Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive225

Personal attack by
 Calls me an "incredible idiot": "As a matter of fact, I could get those same fifty people to tell you what an incredible idiot you are for actually pulling in a press release as reliable information, and pulling out information that doesn't even exist in the press release."

Also, belittles me, "Have fun editing your little article, son". Has previously been warned multiple times, and has also admitted using an IP as a sockpuppet, from which he repeatedly blanked my userpage ( all the "blanked the page" are by him). He denies using this IP which also blanked the VJ page a bunch of times. Mackan 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both IPs do seem to resolve to the RCN Corporation so they may be the same person-- VectorPotential Talk 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further personal attacks, this time from the IP
 * . Mackan 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Risker, User:Tjstrf, and others Disrupting WP, Hijacking Essjay controversy
Please, someone stop the nonsense these users are doing that are wasting other Wikipedian's time and energy and preventing people from creating good work.

See this post's edit summary: "is it time to create a distraction?" followed by this, this, this, and this MfD &mdash; C.m.jones 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominating one of your subpages for deletion is not disruption. —210physicq  (c ) 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At what point are we allowed to community ban users who stay within policy but are disruptive to the point the other editors are tearing their hair out? Or does this need to go to Arbcom? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a provision in WP:BAN that allows for banning for "exhausting the community's patience." —210physicq  (c ) 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How many POV forks of an article do we need to let rot in sandboxes for Google to crawl possible BLP vios? None? :) - Denny  ( talk ) 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix blocked
Autoblock lifted. {PTO} {speak} 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC) From User:Cascadia's talk page:


 * Will an admin monitoring my talk page, or someone, please unblock me. User:CanadianCaesar has blocked an IP belonging to the University of Phoenix, instead of the username he was going after, and has such blocked all contributors within UOP (and it is a slow day here!).


 * Thanks for your help!


 * Oh, and please revert WP:BOLD if it hasn't been already. I as in the process of doing this when I was blocked. CascadiaTALK 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RJASE1 Talk  20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Overly zealous, POV-pushing and un-CIVIL
Trouble may be brewing over an anon -. S/he seems to be pushing various POV issues through on pages, as a quick scan of the edits on the contribs page indicates. Trouble is, s/he has a point to a very minor extent in some cases - it's simply the dogmatic and un-civil attitude evident in messages like this and edit summaries such as this and the edits to User_talk:Dicklyon and the like that are a major cause of concern. There's no 3RR violations evident, and I'd hesitate to call it vandalism per se, but something definitely needs to be done, so I've brought it here. Grutness...wha?  23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked by Durova, although I am unsure that a conversation about behaviour norms wouldn't have had a better effect. Jkelly 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've called it vandalism, and got beat on by him for it. I also issued a 3RR warning, which may have stalled off his next revert by a few hours.  He likes to vigorously clean warnings off his talk page and spew back at those he disagrees with and those who warn him.  He likes to put his arguments in edit summaries instead of in talk pages.  A real nuisance.  But then he probably thinks the same of me, so what can you do?  Personally, I think a permanent ban for persistent incivility would not be a bad thing, not just for him but for this problem that arises now and then.  Dicklyon 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist and contribs
The watchlist and contrib pages seemed to have gone strange these past few days. They all seem to be lagging by 20 minutes. Anyone else having this same problem? —210physicq  (c ) 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Me too". Andy Mabbett 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. It's nearly impossibly to track vandals when their contrib lists are empty yet you know they just hit a particular article. Can't just warn/block with no apparent edits done - Alison ☺ 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already listed on WP:VPT. Twice. &mdash;Cryptic 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but how is this an incident that requires administrator attention? Please use the proper pages. --Golbez 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To see if other admins have or had this problem, as the lag can seriously impede admin duties. But I'm spiting you, so ignore me.  —210physicq  (c ) 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it a fellow admin deserves a sarcastic rhetorical remark? It was just a question. I had the same question and found the answer because Cryptic pointed to the discussion. --Hu12 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, since when was humor rationed?  And yes, I did look at the linked threads, and all is back to normal (for me, at least). —210physicq  (c ) 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I appreciate it being asked here. I thought my timezone was way off, I tried another computer... It definitely disrupted my admin activities. alphachimp  01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Likewise: I'm glad it was brought up here.  The lack of a reliable "contribs" has been making it extremely difficult to do vandal-patrol today.  Thanks all, Antandrus  (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Illwauk
is this where I report personal attacks? (I thought there used to be a separate noticeboard for that). Some here: User_talk:Illwauk. Not a dog 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely unacceptable language. The user has been blocked for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk spamming by User:Smith Jones
I wasn't sure if this qualified as persistent spamming to be reported at AIV, but I know posting here will get a response.

User:Smith Jones has been spamming user talk pages and a couple of userpages (apparantly at random, mostly admins it seems, possibly those who made edits to homeopathy?) asking them to join a wikiproject. See his contribs. Screwing up the formatting in one, asking a bot, and marking all the edits as minor. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning assistance, please
I'm just reverting some vandalism. One user has vandalised twice in a few minutes. I am not an administrator and have no blocking authority. Vandalism is just non-sensical sexual terminology. [] and []. User is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Username67876. VK35 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Either that or actually block. I never use that warning because I don't have blocking authority and don't make idle threats.VK35 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has stopped adding nonsensical sexual references for the time being. If the user starts again, escalate warnings with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} then uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3 and uw-vandalism4, then report to WP:AIV.  Regards, Iamunknown 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A question: does anyone think that the username "Username67876" is inappropriate? It seems kind of random and imitating Wikipedia processes to me. --Iamunknown 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I reported it to AIV but the block was declined. --KZ Talk • Contribs 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:PatPeter
Back on-line and sleeping, according to the userpage message. Thank goodness - Alison ☺ 05:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not so optomisitic about the message that says "sleeping for 8-10 hours or the rest of eternity". People who wish to sleep that long should probably not recieve a "Thank goodness"; probably more of a "keep prayer lines open"... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But the fact that he was on here 20 minutes ago is only a good thing. By all means, though, keep the prayer lines open ... - Alison ☺ 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quentin Elias
It appearts that the subject is using the article created for biography as a total vanity page with no sources to cite and absurd claims. I have warned him not to revert the page, but he has threathned me and I can forward e-mails to validate this. I have warned him to stop to no ado. Would someone help with this incident as I am tired reverting vandalism.--XLR8TION 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll handle this. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stick him with a 3RR and a warning....Stopped. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! The vandal has sent me emails full of expletives which I can forward to an administrator. I have declined to answer them and instead I posted a message on his talk page to stop vandalizing and about the 3RR rule. Hopefully this should work. --XLR8TION 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism & adding defamatory content in Sathya Sai Baba related articles
User:Aoclery is continually vandalising, adding defamatory content and POV pushing in articles from Category:Sathya Sai Baba. I've noticed him doing it in the articles: Sathya Sai Baba, Prema Sai Baba and Benjamin Creme. Please block him. Krystian 07:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not escalated so far that it needs an admin's attention. And it would help if you talked to him, instead of addressing it on your edit summary, in the article. I've also left a warning on his talk page, telling him to refrain from adding unsourced comments. Hopefully, that will stop him adding those comments. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption
I'm sick and tired of this user, he seriously has a problem with Kurds he uses undo to revert people, he says clean up when removing relevant info with no explanation.

No reason why he removes important information. He removes dozens of information this is not a dispute but this is vandalism, where he says "clean up" he removes information about Kurds. His newest removal, he continues his vandalism where he is well aware of what he does. There is much more vandalism by him but this is enough. Artaxiad 10:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm finding myself being wikistalked by this user . All in the last few minutes.--Domitius 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, content disputes are not vandalism. Secundo, those AfDs were listed in Turkey-related deletions page - most of his edits are template and keepup edits anyways, he is not spending all his time hounding someone or something as you make it out to be. You all might want to drop this, since there is enough blame to go around. Domitius, do you have a valid explanation as to how you turned up in that AfD so soon? I am not even talking about other stuff - guys, please cool it and get back to doing something useful: there are nearly 2million articles in Wiki, if you feel like you are having a particular tension with one user, just click the "random article" button and start editing something else! :) Baristarim 12:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Recall
I think I owe an apology for the deletion of the main page and a few other irrational edits I've done lately. I made a bad work at keeping a few other family members away from the computer, which had really resulted in much trouble. Family aside, I'm not sure whether a separate workplace can be established very quickly. I hereby put my actions into the review of other admins — perhaps I should resign for a while. Michaelas10<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Respect my authoritah 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about resigning. I had no idea someone had dleted the main page, nice work! The closest I had seen to that was when someone deleted the FA of the day to remove some nasty edit summaries. I nearly shit myself when I saw a red link and he nearly shit himself when he did it (even though it was intentional). Viridae Talk 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a Wiki - nothing you do can't be fixed. Don't worry about it. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  12:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you considered logging out (either from Wikipedia, or from your computer) or putting a password and short delay on your screensaver? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done, but I guess those little bastards come while I'm still logged in :) It's rather difficult considering the fact I'm using a shared computer. Michaelas10<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Respect my authoritah 12:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not admin - but I note that the edit you refer to occurred on 02:15, March 27, 2007 - so given the time for your apology to arrive I assume that you just noticed. No doubt edits done under your name (by leaving yourself logged in) are your responsibility however I personally can accept your apology and make the suggestion that if you can't have your own workspace that perhaps not allowing the system to retain your login would fix the problem pretty quickly?-- VS talk 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think recall is necessary, Michael :) Worst thing I've had to do is delete Mumbai to fix page move vandalism - except I forgot I deleted it, and only remembered about 8 minutes later... don't think anyone noticed, though :p Anyway, don't worry too much about it. – Riana ऋ 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go forth, and sin no more! That is, don't waste our time at RFA. Thou art not malicious, and every admin action can be undone. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on Random article and fix something - easily forgiven.  x42bn6  Talk 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Get Firefox, make sure to log out before you leave your system, and hit the "delete personal information" to make sure you kill the cookie. No big deal, and don't be resigning, we've all made some errors! Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't talk such rot about resigning! Myself and some other admins blocked the whole of Qatar, but we're still here! :) Mart inp23  16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Firefox has a neat toy buried in privacy settings... you can set the browser to not let a site like en.wikipedia.org set a cookie. That way, whenever you close your open (all open) Firefox windows, you should get 100% logged out. Useful! - Denny  ( talk ) 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user evading ban?
I just ran into this. This user User:D.Kurdistani seems to be the same person as User:Diyako who was banned on May 25, 2006 for one year (User:Diyako redirects to User:Xebat and is the same user ) and the User:D.Kurdistani was created on August 27, 2006  - contributions list starts at August 17, 2006. User has the same style of edits, same nationality, same name "Diyako" as mentioned in his user page. Doesn't the block extend to other accounts created by the same user? If so, can an admin make sure that the block applies universally? It seems like a block evasion which has flew below the radar! Baristarim 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An appropriate action would be to post this on WP:RFCU following the procedure there. -- Cat chi? 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editor, under all user names, was banned per ArbCom rulling. &mdash; User: (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will file a checkuser request.. Baristarim 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu/User:Sugarcaddy/User:Matador300/User:71.164.9.103
User:Wiarthurhu was a disruptive user (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 AMC Machine,Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 User:Wiarthurhu mediation violation) - known for sockpuppetry (Suspected sock puppets/Wiarthurhu), who has been handed an indefinite ban. There is significant evidence that he has returned yet again as anon user User:71.164.9.103.

To quote Dual Freq from User talk:Wiarthurhu: ", a Seattle area IP address, seems to have a similar disdain for McNamara, the F-111 and other things. Just a couple of notes to back up the linkage, POV edits on F-105 Thunderchief, the material reads just like the POV Wiarthurhu used to push especially on the F-14 article. Frequent POV pushing about McNamara as well. They also have a similar problem with the F-111, similar to this edit from the IP addy. They both edited the Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 article as well."

I compared the contributions of Wiarthurhu and his previous socks with recent contributions of 71.164.9.103 and in addition to the aircraft articles I noted that both accounts have edits in education-related and boy-scout related articles. This is more than just a coincidence so I requested a checkuser: Requests for checkuser/Case/Wiarthurhu - but it was declined on grounds that "Wiarthurhu is far too stale".

I hate to think that this disruptive and abusive user should be back amongst us - especially since he appears to be acting in exactly the same way disruptive way he has in the past.

Thanks in advance. SteveBaker 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Privacy
and I have been having a disagreement over the use of navigational templates. I have now explained to him why I feel they should not be used, and he seems to accept my explanation, but for some reason he insists that I post my explanation everywhere that I remove a navigational template. We have had some revert-warring over the affected articles, and now he is reverting until I explain myself on the article's talk page. This is absolutely bizarre and seems like WP:POINT to me. Can someone get him to stop doing this? --Ideogram 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake. I did not notice you were removing two navigational boxes in one go. Sounds like you are getting allergic. J/K. - Privacy 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

He has self-reverted and it is ok now. --Ideogram 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

News service copying Wikipedia article verbatim
During my recent travails on Harvey Bialy, I happened to come across this news item from "PrimeNewsWire" which appeared on MSNBC.com, dated 29 March 2007. The description of Harvey Bialy is taken verbatim from older versions of the Wikipedia article which predate the MSNBC item. The really incriminating thing is that the unbylined author went to the trouble to mix up the paragraph order, and convert the inline footnotes into parenthetical citations. I'm not sure where to take this - does anyone look into these things when material from here is reused with the claim that it's now "Copyright 2007, PrimeNewswire, Inc. All Rights Reserved." ?? MastCell Talk 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do note this at Talk:Harvey Bialy, because someone else may take this to Copyright problems thinking that the problem in on our end. Jkelly 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some so-called 'journalists' plagiarize material drawn from the web; as Wikipedia's quality and breadth of coverage continue to grow, we become an ever-more-attractive source from which to copy. The most recent case I can think of is Tim Ryan, who was fired from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin about a year ago for plagiarizing portions of several of his stories (at least one of which from Wikipedia).  If someone can draw this to the attention of the Foundation, I'm sure they'd be willing to send a polite request for explanation to PrimeNewsWire.


 * It probably would be best if individual editors didn't send their own personal emails on this issue; too many contacts with no official ties to the Foundation will only confuse PrimeNewsWire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This could be fun. By the time other people picked up the copy from PrimeNewsWire there's at least 14 duplications (Google reports 29). Of course, that means that someone had better be sure the source of the WP copy wasn't somewhere else, and they (PrimeNewsWire) didn't just get it from the same source? Shenme 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but we at no.wikipedia found out yesterday that a website belonging to one of the major Norwegian newspapers is stealing our content, claiming &copy; all rights reserved. No mention of Wikipedia as the source or the GFDL. Should we involve the Foundation? Kjetil r 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kjetil r. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How? How do we involve the Foundation? Sorry for my ignorance here. MastCell Talk 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If all else fails, start a thread on foundation-l. If you happen to use IRC, somebody may be able to help you in #wikimedia – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin
A new sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin has appeared; User:Giza E, a rather obvious follow on from previous MagicKirin sockpuppet User:Giza D.-- Z leitzen <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked. -  auburn pilot   talk  05:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel: User:Ranapanna
is a likely sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, as the user recreated (more specifically added info very similar) an article created by LuisPlank2X4 (68.37.205.18 was thought as an open proxy for the user and is also an IP sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel). See Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information). The user also edited List of characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey (an article that Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to vandalise often) adding misinformation similar to to that of confirmed socks., . Not only that, the user edited The Good Ol' Days/Future Lost and Chip Skylark, which are both related to The Fairly OddParents (much of the confirmed socks edit pages related to it).

Note that I reported two likely sockpuppets of Danny Daniel in late March. Squirepants101 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This user still hasn't been blocked, yet a case involving a sockpuppet of MagicKirin was looked at.Squirepants101 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi
This user has repeatedly switched the disambiguation page Tesla (which has an extensive edit history going back to 2005) with the redirect to it Tesla (disambiguation) by switching the content via copy/paste instead of doing a page move (which would preserve the history). Aside from not following process and breaking the page history (which would need to get fixed by an admin), the editor has given no reason for this and I see no consensus. For the record, I don't really care if the page ends up getting moved properly (assuming there's consensus to do so) - it just should get listed at WP:RM if a move is necessary and moved with the Move function. --Minderbinder 15:31, 7 gApril 2007 (UTC)


 * Can please someone review Reddi's current ad hominems on his own talk page:
 * User talk:Reddi
 * As I'm constantly in disputes with Reddi, I'd recuse myself from judgement.
 * Pjacobi 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting BLP question
List of bisexual people currently has a "disputed" section, in which various people have been placed because they were alleged to be bisexual but there's no complete proof. As this sounds like a BLP nightmare, I removed it, but have been reverted repeatedly. On the talkpage, someone pointed out that we have articles like Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ's sexuality, and we should have a list of people whose sexuality has been disputed. It seems to me that if we can have a separate list, we can have a section on the current one, so I thought I'd pass this up, because the existence of those articles makes me wonder. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculating about the personal lives of living persons, or even the recently deceased, falls into a different and much more sensitive category than discussion of literature on the lives of long-ago historical personages. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list contains both the living and the dead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SANDBOX
An IP claims that it was vandalized. Is it possible to vandalize the sandbox? G.O. 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. It gets reset by a bot whenever someone deletes the header, anyway.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, please don't be too blasé about this. While less competently executed here, the redirect attack has been used twice recently that I've noticed, such as is mentioned here. Innocent named and IP users are getting caught by this.  It is possible to "vandalize via the sandbox".  Shenme 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Al Gore
A user vandalized Al Gore bya bizzarre 5-edit methodology. It was reverted, but does this show experience? Probably unrelated, but the "Sandbox vandalism" was making it redirect to Al Gore. G.O. 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone may have just been using the sandbox to experiment with redirects. Al Gore is a pretty well-known person, so it's likely enough that someone would pick that article to use in a test. Absent any other evidence it's the same user, I'd be inclined to AGF here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide threat essay
I've started an essay at Suicide threats - if anybody wants to contribute, thoughts and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the checkuser reference. See the talk page of the essay for more info, but suffice it to say that this would not be allowed. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted by author.  Daniel Bryant  23:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

EX STAB's persistent copyright infringement
EX STAB (talk|contribs) seems to have no regard for copyright. Every single image contribution by EX STAB has been uploaded under a self-made GNU Free Documentation License. However, it would seem the images were collected from various websites and not created by him. Examples of his copyright violation can be seen on EX STAB's talk page. EX STAB has been warned and continues to persist in using self-made GFDL for image uploads.Pettifogger 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going through, deleting any suspect image uploads, and removing redlinked images from the respective articles. This is atrocious. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have given the user one final, unequivocal warning, and have asked him to let us know if English is not his primary language; I've seen that issue before where we kept warning people and it turns out they had no idea what they were being told. Should he/she upload again, please post here or on my talk page and they will get a block.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... the plot thickens: in the process of cleaning, I've found, who seems to have very similar image contributions (is the "Uploaded by Foo" an auto-summary?), with a lot of GFDL-self guns and such. Thoughts? – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did a test to see if the "Uploaded by" is a mediawiki auto-summary, and (at this point in time, at least), it is not, and I could find no evidence anywhere that it ever has been. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user in question created AB-762/AVB-762 assault rifles, directly copied from another website, after the final warning I gave earlier today. Per our blocking policy, I have blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright infringement. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe Job
You guys ought to see this. This spam is a result of a current joe job against several wrestling sites. The spammer behind it has gotten multiple warnings ect. The sites targeted in the joe job so far are gerwick.net and tnawrestling.com —— Eagle 101  Need help? 19:58, 7 April 2007
 * Is that wrestling-spam issue in any way connected with the branding-spam issue noted above? If not, then you should start a separate section for it to avoid confusion. *Dan T.* 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. RJASE1 Talk  20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The spammer concerned, JB196, is community banned in fact. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been quite a few of these links - in places where admins are sure to find them. The meta checkuser suggests that is responsible, and has been blocked for a year on the Spanish wiki. It seems to belong to a wrestling fan. In fact,  has appeared in a checkuser request concerning this banned user before and is currently indef-blocked. Maybe someone familiar with JB196 should take a look to confirm if we need to block this IP. -- zzuuzz(talk) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually posted that for open proxy checking a couple of days ago believing it to be used by JB196, and the fact it's been used for the spamming confirms it in my opinion. I already suggested to Eagle 101 that IP might need blocking now, then blocking for a longer period once it's been checked to see if it's an open proxy. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * JB196 is at it again with a new Joe Job as well. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to block the IP now, its manufacturing more socks., , , , , , , . All accounts have exactly 2 edits. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More socks   . ——  Eagle 101  Need help? 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and another one! —— Eagle 101  Need help? 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This one got my userpage, and I assume is related

{{ #if: JB196 | {{{category| —— Eagle 101  Need help? 01:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That one got your userpage, have you seen the recent history of it?! I think you've upset him somewhat. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Its highly likely, I've refused to go along with his plans. Again, I urge anyone reviewing this incident to see the meta checkuser I listed above, this problem is not english wikipedia only. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * New sock {{user|Freshfruitrules}} —— Eagle 101  Need help? 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * {{userlinks|ExtremeHobo13}} and {{userlinks|FROAFROman}} need blocking as well please. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser request has been filed at Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. If new socks are spotted, recommend block on sight (for admins) or reporting to WP:AIV (for non-admins); also request that the new socks be added to the checkuser case. RJASE1 Talk  03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG versions of logos
I just deleted Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg since I don't think fair use applies there. In particular it fails to hold :
 * "It is believed that the use of  low-resolution images of logos  (...) qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

since SVG is inherently high resolution. However I'm dropping a note here so other admins can review my action. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just yesterday I went through all the archives at WT:FAIR and I can say that there is not exactly consensus that SVG images fail the criterion of WP:FUC that you mentioned. I, however, think your deletion was appropriate.  There are a couple non-svg logos made redundant by svg version at IfD that I argue should be kept and the svg files deleted.  --Iamunknown 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More BLP on children; Nickelodeon babysitting
Regarding my archived query about Alex Wolff, Nat Wolff, Michael Wolff, Polly Draper, and the newly-launched Nickelodeon TV show The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), also The Naked Brothers Band, The Naked Brothers Band (film); there's another Nickelodeon article.

Allie DiMeco's article says she goes to high school at an "undisclosed location". I just reverted talk page comments that disclosed a lot of personal information, including (supposedly) her location:  I wasn't able to verify this via Google. I don't really know how much I should be reverting per BLP here, but since these are children, I've been fairly aggressive. I also don't know if these need to be scrubbed from history. Some guidance or oversight would be appreciated. There's a lot of MySpace type entries being made on articles and talk pages, and kids using the talk pages to chat. I'm feeling like a Nick unpaid babysitter, and the fun has only begun. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

An upcoming indef-block
I am, most likely, going to end up indefinitely blocking. He seems to be under the mistaken impression that The Zombie Survival Guide is a piece of legitimate non-fiction, and has repeatedly edited it to say "supposed fiction" and the like.

His first block (24 hour) came from his 3RR violation in regards to this; I added a "don't do this again" note to the block warning. As soon as the block wore off, he was back at it, so I blocked for 48 hours and told him it was his final warning. I also suggested he use unblock if he thought I was being a dick; he used it, and the block was endorsed by Kuru.

His attitude most definitely suggests that he'll go back to adding the same content when his current block is done, at which point I'll be escalating it to an indefinite block.

Related talk pages:
 * User talk:ZombieSlayer54
 * Talk:The Zombie Survival Guide

Since this could be seen as a bit of a content dispute, I'd like some extra eyes to "approve" of the course of action I'm taking it. I'm the one who wrote the ZSG article as it currently stands, so I'm looking to avoid any claims of ownership (and abuse of my admin tools) by being as transparent as possible about this whole situation. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems quite abundantly reasonable and patient on your part, as I'm reading things. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * EVula, you are completely in the right here; I've added another voice to ZombieSlayer's talk page.  A  Train ''talk 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support; I like hearing that I'm not being an insufferable dick about things. :)
 * As a followup, Fredrick day has added pretty definitive proof that Brooks is joking about the whole thing; hopefully that will convince ZombieSlayer54 to stop making those edits and I won't have to block him. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The book describes the Zombie war that already happened and the few survivors currently alive. I suspect trolling and someone with a private joke.  Surely anyone capable of reading it is incapable of thinking it non-fiction.  Geogre 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, all this kerfuffle over the book is making me want to read it (and WWZ) over again... though I will point out that reading accounts of the living dead becoming the dominant "life form" on the planet is not the best bed-time reading material. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of World War Z, the author's clearly fictional follow up book. The The Zombie Survival Guide is more of a 'survival manual' parody.  After reading some of the author's interviews, he's met many people who are, ah, confused by the reality of the text.  I would weigh the probability of troll vs. misguided soul at about 60/40.   Kuru  <sup style="color:#f5deb3;">talk  02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ZSG never once lets on that it is a piece of fiction; that's kind of the joke (ie: the Acknowledgments page thanks the various fictional researchers that helped the author write the book). It's because of that that I can almost understand the editor's attitude, although not their detachment from reality (if they're actually being honest).

He is repeatedly nominating Uncyclopedia for deletion, with no arguments but the fact that ED got deleted. Please do something.

...wow, I've never actually made a report exceeding one line here. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Closed. Keeping an eye on it. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

404 errors tonight
Anyone else had the following errors tonight: Not Found The requested URL /wiki/User_talk:Tjstrf was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

It's annoying, and stopping me from editing. Anyone know how to fix this?? --<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b> <i style="color:blue;">talk</i> 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ping wikimedia-tech IRC channel. I'll go and do that.  --Iamunknown 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They already know. Picaroon 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just discovered that. --Iamunknown 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm getting it all over the place. -  auburn pilot   talk  21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to refresh this page six times to bring up one without the 404. Its really hampering the use the Wikipedia and vandal fighting. -- Hdt83 <font color="blue" face="Arial">Chat 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting it alot as well.--Jersey Devil 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, look on the bright side; it's probably hindering the vandals as well. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring the discussion on wikimedia-tech...I think it is fixed now. --Iamunknown 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently. I was getting them in several other much smaller Wikipedias (I am updating my dumps and several returned 404). -- ReyBrujo 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotten them a few times tonight / early this morning. LuciferMorgan 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Administrator Jkelly has suggested that I post my problem here. Someone at IP 24.182.0.54 posted an External Link to Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming. Matthew deleted the link. I looked at the link, an interview with Richard Hatch on the topic of the article, decided it was relevant, and reverted it back in. Matthew re-reverted the link, and posted a warning against spamming on my User Talk page. (I should mention that spamming is a practice I regard to be about as loathsome as, oh, say, child abuse; to be falsely accused of such is about as insulting a thing as I can imagine here on Wikipedia.) I replied as is as calm a fashion as I could manage, suggesting that he take a look at WP:LAWYER and WP:OWN, and put the link back in. He deleted it again, and posted to my user page a second warning against spamming, again a false accusation. He then deleted other relevant, appropriate links from the original article, falsely calling them spam in the Edit Summary to justify the deletions. I posted a warning to him about article vandalism, as I regard the deliberate deletion of true and/or useful information from articles as unencyclopedic and, in fact, vandalism. I then requested intervention, posting a notice at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Admin Jkelly rm'd it, later suggesting to me that posting here would be more appropriate. In the meantime, Illyria05 deliberately removed the warning I gave to Matthew. My understanding has been that anyone other than Administrators removing warnings from User Talk pages is cause for that person being blocked from editing. True? False? Subsequent posts to each other's User Talk pages indicate that Illyria05 did it for "buddy" reasons, and that he/she and Matthew think my posting a vandalism warning was for "revenge". While I am angry at having what I regard as a vile false accusation thrown at me by a total stranger, I also honestly regard Matthew's deletions to Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming to be inappropriate, removing value from the article. I don't like edit warring any more than anyone else does. I would like this matter settled. What do I want? I request that the link deletions be restored. I want an administrator to remove the vile, filthy, false accusations from my User Talk page and also delete them from the page history. And if appropriate, I request that the relevant warnings or sanctions be given to Matthew and Illyria05. Thank you for your help. -- Davidkevin 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines." and WP:EL: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked". I really don't believe it gets any clearer. Matthew 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That explains the reason why you removed them, but doesn't explain why you warned him instead of talking to him. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know. Perhaps in the hopes he would stop? I personally find the warning nicely succinct, "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". Matthew 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't adding links, he was reverting your deletions. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And also, the reverting wasn't an obvious violation of WP:EL. It would be much better to explain it to him. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Davidkevin, if you want the warnings off your page, then remove them, you don't need an admin for that. People don't get blocked for removing warnings either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kipper and User:24.168.4.15 presonal attacks
Hi - anon user and I had a disagreement on a content issue, but anon seems to have blow things all out of proportion and has accused me of "energetic hatred", "admantine nastyness", "insist on having it his own way" and even accused me of calling him names! None of this is accurate, and I suspect the anon is using personal attack mode to try and get his way with the content issue. At this point I have backed off and won't make any further edits, but I was hoping someone could help moderate a little before things get out of hand? In fact most of the anons edits are good, but I see some changes that need to be made, but every time I make a change I get attacked with some very strong language. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you both stop editing the page before a violation of 3RR occurs. Try and settle this issue with him before seeking an admin's help. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 23:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ULC Vandalism
user:Kbandrews is repeatedly vandalism the Universal Life Church Article with links to his site contrary to the agreed inclusion list on the talk page dispite repeated reverts and referral to the talk page for why it is being reverted.

74.193.235.188 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User has been edit warring to add this link for the past month without any communication whatsoever with article contributors. Already warned, still no communication. User then added the link again. Blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request blocking of user:71.39.78.68
As you can see from the user's contributions, user:71.39.78.68 has amassed a record which is thin on valuable contributions and heavy on vandalism, POV and rhetoric. As a consequence of repeated vandalism and POV at Ann Althouse, including some by user:71.39.78.68 who appears to have an axe to grind, I requested and was granted semiprotection status for the article, but subsequent comments on the talk page suggest to me that as soon as the protection period expires, user:71.39.78.68 will resume vandalism and NPOV violations.

Because user:71.39.78.68 is adding nothing to (and has and will continue to subtract from) Wikipedia given the chance, I request they be banned indefinitely. Simon Dodd 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just following-up, since there's no admin comments attatched to this yet,Simon Dodd 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User User:124.108.48.2
This user has vandalized several pages and been warned. User then proceeded to personally attack on the talk pages all editors who placed warning tags. He has blanked his talk page of such warnings and also added vulgarities to several pages as viewed on his contributions page: [] --Csodennc 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked by Antandrus. In the future, you can take these kinds of things to WP:AIV.  Thanks!  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I put it here due to the personal attacks, but will try to remember AIV if it happens again--Csodennc 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing, personal attacks & unsigned comments
(Moved from WP:CN)

I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place to post this, so if there is a better page on Wikipedia, please let me know. A editor using anonymous IPs (see User talk:24.203.22.162 and User talk:205.236.144.4 and possibly more) and possibly the now-banned username user:ProudAryan)  keeps using Wikipedia to promote a neo-Nazi agenda (that is not backed up by reliable sources). The editor constantly posts uncited opinions and original research, twists the meanings of references to support biased claims that don't actually appear in those references, has made personal attacks, and refuses to sign up for a Wikipedia account or sign comments. Any advice or administrative action would be much appreciated, because there is no evidence that the editor will stop this disruptive behaviour any time soon. Spylab 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that summary, see the Nazi skinhead page for starters. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddi (restored)


In RC patrolling, I found that Reddi had been adding external links, and they were all external links to RexResearch.com, which was coincidentally removed by JzG several hours prior. Going through Reddi's contributions for the past half hour shows that he was re-adding the RexResearch links that JzG had removed from around 20 pages. I had blocked indefinitely to begin with, but I will be lowering my block to 12 hours.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was also completely unaware of Requests for arbitration/Reddi and Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the initial problem, you can't just begin with an indefinite block to a regular user who's been contributing since 2003.--Jersey Devil 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize that at the time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Destroy Wikipedia
FYI- a prominent neo-nazi blogger/publicist (and past Wikipedia editor) has announced on his blog a plan to "Destroy Wikipedia". However he's also known as a provocateur and self-promoter (just last year he posted a blog, ""How To Pull A Media Stunt", based on plenty of experience. We should be vigilant without overreacting. -Will Beback · † · 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His evil plan will not work. we have previously blocked anon edits from wireless hotspots, it's no big deal. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its pretty funny though... all his research for nothing... I'm more afraid of people who add vanity than this "threat". --Kzrulzuall 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Durova/The dark side. Durova 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Love it :) Orderinchaos 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any admins reading this should probably just follow a short term block of the IP and WP:DENY reversion of any attempts by the vandal to make statmenets of position.--Isotope23 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to the guy on his blog and told him we can shut down his little plan with just one or two carefully designed range blocks and that we've got plenty of admins to implement them. -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's declare war on late 1930s Nazi Germany. That'll show those nazis! What's wrong with overreacting? --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That guy doesn't know how he's giving us research information (8 Minutes to block a vandal), and who whould edit from a cellphone anyway.Flubeca 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DennyColt
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

(note: closing duplicate section that was double posted/forked, extraneous)

wrote an essay (WP:BADSITES) that admits to not being a policy, then proceeded to "enforce" this non-policy by altering others' comments on many talk and project pages, including editing a closed AfD (which violates policy). *Dan T.* 14:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan Tobias, the essay/guideline/policy 'status' is fluid, and the true status is what reflects actual practice and precedent, I believe. Anyone can enforce anything that is applicable and 'right' under policy. We do not support hate, or attack sites. Do you support in any fashion websites that can cause personal harm to editors here? Are you a contributor to a hate site that outs Wikipedians? - Denny  ( talk ) 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Appeal to motive ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see how this is an admin issue. Have you discussed it with him on his talk page?--Docg 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He left me a message, that I replied to. - Denny  ( talk ) 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the tag on the essay. This is what the opening section of Attack sites says:


 * Attack sites are sites that are used to facilitate, promote, enable, or encourage harassment of Wikipedia editors and users. Harassment and stalking of Wikipedians (editors, administrators, or others) who chose to edit the encyclopedia either anonymously, or pseudo-anonymously, is a serious matter. A number of websites hostile to good will and the editors of Wikipedia choose to engage in activities that could undermine the privacy, anonymity, physical safety, and well-being of editors. The activities include the posting of harassing comments, physical threats, libel, and defamation, as well as attempts to 'out' the private identities of Wikipedians. For the safety and well-being of the overall Wikipedia community, attack sites should never be linked to, nor promoted by editors.

Basically, we normally scrub any reference to material that is defamatory or grossly attacking, or attempting to 'out' the identaties of editors. I wrote this to define what would be removed, which wasn't done before. I think this reflects... our ideals and principles, so I tagged it guideline now. - Denny  ( talk ) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Washington Post, for example, "outed" an editor on Wikipedia, or criticized the actions or apparent personal agendas of any Wikipedia administrators, would it then be an attack site? I admit that this type of discussion isn't appropriate for this page, but since it was started here, I thought I would ask the question.  Right now the only websites that openly question the way Wikipedia is run can be labled as attack sites and censored because they're somewhat small in scope.  But when more mainstream media decide to run articles about these type of issues (and I believe that it will probably happen eventually), will they also be labled as attack sites? Cla68 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd argument. The Washinton Post is a key source for thousands of articles, Wikipedia Review isn't. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction.--Docg 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but where is the line drawn? If the Washington Post discusses an allegation originally reported in Wikipedia Review, then is it okay to link to Wikipedia Review then?  Actually, I think that has already happened with the New York Post reporting on allegations from a Wikipedia "attack" site that isn't allowed to be mentioned here.  Where is the line drawn and who decides where the line is drawn? Cla68 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are obviously entitled to express your own opinion — avoid linking a site which contains anti-Wikipedia content — but you should never enforce an essay over a guideline by censoring other people's comment. Similarly suggesting to assume good faith doesn't obligate other users to remove bad faith assumptions. I believe the entire essay is ridiculous and is likely to be rejected anyway. Michaelas10<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Respect my authoritah 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, this had already been applied in the MONGO ArbCom case. Maybe if we'll get enough consensus for a guideline promotion? Michaelas10<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Respect my authoritah 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I objected, both at the time and still now, to the draconian removal of all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica in the wake of that ArbCom case. I strongly believe that discussion in talk and project pages shouldn't be stifled by suppressing links to sites we don't like; it is simply not possible to have a reasonable discussion of the content of such sites without sometimes linking to specific things on them, and those sites and their content do have relevance to us at times, especially when they have threads that talk about suing Wikipedia, etc.  Anyway, "First they came for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I didn't object, because it's a hateful, childish attack site.  Next they came for Wikipedia Review, and I still didn't object.  Then they came for my site, and there was nobody left to object." *Dan T.* 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the Godwin goes to Dtobias! (For the record, Wikipedia Review got itself banned because it was also a hateful, childish – or at least petulant and selfish – attack site.  I can deal with slippery slopes when their slope is zero.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ToaT is exactly right, and his reasoning is also why Cla68's example of the Wash Post doesn't hold water. Even in the unlikely circumstance of the Post deciding to run some sort of exposé punching holes in the anonymity of our editors, it would not done in the grotesque and hateful manner of Wikipedia Review and other attack sites of its ilk. I don't think that we're supressing criticism here; we do, after all, have articles about Citizendium and Larry Sanger posts to talk pages quite frequently.  A  Train ''talk 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there to discuss on-wiki about an attack site but to determine, "Does this site, a group of their users/membership, or a component of their content, cause, or seek to cause, harm to Wikipedians?" If a site aims to harm people here in 'real life', why support them in any fashion, be it promotion or linking? We are volunteers. If the project can't even try to protect us on-wiki from off-wiki harassment, that is a major problem.

As to what should be removed from, or included in the encyclopedia... It is a grey line. The trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny  ( talk ) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do we "discuss and determine" that, without actually presenting evidence in the form of specific cites and links? *Dan T.* 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple, since its a wiki: someone links to x content or site, imports it, or advertises it. People will see it. If concensus is that its attack or hate content to harm living people here, it's removed. If it sticks, and concensus agrees its attack or hate content/site, then it stays gone and we remove the hateful crap. Precedent thus becomes practice, which becomes policy, innit? - Denny  ( talk ) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So in order to determine the nature of a site, we first have to link to it? This is a severe contradiction and invites to continue with the current system, namely a case per case analysis of every link posted here. If it contains libelous or other questionable material, it should be removed. If it doesn't and serves to illustrate a discussion, it stays. Sorry but with the MONGO case rules serving as official policy to be dinamically adapted to each case the system is OK as it is without the need to go on a MacArthyst rampage of blacklisting websites. No need to fix what it's not broken! FlatGenius 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User's 4th edit. We do not support harassment or attempts to 'out' identities. - Denny  ( talk ) 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Following best practice, the removal of many of these attack sites will NOT be discussed on site. Instead they will be instantly removed by clueful editors. Then a request for warning and/or blocking of the user that made the link will be handled discreetly. It should not be brought to AN or AN/I for discussion because doing so harms living people. FloNight 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds kind of star chamber-ish. *Dan T.* 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The way that some stories about incidents on the Internet often "break" now is that first, some "obscure" blog observes or finds something interesting on the web and reports on it. People read the blog and start sending the link around or commenting on it in their own blogs. Pretty soon enough people are interested in it that a more "mainstream" or widely read blog or net journal comments on it, then a "major" media outlet does a report on it. This here, then, is "the rub." At what point does the story change from being "an attack" to a legitimate news story and ok to link to or discuss in Wikipedia? A prohibition on links to certain sites for being "attacks", as opposed to spam, is going to be very difficult to enforce consistently and prevent the guideline from being used abusively and arbitrarily, especially by anyone that has a personal reason for trying to "suppress" the information contained in the site that the link links to.

In the articles on Wikipedia on controversial subjects, such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we debate the credibility and validity of sources all the time. It's often a natural part of the community article writing process. Wouldn't we also sometimes need to debate the credibility and validity of an off-site report on something going on in Wikipedia that we need to know about, without fearing that we're going to blocked or having the discussion shut-down by someone enforcing the guideline according to their own personal interpretation of it? And again, at what point does a story change from being an attack to a legitimate "news" story? Would you be able to write that definition into a coherent guideline? Cla68 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We use our common sense to distinguish between attack sites and the Washington Post. If the site contains actionable libel and innuendo about people's sex lives, if it's published by one person and is discussed by the New York Times as part of a "campaign of menace," the chances are high that it's nothing like the Washington Post. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt Washington Post has attacked us. They definitely criticized, but I doubt attack is a suitable classification. Maybe a rewording to suggest trustworthy websites are not applicable to the essay? Common sense will also help the cause...--<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Cla68's post: there is no question that blogs serve a valuable purpose. Blogs revealed that the CEO of an Internet company had sent one of his employees to push POV on Wikipedia and harass Wiki editors. Is he suggesting that a full description of the blogs' claims be placed on the talk page or artcle of the CEO in question? I would see no point to that, and these are not even attack sites. The reason is that existing policy does not allow blogs to be cited except in limited circumstances. There has been media coverage of what the blogs have revealed, yet to my knowledge this has not been mention in the articles on this company or CEO.--Mantanmoreland 13:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png
i'm personally feeling that User:Timeshifter is being seriously disrutive to "the discussion" via these: (1st), (2nd), -my resolve attempt-, (3rd)+"You are approaching a 3RR violation" threat - scroll down to see it - please have someone review the history of the talk page and give an opinion. Jaakobou 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you removing big chunks of talk? Archive it instead, leaving a note about what was archived and why, and a link.  Ask someone if you don't know how to make an archive sub-page.  Then maybe the two of you will be able to stop deleting each others' talk. Dicklyon 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, obvisoult you did not take a good look at the issue. the talk allready exists on an older image before it was exchanged for the current one - i raised suggestions about the new one and User:Timeshifter copy pasted the info from the older image which is seriously redundant and only disruptive for anyone to contribute to the new discussion. i've tried placeing a link to it but User:Timeshifter insisted that "admins" (who?) wanted the information there. Jaakobou 06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * to make it more clear, i link to where the material was originally copied from - i.e. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png . Jaakobou 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother: Please review unblock request
was blocked for 3 days for "repeat offense" against 3RR by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise this morning (UTC). I thought it rather draconian, as Justanother has only one 3RR offense in his block log before, and that was 6 months ago: 4th October 2006, blocked for 24 hours by SlimVirgin. I e-mailed Future Perfect, also this morning, to query the length of the block, but it doesn't look like s/he has been editing much today, and s/he hasn't responded yet. Justanother put up an unblock request some nine hours ago, where he argues that he didn't in fact breach 3RR, but it hasn't been reviewed. Perhaps he's a victim of the holidays. Anyway, having had dealings with him, I'm not the person to review his request, but perhaps somebody would? Is it normal that it takes this long? (Incidentally, Future Perfect might conceivably have been misled by the word "3RR" being repeated several times in Justanother's log, but most of them are actually with reference to the WP:3RR article, not to 3RR violations.) Bishonen | talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Actually, the reference was to breaking the rule, but even so he was only blocked twice for it, both times six months ago. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look again. He has been blocked once for 3RR previously. Not twice. Seriously. The other block six months ago was for something else. I haven't researched it in depth, but that's what SlimVirgin has written in the log. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Amarkov, Bishonen is right. The first block was 24 hours for "3RR on Scientology and celebrities" (edit summary); the second (after an unblock ~2 hours later) was for "violated the unblock condition of staying away from the 3RR article [Scientology and celebrities] for 24 hours".  The third block was not 3RR-related, but "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA".  --Iamunknown 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He was in violation of the rule, so I declined the unblock request. But since blocks should be preventative, and 3 days is rather long for 3RR, I offered to reduce to 24 hours(about 7 hours from now) if he promised not to revert on that page until the original block would have expired. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hr seems right to me, but to whom did you offer it? I would endorse the reduction to a day.  No doubt the user is for his point of view and shouldn't have violated 3RR, but we should go with proportionality.  Geogre 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I offered it to Justanother, not sure who else is being discussed. Still waiting on a response. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done deal. Thanks. Enjoy the holiday. --Justanother 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat?
I somehow missed this edit on my talk page. You also might want to delete this image more quickly than 7 days. <font color="#153E7E">Rook <font color="#808080">wood <font color="#387C44">Dept. of Mysteries 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked. Image deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is gone, but the the image page still exists. --Edokter (Talk) 11:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on RC Patrol Userbox Template
Template:User wikipedia/RC Patrol is consistently being vandalized by Thomasthetankengine7. He is changing the words and the symbol, consistently. Block him or full-protect the template. - Kevin23 04:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has not vandalized again after the final warning, so I don't believe he should be blocked. --  tariq abjotu  04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but already indeffed. Looking at his contribs, I couldn't find a single good-faith edit.  Lots of vandalism to templates, some of which had gone uncaught.  The edit summaries revolved around "messing up template", and his talk page had a reference to his intent to "just mess up templates".  Blocked as a vandalism-only account; I invite review.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay; good point. --  tariq abjotu  04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Following the thread back a bit, he created User:Chrisaldous, which had similar edits to the same templates and was indef blocked as a sockpuppet of . — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  04:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He's a returning sneaky vandal. Since we don't keep trophy pages any more I can't point to all his other socks right away, but "tank engine" has been a vandal meme for a while.  Here's one I remember .  You could probably find them in the block log if anyone wants to dig around.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought "tank engine" sounded familiar. I was looking for and, etc., but found nothing. I concluded that I must have imagined that somewhere. --  tariq abjotu  04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I think I remember reporting a few to AIV... or saw it on SSP. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 04:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be thinking of Jerry the Tank Engine and his various socks. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ernham has returned from a month ban (not his first) a few days ago. His first actions were to be involved in an edit war with User:Rocketfairy, who he has reported for breaking the 3RR (as did he). His first actions in the Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua Genocide articles were to revert them to his version from just before he was banned, ignoring consensus decisions reached in the intervening month, such as calling the Nama with the commonly-used modern term, rather than the outdated Namaqua. The diffs also show him removing cited references without discussion, removing an improved disambig of the Boer War, and replacing the cited reference with uncited comment. He does not discuss his changes, preferring simply to go ahead as he sees fit, the same behaviour he showed before his ban. I would respectively ask for him to be blocked for at least another month. I am involved in those two articles, so please be aware of my previous runins with Ernham, though hopefully you can make a fair decision based upon the patterns of behaviour he has shown since his unbanning. Greenman 12:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Flymeoutofhere
Hi, I would be very grateful if an admin could consider warning/blocking User:Flymeoutofhere who persistently removes a 'Controversy' section in the El Al article despite an overwhelming support - many think that this section is fair and offers a neutral point of view (c.f. Talk:El Al). Thank you very much Bonus bon 14:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the overwhelming support to keep that section? The only discussion about the controversy section is this one.  It shows support for removing it, however, I do suspect some issues with that poll with a single-purpose account (User:S234), and an IP address adding two votes  neither of which was from that IP address.  Metros232 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There does not seem to be any "overwhelming support" to keep that section. Discuss issues related to content on the article's talk page. We do not block people for disagreements in content disputes. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost discussion
A few hours ago, a weird edit removed a good amount of active discussion here. Its quite extensive, far too late to revert or undo, and I don't quite know where to start to restore the nuked stuff. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm responsible for the edit. I was trying to change one word and I have no idea how all that stuff got nuked. I'm terribly sorry about it. It was noticed previously by two editors and I was under the impression it was restored.--Mantanmoreland 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shit happens. Anyway, per your talk, there is still some missing stuff.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is. WTF????!!!! It is indeed a weird edit. I have no idea how this happened. --Mantanmoreland 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the Imam Khameni thread. The Reddi thread was restored. I'll see what else might be missing.--Mantanmoreland 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring at Shatt al-Arab
There was a recent move request that Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, requesting that it be moved away from the double name. Tariqabotu closed it as a move to Shatt al-Arab, finding that the arguments on the side of the single move were stronger; chiefly that English usage is overwhelming for Shatt al-Arab.

Another admin chose to wheel-war over this, Please reverse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That technically is not a wheel war (Undoing another admin's action once is not considered a wheel war, although it is still preferable to discuss it with the other admin first.). Nevertheless, I must point you to another discussion on this topic, at WP:AN. --  tariq abjotu  15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I don't want to start another discussion here, and will go comment. Should we add such a link to the article talk page? (This is a question; there are reasons both ways.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for block
is a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, whose most recent account of User:Jill Teed was indefinitely blocked yesterday. Please block the IP. thanks. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 16:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Durova as I was typing. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DennyColt
wrote an essay (WP:BADSITES) that admits to not being a policy, then proceeded to "enforce" this non-policy by altering others' comments on many talk and project pages, including editing a closed AfD (which violates policy). *Dan T.* 14:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dan Tobias, the essay/guideline/policy 'status' is fluid, and the true status is what reflects actual practice and precedent, I believe. Anyone can enforce anything that is applicable and 'right' under policy. We do not support hate, or attack sites. Do you support in any fashion websites that can cause personal harm to editors here? Are you a contributor to a hate site that outs Wikipedians? - DennyColt 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Denny, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Appeal to motive ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see how this is an admin issue. Have you discussed it with him on his talk page?--Docg 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He left me a message, that I replied to. - DennyColt 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the tag on the essay. This is what the opening section of Attack sites says:


 * Attack sites are sites that are used to facilitate, promote, enable, or encourage harassment of Wikipedia editors and users. Harassment and stalking of Wikipedians (editors, administrators, or others) who chose to edit the encyclopedia either anonymously, or pseudo-anonymously, is a serious matter. A number of websites hostile to good will and the editors of Wikipedia choose to engage in activities that could undermine the privacy, anonymity, physical safety, and well-being of editors. The activities include the posting of harassing comments, physical threats, libel, and defamation, as well as attempts to 'out' the private identities of Wikipedians. For the safety and well-being of the overall Wikipedia community, attack sites should never be linked to, nor promoted by editors.

Basically, we normally scrub any reference to material that is defamatory or grossly attacking, or attempting to 'out' the identaties of editors. I wrote this to define what would be removed, which wasn't done before. I think this reflects... our ideals and principles, so I tagged it guideline now. - DennyColt 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Washington Post, for example, "outed" an editor on Wikipedia, or criticized the actions or apparent personal agendas of any Wikipedia administrators, would it then be an attack site? I admit that this type of discussion isn't appropriate for this page, but since it was started here, I thought I would ask the question.  Right now the only websites that openly question the way Wikipedia is run can be labled as attack sites and censored because they're somewhat small in scope.  But when more mainstream media decide to run articles about these type of issues (and I believe that it will probably happen eventually), will they also be labled as attack sites? Cla68 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd argument. The Washinton Post is a key source for thousands of articles, Wikipedia Review isn't. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction.--Docg 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but where is the line drawn? If the Washington Post discusses an allegation originally reported in Wikipedia Review, then is it okay to link to Wikipedia Review then?  Actually, I think that has already happened with the New York Post reporting on allegations from a Wikipedia "attack" site that isn't allowed to be mentioned here.  Where is the line drawn and who decides where the line is drawn? Cla68 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny getys to decide of course, SqueakBox 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are obviously entitled to express your own opinion — avoid linking a site which contains anti-Wikipedia content — but you should never enforce an essay over a guideline by censoring other people's comment. Similarly suggesting to assume good faith doesn't obligate other users to remove bad faith assumptions. I believe the entire essay is ridiculous and is likely to be rejected anyway. Michaelas10 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, this had already been applied in the MONGO ArbCom case. Maybe if we'll get enough consensus for a guideline promotion? Michaelas10 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I objected, both at the time and still now, to the draconian removal of all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica in the wake of that ArbCom case. I strongly believe that discussion in talk and project pages shouldn't be stifled by suppressing links to sites we don't like; it is simply not possible to have a reasonable discussion of the content of such sites without sometimes linking to specific things on them, and those sites and their content do have relevance to us at times, especially when they have threads that talk about suing Wikipedia, etc.  Anyway, "First they came for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I didn't object, because it's a hateful, childish attack site.  Next they came for Wikipedia Review, and I still didn't object.  Then they came for my site, and there was nobody left to object." *Dan T.* 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the Godwin goes to Dtobias! (For the record, Wikipedia Review got itself banned because it was also a hateful, childish – or at least petulant and selfish – attack site.  I can deal with slippery slopes when their slope is zero.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ToaT is exactly right, and his reasoning is also why Cla68's example of the Wash Post doesn't hold water. Even in the unlikely circumstance of the Post deciding to run some sort of exposé punching holes in the anonymity of our editors, it would not done in the grotesque and hateful manner of Wikipedia Review and other attack sites of its ilk. I don't think that we're supressing criticism here; we do, after all, have articles about Citizendium and Larry Sanger posts to talk pages quite frequently. A Train 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there to discuss on-wiki about an attack site but to determine, "Does this site, a group of their users/membership, or a component of their content, cause, or seek to cause, harm to Wikipedians?" If a site aims to harm people here in 'real life', why support them in any fashion, be it promotion or linking? We are volunteers. If the project can't even try to protect us on-wiki from off-wiki harassment, that is a major problem.

As to what should be removed from, or included in the encyclopedia... It is a grey line. The trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - DennyColt 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do we "discuss and determine" that, without actually presenting evidence in the form of specific cites and links? *Dan T.* 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple, since its a wiki: someone links to x content or site, imports it, or advertises it. People will see it. If concensus is that its attack or hate content to harm living people here, it's removed. If it sticks, and concensus agrees its attack or hate content/site, then it stays gone and we remove the hateful crap. Precedent thus becomes practice, which becomes policy, innit? - DennyColt 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So in order to determine the nature of a site, we first have to link to it? This is a severe contradiction and invites to continue with the current system, namely a case per case analysis of every link posted here. If it contains libelous or other questionable material, it should be removed. If it doesn't and serves to illustrate a discussion, it stays. Sorry but with the MONGO case rules serving as official policy to be dinamically adapted to each case the system is OK as it is without the need to go on a MacArthyst rampage of blacklisting websites. No need to fix what it's not broken! FlatGenius 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User's 4th edit. We do not support harassment or attempts to 'out' identities. - DennyColt 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Following best practice, the removal of many of these attack sites will NOT be discussed on site. Instead they will be instantly removed by clueful editors. Then a request for warning and/or blocking of the user that made the link will be handled discreetly. It should not be brought to AN or AN/I for discussion because doing so harms living people. FloNight 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds kind of star chamber-ish. *Dan T.* 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds kind of like the Stalinist Soviet Union to me. Talk about playing into the hands of our opponents, SqueakBox 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The way that some stories about incidents on the Internet often "break" now is that first, some "obscure" blog observes or finds something interesting on the web and reports on it. People read the blog and start sending the link around or commenting on it in their own blogs. Pretty soon enough people are interested in it that a more "mainstream" or widely read blog or net journal comments on it, then a "major" media outlet does a report on it. This here, then, is "the rub." At what point does the story change from being "an attack" to a legitimate news story and ok to link to or discuss in Wikipedia? A prohibition on links to certain sites for being "attacks", as opposed to spam, is going to be very difficult to enforce consistently and prevent the guideline from being used abusively and arbitrarily, especially by anyone that has a personal reason for trying to "suppress" the information contained in the site that the link links to.

In the articles on Wikipedia on controversial subjects, such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we debate the credibility and validity of sources all the time. It's often a natural part of the community article writing process. Wouldn't we also sometimes need to debate the credibility and validity of an off-site report on something going on in Wikipedia that we need to know about, without fearing that we're going to blocked or having the discussion shut-down by someone enforcing the guideline according to their own personal interpretation of it? And again, at what point does a story change from being an attack to a legitimate "news" story? Would you be able to write that definition into a coherent guideline? Cla68 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We use our common sense to distinguish between attack sites and the Washington Post. If the site contains actionable libel and innuendo about people's sex lives, if it's published by one person and is discussed by the New York Times as part of a "campaign of menace," the chances are high that it's nothing like the Washington Post. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is hard to put in writing. It's like the well-known comment from one of the first U.S. judges asked to define what is obscene, "I'll know it when I see it."  Of course, that's admitting that deciding what is and what isn't will always be much more subjective than objective and thus, difficult to put in writing.  Trying to define what sites fall under the proposed definition of an "attack" site and which ones don't is very subjective.  By making a policy about it for administrator enforcement you're saying, "We'll (an administrator) know it when we (an administrator) see it and we'll (I'll) tell you (the rest of Wikipedia) so you don't have to decide for yourself."  Imposing penalties for violations of an issue so open to subjective interpretation could very well lead to arbitrary, inconsistent, and preferential application of the guideline.  Cla68 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that common sense cannot be put in writing. That is why the community strives to choose administrators who have that attribute.--Mantanmoreland 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators all have to use their judgment and common sense when enforcing policies, as there's always some degree of subjectivity in any rule or policy, and that's one of the things people try to evaluate when there is an RFA. I can see why you have such concerns with this, though; your linking to attack sites was one of the things that scuttled your own RFA, along with your persistent attempts during the RFA itself, after the issue was raised to continue linking in various ways to an attack site, with various absurd claims - for example, that it was o.k. because it wasn't a live link, as if people are too stupid to paste a link into their browser and click "go". In any event, most people have enough common sense to recognize an attack site when they see it, even if you don't. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed DennyColt removing a link to Wikipedia Review that I'd put on one of my user pages a long time ago and forgotten about. The reason I noticed is that he left a polite note about it.  This series of edits immediately seemed to me like a very laudable thing to do, and I support it wholeheartedly. --Tony Sidaway 11:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * umm... Any reason why there's two copies of the same topic. One here and one below... --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it...? Linky? - Denny  ( talk ) 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a reliable news source publishes a story in which it links a user to a real name, exposing him (or her) and/or mentions the name of an attack site: May that article be linked to? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context. Is this information that the user/editor publically disclosed himself? Is this hypothetical or are we talking about a real situation? - Denny  ( talk ) 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

over the line
This user has been repeatedly informed about personal attacks, civility, improper allegations, and other violations, and continues to act improperly.


 * Accusing one admin of being a member of Mossad
 * Accusing another admin of being a member of the Mossad
 * Ignoring policy when explained politely
 * Another personal attack
 * Another example of trying to accuse/smear an editor on someone else's talk page

Further perusal of this user's contribution history demonstrates that although she has been met with politeness, cordiality, and respect, even when she has intentionally violated wiki policies and guidelines, not only does she not begin to respect them, but she persists in acting more and more in violation of them, including soapboxing her user page, attacking other editors, editing articles in which she has specific conflicts of interest to further those interests, not treating other editors with the respect she has been shown, and assuming poor faith.

At this point, I am going to block this editor for four days (96 hours), with the hope that perhaps she can realize that she can do more to help the project and herself if she is able to agree to edit appropriately.

If another admin thinks this excessive, please note so here and take appropriate action, but in my dealings with this user, I am beginning to lose faith in her ability to contribute gainfully, and not use wikipedia as a vehicle for her own person issues. -- Avi 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are in a content dispute with Asucena. You two edited the same articles. --Mihai cartoaje 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What "content dispute"? I see various admin actions, mostly regarding COI, but no content issues. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They both edited the articles Move America Forward, Hamas, and Palestinian National Authority. --Mihai cartoaje 13:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Avi reverted her edits on those pages because of COI issues. Those were administrative actions. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

She is not being blocked for content, but for flagrant violation of wiki principles after warnings. -- Avi 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I wonder is why she wasn't blocked indefinitely. It's not the first time she's been warned about this, or even the 10th. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering the same thing, but I trut that Avi has good reason for not taking that step yet. After the block expires, perhaps this editor will break with past history and attempt to treat others with respect and courtesy, and follow our very few simple rules. Then again, perhaps not. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think s/he needs to be blocked indefinitely if this continues. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This just doesn't make sense to me: if this editor really is what she claims she is then she's doing a very poor job of public relations and is conducting herself in a way that leads to sitebanning - and if she isn't what she says she is then she deserves an even swifter siteban. I contacted the Foundation shortly after I blocked her last month.  What more can we do?  Durova Charge! 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's something very odd about the whole business. Is there any chance that Asucena could be a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user? Has a checkuser been performed at any time? -- ChrisO 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slim and Chris (and how often do I get to write that sentence? :)). Indef block if behavior continues, and as to veracity of claims, something is indeed fishy. As they say on teh internets, "I call shenanigans." IronDuke  14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I called shenazzigans about five minutes after she turned up. One need only ask oneself why a role account for a Hamas spokesperson would choose a Spanish nom de guerre. Grace Note 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Asucena is an Arabic female name that means "lily". http://www.google.com/search?q=female+arabian+name+asucena --Mihai cartoaje 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it doesn't mean "follows wikipedia policy and edits productively." KC, I think I understand why Avraham did not block earlier was that he was trying to assume good faith, but it seems pretty clear now that Asucena is not going to follow the rules. I would support an indefinite block if the behavior continues. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    On Belay!  02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

questionable deletion

 * Not for ANI, but rather DRV. Deletion review/Log/2007 April 9. 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

this deletion by is nothing short of scandalous. There is nothing like a "consensus", and about half of the delete votes are from single-topic or trolling accounts. I knew "AfD was broken", but so far took it to mean it was impossible to get a nonsense article deleted if the trolls objected. This is the first time I see the trolls getting to delete a fully referenced article in spite of well-argued opposition. I will obviously take this to deletion review, but maybe someone can save me the trouble by looking at this and speedy-undeleting the article. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of 20 delete votes, only two are by recently created accounts, the rest of the delete votes are from long-time editors, including four admins. Calling half of those editors 'trolls' (am I one of them, dab?) is both disingenuous and WP:UNCIVIL. &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, you are a single-topic pov editor. Nothing wrong with that, but deleting articles because you and your co-religionists don't like them would be like deleting Criticism of Islam because 20 Muslim editors voted to delete that. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to look at my contribtions going back two years to see for themselves. And please don't make too many assumptions about my 'religion' based on my most recent edits - my 'religion' is much broader than you assume, dab. &#2384; Priyanath talk 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the deletion of a perfectly referenced article due to NPOV concerns is ridiculous, just like each of these AfD's who's sole purpose is to censor an article because certain editors aren't comfortable with its subject. I would definitely endorse a deletion review, but a speedy-undeletion might be a bit exaggerated act without a throughout discussion with Daniel. Michaelas10<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Respect my authoritah 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy undeletion would be definitely exaggerated if Daniel had bothered to spell out the reasons for his decision to start off with, rather than with a vague reference to policy and to a -very puzzling - 'consensus'. I have invited him to spell out his reasons again, but judging by his very unhelpful attitude, a discussion doesnt seem possible. Really, I can't see it being particularly exaggerated, given that. I am deeply dismayed by his attitude. Hornplease 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:DRV. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No basis for a "speedy undeletion". Take it to the proper venue, please... — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not overturning my close, especially after being blatantly attacked ("scandalous") in the above thread without being told. DRV it; I couldn't give a shit what you do with it from there. But, if someone speedy undeletes it, there will be all hell on them; just a friendly note :)  Daniel Bryant  21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One can only view the conduct of dbachmann, with his anti-Hindu paranoia to see why it got deleted. Four admins voted delete (Bhadani, Lostintherush, Nichalp whos a bureaucrat, and Rama's Arrow) and not all the delete voters are even Hindu, or affiliated with Hindutva organizations. Daniel was correct in noting the article was a lost cause, giving undue weight to a Phd in biotech (Meera Nanda) who is not even a tenured professor or scholar. Baka man  21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For my patient attempts to explain to this depressingly tendentious editor how Meera Nanda, writing for a well-regarded university press, is within the scope of RS and doesnt violate UNDUE, please have a look at these diffs . Hornplease 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which nobody agrees with. The troll seems to have forgotten an earmier comment directly contradiction his newfound love for an untenured non-notable fringe figure. Baka man  22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My my, dab, do you really think AfD is that broken? 'Cause when I decide, the trolls/sockpuppets/SPAs don't get to save a nonsense article, and I see other admins taking those into account as well. Grand  master  ka  11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do wish you were around to close this one then. Oh, and Nicholas Kazanas and a host of others. Hornplease 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Should this threat be take seriously?
Moved from WP:VPA Viridae Talk 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the link to this page "How to destroy Wikipedia" reverted on the Bill White (neo-Nazi) page, so I went to check it out. It's a claim of a concept to build a mass vandalization system. I'm not enough of a hacker to know how easy it is to do this. But apparently a lot of individuals read this guy's postings, so hopefully someone with some technical know-how can examine the situation. Citicat 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I wouldn't know how to do it myself but I don't think it'd be too hard. Whether that's any cause for concern or not I don't know. I'd imagine this has been tried before, it's a pretty simple idea. --Deskana (ya rly)  22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See a similar post above. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, Bill White and his ilk don't know what they're talking about and never have. We used to block AOL ips "without inconveniencing large numbers of people on an open network" all the time before they finally normalized how they handed IPs out. While cell phones may have different IPs, there is nothing special about "wireless laptops" that allows them to get completely separate IPs - because they connect through the same land router/connection. A vandal would have to drive around town and grab random wi-fi networks to do any damage, and it's likely that would take hours for vandalism that could be reverted in seconds. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Range blocks are easy to make. In this case it should not be too much of an inconvenience either, how many people edit via cell phone? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would find editing via cell phone way too annoying for the potential payoff of vandalizing a page. And expensive, too - those companies charge a lot for internet access. As far as the threat goes, he's talking out of his ass. Natalie 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for blanking pages, I guess - and we have bots that revert this almost instantly.  x42bn6  Talk 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Warn or block User:Servant Saber for vendetta against me, edit war is not in wikipedias interest
Hi admins. I feel i and other ( as you can see on hes talk page) have a problem with Servant Saber who has been a member on englísh wiki for less then a week and has already been blocked ones. I feel that he has a vendetta against me for things that has happened on swedish wikipedia, and as you can see he logged in today and the first thing he did was to put a deletion tag tag on a page which clearly wasnt a deletion worthy page and sending me this message "Cease adding articles about every single person you hear something about in the news, such as [[Krystal Hart"]]. --Servant Saber 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC) User:Chrislk02 who is a very good admin tried to explain to saber before he was blocked that actions on swedish wiki doesnt matter on english version but servant saber made it quite clear that he has no intention of stopping the "war" against me as a person. He sent this message back to the admin "Clearly Matrix17 has continued with the actions that got him blocked on svWiki here on enWiki, so I feel justified in following him here to tidy up behind him. WP:AGF in all honour, but no thanks. There are exceptions to everything. In fact, this is just another piece of proof for that he does exactly what he has been doing for some four months on svWiki, when he wasn't blocked. One day he'll be blocked for reasons similar to the ones that were used to block User:Saikano. Guaranteed. --Servant Saber 15:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)" which is also a personal attack "in my opinion" as a answer to the admins plea of continue work instead of edit war.. i want someone to either warn or atleast keep servantsaber under surveillance so to speak.Or if it is in you opinion worthy of a blocking then do that.I dont want this vendetta against me to be a impact for admins on wikipedia. and i take my part of the responsibility to.Now servantsaber has done it again put a deletion tag on a wiki worthy page. Krystal Hart--Matrix17 16:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Messages recieved to servantsaber the first day he was a member here: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Linda Rosing, you will be blocked from editing. 62.64.201.156 Talk 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? --Servant Saber 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Linda Rosing, you will be blocked from editing. 62.64.225.157 Talk 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break... Deleting some uninteresting junk about her breast size isn't vandalism. --Servant Saber 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

T
 * and, that is all I have to say. Do not recreate deleted material, and learn to use the Preview button. --Servant Saber 16:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Matrix17 has created many tabloid fodder articles, this is nothing but more of the same. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think Hackneys comment here has anything to do with the actuall case. He is just mad at me because i have numours times told him not to be bias when he votes on deletion pages. he just dont like to be told just as servantsaber.--Matrix17 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have speedy deleted the Krystal Hart article per WP:CSD. If you disagree with the deletion please see deletion review to contest it. Please do not recreate the article as it will be considered a violation of disrupt and I will enforce policy should it be recreated. Please see Wikipedia policy on notability. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for block on User:Servant Saber
I request that servantsaber be blocked for not being productive and for being rude when someone gives him advice or a comment.

My evidence:

"Matrix17, buzz off. You've been kicked out of svWiki for good enough reasons, so quit spreading your crap here. Go and write an article about your own boobs and see what happens. Rosing's breasts are no more important than yours. --Servant Saber 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) "

From editor making warning: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Linda Rosing, you will be blocked from editing. 62.64.225.157 Talk 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hes answer: '''Give me a break... Deleting some uninteresting junk about her breast size isn't vandalism. --Servant Saber 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)'''

You seem determined to insult and vandalize despite warnings. Now you have done it again. Stop it! 62.64.218.57 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Servantsaber calling Linda Rosing a whore: What luck that you included "may", lest you wanted me to seriously doubt enWiki's sanity. Linda Rosing may be a relatively unique case due to her desperate craving for attention of mass media, which she regrettably also gets, but I refuse to believe that every thing a person that has a biographic article on Wikipedia does is relevant enough to be included in said article. Strangnet asked Matrix something about if he wanted to write about Rosing's car as well, as that is pretty much as uninteresting as her breast enlargement. Do we have to promote media whoring? --Servant Saber 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I want someone else to look over this then .--Jersey Devil since he didnt respond to the actual matter,thanks.--Matrix17 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs for the stated contributions.--Jersey Devil 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a diff of Matrix calling me "braindead". --Servant Saber 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes everything can be found on Linda Rosing Talk:Linda Rosing and on servantsabers talk page User talk:Servant Saber and im sorry if i came out to hard on you Jersey Devil you doing a good job. But as you can see servant saber has been quite rude to me and all other who has tried to reach out to him and even good admins like isotope23 and strangnet. Please help me by blocking him so i can take time to do what i do.--Matrix17 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found the "write about your own boobs" bit . I have to say, though, in going through the talk pages, I was much more inclined to block you, Matrix; at one point you had the gall to say that you had blocked Servant Saber, which I find laughable at best and disruptive at worst. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pretty funny, that write about your own boobs comment - I must remember that :-) I agree that the problem here seems to be Matrix17, not ServantSaber. I can't say I'm hugely surprised that he's already been booted from one project. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

and Evula i want to point out that i actually didnt know tha ti couldnt block him and that was wrong of me and that was why I was blocked for 24 hours a couple of days ago. i have taken my punishment for that and i have learned. Servant Saber on the otherhand continues in the same was as before.--Matrix17 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT FORM SERVANTSABER ABOUT ME ON HIS FRONTPAGE THAT HE DELETED WHEN HE WAS WARNED HERE THE FIRST TIME, YES YOU SEE MY POINT!: Right now I'm mainly here to clean up behind a long-time vandal who was banned from the Swedish Wikipedia due to him being utterly contraproductive, who now is editing on enWiki instead.</

Comment: - Matrix17 reported Servant Saber to AIV just now. I reviewed it briefly and deferred to another admin for a second opinion. Second admin declined block - Alison ☺ 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I second-reviewed it and deferred it to this report so that a more considered opinion could be made. The signature in the report was a bit odd too. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Matrix17 (1 month). Anyone with half a brain can see who the problem is here. – Steel 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ayup. Endorse block, length perhaps a little harsh but not that harsh - disruption out of all proportion to productive input. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided on a month because that's the duration of the current sv.wiki block (See here). – Steel 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Let productivity resume.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering what I have seen most recently, I can not say that I disagree with the block.--Jersey Devil 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, but I've warned Matrix17 numerous time about numerous things he's done here and tried to make him understand that this would be the eventual result if he didn't adjust his behavior. Hopefully this is a wakeup call for him.--Isotope23 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it. Block endorsed. Good call on the parallel block period, too. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just see
Pleeze just see this conversation and tell if its normal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alkalada


 * You mean the Treason section? And please sign your edits. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks typical (sigh). 64.160.39.153 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I mean that. He BLAMES me for NOT hating Serbia (the country where I live) and the Serbs! --Edin Sijercic 21:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See below (WP:ANI) —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice comment
User Miskin has made several prejudice comments on the 300 film article. In this edit, user Miskin said "Judging by the number of Iranian editors involved here, I wouldn't be in favour [sic] of a vote, as the result would be determined by an oligarchy". Later when I asked if the vote was biased because some users are Iranian he responded: "Yes I do, for the following reasons: (a)Iranian/partisan voters form an abolute majority over the non-Iranians..." . If we allow this user to disenfranchise users because of their nationality, what kind of precedent would we be setting? Agha Nader 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * When WP:NPOV butts heads with WP:CON, NPOV wins every time. If POV-pushers end up "disenfranchised" in the process, I, for one, consider that to be an excellent precedent.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no evidence of POV, it was totally based on their nationality. Agha Nader 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * The remark is based upon nationality, but reading through the article's talkpage, I find numerous accusations of POV, including against you. If you're complaining because you feel Miskin's remarks constitute a violation of WP:NPA, that's one thing&mdash;I don't see a violation of NPA, although I do see some failure to WP:AGF, and I would have to agree that his lumping all Iranian together as biased wrt this article, simply because of their nationality, is theoretically somewhat disingenuous.  Nothing I'm seeing on the article's talkpage, however, warrants classification here as an "incident".  You asked a leading question, and got the answer you hoped to.  Congratulations.  You asked to be insulted and got what you wanted.  How is that anyone's problem but your own?  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be alright to disenfranchise, for example, and Iranian editor from editing on the Iran page? Or a Jewish editor from editing on a Jewish related article? This is an incident because racist remarks were made. You cannot assume someone is biased because of their nationality. Agha Nader 18:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * Assumption of bias based on nationality does not constitute "racism". There is no more an "Iranian race" than there is a "Jewish race", and if Jewish editors were insisting that Judaism never had animal sacrifices, or that Jews had never forcibly converted people, or that Jewish history consists exclusively of happy shiny people, yes, definitely, it would be alright to disenfranchise them from editing a "Jewish" related article&mdash;clearly they are incapable of doing so either rationally or within the confines of WP:NPOV.  The remark is not racist, it simply indicates a prejudice...and, again, the remark never would have been made, had you not elicited it.  You can't hit someone and then cry "foul!" when they hit back.  Except maybe in Iran?  Prejudice, even if Miskin's remark concerning his perception of you as a biased editor really constitutes "prejudice", is not against the rules.  It's an unfortunate by-product of being human.  I would suggest to you that you have at least as many prejudices as any of the rest of us.  Regardless, being a racist, even if Miskin were a racist (a borderline personal attack you seem to be leveling against him here) technically, isn't grounds for sanction against a wikipedia editor.  Administrators are not thought police.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Miskin has revealed that he believes Iranians to be incapable of objectivity at 300 (film). Apparently you agree with this racist notion and think that Iranians have somehow 'asked for it.' While I admit that Iranians who participate there generally have  similar views, this doesn't call for his generalization and his continual disregard for our opinions on account of us being "partisan". And it is particularly absurd if you consider that Iranians there don't even have the same views on everything. In any case, he should comment on content, not the contributor, and stop violating AGF because of his prejudice against a certain ethnicity.  The Behnam 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin's remarks, again, do not constitute racism, and your assertion that I'm a racist for saying so is, frankly, laughable. Again, Wikipedia admins are not thought police, so Miskin's prejudices are wholly irrelevant to any discussion on this page. What is absurd is that you seem to have the knowledge of what Miskin should do, but insist on extending this unnecessary discusion here. If you really feel there is a problem, that's what WP:DR is for. Take it up there if one-on-one discussion with Miskin is unproductive. Regarding your remarks here, Benham, it wouldn't hurt for you to start assuming good faith yourself and to stop making wild-eyed accusations against people like me just because I think all the editors squabbling over that article should be blocked for 24 hours for wasting so much bandwidth. Share your crayons, or you don't get any supper. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I ask that all parties here take a step back, a deep breath and remember that we are all suppose to be here to build an encyclopedia. Please try and keep comments which can be misconstrued as hostile to a minimum. I am talking to all parties here.--Jersey Devil 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That includes you, Tomer.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just realized that you are an admin Tomer. I could not tell based upon your conduct here. Anyway, I find it odd that you think that people 'squabbling' over that article should be blocked for wasting bandwidth, and I must warn you not to enact such blocks, as to do so would be an abuse of your administrative powers. Thanks.  The Behnam 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the utterly frivolous "warning", guy. You'll notice I never once proposed any blocks, I just expressed my bias.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just making sure. But please, remain WP:CIVIL; the sarcasm and tone of your response are inappropriate.  The Behnam 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh...perhaps you're correct. Then again, this entire thread was completely unnecessary, and therefore at least equally inappropriate.  In any case, have a good day.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, this wasn't the best place for Agha Nader to bring up the issue of Miskin's behavior. The Behnam 19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. But my goal was not to settle a dispute. Rather I hoped for a block on Miskin for what seems to be several prejudice comments. Agha Nader 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * Enough. Take it to WP:DR or stop whining about it.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest Chadbryant sockpuppet
This edit references Chad's nemesis Alexander "Dink" Cain, which would be very strange for someone who isn't Chadbryant to say. Thanks. <font face="Verdana"> One Night In Hackney 303 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Block of User:Toa Mario and User:CoHun
User:Toa Mario has been edit/revert warring on Bionicle Heroes, Collis Potter Huntington, Nintencats, and Kittendo, and possibly other places. On the first two of these, he celarly violated WP:3RR, and has been reported by me at WP:AN3.

He has also been violating WP:CIVIL, with such edit summaries as "ddue!! that iamge is outdated and sucks!!!)", "(removing lies. April 16 is his one and only birthday.", "I'm sick and tired of these lies...", and "even if i did violate 3RR, thats no reason to revert it." and various uncivil comments on talk pages. I also warned him several times on his talk page, such as this, this,this, and this

Then User:CoHun sarted doing the same exact reversion on Collis Potter Huntington that User:Toa Mario, even to identical edit summaries. See the history. Subsequently User:ColPotta did the same thing.

I have blocked User:Toa Mario and User:CoHun for 48 hours for the above acts, particualrly creating a sock to try to game 3RR, and i am about to block User:ColPotta for the same period. I invite community review of these blocks. DES (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction. I blocked User:ColHunt, soemone else blocked User:CoHun. DES (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. The user also likes to blank other people's User and Talk pages.  There's also User:ColHunt.  Corvus cornix 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maurice27 and Valencia (autonomous community)
As this page is currently protected, am am forwarding this comment from concerning this edit to  by
 * You might have not noticed, but it was Physchim62 who erased the name in English, not me. It seems you are apt to bring spurious accusations without foundation. Given your reiterated vandalism and insults (not only xenophobe...), in spite of the fact that I kindly asked you to stop and to debate, I am reporting you at the noticeboard. -- the <font color="#339900">D únadan  00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding admins may wish to note that Maurice27 has a record of blanking his talk page to hide admin warnings. Physchim62 (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does not require admin's attention yet. Leave a warning on his talk page, and when he exhausts final warning, bring it to WP:AIV --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am too involved as an editor on this article (and in this dispute) to properly intervene. I have also already blocked Maurice27 once for disruption on related issues. I would prefer that another, disinterested admin takes a look. Physchim62 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad
This user has been continuing to stir problems as mentioned on the RfAr page. Although the case is not yet closed, the user continues to cause disruption of various sorts in my opinion. User was recently blocked form commons for vandalizing by using sockpuppets. -- Cat chi? 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision
 * commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections
 * commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections


 * Got any evidence of disruption on this wiki?--Domitius 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example or . -- Cat chi? 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he means on Wikipedia. //PTO 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He is committing similar behavior here:
 * Removing copyvio notice:
 * Same behaviour as on commons
 * Afding Turkish provinces ,
 * User "attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines"
 * Revert waring on Greek War of Independence:, . Revert waring on Skanderbeg: ,
 * User is on Temporary injunction by arbcom and is "restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page". I see no comments on the talk page
 * -- Cat chi? 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any block should be logged at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan -- Cat chi? 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know about the rest of the situation, but I've blocked Artaxiad 24 hours for violating the 1RR injunction at Skanderbeg. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If this user is still actively editing, and is not indefinitely blocked, why has the talk page been repeatedly deleted? It was my understanding that a talk page is only deleted when a user is no longer editing. Have I missed something? -  auburn pilot   talk  04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Artaxiad asks for speedy deletion for his own pages. The last one: . I don't know why Artaxiad does that. denizTC 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that this might be irrelevant to English Wikipedia, but was involved in repeated vandalism of my user pages in Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedias.      It is the same IP that was identified in commons as belonging to Artaxiad. It just shows what kind of disruptive person he is. Grandmaster 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a longer block is warranted, perhaps a year long one. -- Cat chi? 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's too much denizTC 10:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He will be blocked for that long as per arbcom ruling. I see no reason why we should tolerate such disruption any longer. -- Cat chi? 10:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad removed an earlier comment from this page, and I reverted that edit. Not a good thing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

management speak bullshit (Personal branding)
Hi - we have an editor who we cannot get to understand the Manual of style and persists in adding some godawful management bullshit speak stuff about personal branding (linked to a site flogging the stuff of course). ''You are the Brand and the Brand is You! A personal brand consists of everything that makes you exactly the individual you are..'' and so on. Can someone sit in before we have an edit war, there are only a few of us working on the page but the rest of us agree it should not go in - or at the very least should be discussed on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about Omegalion I just gave him a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted again. The material being added is unacceptable. Can someone with more time and patience than I please inform this guy what he's doing wrong? Moreschi Request a recording? 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to and will continue to do so - as with most of those things, it's get them to the talkpage that's the problem... thanks for the assist. --Fredrick day 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've watchlisted that page: if he tries to add the junk anywhere else please let me know and I'll try to sort things out. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry everyone, bad revert on this page back to the spam. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has bothered to actually leave a message on his talk page discussing why his edits have been reverted. That's a much better first step that coming to AN/I, Frederick.  A  Train ''talk 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really fair, given the attempts to communicate on the article's talk. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember though: for true noobies, edit histories (where edit summaries would be visable) and article talk pages may be a total mystery. It's always best to go to the user talk page first. That orange bar can't be missed, no matter how green the user.  A  Train ''talk 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A Train: I've tried to explain it to him too, both on the article talk page and via e-mail (he contacted me at some point). There have been several elaborate (from my side) e-mails sent back and forth. I somehow didn't manage to get through to him, maybe the block will help. Didn't want to block him myself, given my involvement in the editing earlier. --JoanneB 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And we did do this when he was editing via an IP address and also on the article talkpage where he left a couple of comment - plus the edit summaries asked him to come to the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for jumping to conclusions. For what it's worth, I left the user a talkpage message.  A  Train ''talk 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh noes what a rubbish page. I've removed the bad sources and promospeak and the copyvio (surprise surprise) bits, rewritten drastically for tone (using the one academic source), provided a requested citation, and removed the tag. It got a lot shorter, but I can't help that. :-) Please don't let the editor in question revert back to the rubbish, see my edit summaries for all the specific things that were wrong with it. Bishonen | talk 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks, it looks (and reads) a lot better now! I can't believe I didn't spot that copyvio, was too busy keeping the Adam and Eve stuff out :)--JoanneB 09:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the copyvio was mine - it was meant to be a quote but with all the changes, I must have missed the right tags - I have have of course given myself 6 of the best. --Fredrick day 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no please keep the masochism off ANI! What with all the suicide drama, we don't need more gloom and pain :) Seriously, I think the page does look a lot better now. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 10:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user space?
From User:Maestroka:


 * This user is against the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history.
 * See Denial of the Armenian Genocide or in other words, a closer version of the real history.

I think these comments are a wee bit provocative. What do you all think? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there are relevant policy? Seems to me that having users be up-front about their biases is useful to the community. Dicklyon 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While provocative, he isn't pointing to some off-wiki activist site, he's pointing to the Wikipedia article about the issue. At worst, he's a jerk, at best, he's up front and honest about his biases. A review of his talk page shows that he acknowledges that there were massacres, but that he doesn't think the turks should have to pay reparations and such. He's not looking to be aggresive about it, and not looking to provoke a fight. I'd say it falls under 'nothing to see here'. ThuranX 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (as an added comment, consider as a good example of geniune problem denials)ThuranX 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I personally think that it is rather brave to be able to admit one's personal biases up front.  --Iamunknown 03:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a problem with it. This user is against the Armenian Diaspora's efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history is quite inflammatory; if I were Armenian, I'd be ticked. Heck, I'm not Armenian and I'm ticked. If he does not believe in the accepted account of the Armenian Genocide, fine, but that statement goes too far. For someone working on articles related to Armenia, it is highly inappropriate for him to post a viewpoint attack like that. I also have an issue with his second comment; rephrasing it might help some so it, again, does not sound as derogatory. --  tariq abjotu  03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I think it's great that a person working on articles about Armenia makes his POV so transparent. That should be helpful to anyone wanting to remove anything he writes.  So be ticked, but so what?  You didn't answer me whether there's a policy about being provocative on user pages.  Is there? Anybody know?  And is there a policy about non-admins like me commenting on this page? Dicklyon 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Non admins (me too!) are welcome to comment. Come  join the fray.  :-)  --Iamunknown 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dicklyon - this is a user page that's at issue, not an article. It's inflammatory, but it helps provide context in which to assess the user's edits of substantive articles.Simon Dodd 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In response to your first question, see WP:UP. In response to your second question, no; you can comment here. --  tariq abjotu  04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would this be classified as a polemical statement? I'll admit that my knowledge of the Armenian/Ottoman situation is minimal at best, and mostly comes from an Armenian friend down the hall of my dorm my freshman year of college, but I would classify it as such.  Is this incorrect?  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Khoikhoi's and Tariqabjotu's comments: if he simply said "this user believes the 1915-1923 period must be more closely studied/reexamined" or "this user supports Armenian-Turkish dialogue on the events of 1915-1923", it wouldn't be problematic at all. To just characterize all diaspora Armenians as simply having a bone to pick to against the nation of Turkey or say atrocities by Armenian terrorists towards the innocent Ottoman people seems to go too far. His position should be known but he doesn't have to use language that will guarantee to elicit a (negative) response.--MarshallBagramyan 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a polemical statement, and inappropriate. Fadix asked Maestroka to remove the statement, and Maestroka responded that it wasn't polemical: User_talk:Fadix. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it's inappropriate. I have removed it.Proabivouac 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been better if Khoikhoi informed me of this discussion beforehand, but I would like to add my opinion to this debate any ways. First of all, I changed my talk page, to make it clear that:
 * I support dialogue between Armenians and Turks,
 * I agree with historians that a tragedy has taken place,
 * I am not provocative,
 * I do not have any bias neither on the Armenian issue, nor Armenians,

I have many Turkish Armenian friends, who share my opinions or insist on calling the events a genocide, but they are still my friends and I am still theirs. A different opinion should be seen as a plus, especially on an issue that is currently being debated by historians. See quote below, from Armenian genocide article: A number of Western academics in the field of Ottoman history, including Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Gilles Veinstein (Collège de France),[59] Stanford J. Shaw (UCLA), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Roderic Davison (Central European University), Jeremy Salt (University of Melbourne),[60] Malcolm Yapp (University of London)[61], Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham) and Edward J. Erickson (retired U.S. Army officer)[62] have expressed doubts as to the genocidal character of the events. They offer the opinion that the weight of evidence instead points to serious inter-communal warfare, perpetrated by both Muslim and Christian irregular forces, aggravated by disease and famine, as the causes of suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. They acknowledge that the resulting death toll among the Armenian communities of the region was immense, but claim that much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers in eastern Anatolia. On May 19, 1985, a total of 63 scholars from various American universities sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives opposing the House Joint Resolution 192 which defines the events of 1915 as genocide. Wikipedia should be a place where multiple views are embraced. A heated debate by historians cannot be ruled out by just a POV of one side, as we have mostly seen on Armenian genocide article. If you just search through the references of that article, you will see that more than half of the references are from Armenian sources (authors or websites), nearly no Turkish sources (I didn't see any), nearly no foreign historians, who are not of Armenian ancestry. So this is not POV, but my views on my user page are? Do you know what POV stands for? --Scientia Potentia  08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are totally skipping the problem, you make charges on an entire people, claiming that they are attempting to rewrite history. I don't much care of what you think of the genocide. You can bold and take your entire userpage and claim it is fake. Your belief is your belief, your other sentence on the other hand is prejudicial, you have the right to think that, but keep your belief of what you think the Armenian Diaspora is attempting to do to yourself. As for the said 63 scholars. You should be informed that Israel Charny has published a followed, in which it was made clear that many of them recognize the genocide and that they signed it by believing it was a request to open the archives. This of course is out of subject. Fad (ix) 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a provocative and polemical statement. The key is not the fact that he mentions  his beliefs, which is fine, but his provocative manner of stating them and his clear polemical intent.  This is against the username policy. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as provocative. So called "Armenian Genocide" is only the title of interpretation of the events of 1915-1923 by one of the sides. The content, extent as well as intention of the communal warfare and massacres with participation of Turks, Kurds and Armenians in Anatolia during World War I and following years are a subject for historians to study and set the record straight in. It's sad that the single-sided interpretation, often ignoring the victims of either side, is enforced as "vision of history" but remains mostly a speculation for political goals on both sides. But provided the substantial amount of POV by one of the sides, insisting and implementing the "genocide" version and largely ignorance by the other side, I believe any user has a right and freedom to express position in regards to these events. And doing so in his own user space, should not attract such a major attention. In general, if the claim is strong and has any kind of basis, the counter opinion of one user will not be strong enough to question it. And the fact that there is so much sensitivity about any user posting his views in this regard, implies the weakness of the claim itself. Atabek 10:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Khoikhoi, Tariqabjotu, and Marshall completely. If Maestroka really supported a closer friendship between Turks and Armenians then why would he say things such as "there have been atrocities by Armenian terrorists towards the innocent Ottoman people" or that the diaspora is making "efforts to rewrite the twentieth century history" if he wasn't trying to be provocative?  Also, Atabek, like it or not, there was a genocide and yes the Armenians were the victims.  There are photographs by Armin T. Wegner, testimonies by Robert Morgenthau, reports from the New York Times and other newspapers, World War I posters, French, Dutch, and German testimonies.  There are even Kurds and Turks who have come forward today and admitted what really happened.  Also note that the reason that "there is so much sensitivity about any user posting his views in this regard" is not because the claim of genocide is "weak" but because what Maestroka posted is offensive to other users.  It would be like a neo-Nazi posting Holocaust-denial solgans all of his user page.
 * For any Armenian, it hurts to see phrases like "so called 'Armenian Genocide'." The pain and suffering of the Armenian people is only prolonged by the denial of what happened in 1915-1917.  I think one article from the New York Times put it best when it said: "To most Turks the events of 1915 seem distant, but in the Armenian consciousness they are a vivid and constant presence. Awareness of what is simply called 'the genocide' is acute in Armenian communities around the world. Often it is accompanied by fierce anger at Turkey's recalcitrance."  -- Aivazovsky 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aivazovsky, whether it hurts you or not to call "so called 'Armenian Genocide'" is frankly immaterial to the discussion. You should also understand that it similarly hurts some Azeris or Turks, when the Armenian contributors concentrate solely on removing "genocide" or even "massacre" references from Western sources in regards to Azeri or Turkish victims. But again, "hurting" is a feeling and emotion, which is not a place for encyclopedia.
 * Highlighting Armenian victims as "genocide" while ignoring scores of Turkish victims massacred during Russian-Armenian offensive in Anatolia (Van in particular), is also a curse upon those whose families and dears were killed. So instead of concentrating on highlighting one-sided pain as the only one, I think realization should be clear that any conflict and war has two sides and there are victims on both. Simply because Armenians lost in Dashnak objective of carving out Armenia out of half of Anatolia, does not mean that today all Turkish, and Kurdish for that matter, victims of Russian-Armenian offensive in Eastern Anatolia should be simply ignored.
 * And here I would like you remind you that the state of Turkey was the one which built a monument for all soldiers, regardless of race, color, nation or side, which were killed in the Battle of Gallipoli fighting Turks, with the inscription:
 * "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. — Mustafa Kemal"
 * I wish those who use only Armenian massacres in Anatolia and fuel extreme Turcophobia to make personal or group business or political gains would ever pay attention to these words and understand the pain in a conflict is mutual. Thanks. Atabek 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Users engaging in personal attacks
At present, three editors User:Tom Voigt, User:Labyrinth13 and User:Zdefector are engaging in a series of personal attacks against each other at the Zodiac killer entry on this discussion page thread: "Continued counterproductive badmouthing". I have requested three times that everyone (myself included) should simply cease and desist and walk away, but I fear that things are only going to get more personal there. A warning or some sort of intervention by an admin before this gets farther out of hand would be a huge help. Thanks. Labyrinth13 13:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fake Sock Notice
This is a bad joke (obviously, no block log, but how many think to check?) rudra 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And this also today as vandalism, which was quickly reverted by an administrator, but only a short block on the user. Note that both of these incidents involve Hindu issues. Buddhipriya 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, I'd think, unless Philosopher1 is (or is in contact with someone) in Spain. rudra 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern is that this may be evidence of remote puppetry. I suspect that Philosopher1 is Maleabroad, who has been soliciting meatpuppets. See: This thread and this one suggest that there may be meatpuppets involved, too.  Previous investigations of Maleabroad have determined that he appears to be at a Canadian University.  For general information on Maleabroad see:. Buddhipriya 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, open proxies didn't occur to me. Inevitable, I suppose.  rudra 05:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the admin who removed the sock tag that Philosopher1 placed on your userpage, and also blocked that editor. They got a 31 hour block for 3RR and vandalism but I couldn't definitively point to them as being a sock. The only connection, as you say, was Hindu issues - Alison ☺ 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alison, thank you again for your help the other day. Your quick response to he vandalism was great!  I agree that the jury is still out on this potential sock.  My antennae are tingling because of the fact that the last major sweep for Maleabroad socks resulted in some discussion about activating the investigation process to contact the Canadian university where he seems to operate from (as confirmed by multiple socks run through checkuser).  After that idea was floated, his activity stopped, and now we see a pattern of edits that may suggest he has found a workaround for the location problem.  All of this is theory, and more data would be needed before making a firm conclusion. Buddhipriya 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

strong-arm tactics from a group of editors, content revert and POV RfC
a few editors who appear to be closely working with each other have been acting rather hostile today, all swarming over my edits at once and reverting my inclusion of major verifiable English-language sources and other minor edits on various articles (Avicenna, Al-Farabi, Amir Khusro, and List of Persian poets and authors) and even completely modifying my Request for comment (RFC) for Avicenna article to make it one sided POV, (compare the wording here to see which one is more NPOV) and then reverting my attempt to bring back the NPOV wording. For lack of better word this appears to be a sabotage and arm-twisting by several older users, who stop at nothing by using everything from veiled threats by placing very "friendly" notes on my talk page to repeatedly pretending Wikipedia rules favor one particular user's POV and misinterpreting the Wikipedia rules. While the content dispute would be hopefully dealt by the RFC, the immediate concern is to have these users edit in good faith and cease from reverting pages and otherwise modifying words by making them POV and unbalanced. Weiszman 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a content dispute to me, pure and simple. Regarding Requests for comment/Biographies, I don't see either version as perfectly NPOV, in particular, your preferred version leaves out what appear to be important facts.  That is, you keep removing a very plausible claim that the references you want to include are flawed.  I've tried to find a NPOV voice.  I suggest you try to address what appears to be the valid concern of your 'opponents' in this matter; it seems to me that they may have a point.  Whether or not they are right or wrong, it is important that you follow wikipedia policy while you discuss the issue with them.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I've included a diff for everyone to clearly see what is the dispute about and to verify independently each and every source. It's unfortunate that the diff is removed at the RFC page. Here are the four sources I've inserted which are all quotes and thus make misinterpretation (which is a later claim by those who opose this information) impossible:

1) Arab descent according to other sources, Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6 and

2) Acta Geneticae Medicae Et Gemellologiae, International Society for Twin Studies, Società italiana di genetica medica, Permanent Committee for the International Congresses of Human Genetics, Istituto "Gregorio Mendel", 1952, p. 268

3) "Ibn-Sina has been referred to as the Arab Galen." Philip Khuri Hitti. Makers of Arab History, 1968, p. 216

4) "In him Arab science reached its climax."Eugene A. Myers. Arabic Thought and the Western World in the Golden Age of Islam. 1964, p. 33 Weiszman 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Can an admin take a look at this PA - I had tagged one of his articles that he had created with a speedy deletion tag using NPWatcher. Baristarim 08:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And these -. Please look at the content of the posts, especially the second one and the first one.. Baristarim 09:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to be insisting on this, but can an admin take a look at these? Here is the latest post - all of these posts are grave violations of NPA.. Baristarim 09:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have tried to warn him...an admin needs to step in and apply an appropriate remedy.--MONGO 09:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just gave him a rather stern warning, in the form of a hit with the clue bat. --Golbez 09:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Baristarim 09:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly endorse the 24h given the Hitler comment.  Daniel Bryant  10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to say this Golbez...but your "warning" was so damn colorful...Also endorse the 24h block --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 10:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just on a sidenote, I had read the article five times over before nominating it for speedy. When I had looked, there were no references, no wikifications, no nothing and a claim that the guy was famous because he wrote "Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify'd". I know that he is not a living person, however I wasn't even sure if it was someone pulling a prank on his friend or something. I am sorry that I don't know so much about 18th century gay-rights activists. :) Baristarim 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Personal attack by IP, RPA reversion, block log, message. Review please. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  10:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse, for block evasion and new personal attacks. --JoanneB 10:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

out of my depth/Copyvio (Bang Gang article)
Hi, hitting the random button as I do, I came across this article, the bio section (besides being entirely wrong in tone), seems to be a straight lift from one of those places. I removed it as a copyvio but it has been returned and an editor claims they have rights to it, I am a bit out of my depth with copyright stuff as I find wikipedia policy on the matter so complex, I'm unsure how to follow it up. --Fredrick day 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Left a notice on the user's talk page telling them to send an email to permissions-en and told them about WP:COI.  x42bn6  Talk 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, even if they do have permission and release this under GFDL, this would need heavy, heavy editing as it in no way conforms to WP:NPOV. It's basically a marketing puff piece.--Isotope23 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mkenshin10
Hi. I am a new admin and I am seeking help from other admins. When blocking the recorded entry in the block log states that the block is anon. only and I don't know why this happened. The anon. only box does not appear, so, it is impossible for me to check it anyway. If it matters, I am using Firefox 2 under Win XP. Can any one tell me why this happened? Thanks. --Meno25 17:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries; anonymous-only applies solely to IPs. This is probably a temporary display bug that got into the MediaWiki trunk.  Unless the bug applies to blocking itself rather than how the block log is rendered, then the account is blocked.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review
Earlier today I blocked as a sock of User:MagicKirin. The user is now claiming that I should not have blocked, stating I am in a content dispute with him/her. Further, by email, Giza E states that the original block was by Essjay who has been discredited and "Ergo there is no sock puppet violation". I am in no dispute with MagicKirin other than the continued attempts at disruption via socks, but a review would be appreciated. The Essjay comment is a bit ridiculous, and basically confirms Giza E is a sock. -  auburn pilot   talk  17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. If we have to unblock everyone who was blocked by Essjay, I quit right now. Natalie 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Giza E is clutching at straws here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Past that, I've been treating MagicKirin/Decato as banned for some time, now. There's been plenty of discussion on unblock-en-l about it, and the user's brought up a painful number of socks, refusing to recognize even the most reasonable of policies or requests from any fellow Wikipedian -- it's always "my way or an army of socks highway." I haven't checked who set the original block, because it doesn't matter at this point. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, I blocked Giza D as a result of a checkuser, and the unblock request reason is nonsense.  Daniel Bryant  03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lilkunta
Could another set of eyes head to User talk:Lilkunta and help the user out? The problem is that Lilkunta uses a horrendous "chiller" font, in green, in size 2 through HTML code. Well the issue is that Lilkunta never ed an of the posts, therefore, the entire talk page is green now, in that horrendous font. I've fixed it several times, as has another user, but Lilkunta refuses to take help from either of us because apparently we're jerks. This is how it looked after I repaired it, this is how it looks after Lilkunta's 6 attempts to fix it (note that several sections of talk and warnings have been removed in the process by Lilkunta).

Can someone else stop in there? It's getting really disruptive that Lilkunta insists on refusing help and that, despite our warnings and requests not to, the user still uses the ridiculous font on everyone's talk pages (s/he's stopped using the chiller font on my talk page and now just simply bolds everything which is equally annoying). Metros232 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this user to be absolutely impossible to deal with. Joie de Vivre 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Joie I find u impossible. Again, u r not to post to me or about me.Lilkunta 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? Joie de Vivre 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Joie, u & I have previous history so u r bias. Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have the power to tell people they can't post about you. Nobody does. Having said that, if you want to have unclosed font tags on your talkpage, people really shouldn't be trying to remove them. -Amarkov moo! 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @ Amark: What about repeated posts that are unwanted. I receive unsolicited posts & I have to deal with them.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank U. I get that they dont want it on their pages, but they all changed my page which dont like. Joie is to make no comments bc we disputed about a page but she is.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "She"? This is a completely separate issue from the "content dispute" (if "Lilkunta ignoring policy and being really obstinate" should be called that).  I can comment here freely, stop making decrees.  Joie de Vivre 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * R u a he? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue, Amarkov, is that Lilkunta wants the page to be fixed. In fact, when s/he discovered the page was all green, s/he posted this vandalism accusation.  So, we're all trying to help, but getting shot down.  Metros232 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was fixing my own page. Cascadia offered help. U metros just changed my page without my permission even after I asked you to stop.

I've nuked all of them and gave Lilkunta a stern warning.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt ask for Metros' help. I do not want it. I dont know y Metros is watching my page. I have asked repeatedly 4 Metros to cease contact. I am fixing my page bc it is afterall my page.Lilkunta 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a really annoying font on that users' talk page hopefully that explains literally what some users are having to deal with here. BTW: I like different fonts but some really makes your eyes sore. -- Hdt83 <font color="blue" face="Arial">Chat 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you too had a font preference but I c u r just bullying me like the rest of them.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of incivility floating around due to something as simple as tags. Lilkunta, the problem would be solved if you agreed to close your tags on your talk page, and not use them at all on other pages. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But you do realize that this is what people are seeing?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I c Chiller fine but now understand you all dont have browsers that do. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's generous because the image is so large. It looks a LOT smaller if you look at it in a normal browser (that image seems pretty "blown up").  Metros232 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I dont know or talk to any of u. Just as u want ur page ur way, I want my page my way. I dont want any of u all to help me. Pls stop changing my page.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If having your talk page configured in such a manner that some editors wanting to communicate with you have severe difficulty understanding the words because of the font you are using, then this is disruption. You don't get to disrupt any part of Wikipedia.  Not even your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do others get to have many diff things on their page but not me? I just want to be in charge of my disc page.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing.-- Joie de Vivre 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt realise that nt every 1's browser supports Chiller. Leebo was civil & much nicer than the rest of u & showed me. I'll use Chiller only when I must. Thx again Leebo.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That is completely unacceptable. Lilkunta must stop this. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently using hideous fonts and colors is vitally important to this user while typing in complete words and sentences is not worth their time and effort. I would advise Lilkunta to reassess their priorities and their reasons for participating on this project. Philwelch 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the incivility that Leebo mentioned earlier? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If they want to use that font on their own talk page, bully to them for it. However, using it elsewhere is problematic. Luckily, as a Mac user, I don't have that font (I'll classify that under "Viruses don't work for me" :D), but that really is disruptive to use elsewhere, especially if the user doesn't know how to use it properly. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will maintain my font & colour& my disc page. If a user says a post I make is unreadable,I will gladly change it. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I rcommended that Lilkunta use her font/design talents in creating userpages and infoboxes instead of talkpage fonts. I hope s/he is willing to take me up on that offer, because well designed userpages are assets. &mdash; Deckiller 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say I can't believe you had the gall, Lilkunta, to reformat this discussion and apply your new font. And you contributed to the incivility too. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Leebo I was told this new colurfont type id ok. It is still hard to read? Lilkunta 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I support a block. He is clearly being disruptive. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had to remove Lilkunta's formatting of their messages here (and they used a font I did have installed); this isn't the user's talk page. Grrr. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use a colon, Lilkunta, instead of your green font. It makes it much easier to read...and makes it less of a annoyance. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all the indenting in this section is gone. This happened on my talk page and on the article Talk pages that Lilkunta blessed with their Midas touch. Joie de Vivre 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
For edits like this one in which s/he changed the font and the entire formatting of this thread despite being warned not to do that only a couple of hours ago, Lilkunta have been blocked for 24 hours. I strongly suggest that when the block expires that s/he does not use different fonts at all as it is clearly causing annoyance to a good percentage of Wikipedia members who have been involved with it. Metros232 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I still think that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to on their own talk page and only on their own talk page, but I will most certainly agree that editing the formatting (and, in the process, destroying the indentations) of this conversation, to put it delicately, showed poor judgement. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I... so, yeah, it's like this: I want to think you were a bit heavy-handed, but yet, I just can't bring myself to disagree with it...
 * Yeah, and the fact that s/he had been warned not to use the font, the fact that others had tried to help but s/he kept ignoring advice, the fact that we've all spent way too much time talking about fonts and formatting, it all leads up to disruption block in my mind. I'd appreciate any other comments on my action, but I do feel it was justified based on sufficient warning that was ignored.  Metros232 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All seriousness aside, you have my full endorsement on the block. I completely agree that such blatant disregard for the overwhelming consensus that their font styling was disruptive is problematic (and I agree again that all this discussion has been a waste of time and energy). Hopefully a short block will help cement the whole "don't do that" thing. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I question the necessity or utility of changing fonts even on your own talk page (though I wouldn't block over it), but seriously, this was becoming beyond ridiculous.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. I believe that the font shouldn't be used anywhere as it is disruptive, but if as a consensus we are going to say that it's fine on user's own talk page, I won't have any objection is this case. But certainly, endorse block for disruption on ANI after warning.  Daniel Bryant  00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Block endorsed and unblock request declined.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I have to say her attitude leaves something to be desired, too... HalfShadow 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

i found what happened
I found what happened. This is the version of lilkunta's talk page that is in Google's cache from 11:53 on 4 April: . But this is Wikipedia's version of the events:. Notice something? The two versions are different.

This is sample wiki code from the page at that time:
 * <FONT COLOR="green"> O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come & help u?Lilkunta 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).


 * ==Archiving==

This is a sample of the raw html code that is sent to browsers by Wikipedia now if we read the version from that date:
 * O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come &amp; help u?<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lilkunta&amp;action=edit" class="new" title="User:Lilkunta">Lilkunta</a> 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * <a name="Archiving" id="Archiving"></a>

but in Google's version, this is a sample of the raw html code that was sent to browsers then:
 * O ok. I was told to place {helpme} it on an admin's page. Did n e 1 come &amp; help u?<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lilkunta" title="User:Lilkunta">Lilkunta</a> 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * <a name="Archiving" id="Archiving"></a>

Sometimes between 4 April and now, the Wikipedia server software was updated to allow tags to span multiple paragraphs. --Mihai cartoaje 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be updated to disable those tags entirely. Philwelch 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &lt;font&gt; should be disabled, but since the tag has previously been allowed, people have probably been &lt;font&gt;ing stuff here and there and everywhere. We'd need a giant bot operation to convert &lt;font&gt;s to &lt;span style=...&gt;s, autoconvert everyone's signatures at database level... uh, this is going to be tricky. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let it break. That's kind of the point of disabling tags. Philwelch 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Imam Khamenei=Islam
Inappropriate user name? Corvus cornix 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt have a clue. but it could be. dwilliams 06:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny 20000 (talk • contribs). Corvus cornix 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A discussion has been started at WP:RFCN. Does not require admin attention until the discussion has finished. --Kzrulzuall 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed it here, since RFCN has been listed for deletion. Corvus cornix 06:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just realized upon clicking the link. Well, the name doesn't seem too defamatory since Iman Khamenei is actually Islamic... I'm not sure, so you need someone else's opinion on it. --Kzrulzuall 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is not over its being defamatory, but over its being argumentative. Corvus cornix 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's argumentative per se, but definitely not NPOV...that said, there's no guideline even that says usernames need to be NPOV... TShilo12 07:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean, other than in the Username policy page which says Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view ? Corvus cornix 07:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's controversial or potentially inflammatory about it. Would you take the same view of a username User:Pope=Christianity?  It's not something everyone's going to agree with, but it isn't controversial (even if someone actually believes it, it's not going to cause an argument nor similar symptom of controversy) nor potentially inflammatory (nobody's going to start a war over it).  Any "controversy" is only in the extent to which it leads to hyperrule-mongering.  TShilo12 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The username is making the contention that Khamenei is the epitome of Islam, which many, including many Muslims, would disagree with. I am sure that many Protestants would disagree that the Pope is epitome of Christianity.  Corvus cornix 08:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Pope=Christianity would certainly be controversial and inflammatory, as is this username in question.Proabivouac 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are conflating some otherwise nameless imam with Ayatollah Khomeini, for starters, something I will concede my hypothetical example exascerbates... A better choice would have been something more along the lines of User:Pastor Anderson=Christianity. TShilo12 08:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on the point of view of the religion. I suspect if someone put User:Jesus Christ=Christianity, no one will complain much? But this name seems to have too much conflicts, so maybe we could put a kind reminder on his talk page about changing usernames? --Kzrulzuall 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's inappropriate. Usernames are not for polemical statements. The user should be asked to select a more suitable username. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Khamenei is not some otherwise nameless iman ( see Ali Khamenei ), as User:TShilo12 thinks. JoJan 09:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Make that three people conflating now. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So its settled. Ask the user to change the name, and if its a empty account, wait for a few days then indef. block. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 09:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pope=Christianity would be strongly offensive to a great many Eastern Orthodox, who regard the Papacy as schismatic if not heretical, and to most Protestants. Similarly, this is doubtless offensive to many Sunnis. If Khamenei equals Islam, they are not part of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more Popes than just the Bishop of Rome. Khameini/Khomeini/Khamenei/etc. is a very common surname in Iran, hence my above charges of inappropriate (and what I'm increasingly beginning to suspect is bias due to ignorance) conflation of imam Khamenei with "famous" people (ayatollahs, in this case) who happen to bear the same surname, and also why I changed my example from "Pope" to "Pastor Anderson"...  In any case, I am clearly failing to impress upon you how wrong your thinking is, nor do I have the time to expend on convincing you, nor sufficient interest in standing up any longer for someone [the user in question] who has, thus far, not bothered to say a word in hir defense.  Happy Easter!  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The user is blocked and is an obvious User:Patchouli sockpuppet anyway. The Behnam 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding user Skyemoor and Dispute Tag Removal Vandalism
Per WP:VANDAL


 * Improper use of dispute tags
 * Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the page. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:Consensus and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

User:Skyemoor has twice removed a POV tag in bad faith on The Great Global Warming Swindle:

Diff 1: 13:19, 8 April 2007

Warning: 23:05, 7 April 2007

Diff 2: 09:30, 7 April 2007, and his edit summary says in part "WP:SPS does not affect me"

There is an ongoing discussion about the issues that are harming the POV of the article on the talk page, and none of the users, Skyemoor included, have made any good faith effort to see if those issues are resolved - and I daresay they are well aware that the issues are not resolved and claim otherwise because they take personal offense that "Their" article has a POV tag on it.

I would appreciate administrator intervention and I must insist that no administrator who is actively involved in editing the GW pages can acceptably close this incident as there are many administrators who have shown to have their own WP:OWN issues with the GW pages. --Tjsynkral 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, User:Raul654 has just reverted out the POV tag less than one minute after I reinserted it. As he is clearly well aware the tag was removed from the page once before, he is also in violation of the general rule on removing POV tags. --Tjsynkral 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion is happening here. Natalie 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral has been exhorting disruption of consensus, pushing 3RR, and repeatedly reopening resolved issues. He has been abusing the use of tags in order to bludgeon other editors; hence when he abuses the tags, that is a form of vandalism, reverting of which is not vandalism or counted towards 3RR. --Skyemoor 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: Why does a dispute tag, for a dispute that is ongoing, bother you? It's because you claim OWNership of the article that it bothers you so much. There are several users in the talk page who do not consider the matter resolved. The only person who is being abusive is you, Skyemoor, by removing dispute tags improperly. Also, if I dug through your history, do you not think I would find examples of arguably disruptive editing in your edits? I believe the one that spurred this incident is already a fine example of that. --Tjsynkral 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also read the rule: Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. --Tjsynkral 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which also applies to your usage of the uw templates. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you purporting that I broke 3RR on uw templates? --Tjsynkral 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that you improperly used the templates in a case which did not involve simple vandalism ("placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism"), where it was incivil to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are confused in your reading of the policy. It's not vandalism in regards to 3RR, but it is certainly a form of vandalism. Otherwise it would not appear on the WP:VANDAL page (or it would be in the What Vandalism Is Not section). --Tjsynkral 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ITV News
An addition to the entry for ITV News keeps being deleted by Redvers. The entry is a list of the current on screen correspondents for the station. It has been placed under the anchors entry.

The entries for Channel 4 News, 5 News and Sky News all contain similar entries. The BBC News page has it's correspondents listed on a different page (probably because there are so many of them).

Should Redvers be deleting this entry but leaving the same list in place for all other stations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.44.247 (talk • contribs).
 * This is not a matter for administrators. This is a matter for you and that editor to take up on Talk:ITV News.  Neither of you have yet to do so.   Note that if you both fail to take up the matter on the talk page and start revert-warring, the way that administrators will become involved will be by protecting the article to prevent you both from editing it in order to force you to use the talk page to communicate with one another. Uncle G 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been away for the weekend, so this blew up whilst I was mostly offline. I will now talk to the annoyed anon and tap him with the cluestick about listcruft and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

124.177.235.89
IP's contribs consist solely of abusing Riana and Moreschi. Block please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Let's see if any more pop up. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, there's been one every 2 days or so for the past 2/3 weeks (most of his stuff is in deleted revs of my userpage, I didn't feel like letting it lie around). Most likely the same person, under the impression that I am insulted by moronic trolling. Sad that they've moved on to other users, though, I was providing such a distraction for this fellow in his leisure time. – Riana ऋ 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're giving his life meaning. Natalie 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah! High five anyone? :p – Riana ऋ 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet "revenge" cases
Seen this happen a few times now, the latest one being I m dude2002 filing a revenge case against the user who caught him, with pages upon pages of "evidence" that show no real pattern whatsoever. I'm tempted to block him for making a WP:POINT, but I'd like some other opinions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I block for that sort of thing. – Steel 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * eh...you block for POINT violations? or you block for blocking for POINT violations?  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT violations are essentially disruptive acts, which are blockable offenses. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it you didn't see my tongue stuck in my cheek... :-p Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see both. I merely responded to the first part, because the second part didn't fit the context at all. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh...
 * ...I'm tempted to block him for making a WP:POINT... Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I block for that sort of thing. – Steel 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you still don't understand, then, in the words of Goldmember, "there's no pleasing you!" :-) Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 22:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Then never mind my stupidity. —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Luna's probably right, and hopefully that'll get the point across that disruption won't fly too far. Here's hoping! Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for now the SSP case is locked down, which seems to contain any damage. If they'd like to return as a helpful contributor and benefit the project, then perhaps all is well; if they'd rather continue disruption and going for "revenge," then maybe it's time they took a little vacation. That's my superficial read on this, at least -- a "wait and see" approach to see their next move. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nifty. I'm nearly outta here.  Have a good rest of Passover, or a nice coupla days, depending on your perspective! :-)  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This was not a revenge case. I think that the evidence I posted had a real pattern to it. There were many posts within minutes--even seconds--of one another. This is odd when the two users live eight timezones apart. There was also other odd behavior (which I detailed in my evidence section). You don't have to agree with the charges (and I'm not entirely sure that the motives behind its dismissal aren't political). But to say that I put them up as revenge is simply untrue. It was my intention to be a productive part of the wikipedia project by helping to bring the sockpuppets to justice. At any rate, it's quite pointless to block me. I'm just going to go ahead and work out the two editing disputes I'm in right now and leave wikipedia, probably for good. I'm incredibly tired of the prevalent anti-Israeli mainstream here trying every political means to shut me up. Well, I guess it worked. In a few weeks, you won't hear from me again. Maybe some time in the future I'll change my mind and decide to come back. But it certainly won't be soon. This "neutral" encyclopedia is far from neutral. Well, one day there will be an independent Palestine with or without my help. Until then, I'll have to think of other ways to hasten the coming of that glorious day. The best way to do that is by presenting neutral information, rather than anti-Israeli or anti-Arab propaganda. But this is the price I pay for being part of a tiny ethnicity which has no power in the world, when the power of the Arab world at large would like above all to silence Israel. That is not the way to achieve peace. I m dude2002 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?
Does this constitute a legal threat? Corvus cornix 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any legal item called "copb" but does it really matter? He was told he would be blocked if he vandalized and he just did it again, and that's all he's ever done.  Blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's a childish whine. Just ignore it. Now back to the show... —210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oguz1
Oguz1 is evading his ban using different ips, they all link from New Jersey also. Artaxiad 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)



Check ban link & userpages; user is blocked, not banned. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 05:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous remark, backed by Admin?
I have come across an extremely serious breach of standards here on Wikipedia. It concerns one editor encouraging another editor to do an extreme deed. I don't know the depths of this dispute, but this remark under the circumstances is totally intolerable, and I may have to bring this to Jimbo Wales, and the way WP has dealt with the issue. The quote is or at least followup on your threats with decisive action, and the link is. It's for you to investigate. -86.42.153.154 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user quickly realized the comment was unnecessary and retracted it. -  auburn pilot   talk  01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * it not enough just wipe out that extreme attack and everything is OKAY. An apology is called for here, and a blocking. -86.42.153.154 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, what will the blocking do? I mean, it is the apology that matters, right? The Behnam 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the apology is implicit in the user retracting the comment. This is the Internet, this particular conversation was heated, we make mistakes, the user recognized his or her mistake and retracted the comment.  An apology may be warranted and may be forthcoming, but dragging this out at ANI is unnecessary.  --Iamunknown 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, editors are being blocked for much lesser attacks. This attack is ultra extremely offensive and should at the very least be challenged.  It is the worst attack that I have ever seen on Wikipedia in my three years here. It's your call. -86.42.153.154 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three years? This IP has only been editing today. Do you have another account? <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your whole comment, "No." --Iamunknown 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no continuing disruption and the statement was retracted, much like a fourth revert. I don't see any reason for a block, as these blocks are not meant to be punitive, last I checked. The Behnam 01:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Is the user disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT?  No.  Did he or she violate the 3RR rule?  No.  Is he or she deliberately comprimising the integrity of Wikipedia?  No.  On top of all that, he or she retracted his or her comment.  --Iamunknown 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a isolated incident. The editors that have been blocked for much "lesser attacks" have received warnings and have PAed despite it. And they didn't retract their comments like he did. --<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">KZ Talk • Contribs 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope that I haven't caused any offense to anybody by bringing this issue to your attention. I really do believe that personal attacks where editors encourage self destruction to other editors should not be tolerated for one second. -86.42.153.154 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for brining it up. It is always good to engage in discussion and clear up any misconceptions.  :-)  Regards, Iamunknown 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there are no worries for me here. I would be concerned for the well being of others, whoever they are. I am not looking for punishment (blocking), as I mentioned earlier, but I did suggest it, as no amount of punishment can redeem some situations. I would like to take this incident up with Jimbo later.-86.42.153.154 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a week for disruption and probable sockpuppetry. Durova Charge! 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Extended to 1 month for additional sockpuppet block evasion. Durova Charge! 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and threats from User:Isarig
I must once again report for his constant verbal abuse. He has repeatedly called me a liar despite my asking him to stop and despite the fact that he was the one misrepresenting things. I am really sick of his abuse. It is in explicit violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I asked him to stop several times in the discussion here, and he continued, ending up by threatening to report me to AN/I. However, he is the one being abusive, so I am reporting him. And this is far from the first time he has threatened to file phony reports against me. At the end of this discussion - in which he defended a particular version of the page - I gave in to many of his changes because I don't feel like arguing with him any more. Instead of celebrating his victory, he called me a liar and threatened me, and then made a massive reversion of the article, going back on the version of the page that he himself was supporting and reverting to a far more objectionable version of the page, deleting much sourced and relevant content without discussion. csloat 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another pot/kettle black situation. Yes, he did call you a liar, but I can understand his frustration.  You have repeatedly made a claim which appears to be false.  That is, you are claiming that a statement is not relevant because of the age of it.  While the statement in question is indeed old, that does not make it irrelevant, because of the fact that it has been repeated more recently.  Please try to respond to the issues Isarig has raised.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's false. I pointed out that the statement was about a 1996 interview and not a 2004 video.  That is manifestly true; the source says it himself.  The question is not whether it is relevant; the question is what is it specifically about -- it is about the 1996 interview.  Isarig hid that fact by ellipsing out the part of the statement where the author specifically says he is referring to a 1996 interview.  I changed that but Isarig deleted the change, again hiding the fact that it refers to a 1996 interview, not a 2004 video.  I don't understand his "frustration."  Please try to respond to the issue I raised here, which is the absurd harrassment and personal attacks by Isarig.  Thanks. csloat 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember User:Durova contemplating an arbitration that would involve both of you. This posting is another step towards arbitration. I don't know what you think of this possibility, csloat, but I have a presentiment that you're unlikely to emerge from an arbitration with flying colors. Beit Or 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, this has been simmering for several months. What steps at dispute resolution have you tried?  Durova Charge! 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried dealing directly with Isarig and asking him to stop. I have tried mediation on a couple of pages; Isarig withdrew from one of them and simply refused to participate on the other.  I have tried contacting administrators directly (including Durova).  I remember Durova was contemplating some sort of enforced mediation between Isarig and I, but he decided to block Armon instead (who was deleting sourced content with deceptive edit summaries at the time).  I really don't know what else to do.  I am not concerned about "flying colors" here; I simply want to edit in peace.  I feel that I have positive contributions to make to this encyclopedia, but I don't think I can do it when I am constantly harrassed by another user every time I make an edit to a page relating to the Middle East. csloat 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't know what else to do? Let me make some suggestions: (1) stop using misleading and false claims against those who disagree with you. As an example, in the paragraph above, you claim I "refused" another mediation, which is simply untrue. (2) stop using the tactic of accusing others of what you are constantly doing - personal attacks, claims of deception, etc... Isarig 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor tried to mediate the page and you did not participate. I don't think the claim was misleading; if you are willing to participate, I think that would be a great step forward.
 * See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Ed Poor may have offered to mediate a certain page - he never asked me directly and there was never any formal mediation request - so I did not and could not refuse it. You know all this, yet chose to misleadingly describe my actions as "simply refused to participate on the other", when you know concede that all that actually happened was that an offer of informal mediation was made by Ed Poor to parties unspecified, and I did not participate. If you truly want to edit in peace, I suggest you look long and hard at how much your misleading editing plays a part in the problems you are experiencing. Isarig 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I forgot to mention that I have also tried RfCs on the relevant pages in the past, but I don't think anyone else wants to confront Isarig either. I am unilaterally backing off of the MEMRI page and letting Isarig own it, even though he has unethically distorted a quotation from Robert Fisk, as I have shown.  I just don't have the energy or time to fight with this user.  He has frequently noted that his main goal is to frustrate me or to get me blocked; he does not actually appear interested in improving the encyclopedia.  Unfortunately, he is winning this immature dispute, since no admin seems willing to tell him that his behavior should be modified, even though he refuses to negotiate with anyone he disagrees with, and constantly violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  I have had interactions with editors I disagree with in the past, but never has it been this unpleasant. csloat 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is another example of the above. What I clarified to you was that my goal is 'to see WP edited according to its policies, and I want editors who flaunt those policies, and make a point of doing so, to be blocked.' - you omit this, and allege my goal is to have you personally blocked. You seem incapable of making a single contribution to the Talk pages without at least one misleading, false and offensive statement. Isarig 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. What you wrote was "Nothing would please me more than seeing you blocked for a long time for such blatant flaunting of one of WP most basic policies."  I understand that you are offering a different interpretation of that statement; all I'm asking is that you stop personally attacking me with every post you make.  Seriously. csloat 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My question regarded formal dispute resolution attempts. Contacting individual administrators or posting to noticeboards doesn't fit into the sort of thing ArbCom would consider when deciding whether to accept a proposed case. You're welcome to try other dispute resolution options. From the way policy and content issues dovetail at your dispute I suggest you take a serious look at WP:RFAR or WP:CEM. Community enforceable mediation is an experimental thing and, yes, I've started it. If either of you are uncomfortable having me as a mediator I could assign one of the program's trainees to take your case. Durova Charge! 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with you as a mediator. I think CEM looks like a reasonable alternative. csloat 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can request a case at Community enforceable mediation/Requests. Durova Charge! 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. csloat 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)