing this particular photographer's tourist photos. Jkelly 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the letter, received from the author. If you want to verify the permission, you can e-mail the author.--Nixer 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the wrong way around. If you want to upload this person's work, have them email the permissions address. Their email must indicate a license that allows derivative and commercial reuse. Jkelly 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission has some excellent examples of the kind of permission we need. FreplySpang 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail from the author is included in the image page!--Nixer 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, and it doesn't provide the kind of permission we need. FreplySpang 21:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crazynas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the recent edits looks like Crazynas' account was hacked and compromised by a vandal, and thus was recently blocked indefinitely. Should we also block his bot User:CrazynasBot too for security reasons? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, (1) I didn't see the vandalism like the main account in the history for the bot and (2) I don't know about him, but my bot has a different password than my main admin account. Crazynas is requesting an unblock on his talk page, so he may have control over his account again (as well). Syrthiss 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And he's unblocked by Musical Linguist as of 15:51. Syrthiss 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that he loaned his computer out to someone else, and that person, well, you know... [57] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the recent contributions were not to his credit! I blocked indefinitely, but put in the block log that I might ask for a review. Then, with several browser windows open at the same time, I started typing a message to him, and looking through his previous contributions, which were fine. I was going to post a message here, asking for advice, when I saw his {{unblock}}. The six vandalism edits were completely inconsistent with his previous edits, so I had no problem in accepting his statement that someone else had been using his computer. AnnH ♫ 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(trolling removed. sorry Syrthiss, YHBT, HAND. --SB)

??? Syrthiss 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims

I have deleted User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims as it was listing Users by Username as having persecuted Muslims because of actions taken on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good delete, fair play. Snoutwood (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, a permblock may be an order, but then again, I am not an administrator. Could someone promote me for all the good advice I've placed on this board? And my roommate would like one too, because he has been invaluable at helping me research these matters.Transcendetitized Artist 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to step out of line up there, but my roommate is one of those people that thinks he knows everything. He told me to ask for a promotion on this board. I told him that this was the wrong board! Sorry.Transcendetitized Artist 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of action needs to be taken against this user; he's just not "getting it". Also, Transcendetitized Artist needs to be blocked indef ... it's our favorite, the ANI troll, again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting: I am well aware, that you have the power to block editors for vandalism any time you assume bad faith.[58] And I am well aware, that Zoe did not intend to persecute Muslims, but blocked them, because he wanted the cartoons to stay in the article.[59] Since I'm obligated to assume good faith, I consider the persecution as collateral damage. Furthermore I am well aware, that you have the power to censor critique on administrators.[60] Raphael1 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting:" I think it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA mean, that any critique on administrators is prohibited? Raphael1 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusing any user of "persecution of Muslims" is a personnal attack, not a critique. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never accused anyone. "Persecution of Muslims" has been the title of the article in which I've listed editors, who have been blocked for (re)moving the cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. I'd consent to change the title to "Victims of the J-P cartoons controversy article", but I'm not sure whether I'd still be blocked indefinitely. Raphael1 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not try working to create an encyclopedia instead of editorializing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that you'd feel more comfortable, if I'd forget about it. OTOH there are currently at least four editors unwarrantedly blocked, who could not only help writing articles, but they could help balance the bias too (which is IMHO even more important). Please tell me: Do you want a neutral encyclopedia or do you want to block editors for not sharing your POV? Raphael1 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have another question ... can we just block Raphael1 and get it over with? He's clearly not going to change his ways. --Cyde↔Weys 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, with the exception of this incident, some spamming and some repetitive (read vandalistic) image altering on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (with corresponding neverending talk about how they need to be removed/hidden/etc.) Raphael1's editing hasn't been the perfect example of a truly disruptive editor. This list making does strike me as a bit egregious but only due to the language he used for the title and the fact that it wasn't done in a public "RfC" style format and he was spamming a select group of other editors talk pages to inform them about it. At this point the only reason that I could possibly see for blocking Raphael1 would fall under the "exhausting the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy... but imho that reasoning isn't currently applicable. If you're serious Cyde, I'd suggest you start with an RfC and go from there but unless Raphael1 repeats the behavior I'm mentioning here (for which he'd merit serious blockage), I'd say it's too soon. Netscott 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack page

Looks like User:Anwar saadat the muslim extremist is aimed at User:Anwar saadat. A indef ban may be appropriate. Tintin (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefnitely. --Cyde↔Weys 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Anwar Saadat may not be an appropriate username, either—Anwar Sadat is a real and quite famous individual. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to GeneralPatton, etc. ? El_C 22:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the face of it, neither seems appropriate under the username policy. Both would seem to violate "Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures (e.g. Benjamin Franklin; Chuck Norris)". In general, I'd suggest that if you can put square brackets around a user's name and end up in a biographical article, then we're afoul of that provision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Saadat's username is fine. His personal attacks, vandalism and POV pushing, however, were not. I'm pretty sure he was blocked over it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not have any further restrictions on user names--there are an awful lot of username blocks as it is. It would be possible to construe that policy in such a way as to indefinitely block me, not to mention our friend Tintin above. Chick Bowen 03:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I am afraid that if I ever go for RfA, people will vote against me because my nick is 'copyrighted' as they did in Lord Voldemort's RFA. Even though in the west the name of Anwar Sadat is always linked with the Egyptian President, elsewhere it is a common Muslim name. In this case, it appears to be the editor's real name. Tintin (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for crusades

There's some weird anti-anti-userbox movement being formed here. For all intents and purposes it looks like a simple vote-stacking campaign designed to disrupt our consensus-seeking processes. I'm not going to deal with it myself because they seem to have singled me out personally as the enemy, but obviously this isn't the kind of thing we need to put up with at Wikipedia. They also have a signature, welcome message, recruitment message, and rejection message (in case you don't get into their little club!). Here's the message he's using on his userpage to advertise this crusade (his words): You have been invited to join Fredil Yupigo's crusade against the mass deletion of userboxes. Click here to add your name to the list. (Created March 16) They also have their own userbox. --Cyde↔Weys 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm for deleting all of this. We don't do exclusive clubs in wikipedia, and we don't do campaigning groups. Anyone else see yeh? --Doc ^ask? 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I saw that earlier and was on the verge of doing something about it and the thing that Cyde mentions below. The latter, especially, is an attack page and should go. Speedy, or MfD? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusades and votestacking bad. Personally I agree that those pages, as they stand, have no place in this encyclopedia. I'm inclined towards MFD, in order to show that the deletion isn't a unilateral decision. FreplySpang 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also check out this little gem: User:Fredil Yupigo/AHH CYDE IS INVADING. It was linked to from a bunch of user talk page spamming that has already begun using this "members list". Here are some diffs: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] --Cyde↔Weys 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Geez...Block...simply not here to write an encyclopedia IMO.--MONGO 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, you could slow down the ubx deletions a bit, but just get this little club on MFD. Will (^E_@) T 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with trying to delete a vote-stacking group is, well, they're gonna vote-stack to keep it. --Cyde↔Weys 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So far they haven't. JohnnyBGood t c 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a particularly effective vote-stacking group. --Cyde↔Weys 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LMFAO! Cyde you actually made me laugh. Maybe there is hope for progress. JohnnyBGood t c 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that they have. See here: [75]. This behavior is and always has been unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Emergency! Emergency! JohnnyBGood t c 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of his activities at the time and I regret them, but I still hold that it is a place for information, just like it says. I will talk to him about putting it up for speedy. --mboverload@ 00:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how badly people behave regarding userboxes is making me extremely tempted to rip off my own userboxes in disgust. And I don't even have any opinion-expressing userboxes (well, unless you choose to interpret {{user 1337-0}} a certain way. I really would have no objection if Jimbo would come along and unilaterally decree that all non-Babel userboxes must be nuked, but of course he won't. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My block of TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs)

After repeated warnings about civility, being asked to not refer to other editors content disputes with him as vandalism and his commentary to two editors (myself included) that he is going to "publish" information on editors, I have blocked TruthSeeker1234 for 24 hours after he made comments as shown here, which are actually mild compare to some he has made. There is an arbitration request which details this better.--MONGO 20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recommend indefinite block. --Cyde↔Weys 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's clear to me that he's not here to write an encyclopedia, but to promote his pet theories. I'd be inclined to accept that as the cost of doing business, but his persistent incivility, and his threat to publish an article accusing me of vandalism, make his presense here a net loss for the community. I support the block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• The diff above doesn't IMV support a block. I also can'tin a brief search find threatening comments. He's clearly not here for the right reasons - but can someone provide more evidence? The Land 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Clearly not here for the right reasons" supports an indefinite block, actually. --Cyde↔Weys 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are a few examples. User:DCAnderson collected more for the arbitration:
      • • User talk:Tom harrison#TruthSeeker1234 has written about you
        • Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#12 May 2006
        • Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center#Tom Harrison and Vandalism
        • "I, cannot, in all my imagination, think that Tom Harrison's deletions of my work were anything other than deliberate acts to suppress important information, acts of bad faith."[76]
    • Indefinite is fine with me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think if you examine the arbcom request linked above, it may povide more detail. This has been an ongoing event for some time now.--MONGO 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had another look. To me it seems that there are three points:
      • The user is continually engaged in POV-pushing on an article
      • The user refers to other peoples' edits as vandalism
      • The user has made one, not very credible, threat to 'publish' something about someone
    • If I've misunderstood something pelase let me know, but to me that doesn't indicate that he's a threat to anything, just a fairly unproductive user. I am not happy with an indefinite block against him and would urge people like MONGO and Tom harrison not to block him themselves - further action should only be taken by someone who's not party to the dispute. Start an RfC on him? The Land 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe this block is unwarrented. This is part of a battle between several users, some of whom use their admin power to win arguements. This user has been politely argueing his case and has been repeatedly and often agressively shouted down and unnecessarily reverted by Mongo, Tom Harrison and others. Accusations of vandalism have been made all round, not just by truthseeker. I for one have gotten bored of these irrational arguements, but Truthseeker, Mongo and Tom Harrison have all continued. It is unfair for this user to be blocked simply because he disaggrees with an admin. Seabhcán 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I believe he probably needs to be blocked, it should come from a third party and not MONGO.--DCAnderson 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that blocking people who deserve to be blocked for incivility and failure to respect the consensus reached in articles is not a bad thing. I also think that he should be indefinately blocked but considering the AbrCom maybe we can let them decide that. With regards to Seabhcán assertions I must diagree. If you see the user's history of edits, he continously defends users like TruthSeeker because they hold his 9/11 truth point-of-view regardless of what Wikipedia policies they break. This is extremely frustrating. It is not fair that administrators refuse to acknowledge users who break with Wikipedia policy because they share their POVs. I would say that this is reason enough to remove adminship from users.--Jersey Devil 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a block is a very last resort, but TruthSeeker1234 has thoroughly tested patience here and the incivility is unacceptable. I support the 24 hour block but any longer-term or indefinite block should come from an uninvolved, third party. (not me) Since this has been brought up in ArbCom, I would prefer them to take a look at the situation. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DCAnderson: Admins should not block people they are currently disputing with, and decisions regarding indefinate blocks for these kinds of reasons need to be left to ArbCom. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Solomaxwell

Solomaxwell (talk · contribs) has not edited since October, then shows up today and makes this edit, then created Been Around the Block Islands. Compromised account? I have blocked indefinitely until we get an explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief review of his previous edits suggests the same taste for silly vandalism. So compromised brain, not compromised account. Keep him blocked. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:PIO

PIO (talk · contribs) (somtimes 151.50.xx.xx, Jxy) has been making very strong POV edits in regards to Josip Broz Tito, which has been protected as a result (rv war). he has now moved onto other topics like istrian exodus where he has basically been making the same edits. I have repeatedly tried to get him into a discussion on the first topic, but whenever he is proven wrong he has a "temper tantrum" or ignores it. I have warned him before on his talk page, but he continues. --Zivan56 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dukakis1988

[[77]]. User attacks my personal page, removes tags (without hangon). Wondering if I could get assistance in a civility message. Yanksox 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by admin InShaneee

Pantherarosa was listed on WP:PAIN for making personal attacks against User:Melca. [78] When I looked into the situation, I noticed that Pantherarosa had been removing warnings. I restored the warnings and add the do not remove warnings tag to his/her talk page. This caused Pantherarosa to start attacking me. I elevated the NPA warnings but (s)he continued. I continued to elevate the warnings but to no avail. I became annoyed and made one incivil remark to Pantherarosa. InShaneee posted a NPA warning on my page. [79] When I contacted him about it [80], he admitted that my comments were not personal attacks, but still refused to change the warning. He also said that all of my edits violated WP:CIVIL [81], when in fact there was only one. [82] When I asked him for an explaination[83], he pretty much resorted to "it is because I say so". [84] [85] [86] [87]

Secondly, one of my comments was incivil towards Pantherarosa who had repeatedly made personal attacks against me. Wikipedia's policies go for all users regardless of circumstances, so an incivil warning should stay on my talk page. However, because I had made one incivil comment toward the other user, InShaneee refused to block Pantherarosa. Not only is this a double standard, but I was not even the one who had the brunt of Pantherarosa's attacks. As another user said on InShanne's talk page: Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. I agree with this completely, and to add on that InShaneee is refusing to punish Pantherarosa to make a point to me, even though I wasn't even the person Pantherarosa was originally attacking. The full discussion on WP:PAIN is here: Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard#Pantherarosa (talk • contribs) Paul Cyr 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, User:InShaneee exhibited a double standard when blocking me. He blocked me and stated on my Talk Page, "You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption. If a user comes here, to an encyclopedia, asking for information, it shouldn't be difficult to point him to such info". However, I spelled out for him expilicity how the answers I gave, difference, were w links that are sometimes in and sometimes out of the article, Scientology but are the most direct possible answers to the user's specific question. I also spelled out to him why the link answering, "when did the present Church of Scientology start?" is not present in the article today. InShaneee came up with the term, "linkspamming" to describe his blocking me for that answer. Then, in discussion on my talk page, User:InShaneee he made me a promise. "Fax us over some of those high-level OTs and I PROMISE you it'll get fixed up." [88] Left unsaid was "I'm with the Cartel, you should betray Scientology and Fax "us" confidential documents." Whether he is aware or not, such an invitation is unethical to make and would be unethical to fulfill.Terryeo 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both users above. User:InShaneee's conduct is not proper for an administrator. There's more to being an admin than giving warnings out like candies and refusing to discuss related issues. User:InShaneee was adamant that accusing someone of trolling even if they are a troll constitutes as a personal attack, when I displayed that he himself has accused other users of trolling and that it's hypocritical he blocked me for 24 hours in retaliation.--Eupator 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Being unpopular is usually par for the course for admins, especially those who have SP type roles. I personally think that InShaneee is a good lad, a bit of a laugh. Thanks. Wallie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe our statements don't address his sense of humor, but address his judgement. Though his sense of humor would be a subject that might be explored. :) Terryeo 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what's even funnier? I was warned by InShaneee for making a similar remark as Wallie just did. I imagine that if you weren't defending him, he'd give you a civility warning. In fact, mocking a complaint is incivil, so why don't you deserve a warning? Paul Cyr 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee is quite right in saying that calling someone a troll is a personal attack even if they are trolling. Just like calling an obese person "fat" is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with cerebral palsy a "spastic" is a personal attack. Just like telling an ugly person they're ugly is a personal attack. Just like calling someone with low intelligence "dumb" is a personal attack. I could go on but I think you get the message. The accuracy or otherwise of a personal attack does not make it any less a personal attack. In fact, usually the accurate personal attacks are the most hurtful. Snottygobble 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not always. WP:NPA is pretty clear that the comment may be considered personal attack "if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." If it is a relevant and fundamentally informative observation, then by definition it's not a personal attack. FeloniousMonk 05:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling anyone a troll is always wrong. It is a device to get your own way when editing articles. Wallie 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Snottygobble on this. There is an additional argument here about not feeding trolls; calling a troll a troll is an indication to them that they have provoked an emotional response, and as such is an incitement to troll some more. Better just to leave the default messages. --bainer (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, can you provide diffs of where InShaneee accused others of trolling? I just want to make sure all claims are linked to with diffs so that we don't have people accusing others of lying. Paul Cyr 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his contributions, you will find many instances such as this [89], I merely pointed out that it's hypocritical for which he blocked me for 24 hours.--Eupator 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong. Will (^E_@) T 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not going to engage in this, partly because I qualified InShaneee warning against me, Eupator and Paul Cyr as a lack of experience from this administrators part, but to my surprise having seen him/her sign a disput which I don't ever remember having seen him/her even being engaged in or involved in or having even edited those articles or their talk page [90], I had to conclude that this was a retaliation to my remark about him/her [91], [92]. Administrators should not act like this, retaliating against a user like this reflect immaturity. Also, I am troubled that some veterans find it nothing wrong about InShaneee block against Eupator. While in practice there is nothing wrong in blocking someone for not respecting a guideline or policy, that the principal alleged victim here of Eupator remark was InShaneee, and to the measure that he/she took the decision to block him, I believe, InShaneee made this something personal and obviously reflect unexperience and somehow a lack of judgement. Also, that Lutherian is a troll, I will repeat this and should never be blocked for this. A checkusers has reflected that he is indeed a troll, he has done nothing in Wikipedia other then trolling and slandering members. Insteed of provoquing veterans of Wikipedia by giving warnings because those veterans have retaliated against a troll, he/she should work to prevent such things to happen. Fad (ix) 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is no different than calling someone a vandal - the characterization should only be made when assuming good faith is no longer reasonable. Otherwise, it shouldn't be considered a personal attack, as it indicates specifically whether an editor's edits primarily disrupt Wikipedia; it doesn't address any personal trait. HKT 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I think in most cases there are far better alternatives to using such terms. If a troll needs to be dealt with, he should certainly be dealt with, but I just don't see how saying "You're a troll" solves anything in most cases. --InShaneee 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True. When it comes to warning others, though, "Watch out - he's a troll" is easier than "A high percentage of his edits exhibit trolling, and this trolling is further reflected in his edit summaries and talk page remarks." Nevertheless, I think that "You're a troll" would violate WP:CIVIL rather than WP:NPA. HKT^Talk 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Personal Attacks by User:ER MD

On the talk page for Talk:Capital punishment ER MD posted the following;

You are an idiot and you are proving it. Note the differences: My statement: "thousands of murders that have occured in prison and by murderers released from prison" Your characterization: "letting murderers kill other people in prison and then releasing them" Do you not see the difference moron? I am stating that there are TWO different populations. You are saying that they are ONE. Damn, you are dumb. ER MD 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked him several times to stop making personal and snide comments, obviously to no avail. Any assistance would be appreciated. JCO312 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked ER MD (talk · contribs). It looks to me like your own behavior, while less egregious, leaves something to be desired. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hashbrowns is a sock?

User:Hashbrowns is a relatively new acct (first edit 22 April 2006), with relatively large wiki experience for such a newbie. User's first edit was a revert. User's homepage is a virtual clone of User:Kingstonjr's porn gallery. I see several instances of WP:BITE and lots of failing WP:AGF in his contributions. His edit summaries also arent exactly following WP:NPA. I'm going to guess this is a sockpuppet based on habits... and a troll based on userpage. Anyone got any idea who this is a sock of?  ALKIVAR™ 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask here. Essjay (Talk • Connect)</

I was following policy and rule #1: Due to the effort involved, difficulty of interpretation of results and privacy issues raised, checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first. (emphasis mine) not to mention the fact that you need another acct to compare against (which i cannot give you yet!)  ALKIVAR™ 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I can pull the IPs and see who else is using them. We need to know the other account when it is a dynamic IP, and there are 1000 other people on it; otherwise, we can't tell who is who. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:84.203.172.234 threatens disruption due to linkspam reverts

Please note the contribution history of 84.203.172.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), in particular the fact that there is almost nothing but adding links to various fora on [93]. I have reverted a great number of these, although not all as other editors have reverted some, too. Then consider this edit to InterBase, which just happens to be the first article listed in the "Articles I originated" section of my user page. The IP appears to be a dial-up, but as I noted there doesn't appear to be anyone else using that address. Worth watching, I think. Thanks for your attention! --Craig Stuntz 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See also this edit, posted minutes ago. --Craig Stuntz 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Temp-blocked 48 hours for another admin to look into it, as I don't have the time. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:54 UTC (2006-05-23)

Maybe you should move this to the bottom of the list so it's in chronological order?--Anchoress 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He's back under a new IP. --Craig Stuntz 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

216.239.38.136 signing as Merecat

This IP has been going around, signing as User:Merecat who is banned for being a sock. It has been editing in places such as User talk:Tbeatty, which lead me to think it is an impostor or Merecat him/herself. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it for disruption when he reposted his taunt on Kevin Baas's page ([94]). That kind of behavior is completely inappropriate, IMO. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

King Vegita (talk · contribs)

I need some advice on this one. Please look at these three edits by King Vegita (talk · contribs) on Aleister_Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

[95] - Adds 17 {{fact}} tags

[96] - calls removeing 15 of 17 tags vandalism.

[97] - reverts again.

To me it seems like at the very least a violation of WP:POINT. What do ya'll think? ---J.S (t|c) 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree; but my judgement is clouded by the difficulty of trying to bring some sanity to what appears to be a disagreement over something everyone agrees about, so someone else probably should gently remind King Vegita of WP:POINT as well as WP:CIVIL, since calling good faith edits vandalism is the epitome of Wiki incivility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's a flagrant violation of WP:POINT, for the most part. "This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work." I'm making a point, sure, but I'm not showing that any policy doesn't work. In fact, this is an attempt to force the article to improve itself.

I also should point out that WP:POINT clearly states: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." Administrators cannot act against me for violating a guideline, if I were violating it in actuality....... I'm pointing out that there is a clear POV bias.

Now, in the light of Crowley calling other races inferior, and that is cited, they decide that it is necessary for me to cite that he is a racist. Seeing as those statements were the only cited pieces of the article, I decided to go fact by fact and force them to cite it, especially an opinion, unbalanced, and the attempt to cite something with another statement. There were more than 17 facts in that statement, all uncited as per WP:V. I could in all rights, delete everything BUT the prejudice section, but I don't see that as helpful. But if I force them to cite everything, they'll 1) create a reputable article and 2) learn that you cannot be extremely stringent on the applications of WP policy, overriding policy that override even editor consensus according to all three, in the support of one viewpoint..... and then expect extremely lax in the application of it to your own.

I'm making a point about fair application (in which none of the citations I have asked for are even close to being as easily drawn from other citations or as obvious given the facts as what they insisted on another source for)

KV 05:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User is on his third and final reversion for the fact tags. I'd suggest that things are left be right now. If King Vegita reverts again, 24 block for violation of WP:3RR. If he continues after that, more might be merited. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)_{Note: I'm not a Admin.}

No, actually I am not. I made the initial change here, which is a beginning, not a revert. My first revert was here, and my second revert was [98] here. I am still entitled to one more reversion, and even if I were to use it now, I could revert three more times tomorrow...... so long as no four are within 24 hours of one another.

And then I notice that there is no worry to enforce WP:V here. That is an overriding policy that cannot be compromised except as per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR which are equal. Even editor consensus cannot be seen as overriding. Those must be cited.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You could also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided.

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

I was being more than fair by giving them a chance to provide sources. They cannot simply decide that they don't need to cite but two of seventeen requested facts, and as of yet, they still haven't cited them. Administrators have a duty to make sure that the policies are followed, and yet I see threats laid against me of a 24 hour ban, if I take my third revert, which I am absolutely allowed.

KV 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Err..... sorry, I was thinking Avilla was an admin...... that was probably the original edit conflict, her saying that.

KV 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop causing edit conflicts, dammit. WP:POINT in-and-of-itself isn't a blockable offense; However by the definition of the rule, if you've managed to break it you managed to crack another egg along the way. I'd also note that in this case, the addition would probably be considered a reversion. If you get blocked, you get blocked. It's 24 hours; The world won't change in that time. Furthermore, 24 hours isn't a fixed limit... I think the highest we've had is 4 reverts in 32 hours resulting in a ban. Aside from that, adding a fact citation to each word isn't generally liked; You are usually expected to slap one at the end of a disputed sentence(s) or paragraph. Try getting a third opinion, maybe a friend from WP:MEDCAB.--Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) _{Also, I'm a he dammit!}

No, it isn't a revert. I asked for citations, that isn't a revert. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." as per WP:V. Then, WP:Revert explains "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes." I did not undo anything, I added demands for citations. When I had a series of citations to make, word after word, I did it, properly. "Crowley made racist statements against the Chinese, specifically the lower classes[14], the Indians[15], the Italians[16], and the Jews[17]."

If they decide to put that many facts in a row, then they run that risk. Everything must be cited, and the policies must be applied in an NPOV manner, not in the favor of the Crowleyites.

KV 06:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1 tag makes the point just as well as 9 for one sentence. The way that it is typically done is to mark the end of the sentence and then start a conversation to the talk page. Instead, you decided wp:civil, wp:point, wp:van, wp:3rr were just annoyances to be ignored when you want them to be.

Oh my god, this has to be one of the most retarded conflicts I've ever been in. I'm arguing against someone I completely agree with. YES, ALL THOSE CLAIMS NEED CITATIONS! WE GET IT! Not only do we get it, we ALL agree with you! You keep trying to make the case it needs to be cited... and wow! You win! Your right! It does need to be cited! But, 17 bloody tags is inappropriate! It completely disrupts the article. 3 or 4 tags is fine. I'd even be fine with a tag a sentence. If 17 different citations is needed for the first paragraph, then fine. But 17 tags aren't needed to get the point acrost that citations are needed. Can I say this in any other way? Shall I try French? err... never mind, I don't actually know French. You may not belive this, but this weekend when I was reviewing the article I was planning on actualy going to the bookstore and buying a biliography so I can fill in some of the citations, but if I need work under these combative conditions, I'm not so sure I want to do that. ---J.S (t|c) 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the above — King Vegita added 36 {{fact}} tags to the Christianity article on 15 March.[99] I tried, politely and gently, to tell him that we don't need citation tags for things like Christians believe Jesus in the Messiah, or Chritians believe in heaven and hell, or Catholics also believe in purgatory. I did not call his edit vandalism, but said that if it had been made by an anon, it would possibly, though unfairly, have been called vandalism.[100] (I'm sure we've all seen cases of eccentric edits being labelled as vandalism.) He then went to the talk page of Trollwatcher (an editor who has been banned indefinitely for his part in contributing to and promoting a website that attacked Christian editors and gave personal information about them, which had led to stalking) and asked that my reverting of the fact tags and calling it vandalism would be reported to that website.[101] In fairness to King Vegita, the website at that time did not yet give personal details about the editors. He has also, made what seemed to be a WP:POINT by removing things from the article when something he wanted met with opposition. It's discussed here. I don't think his edits are in bad faith, though his support for the stalking website raises questions, but he seems not to understand policy properly — expecting me to block an editor for seven reverts when four of them were reverts of vandalism, and questioning the block of an obvious sockpuppet, which was reported by the blocking admin (myself) and upheld by others. AnnH ♫ 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I found 17 cite tags added by an anon, I'd revert it as vandalism on the spot. Adding all those tags was disruptive, and was clearly meant to be. That was his point. I also dislike this counting of reverts, as if someone could say "No, that was two, not three, so I get 2 more before 10:30, then I get another until 2:15 when it resets." My answer to that would be, "No, you get a block right now for edit warring and disruption, with an oakleaf cluster for wikilawyering." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I have two administrators who I have disagreed with, who are included in a mediation project, but haven't made any appearance either trying to argue that I am a bad editor. Hearing JS say that he understood that a citation would be needed in all those places eventually was all I actually needed to hear. WP:POINT is saying that I'm trying to prove a rule does not work...... which in neither case is applicable. In this case, I was trying to prove that there was a bias in how the rules were applied, not that the rules shouldn't exist. Technically you DO have to verify all of that, I have done so in other articles I have made and worked on. My additions are always full of citations, so I am certainly not saying that WP:V does not work. In the addition of the tags on Christianity, that was after having mentioned that I planned on doing that, 3 days prior, and having no reply on an active talk page. Nothing was cited, and I had been arguing for weeks prior that that way to solve the conflicts was to verify it. Both cases are the opposite of WP:POINT, though someone not looking into it would think that just that I was pointing something out, that I was violating it.

KV 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, I have had no dealings with King Vegita. I have warned him on his Talk page that he is being disruptive, and he can be blocked for disruption. If he continues his behavior, I will block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have it explained exactly HOW it is disruptive. WP:DISRUPT does not suggest that at all. As much as that might apply, the others would be in violation of WP:OWN, removing NPOV tags, and removing requests for facts to be cited. WP:V states "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am challenging the contents, as they are not verified, in an attempt to improve the article quality. I know that most of it will be verified shortly, and that which cannot can then be removed, if it seems untrue, otherwise we have it noted that it is not cited. That increases Wikipedia's credibility. Yes, it wasn't the easiest to read, and when I hear JS state that he recognizes that each of those facts still have to be cited, I won't feel the need to add as many fact tags. But that should have been fixed within 24 hours as those are all basic facts which made it into the introduction. In the end, the article, and in a slight way Wikipedia as a whole, would be much better off. WP:DISRUPT also applies to policies, whereas I'm not disagreeing with any policy, a review of my contributions will show that I have gone out of my way to include heavy citation whether or not I am being challenged. I have gone out of my way to cite opponents' views as well. So please, give some reasoning.

KV 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been active in the discussion on the Crowley talk page, and am not an Admin. I think this would have been avoided if you would have challenged it on the talk page first KV, like these people are saying. You disrupted the article in order to make a "point" that more citations were needed, where as, a fact tag after a sentence would have made the page easier to read. This however was not addressed in the talk page prior to demontrating this, and NPOV tags were removed as well because it appeared you were trying yet again to prove a point. The problem is, this needs to be discussed first, and then resolved. I learned this when I added fact tags to the page, and was corrected. I hope this helps in answering some of your questions. Zos 23:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the talk page. And I did not disrupt the article, in my opinion. I made the first step in a movement of drastic article improvement in the way of verifiability. If I were trying to disrupt the article, I would have riddled the entire page at once with such tags. I, however, did not. It was not disrupting, it was proving a point as per Wikipedia policy suggests "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. " I could have taken this to a much larger extreme, which would be the case if I were trying to disrupt. The guidelines don't even require that to be true, as I was not trying to prove that any policy did not work. And NPOV tags, everyone knew what my objections were, I had voiced them constantly on the talk page. It is not disrupting, and it cannot be done to "prove" a point, but rather to make one.... and the tag cannot be used if one isn't trying to make the point that the article is biased.

KV 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the hypocracy of jpgordon accusing me of an infraction of WP:CIVIL. In a recent edit made he has been outright uncivil. [102]. I considered the removal of requests for information to be vandalism, but here he makes the outright comment: "rv weaselization. His words that are racist now were also racist then. This doesn't improve the article; it just makes it sound sloppy.)".

KV 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kv, if you check, you'll see that this was a comment made about user:999's revision, and not your own. Zos 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Use only one : per layer, so it stays readable please. Now, I know who the comment was made about, but it still is a violation of the policy he accused me of violating. Moral: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

KV 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, I apologize for my wording. What I meant was: You did not discuss the matter of citations in the Introduction to the Aleister Crowley page prior to using as many fact tags as you did (Here at 19:37, May 22, 2006 Here at 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ). This could have been brought up before hand, and discussed rather than how it was handled. I'm more than willing to discuss each and every issue you wish to address. Zos 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had brought it up less directly, but the issue here is administrative action against me. I have been accused of being "disruptive" in violation of WP:DISRUPT, which is what I am refuting. "Not perfect" and "in violation of WP:DISRUPT" are two different things.

KV 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, AnnH has made accusations that I had added 36 fact tags to the Christianity article and she tried to tell me nicely that they're not needed. Not only have I found that that is not the stance of WP:V, but I felt it necessary to include exactly what she said:

King Vegita, we don't need citations for things like saying that Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or that they believe in heaven and hell, or that Catholics also believe in purgatory. The template is not meant to be used for things like that; it's never used that way in other articles, and actually looks slightly bizarre. If that edit had come from an anon, it would possibly (though unfairly) have been reverted as vandalism. Have a look at other articles that use that tag, and try to get a feel for when it's appropriate. AnnH ♫ 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is at the bottom of the page at [103].

She did not actually explain source to a policy or guideline that applied to her statements, and I am still convinced they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. My edits, however, did.

KV 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias (talk · contribs) creating redirects

Dark Tichondrias (talk · contribs) has created on the order of 500 redirects within the past hour or two, most of which redirect from Spanish-language translations of article titles (Razas discutibles en la India) or weird misspellings (AZN race in USA. He has been told to stop on his talk page, but hasn't. If nothing else, admin intervention to get rid of the masses of redirects may be necessary.

He has claimed that the Spanish translations fall under {{R from alternate language}}; however, this seems entirely unnecessary for redirects from Spanish titles that are never linked from within the Wiki, and will probably never be typed. Some assistance? Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a sufficiently stern warning on the user's talk page. If he keeps doing it I will block him for disruption. The Land 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He's stopped. The Land 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now can we have some admin assistance to get rid of the hundreds of redirects he created? Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you either make an omnibus entry on WP:RFD for the lot, or start going through with a speedy tag and using edit summaries to make it clear that there's a whole wodge of these things. That'll help attract some attention. I can't do this sort of non-urgent stuff for a day or two, sorry... The Land 10:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some, but it would be very handy to have them tagged for collection if you could be so kind . TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tagging them with {{db-notenglish}}. --Ligulem 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Older versions of the user page like this one have a list of most of these redirects. Vegaswikian 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am usually all for foreign language redirects (especially for proper names), but this is ridiculous. I have started deleting. Kusma (討論) 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Drini Deletor engaged and ready to go! -- Drini 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No time to leave a message, just deleted some 150+ redirects, more still coming... AndyZ 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ligulem says he has checked all contributions of the user, and I have deleted many of these redirects, so I guess this is done now. Kusma (討論) 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cookie!

Thanks. Looks like the cleanup job is more or less done. Have a cookie. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Middle East Conflict Man indefinitely blocked

The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s is a user who has been indefinitely banned from noWiki and nnWiki. He recently joined here, and began making edits consisting entirely of extremely inflammatory edits to Socialism related articles, connecting socialism with various infamous dictators and regimes - e.g. adding Nazism to our series on Socialism, adding a picture of Saddam Hussein to Socialism, adding heavily POV text about how socialism oppresses the individual, etc. etc. (he also has a complete seeming inability to use the preview button, so digging through his diffs is an annoying process), plus the usual incivility. He was blocked for 3RR on the 21st by Katefan. An obvious sockpupppet apeared, User:Carroteater117, which I blocked indef and extended TMECM's block - another appeared, User:Fooltocry, I again extended the block and warned him that the next sockpuppet would result in an indefinite block - lo and behold, User:Freeway appeared and carried on the same editing pattern.

TMECM claims on his talk page that the sockpuppeteer is someone else. There are numerous edits from a different IP contacting him on his talk page purporting to be from the 'second man', and he has exhorted me/us to lookup the IPs he gives and see that they come from different countries. However, by ruling of Arbcom, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [104] That most definitely applies here (and on a personal level I haven't had any complaints applying it to ZoeCroydon, who also used an open proxy and boasted about how his IPs proved he wasn't a sockpuppeteer). Essjay agrees with me on this and has endorsed my indefinite block. [105]

So, in summary: notorious international troll, edits indicate that he intends to do the same here as he did on the two Norse Wikipedias, obvious sockpuppetry, I consider him to have exhausted this community's patience as he already has two others'. As always, please review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent call. Full support. Would support banning him from all Wikimedia projects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I heartily endorse this product or service. He's thumbing his nose at us. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Your endorsement gets you a celebrity goody bag of L'Abussivez Rouge Admin makeup ("Because I'm worth it, and everyone else can bite me"). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • L'Abussivez? I always prefered L'Gopenez. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, now I can use this rouge admin makeup to look more like my hero. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Full support. This user has no intentions of helping to build an encyclopedia. Kjetil_r 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker

Usernames:

• Jerry Jones (talk · contribs)
• JJstroker (talk · contribs)
• 68.126.232.191 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.180.37 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.185.95 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.243.216 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.245.179 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.255.2 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.12.137 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.15.213 (talk · contribs)

• 71.131.176.109 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.178.83 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.203.101 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.214.151 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.234.218 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.254.118 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.13.65 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.16.64 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.21.184 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.8.144 (talk · contribs)

Problems:

• Plagiarism: On many occasions this user has copied material verbatim, has revert-warred in order to re-insert the information, and a couple of times has used sources to make it appear that the writing is his own. Three of the excerpts were copied from Professor Kevin B. MacDonald, whose work has been called "anti-semitic" by commentators from across the political spectrum. Due to this editor, virtually an entire article, Immigration Act of 1924, has been copied from MacDonald and from an article in American Renaissance (magazine) (another fringe source).
  • [106][107][108] from [109]
  • [110][111] from [112]
  • [113] from [114]
  • [115] from [116]
  • [117] from [118].
  • [119] from [120]
  • [121] from[122]
  • [123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132] from [133]

• POV: The editor has worked to identify Jewish people [134][135][136][137][138][139] and insert derogatory information about them,[140][141][142][143][144][145], as well as Democrats and African Americans.[146][147] while at the same time promoting Neo-nazi groups and sympathizers,[148][149][150] and removing critical information about them.[151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161]
• Here [162] he removes the entire list of Polish American criminals, saying the article needs to be shortened and only positive stuff should be included, while here [163] he fights against the deletion of List of Jewish American criminals and victims, saying every group has its criminals and they shouldn't be hidden.

• • HE MAY HAVE A POINT HERE, if a list of criminals were added under "Jewish Americans", many of you would object. How is that fair and NPOV to include Polish criminals only? Anyone?75.0.145.231 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's another issue. The point here is that he single-handedly removed the Polish American criminals list while working against deletion of the simialr Jewish American list - a double standard, and, in the case of his removal of the Polish American list, a precipitous act. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• POINT: After insisting that "far right" and "racist" were not terms that should be allowed in articles because we should "allow the reader to decide for themselves",[164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171] he inserted "far left" into a number of articles. [172][173][174][175]

• • AGAIN, HE MAY HAVE A POINT. How can the term "far left" be controversial as applied to those organizations? Wikipedia should treat the issue fairly and equally.75.0.145.231 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, the double standard he has implemented is in his removals of "far right" from some articles, while including "far left" in others. The double standard is the issue. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Other problems include a combative approach to editing and removing source requests without answering them.

Solutions

• The edit warring over plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor until we can straighten out the improper edits. -Will Beback 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a block is warranted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to cherry pick my edits and then show pages of edits and take them out of context and show pages from another account go ahead and ban me. It's not like you will let me defend myself anyways because you continually ignore what I have to say. You just have rocks in your head. You do not follow through with wikiNPOV policy and you continually put your opinions in the article because its common censensus among leftists. I even showed you my reasoning from wiki NPOV policy and you didnt even respond. With all due respect you are probably one of the dumbest people I have ever met in my life. I am going to make 5 edits right now applying what I am doing to "racist" articles and "Far right" articles and watch them get reverted. Just look at my next 5 edits. Jerry Jones 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You certainly may defend yourself. What do you say about the plagiarism? -Will Beback 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, making personal attacks while a flock of admins are eyeing you with blocking on their minds is not the wisest course of action available to you. It continually puzzles me why people think prefacing an attack with "with all due respect" somehow means it's not an attack - apparently by magic. It is probably already too late, but I strongly recommend you reverse course, and explain your actions civilly. I assure you, no matter what you think, if you make your case cogently and civilly, it will be listened to. Kasreyn 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've run into the same editor, and noticed similar issues. He continually insists on inserting edits insinuating that "Jews are commies" [176] [177] Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: [178] Note, the source he is using actually says the Jews and communists are separate groups: J. Edgar Hoover said the Front was planning to murder Jews, communists and “a dozen Congressmen. Not only that, he is obsessed in general with identifying people as Jews, particularly as left-wing or liberal Jews. Here are a sample of his edits as Jerry Jones: [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195]

He's also been sockpuppeting, as User:JJstroker, making the same kinds of edits: [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] etc.

As well, when he's not identifying people as Jews, he's whitewashing Nazis and right-wing groups, insisting that the Nazis weren't racist. Here is a classic edit in which he insists that the Nazis were not racist, but rather just patriots defending Germany from Jewish Bolshevism.

Even more disturbing is his lying about his editing. When confronted with the fact that he has been continually identifying people as "Jews" etc., he denied it, even after being shown the evidence (of which the links above are only a small part). He has also continually denied sockpuppeting as JJstroker, even though his edits make it obvious, and it has been confirmed by a CheckUser. This, combined with his multiple copyright violations, makes it clear there is a fundamental dishonesty here that makes his editing incompatible with Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of this behavior in isolation I probably wouldn't censure. The copyvios are bad, but he seems to plead ignorance that he copied too much or didn't properly attribute; that could be fixed. But, all of it taken together, along with his weak responses (especially saying Will is "one of the dumbest people" he's ever met) -- well, I think it's a pretty damning portrait of a user with a certain agenda. The continual whitewashing of "racist" (to include changing "racist" to "racialist") and removal of critical information from the SPLC is what swayed me, and the throwing stones to hide his hands doesn't help. We don't need to waste time cleaning up after someone who edits in this fashion. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've yet to see anything constructive come from from this editor, but no shortage of disruption. Time for that to stop. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor. Adding improperly sourced material is a problem in any case. Doing it after explanation of policy and warning makes it completely unacceptable behavior and destructive to the mission of the 'pedia. FloNight ^talk 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ignorance of copyright and plagiarism, there are numerous threads on user talk:JJstroker about copied material. He has referred repeatedly to the plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. [208][209] so he is familiar with the concept of plagiarism. When asked to source the material he never indicated where he'd obtained it and instead gave original references from the original source as if he'd done the research himself. He wrote " I did a lot of work please do not remove it"[210] when defending one of the copied sections. That shows he's consciously lying about the copying. -Will Beback 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the user engages in any more plagiarism or whitewashing, indefinitely block the user. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the evidence above is fairly overwhelming, but I'll just chime in that in my personal experience with this user agrees with the above, especially in regards to his POV-pushing. The edits to the "Racism" page linked above are classic -- first he removes a statement saying that the Nazis' racial policies had some role in the Holocaust. Then in its place he adds a line about how the Nazis believed the Jews were Bolsheviks. When this gets reverted, he asks innocently on the talk page why people didn't like his edits, and tries to argue that he was just trying to counter the idea that racism necessarily leads to a Holocaust-like situation, which was clearly not what the page said and not what his edits were trying to do. Personally I think he's an obvious and pernicious hardcore POV-pusher, and I am sure it is only a matter of time until he is blocked permanently. My only hope is that it won't take a long RfA to do so, since his behavior is so blatantly unacceptable. --Fastfission 01:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:JJstroker uploading problem images for old discussion. Sorry, I can't contribute at this time. -- ADNghiem501 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that JJ is a highly disruptive editor. I think that he was given more than enough chances to correct and would support an indefinite ban. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Holden Barina article

Can anyone help me with this one?? There's no specific template suggesting that an article be split into multiple articles, only merged with them, if anyone could help me I would appreciate this. So far I've used the splitsection tag, but this isn't helping. Advice is appreciated, thanks. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See here for all templates concerning merging and splitting. Hope that helps. Btw, the helpdesk is the better place for asking those questions. Garion96 ^(talk) 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wushu

user Llort continues to revert my edit to Wushu. He has asked for evidence, i have obliged. Yet he continues to revert on the grounds that he does not feel it is relevant, which i contest and i have reinforced through my representation of the gpforums as being very very large. I have tried to enter into dialogue about why he continues to revert it, but all he does is play on my anger when i revert the article back by complaining and getting me banned for an understandable reason, but the grounds are unclear. Can someone please warn him not to revert unless he has given proper reasoning as to why he has done so? Cheers. --Subwaynz 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are absolutely right to be reverting your edit. You're trying to add a section on the Wushu disambiguation page on Wushu : a frequent poster who claimed at times to be in the posession of a Toyota Supra, which was later discredited and unsubstantiated. More recently wushu, under various aliases (such as japanese_girls) has spammed GPforums with copious amounts of softcore japanese pornorgaphy under the pretences that they were somewhat hot, thus he has gained a cult status and is a very famous member of gpforums. The fact that no less than 3 different people have reverted this, and that there IS an explanation for this on Talk:Wushu asking you very politely to stop doing this, should have clued you in to the fact that a troll on a forum (that doesn't warrant its own article) is not encyclopaedic. You are now disrupting Wikipedia. Please do not add the section again, or you will be blocked. I'm going to copy this to your talk page. Proto||type 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Even as I generally look with great disfavor on indefinite blocks, I certainly can conceive of a situation in which Subwaynz might exhaust the community's patience and merit such a block. His/her account was ostensibly created in order that he might continue making edits to Wushu, having been reverted whilst editing anonymously (this proposition, raised on his/her talk page, seems undisputed), and his/her contributions are only to the Wushu article, the concomitant talk page, and the talk pages of users with whom he/she has quarreled over the Wushu page. I certainly believe the user to be acting in good faith, but his/her recalcitrance seems to suggest either that he/she is incapable of appreciating our verifiability and notability guidelines or that he/she, comprehending them, simply flouts them; neither scenario is particularly comforting. One always hopes that users such as this will comport themselves with policy, in order that they might contribute effectively, but surely this account should be watched closely, as it shows signs of having been created for disruptive purposes (or, at the very least, of being wholly, if avolitionally, disruptive in practice). Joe 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

J.Smith (talk · contribs)

Hello, i am an anonymous role account of another wikipedian, my password is swordfish. please inspect my account to confirm that i am a benign role account and am not hiding anything malicious--J.Smith 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets themselves are not prohibited. It's using them for malicious purposes that is. I'd recommend changing your password, too. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked until user changes password and contacts me. Role accounts are not prohibited, but public accounts certainly are. We don't need a password to check your contributions. Syrthiss 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, whoever changed my password, could you please change it back to swordfish, thank you--J.Smith2 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And hence we see the problem. Syrthiss 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that J.Smith decided to post this notice in about 15 places causes me difficulty when trying to assume good faith. Please do not create another J.Smith account. The Land 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of changing the password on the second account. If the user wants the new password, e-mail me. Otherwise, go away. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And then User:Johnny Smith 2 materialises and starts vandalising this page. what a surprise. The Land 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this account. It is too similar to my account: J.smith (talk · contribs). ---J.S (t|c) 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar update: new sockpuppet meets naive admin

Community banned user Thewolfstar's new sock Dot_Bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. (Her obvious sock/meatpuppet Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already was.) Either username or sock-ness would separately be enough for an indefinite block, and Thewolfstar has even confirmed that Dot Bitch is her account. I apologize to the community for inadvertently enabling yet another soapbox for Thewolfstar by engaging in dialogue with her on User talk:Dot Bitch. In my block message, I advised her to get another account, edit harmlessly, keep her head down, and not draw attention to herself. She spoke gently at first, thanked me, and, well, then things started to go downhill; it's all in the History if anyone's interested. I guess I learned something. :-( The talkpage has now been protected, by User:Andrew Norman, and I've blanked Thewolfstar's rants from it. I won't be caught that way again — not by this user — though I hope to remain capable of extending even unreasonable last chances to problem users in general. Anyway, I advise any admin who might be tempted to assume good faith in dealing with any future incarnation of Thewolfstar to take a look at the development of User talk:Dot Bitch first. It's instructive. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Happens. Meh. Thanks for keeping us up to date. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

uh

What is that how is it that sometimes one RU can create another RU?--205.188.116.65 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you create another account while you are logged in, that's how it shows up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL block

[211] - this blocked user must have been using AOL since I am getting autoblocked. Please help 64.12.116.65 15:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BACKIsayBACK

BACKIsayBACK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). New phenomenon, or a sock of somebody? I've blocked him anyway. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ball of wax vandal. I am marking him as such. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact I didn't have to, he did it himself. - Mike Rosoft 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My blocks

• Deleereeum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Permanently blocked for upload of Image:Hilary.jpg for the purpose of vandalism of Hillary Clinton, and for creation of an attack page Bryan Broach.
• 61.95.199.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Blocked for a week for repeated spamming (pornographic links). (May need to be checked if it is an open proxy.)

Mike Rosoft 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

61.95.199.116 is not currently an open proxy. Naconkantari 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do about Darren Hayday?

Back in March I nominated Darren Hayday for deletion. The person in question wasn't impressed by his page being nominated for deletion and after accusing me of everything from bad faith, to pushing a homosexual agenda on Wikipedia and targeting him because he's a straight Conservative he eventually apologised and agreed for the page to be userfied to User:Hayday/Darren Hayday. Had he not done so I very much suspect consensus in the afd debate would have been delete or userfy anyway.

On 25 April Mr Hayday mentioned on his talk page that he has no plans to add a page for himself anytime soon. However I have noticed the page is back, created on 8 May, and a new user, Sky1066 (talk · contribs) is only interested in the same subject that Mr Hayday was previously: i.e. Darren Hayday.

What is the feeling regarding this page? Does it achieve notability criteria? If not, can someone else nominate it for deletion? I'm not going to, as I don't want to go through the rigmarole of accusations and vandalism that I did last time. -- Francs2000 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I certainly think him to be a non-notable personnage (neither his candidacy in the UK local elections, 2003 nor his election to be mayor of High Wycombe, IMHO, necessarily conveys notability), and I certainly don't think any reasonable person could impute bad faith to Francs' nominating it for deletion, even in view of the history betwixt Hayday and him. I'm confident, though, that an AfD would not generate a consensus for deletion (in fact, I highly doubt the disposition would be any other than no consensus; hence, keep by default), and so I'm disinclined to AfD the article. Certainly there are traces of POV in the article, and much of it is, in any case, unencyclopedic (e.g., that Hayday's wedding ceremony was samll), and one should certainly watch edits carefully lest unsourced POV should be inserted; I don't see any superior course of action. Joe 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(Somewhat off-topic note: should Rob Assels, a new article for an otherwise non-notable candidate in a local election, be tagged for deletion per the criteria expressed above? --John Nagle 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

• Local councillor. The only mayor in that town ever to be blue-linked. Technically been deleted before (I userfied it and then deleted the redirect). Vanity. I'm tempted to speedy it. However, I'm off to bed now - if it's still there in the morning I'll AFD it. --kingboyk 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of that information looks fundamentally unverifiable. --Fastfission 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of Category:Councillors in south east England and I din't check to see if they were all of encyclopedic standard. Rather than AfD it tonight I started a rewrite to remove the OTT material. Some else can check and see if it needs deleting. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I lean towards delete. The category that you mention is quite big, but the popups tell me that most if not all have gone on to be federal members of parliament, while this person is a local government mayor in a town of 100,000. Unless the town has a high rate of turnout to local community elections, I would lean towards delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He's mayor of High Wycombe. Not a deletion (or userfication) candidate. Not even remotely. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I most enthusiastically agree. He's mayor of High Wycombe! Snottygobble 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, he may be mayor, but the article is clearly written as a vanity piece. My guess is that, once reduced ot the verifable info, it'll only be a quarter of its current length. -Will Beback 06:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just remove all the stuff that can't be verified, and the trivia. Copy the non-trivia to the talk page in case someone else can verify. I tried to verify the bit about being on the Council of the Bow Group but without luck. The Bow Group's website lists the Council for the current year and his name isn't there. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Being mayor of High Wycombe makes him notable? Have you been to High Wycombe? Seriously though I hadn't considered this as even a possibility, and I must admit to some bias because he turned out to be such a t*sser the last time his page was going through afd. If what you say is the case my next project will be producing pages for the mayors of Aylesbury (my home town), most of the more recent ones I know on first-name terms. -- Francs2000 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I will of course keep everything verifiable. -- Francs2000 10:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been so many mayors, and their equivalents, of cities of similar or larger size all over the world and throughout history that a single one is not notable unless it is an enormous city or through some other circumstance. Also, mayors often serve for just one or two years, limiting their notability (some serve four or five year terms, though). -- Kjkolb 10:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If High Wycombe Town Council runs to a similar structure as Aylesbury it'll be a two-year term after which someone else will most likely take over. -- Francs2000 10:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayday created the article Mayor of High Wycombe. Perhaps we can merge a line about him (as the current mayor) into that article and delete the biography. It appears that mayor is a one year ceremonial post. NoSeptember ^talk 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know High Wycombe. It's a reasonably pretty market town. I don't think the "if we added articles for all present, past and future mayors of towns of similar size, we'd have an encyclopedia the size of Saturn" argument makes much sense. We have an article about this politician about whom a reasonable amount of verifiable information is available. His father and great uncle were notable Labour politicians, the latter being a SDF member who was present at the historic meeting that created the LRC. He's an elected councillor and the mayor of the town, which means that he represents his town in ceremonial capacity at all important social and political events. Why would we want to delete it? Lack of paper? --Tony Sidaway 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear that this issue needs administrator intervention at this time and would suggest the matter be taken to the article talk page, or to an AfD, if one is appropriate. Let's reserve AN/I for finding increasingly outlandish reasons to burn User:Cyde at the stake. ("He made a gurn at my userbox!", etc.) JDoorjam Talk 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jargon

I wish admins wouldn't use jargon (windtalking?) which us users don't understand. Someone asked me to provide a "diff". I see "sock" immediately above. This stuff seems to have only crept in over the last few months. Wallie 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would only say 'sock' if I'd already said 'sockpuppet' or made it a piped link to WP:SOCK. However, the word 'diff' is in everyone's watchlist and contributions list and is the accepted technical term (see Help:Diff), so it can't and shouldn't really be avoided. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary is a handy page. It's a necessary evil to have some specialized jargon in any field—having to explain what a 'diff' is every time we use the term would be too cumbersome. If you see something you don't understand, feel free to jump in and ask. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the previous posts to ANI by this user. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's to note. I don't use jargon. (not that I'm aware of.) Thanks. Wallie 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to your attempted scolding above -- but I also suspect you knew that already. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Scolding obviously didn't work. I left a note on her page too, re that I must trying to keep on topic, but I thought it was funny. Wallie 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe you should consider taking it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG! OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Genau. Wallie 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

German isn't easier to understand than jargon (unless of course it is). -lethe ^{talk +} 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That one is. Means exactly. WP:FU in that link had me worried. Means Fair Use. Used to mean something else in my day, eg, SNAFU. Wallie 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've taken my point. This is English Wikipedia, and it's harder for people to look up German words than it is to look up wikipedia-specific acronyms (which usually have wikipedia namespace shortcuts). People might not even know that "genau" is German, and even if they do, they might not know where to find a good online German dictionary (no, not wiktionary). So you've committed the very sin that you're complaining about, using language that isn't readily understandable to everyone here, and I think your transgression is worse. It violates policy (WP:UE). Luckily I speak German, so I can communicate with admins and Wallie. Want to hire me as your translator? -lethe ^{talk +} 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Salary. One barnstar a week. Wallie 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not really trolling, Ryan. Too much overtime at the VDU? The question has been answered. The rest is just chit chat. No harm in that. Deleting it is unnecessary, and with that comment. It will die naturally soon. Thanks. Wallie 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What Ryan are you talking to, and how did this post get to the bottom again? Are you talking to yourself? I think admin jargon is the least of your worries. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Might seem that way. Refer to log timestamped 7:11 24 May 2006. Thanks. Wallie 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

post removed by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs). -lethe ^{talk +} 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

HerkimerCountyWasteoid, et all.

Persistent sock puppet vandal is back again under new names: HerkimerCountyWasteoid, WikiCreedia, NocturnalAdmission, and BlazingLasers. This is a continuation of the silly vandalism and reversions previously conducted by CaptainMarvelDC, CthulhuCommandsYou, GlobalGUTS, GottaCatchEmAll, KidIcarusNES, MeddlingKids, PurplesaurusRex, Samoa Joe Is Angry, Secondwhiteline, SuperSloppyDoubleDare, TheFlashDC, based on the target articles, type of vandalism, connections between "vandalism only accounts" and actual junk inserted into artcles. It is time to add the first listed and lastest names to the list of indefinite suspensions so that the attacked articles can have a rest. Stepp-Wulf 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

I moved this from WP:AIV as it was too complex for that page. Share and Enjoy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to use WP to further health fraud? User:72.224.168.161 and Mucoid plaque

I believe that the pattern of edits of this user indicate an attempt to use WP to support the health fraud of this variety of colon "cleansing".

• No contributions but in this article contribs some gaming - demanding citations for things that really shouldn't need them - and now blanking portions of background information demonstrating the falsity of the alleged techniques. I wonder if blocking the IP address is justified and also whether sprotecting the article might be contemplated. Midgley 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I highly suggest protecting the page, people reading such crap on Wikipedia may get the false impression that it is peer-reviewed medical advice or that an entry at least makes it noteable --mboverload@ 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Colon cleansing, at least with their methods, is pretty dangerous. They have you swallow clay, sometimes specified as bentonite clay, which absorbs water any liquid it encounters in the stomach or bowels. The clay increases greatly in size and can cause a bowel obstruction (this is why you should take fiber with a lot of water, so that it does not expand too much in the instestines). If it does not come out, surgery may be necessary. Even if it does come out on its own, you may have very painful intestinal spasms as a result of the intestines trying to unclog itself. The "mucoid plaque" that people expel, and what colon cleansers give as proof that it works, is actually the clay itself. It retains the shape of the instestines, so people think that the material had built up on the intestinal walls like the colon cleansers claim. Finally, mucoid plaque has never been found during surgery or autopsies, despite unreferenced claims to the contrary. Wikipedia should not say that instestinal cleansing works for ethical, legal and accuracy reasons. -- Kjkolb 10:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is at AfD now. I do gastroenterology and I'd highly recommend sprotection until the AfD is complete. You don't want someone fasting and eating clay by themselves based on what they read here -- Samir धर्म 11:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Google, I feel it is important that (provided the consensus or general view remains that this is a health fraud and A Bad Thing) the first line of the article continues to state that it is a fraud. The reason is that otherwise the person seeking information who uses Google will see that WP reports that "it is claimed to be blah blah". They are likely to read it as an indication that the condition exists - IE take it as support. There is actually some benefit to having such articles, and Tearlach's original was pretty good and IMO balanced and his justification or rationale for it correct. But if the price of having it there is that someone who I cannot believe is not an interested party can repeatedly force us to defend it from use as advertising, then perhaps we'll have to do without it. I propose that there should be a low threshold for sprotecting such articles. Midgley 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Curt-SchiIIing, Curtis S2

Curt-SchiIIing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note spelling is two capital i's instead of the L's), Curtis_S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), imitating all the worst early behavior of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my opinion, just a guess, this isn't actually Eddie). Editing from an AOL address, I believe, and maybe some others too. I'm going to sleep now, but admin eyes on Crossover (rail), Exicornt, and the deleted Eddie Smith and X-junction might be helpful for catching further socks of this character. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just caught one Bunchofgrapes. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- there may be others. It's someone pushing the "exicornt" neologism, and pasting the content of that deleted article elsewhere as well. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there are the pages Eddie_Smith, Eddie-Smith, Eddie Smith., Eddie Smith... and Bunohofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... I've also S-protected Exi--- uh, Crossover (rail). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found and deleted two more, and blocked Dsvidortiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FWIW, he's using AOL as you can tell by the voting history here [212]. Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slambo (Speak) 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

db tagged User:DavidOr tiz/exicornt. Slambo (Speak) 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I hate blocking these (AOL collateral damage, no doubt) so if anyone has any better idea, let's hear it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

68.65.43.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Te above user had created nearly a hundred talk pages which had no corresponding articles. I have deleted most of these wit some help from Drini. Any idea how long the vandal's block should be. I've currently set it on indef 72 hrs, cause its a shared IP.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins, please help out at C:CSD. There seems to be another batch of them.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Imposters of AlexKarpman

There are a whole lot of imposters of AlexKarpman.132.70.50.117 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. The Land 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is trolling. He has a history of trying to get his whole school blocked. Just ignore him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

193.164.126.35 vandalising

Hi,

Please, block this IP: 193.164.126.35. Hi keeps vandalising articles

• Knin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Croats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mole (animal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mowgli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See his Contributions

Regards, Ante Perkovic 11:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AIV, please. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User Jylenholm has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Jylenholm has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

NOTE: This user should not have been blocked. Please unblock as soon as possible. It is possible that the user's account was compromised. --Havenstone 11:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely, any unblocks should wait until after compromised accounts are confirmed 'clear' again...? Femto 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed this notice once as instructed as the vandalism has been dealt with, and the user indefinitely blocked. The user wasn't blocked by a bot as pointed out above, but by me. If the user account was compromised they have the ability to point this out on their talk page or send me an email. -- Francs2000 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: they have actually asked to be unblocked on their talk page stating that the account had been compromised, but looking at the user contributions and the short timeframe between vandalism and unblock request, an unblock just isn't going to happen. -- Francs2000 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tiger-man

Tiger-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has up-loaded a string of images, none of which has a satisfactory source; I and other editors have tagged them, and the situation has been explained to him. His response has been to remove tags, replace images in articles, and engage in personal abuse. Now, however, he's gone one step further — he's gone through my contributions, removing images (whether placed by me or others) with the false summary that he's removing images without a source. As I'm involved in all the articles, by definition, would it be unacceptable for me to apply a block, or warn him that he might be blocked? If so, could someone else take the appropriate action? If not, would a block be precipitate? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a day. This is blatant WP:POINT violation, and the personal abuse is equally unacceptable. --ajn (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edits

Hello,

I'd like to report vandalism (as in edits) to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.I.T.C.H.

A guest with IP address 85.101.33.217 editted it several times adding herself to the characters list, believing she would be in the next comic then.

We tried to reason with her, but it was of no use: we got ignorant mails in return ("Why the hell is there an edit button on it, then?"). You can read the discussion over here: http://www.tv.com/w.i.t.c.h./show/29931/a-new-guardian-/topic/13689-247766/msgs.html&msg_id=3503844

We would appreciate it very much if this user would be banned from editting the article.

Thanks in advance, Aaron van Geffen.

Please forward this to WP:AIV if you haven't already done so. 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Username?

I think User:Kandal the Vandal is an inappropriate user name, but I don't want to march in with a sledgehammer before checking with other admins first. (WP:USERNAME doesn't appear to explicitly ban the word "Vandal"). Comments please. --kingboyk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that user a little while ago, but this post made me look a little more closely, and it seems that it is a positive contributor, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. Prodego ^talk 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The name is a bit suspicious. If someone merely identifies with the Vandals (ancient Germanic tribe), per WP:AGF I wouldn't have a problem with the name per se. OTOH, if they engage in vandalism, then the behavioral association is clear and WP:AGF is off. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they identify with off-Wiki vandalism (like the spray painting of subway cars) ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the saying "If you were a real Goth, where were you at the sack of Rome?" Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block

User:Demiurge011 is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Demiurge010 (itself the N^th sockpuppet of Ndru01 for N → ∞), created to avoid the block of Demiurge010. --Lambiam^Talk 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• And User:Demiurge101 and User:Demiurge110 are already lying in wait. --Lambiam^Talk 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge010 (result: 24h) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge011. --Lambiam^Talk

Dealing with vandalism

What is the policy regarding people who vandalize, then revert their own vandalim 6 minutes later, then apologize? It's 65.79.36.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should they be blocked anyway? The IP is owned by a school.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we often issue a {{selftest}} tag for a first time of doing that, if it is being done repeatedly it is still disruptive to wikipedia and hence further warning and a block maybe required to prevent the disruption. --pgk^(talk) 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia and article Kaiser Permanente, return after block, 9RR, personal attacks, blanking "on departure" of user talk page with warnings...

The article was sprotected because of Pansophia's multiple adverse edits from a collection of open proxies. POV warrior now returned. Immediate action has been to set about reverting again, but also at this point inserting a link to the whale.to site which has been determined by RFC etc to not be either WP:EL or WP:RS [213]

No discussion of any of the changes in the talk page.

No response in the RFC on her conduct

Action please. Midgley 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something should really happen here, and soon. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Any suspected open proxies should be reported to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies immediately. Chick Bowen 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We did that last time. Pansophia is, as well as blatantly using WP as a platform to launch an attack on KP (I suspect they fired her, I begin to be unsurprised) editing disruptively not least by flaunting consensus on acceptable links. I'm also tired of the personal abuse. Midgley 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For convenience - a link to previous discussion and block[214] Midgley 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks not sticking

Today two separate editors whom I thought I had blocked indefinitely managed to resume editing. In both cases they were already blocked when I extended the block to indefinite - I unblocked them then reblocked, but the indefinite one still didn't stick. See the contribution histories and block logs of The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I'm N' Mad-dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Am I doing something wrong here? Just how are you supposed to extend blocks? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

An admin recently placed a one-year block on an IP address which didn't seem to "take" either (see here) - it was used a few days later. - David Oberst 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed but not blocked yet

See here. This vandal is a repeat offender with an active farm. As directed by Essjay, I am reporting this incident here. Anwar 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from The Middle East Conflict Man

While on the subject (two doors up), TMECM (indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience not far up this page at time of posting) is now using his talk page to issue legal blather [215] [216] [217] Apparently, I "may be in trouble". Presumably Viking lawyers will be rolling up the Itchen tomorrow and rampaging through Southampton waving battle axes and subpoenas. Is this worth protecting his talk page over, or threatening such? I don't care myself, but someone might want to close his trollhole so well-meaning users can't throw food into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected by HappyCamper. Chick Bowen 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)