Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive309

I've reblocked Tyler for a week with e-mail blocked for sending rather abusive e-mails to me. Is a week justified? Maxim (talk) (contributions)  20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's abusive, yes. You shouldn't have to put up with that.  --Haemo 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Money
Not surprisingly, given the popular subject, this page seems to receive tons of vandalism, mainly from anons. I just reverted to a version two days ago, and the only changes that stuck (despite a number of other vandalism reversals) were other anonymous vandalism. I suggest semi-protection. (Is this the right place to suggest this?) Rigadoun (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RFPP is the correct place to suggest protection ... but it looks like the vandalism today was from a single IP. It's important that when vandalism is noticed, the vandals are warned using a warning template (like {{subst:uw-bv}}) and then reported to WP:AIV if it continues.  I don't think there's a need for protection right now, but I have watchlisted it and will protect it if there is any more vandalism today. -- B  20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Erm, well, I just semi-protected it for 48 hours before I saw your reply. The history showed ongoing juvenile vandalism from several different IPs. Review welcome, of course. Raymond Arritt 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just found that and put this there too, before I saw this reply. I saw six different IPs today, perhaps I'm in a different time zone? If you're watching it then you can see if it's needed (and perhaps address this at my comment at RFPP. Rigadoun (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd report of this user
I am reporting this user again, i reported him yesterday i believe but no action was taken however today he has carried on vandalising and has ignored warnings, all his edits are on michael jackson ans all he seems to do is insult this LIVING PERSON. []. Realist2 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You want to see WP:AIV for this; generally, the route to take with a persistent vandal is to revert the contributions as they occur and ensure that the editor receives a warning for each one (see WP:WARN for the templates), and when they breach the final warning report them to AIV. It's an IP, however (and appears to be static) with nothing but vandal edits, so someone might want to just slap it with a block now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at DYK
The red urgent warning caught my eye. The page is supposed to be changed every 8 hours. It is 2.5 hours past due. Assistance, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Next_update Archtransit 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated it. It isn't really a matter urgent enough for reporting at the Incidents noticeboard (WP:AN would do).  DYK tends to get backlogged anyway.  Thanks for keeping an eye out.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I first compared this issue with several on the ANI board and thought that the urgency was at least equal to those.  I also thought that AN was too slow a board.  I also saw it earlier but didn't post here until 2.5 out of 8 hours had passed.  Thanks for the resolution. Archtransit 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User Kiolt's talk page
has made a single edit to create a talk page that I'd mark db-attack if it were an article. --Jamoche 23:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted. For the record, you can mark any page with db-attack — it's G10 in the criteria for speedy deletion, the 'G' signifying that it's "General" and applies to all namespaces.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I put a db-attack on a User page earlier today. Corvus cornix 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

anon editor causing problems
There is an anon editor who keeps causing problems. Mainly, he keeps inserting POV into the GM minivan pages; Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Chevrolet Lumina APV, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac Trans Sport, Pontiac Montana, Opel Sintra, and Chevrolet Venture. The original IP was 216.95.17.215, who got blocked. Since them, many more have sprung up, doing the same thing, and I have reason to believe that this is the same guy, just using a proxy. I can't document them all here, so check the histories of each of those pages every so often to see what IP he is using lately. I might be able to talk this guy into stopping (our talks have made progress), but this guy is getting harder to contain, and if I can't talk him into stopping, he will require immediate administrative attention. Karrmann 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a definite pattern here. I'll semiprotect for 1 week. Rlevse 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)...someone already protected some, so some expire 16 Oct, some 19 Oct. Rlevse 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

edit warring on Michael E. J. Witzel
For the last month or more, User:Kkm5848 has been adding material to Michael E. J. Witzel that I think is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Discussion on the talk page is going nowhere, and a post to WP:BLP/N is getting no input from people not already involved in the dispute. Despite my attempts to explain to Kkm why the material violates BLP, he doesn't seem to understand why there might be a concern. If this were a normal content dispute, I'd pursue WP:DR, but I really think this is an obvious BLP violation. Could an uninvolved user please look at the situation and take appropriate action?

(Please note that there has been at least one previous ANI thread about this: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281.) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I protected the article for a month due to edit-warring, or at least until this discussion could be resolved. See protection log. The page was protected on the conservative, albeit wrong, version.  Daniel  00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that slipped filters
Hello. An IP editor edited the bacon's rebellion article and his edits were not caught by our bots. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacon%27s_Rebellion&curid=188893&diff=163914750&oldid=163913510 I only happened to find this one by chance and probably this edit would have stayed undetected for a long time. Please ban the IP or warn him, the type of vandalism he did is what keeps Wikipedia's credibility down. I have reverted his edits. Thanks -- Penubag  02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned him. You can do the warnigs yourself. Vandalism that warrants blocking (they should be warned first) should be reported at WP:AIV.Rlevse 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between this page and WP:AIV?-- Penubag  02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism happens all the time, so it's not usually considered an "incident" except in unusual circumstances. WP:AIV is a page that is set up to deal exclusively with vandalism. --Bongwarrior 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (e/c)WP:AIV is only for vandalism and will get a faster response. Also at AIV you don't need to give as much evidence.Just something like "Vandalized after final warning" (if they vandalized after being given a final warning). Also, the bots only catch very very obvious vandalism that has little to no chance of being a constructive edit. People do the majority of the work. See Recent changes patrol for more info. Mr.  Z- man  02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * oh, ok, thanks -- Penubag  02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewinn: Mallicious Behavior
Rewinn user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rewinn

The user Rewinn has been stalking the "Fairness Doctrine" article with the aim of enforcing his POV. NPOV violations include extensive use of Weasle Words and Original Research. What is less tollerable is that he invokes these standards as a sword and sheild for his own violatory edits. This I belive demonstrates that he is acting in bad faith.

For example:

Rewinn deleted a list of politicians who had expressed support for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and replaced it with the weasle-worded, "Conservative commentators have asserted that various Democratic..." The original list of specific politicians was sourced to an NYPost article. Rewinn's protest was that each politician had to be specificly quoted in order to meet muster. However, rather than work constructively and in good faith, he just deleted and replaced with weasle words. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162604562&oldid=162603617

The POV that Rewinn is trying to enforce on the article is that support by officials to reinstate this set of regulations is a "conspiracy" theory, the "claims" of which are "controversial". Indeed, Rewinn renamed the section of the article "Controversy" back in August. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=148535242&oldid=148534907

In his very next edits, he actually deleted two direct quotes from the politicians named in the nypost article he later deleted for not containing direct quotes. This he did without mention in the talk page while merely asserting that they were "undocumented" in his edit summary, when in fact both items were sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=next&oldid=148534579 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=next&oldid=148534907

Now on the talk page, some months later, when two other direct quotes were added to the article, sourced to a news article and audio documentation, Rewin risably challenges their authenticity of the quotes as well as their authority to document what the quoted speaker means. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairness_Doctrine&diff=163724410&oldid=163720997

You can see how this is churlish behavior at best. at worst, it deliberately undermines the ability to arive at any text with any factual fidelity whatsoever.

Rewinn has both introduced Original Research in a blatant fashion and challenged others' content, citing it as Original Research.

For instance, he has argued extensively with a Byron York article linked in the section in a manner violatory of OR.

He does so first by linking and quoting extensively from a Center for American Progress study not referenced in the York piece.

"Linked to CAP report" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=150444138&oldid=150100226

It should be noted that the study argues not against York's identification of a campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but rather for the need for the return of such legislation.

York's piece does quote from an annoucement issued by the group Media Matters for America in which there is an open call to commence a campaign to reinstate the Fairness doctrine.

To this, Rewinn writes himself into the article as "those" "on the other side" "who disclaim (sic) such an effort" thusly:

''On the other side, are those who disclaim such an effort. The website of Media Matters contains no announcement of a campaign to reinstate of the Fairness Doctrine.[2]'' (earliest version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairness_Doctrine&diff=162606742&oldid=162604562

The citation is a link to a site search of the Media Matters website he performed himself for inclusion into the article. If this isn't OR, I'm not sure what is.

What is cynical about Rewinn's violation of OR is his flinging of allegations of OR violation against sourced, relevant content he intends to delete.

For instance, he argues with the inclusion of two direct, solidly sourced quotes by claiming that their position within the frame of "conspiracy" - which he authored - constitutes OR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairness_Doctrine&diff=163585524&oldid=163584836

finally, I'm not a big tattler or complainer, but I felt compelled to report Rewinn's behavior up to now because he is always threatening administrative action against those who challenge him; suggesting that he is keeping record of critisisms which he characterizes as "personal attacks" and the like. yesterday he included a 3RR warning against me in his edit summary after I had reverted once.

I hope you recognize as I do that this sort of behavior isn't clever, but abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like something that should be addressed at dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for responding. i'm not so sure this is a dispute resolution issue. it's not so much that the material is contentious as that we're dealing with an editor who's behavior is inimicable with the arrival at concensus. 38.98.181.23 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * rewinn has reverted again. I've proceeded with the nessesary level-1 templates for vandalism, NPOV and 3RR warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.181.23 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nutraceuticals"?
(I hope this is the right place to ask this.) There was a large amount of clearly irrelevant text about "nutraceuticals" added to the meme article by  (see here). I reverted the edits, and I'd like to put a warning on the user's page, but I honestly don't know what warning to put. Clearly the material doesn't belong there, as it has been shoehorned into the article, but it doesn't seem to fit any of the standard vandalism clauses. Am I wrong? Have I missed something? Also, the text seems oddly familiar. I think I might have seen it inserted somewhere before. Recommendations? -- Hi  Ev  22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try one of the nonsense tags; they're appropriate for random spam, particularly if you use a supplemental message about it. Rdfox 76 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.  I used Uw-vandalism2 since WP:VANDAL says it's "suitable for nonsense". --  Hi  Ev  13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure it all fits that, even if the vast majority is out of place. The para he had on multilevel marketing might actually be considered as a meme.LeadSongDog 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon
I would like to request an administrator (or two or more) to participate in a discussion being held on Talk:John_Lennon in which is insisting that a particular book citation (ISBN 1843536927) is inaccurate. I have explained to him that the most likely reason for his confusion is that he is referring to another, shorter version of the book, namely (ISBN 1843537532) which is half the size and probably does not include the information in question. This misinterpretation has resulted in him removing a reference to the most recent version of the book (2007) and replacing it with a 2003 version. Since we are supposed to use the most current sources available, I've replaced it with the 2007 source. Arcayne continues to claim that the 2007 version does not include this version, however, I have personally taken a trip to the Borders bookstore in my area and verified the ISBN, page number, and content in person. This still does not satisfy Arcayne, as he insists that his copy of the book does not contain this information. I have asked him to copy the ISBN number of the book and to compare it with the one being offered, as this would solve the problem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats a content dispute, I'm not sure what you would want an admin to do that any other user can't? Viridae Talk 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a content dispute at all but rather disruptive trolling. The citation is accurate, yet Arcayne is claiming that it is not accurate without giving an ISBN of the version he owns.  I personally went to the bookstore to check on Arcayne's claim and found that he was mistaken, and he does not own the book in question.  The content is not in dispute; it's in the ISBN cited on p. 212, word for word, as it is a direct quote.  Yet, Arcayne continues to claim that it does not appear in the book. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is still a content dispute unless Arcayne is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I suggest you open an RfC on the matter. Viridae Talk 10:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent role account
Above account appears to be a role account for Hyphaze magazine. Creating spam/copyvio articles (see deleted contribs) and userpage appears to be spam as well. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked. G11ed the userpage. -- lucasbfr talk 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetary rewards for finding a sockpuppeteer
What does everyone think of WP:VPM? x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User:SockOfPedro. When do I get the $100 ? This is a bad thing. Pedro : Chat  11:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The subpage has more details, perhaps the heading of this is a bit misleading: User:TDC/Prize x42bn6 Talk Mess  11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the sub-page before replying and was being facetious. Obviously this guys after one person but this is still a very bad idea to stand handing out "rewards". WP:REWARD is one thing but financial bonuses for hunting down socks? That seems totally against the ideals here. Pedro : Chat  11:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedied as an attack page. Neil   ☎  13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Good choice. Pedro : Chat  13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

72.255.37.66
Sorry for reporting this here, but I couldn't find the appropriate page to report it. If you look through this editor's contribution history, you'll see the last several edits are vandalism. Can this IP be blocked? Jeffpw 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not enough warnings yet + only one vandal action in the last few hours. Final warning given. Will monitor. Next time WP:AIV after final warning, but thanks for the help. Pedro : Chat  11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Pedro! I had added the AIV link to my userpage, so now I know exactly where to go to deal with that. I don't do much vandal reporting, but think maybe I should start. Jeffpw 11:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

M.deSousa
User:M.deSousa who was blocked indefinitely on 6 June 2007 for POV pushing and sockpuppetry is evading his ban using the IP address User:62.101.126.232 to continue to push the claims of Hilda Toledano to the Portuguese throne. Kigf 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous block had expired. Block re-set longer, as it appears to be a static IP.  E LIMINATOR  JR  13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and user page
Hi there. I need some advice on how to deal with User:Yusef Masushef. His short contrib history contains a lot of political sopaboxing and little of anything else. His user page is also rather offensive and requests to have him alter it have been met with personal attacks and incivility as can be seen on his talk page. Any ideas on how to proceed?  T i a m u t  13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the inflammatory Twin Towers image. I would point out, though, that your comments to him ("you must have a brain the size of a pea") were not particularly well-advised. Incidentally, the user has not edited since 27 September.  E LIMINATOR  JR  13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal
I would have reported to WP:AIV but it seemed more appropriate to put it here. It looks like 87.41.50.128/25 (*.128 to *.255) is enjoying vandalizing Holy Land. The WHOIS on the IPs points to a school, and across the various IPs it seems that it has received several warnings yet persisted. -- slakr \ talk / 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for 1 day, which will take us to the weekend.  E LIMINATOR JR  13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AIV backlogged
Would someone mind checking? • Lawrence Cohen  14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 208.22.208.85
Hello, this IP address has made approximately 15-20 edit to the Chocolate chip cookie article in the past 15-20 minutes, all vandalism. Could someone please put a quick 24 block on it? It resolves to Tazewell Public School in Reston, VA.

Jeremy (Jerem43 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC))


 * The best place to report vandalism for a quick response is the admin intervention against vandalism page. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking sockpuppets
I apologise if I'm not asking in the correct place, but what's the best way to deal with a obvious sockpuppet? has been blocked for persistently adding material to Brigham Young, and several sockpuppets have also been identified and blocked. There is now another obvious sockpuppet, making identical edits. Opening a case at WP:SSP seems like overkill. I've wondered this a few times before: can I report at WP:AIV or should I be using WP:SSP? (I suspect there are going to be a few more sockpuppets of this user at Brigham Young, and would like to know the quickest way to stem the flow each time). Thanks -- Kateshort forbob  15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the sock. Let me know on my talk page if any more socks show up. JoshuaZ 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! -- Kateshort forbob  17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Theft
This article was repeatedly vandalised by an anon IP on 24th Sept and page was semi-prot as a result. The same guy is back with a different IP User:172.159.88.41 but is using the exact same wording as before. Warnings have no effect, in fact he vandalised my user page last time. He has also violated WP:3RR today. Could we have semi-prot back on please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of putting a pp-semi on this for one week. This guy is not getting the message. and is still reverting reversions. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP in light of the past edits. In the future, if it's just one person, place the warnings on their talk page as laid out at WP:TT, then report them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after their final warning.  Additionally, I've removed the pp-semi template; only administrators can add protection to an article, and it's generally not used if there's only one vandal, we just block the vandal instead.  If you need to request protection because of heavy vandalism from multiple vandals in the future, you can use WP:RFPP.  Thanks!  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Was about to come back here & delete request having just raised at WP:RFPP Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubborn editor keeps reverting to a copyright-violating version of a page
For months I've been attempting to revert a user who keeps replacing the Lidia Bastianich article with nonwikified text pasted in word-for-word from another website. At first, I was going to treat this as a content dispute and try some of the WP:DR steps (such as WP:3O). But the closer I examine the problem, the more I believe it's simply a matter of inexperienced user ignoring policy. The user has edited as User:Ciupicat, User:Lidianyc and various IP addresses. I opened a discussion on the talk page, and I'm going to look for a suitable warning template to leave on Ciupicat's talk page. I don't want this slow revert war to continue, so what's the next step? Semi-protection might not be enough, because this user has several registered accounts.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given a proper warning. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For future reference, where can I find templates like the one you used? I didn't notice it on WP:WARN.  Thanks for your help.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is there. is the one you are looking for. Add | and you will have the exact same. Spryde 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, there it is. Sorry I missed it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I block?
keeps adding complete nonsense into Heroes. Since I reverted myself, I don't know if I should block this IP myself, being "involved" and all... or is vandalism exempt from this? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in cases of obvious misinformation like that, you can block if you reverted; however you should really give him more than a level 2 warning first. Mr.  Z- man  18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did for 24 hrs due to the several instances of vandalism in the history and that he was warned. I think it would have been okay if you'd blocked, but I do what you just did, if I ever have a question about whether I should take an admin action, I always ask another admin to look at it. It's best to not give anyone any reason to question your integrity, or at least as little chance thereof as possible-;) Rlevse 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring on Western Sahara articles
,, and are engaging in slow-moving editwarring (slow-moving largely due to the fact Koavf is on 1RR per Requests for arbitration/Koavf) on many Western Sahara-related articles. Koavf's revertwarring on these articles is what got him community banned in the first place (the arbitration case overturned it to give him another chance), and Jalil and Wikima spend a large proportion of their time undoing all of his changes.

As you can see in the edit histories of this article and this wikiproject, as well as the other pages in Wikima's recent contributions this is a long-term, continuing problem, and blocks aren't working (Koavf has been blocked a ton, while Wikima was blocked for 3RR this time last year). I'd like some suggestions on what should be done about this - blocks, paroles? (I'll say right off the bat that protection won't work, they'll just wait it out.) Picaroon (t) 23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Defense You'll notice that I am posting on talk and not blind reverting, except in the case of vandalism (e.g.) I keep on trying to seek consensus on talk and have engaged an admin at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara, who is apparently incapacitated; another admin agreed to assist and then never showed up on talk, despite several entreaties. Note that Jalil and Wikima are: redirecting Western Sahara articles to Morocco articles, deleting Western Sahara from relevant templates (and again), ruining the user templates at that same WikiProject they have been vandalizing, inserting irrelevant politicized asides in articles on flags and coats of arms, mass deleting relevant passages from articles (note that the latter deletes references to Moroccan human rights abuses), deleting criticism of Morocco from articles, taking out relevant stubs from articles, ignoring cogent logic from several users on some pages, and generally trolling my edits. I am trying to seek consensus on talk pages, and they are not. To presume that my editing is in the same class as theirs is simply false balance, and I have requested admin intervention on several occasions. In the one case where I got it (Legal status of Western Sahara), they simply ignored the admin's injunction and deleted scholarly source citations because it disagreed with their pro-Moroccan political agenda. That's to say nothing of the POV forks, copy-and-paste violations, reversion of comments on talk, controversial page moves, etc. that have been happening with these two users for over a year now. Will some admin please deal with their nonsense? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be part of this war; this is my understanding of those involved last time I checked: I don't think Wikima or A Jalil should ever be allowed to edit anything remotely related to Morocco or Western Sahara or the SADR ever again, but failing that I would at least hope their edits were reviewed closely for a good long while to ensure NPOV. Koavf's position, IMO, has not always necessarily been on the side of reason, but has been on the side against those who are against reason. I think you'll find he will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators, instead of being continually ignored. ¦ Reisio 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * &mdash; fanatically biased towards all things pro-Morocco; I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he works for the Moroccan government.
 * &mdash; clearly biased towards Morocco, but can at least be communicated with (perhaps he just doesn't see the bias).
 * &mdash; means well in his attempts to curb Wikima and A Jalil, but plays their game instead of trying to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (which, in his defense, has IMO utterly failed this issue so far - its appearance here is encouraging, however).
 * Oh come on mate, Koavf is the exact equivalent of wikima, only simply a monolingual. Means well, he's a stubborn close minded git who likes to do stealth reverts on others edits after laying low. (collounsbury 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Reisio, you used to be part of the war defending Koavf's positions, and it is good to mention. Your input above follows the same path. You were less fanatic than Koavf is, but your talk page speaks for itself about your editing attitude, the discussions we had with you, and your brawls with others, that in the end led you to being blocked. Saying that you "think you'll find he [Koavf] will appear to behave more once this issue is actually addressed by administrators" is completely ridiculous. He was warned, short-blocked and long-blocked, and indef-blocked, and there is no change at all in his behaviour. Having other editors check my changes if they are pro-Morocco POV is more than welcome. Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing, rather than the opposite contarely to what Reisio alledges above.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't defend people's positions, I merely adhere to logic and Wikipedia guidelines & policy. ¦ Reisio 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what "logic" you mean: the logic of reverting that you share with Koavf. Your contributions are no more than reverts. Your talk page is full of complaints about that. Playing the third-party editor who throws his two-cents on this does not fit you Reisio, because you were very much in the middle of it.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Explaining my relationship to this matter was the first information I presented here. ¦ Reisio 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reisio, in my edits i am rather neutral and defend neutral pages (e.g. separtion of WS from "sadr")
 * You think, like koavf, being neutral means pushing Polisario's interests in wikipedia (and possibly elsewhere)
 * An possibly you think this way because you are payed by Polisario or the Algerian Governement.
 * wikima 19:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow "Actually my action (and Wikima's) has almost always been a reaction to Koavf's POV editing" this is an explicit admission that Wikima and Jalil exist on Wikipedia in order to revert my edits. That is what they do and that's it. They only want to instigate edit wars on Western Sahara-related articles. As for Wikima's paranoid allegation about spies from Algeria, is anyone taking him seriously at this point? Honestly, is anyone else even reading these ramblings? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read well, reisio is suggesting I am working for the Moroccan gov., an unacceptable allegation. I am merely showing him the mirror. But you were unable to see that. Why? Because unable to be neutral.
 * I my view it is extremly important in wikipedia to get articles on Western Sahara as balanced as possible.
 * Polisario activitsts like you and Arre have created a whole pro-polisario world that needs to be balanced. You excessive edit warring and pro-polisarian editing does not allow any constructive way.
 * This is what I mean that there is almost no conflict when you are away (e.g blocked).
 * wikima 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Spying No, he didn't. And when I didn't edit the Western Sahara articles, virtually no one did. There was certainly no one who edited them with any regularity, and you definitely didn't take the initiative to add more content. Your main project on Wikipedia is deleting information and reverting me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NO I exist on Wikipedia to, among other things, remove POV edits (by you or Arre or else) to a subject I know very well. I don't touch your other edits if they are not POV. Needless to say, I have nothing to do with the troubles you had om R.E.M template nor on massive renaming or moving chaos you did elsewhere. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh So you exist on Wikipedia in order to revert some of my edits, not all of them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1/ I didn't speak of spying
 * 2/ Reisio accused me fo working for the Moroccan gov., an allegation that did not bother you at all. But now that I am holding the mirror for him you seem excitd about this. This reflects how profoundly biased is your thinking.
 * 3/ We did lots of imporovements to the articles and created new ones when you were away (e.g. corcas, former members of polisario etc.)
 * 4/ Since you're back from your indefinite block your only acitivity is to undo the efforts of others with the aim to get the initial pro-polisario versions
 * 5/ Your behaviour keeps people busy dealing with you only instead of dealing with the topics. If we didn't have you here we would spend our time dealing with the articles themselves
 * 6/ If I were only a Moroccan POV fighter I would have inserted versions in your absence which go 100% along the Moroccan position. None of us did when you were away.
 * wikima 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous
 * Okay, but you think he's a non-spy government employees of some kind? Whatever.
 * When?
 * You created those before I left.
 * That's not true; you're lying.
 * That's also not true; see the months when I was away. Anyone can look at your contribs and see how you were not interested in making the articles any better.
 * How did you not do that? It certainly seems like you did. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been clear to me for a while now that all three editors should be under the same parole. It seems that every block that Koavf has had has been a result of reciprocal edit warring, often in tandem, by A Jalil and Wikima. It's been going on across dozens of articles for months now. Dmcdevit·t 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Koavf has been on the 1RR parole and what is the result?, to revert every other day, or a couple of days?. I have taken this problem to your attention before. The admin who was intervening is on a wiki-break (car accident). What is needed is that an admin to step in and go through all the articles in conflict. The best example is that lately an admin has managed to settle a very disputed article, though not without problems with koavf. That is a good example to follow.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Parole I would be fine with some kind of oversight (in point of fact, that is precisely what I have asked for on several occasions here at AN/I); would someone please step up to do that? Some kind of intervention or mediation on these pages? Again, I would like to point out that a strict equivalence between every edit they have made and I have made is false balance; I have made nowhere near as egregious edits as they have. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging by your behaviour under 1RR parole, I wonder if parole has any impact on edit-warring.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The main issue here is the fact that the pro-Polisario activist Koavf (in addition to Arre), has loaded Wikipedia with pro-Polisario content to a great number of articles. Western Sahara has more space on Wikipedia than the vast majority of African nations. We (I, wikima, Juiced Lemon, and Collounsbury, ..) have been removing that POV content from different articles only to find he reverted back to his edit. He actually started the revert process immediately after being unblocked. The articles being the subject of trouble all have one of the following points:
 * Koavf is using Western Sahara, the disputed territory, and the SADR, the govt-in-exile of the the Polisario Front, interchangeably and using the flag of the SADR to represent WS. That is the reason of trouble in these articles: WikiProject Western Sahara, Gallery of flags with crescents, Flags of Africa, and Pan-Arab colors.
 * Western Sahara has no flag nor coats of arms, but Koavf insists on it having them, and imposing or redirecting to the Polisario/SADR flag and coa on WS. We suggested that the article of flag of Western Sahara makes mention that there is no such for the disputed territory, but there are two competing flags claiming to represent the territory and have them listed. He refused. An admin intervened to edit the article to a neutral approach and is actually what we suggested.
 * Magnifying sporadic riots that happen once in a half year by a few stone throwing teanagers as an "ongoing campaign". Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State, (what a title!!).
 * Making the SADR, a government in exile of the Polisario Front, look as a sovereign state and Africa topic.
 * Reverting some articles to nearly a two year old version, loaded with Pro-Polisario POV, in disregard of many editors contribution. Portal:Western Sahara/Intro.
 * In addition to portraying WS as occupied instead of disputed, and calling the area to the east of the military berm as a free zone, a term used exclusively by the SADR organs. Needless to say that it goes well with what Koavf openly states in his user page that he is on Wikipedia to represent the interests of the SADR.

An admin, Zscout370, with better knowledge about flags has solved a couple of articles' troubles. What we need is another dedicated admin to tackle the other subjects. I am quite confident that an admin's intervention, looking from a neutral perspective, will solve most of these problems.

Unfortunately, after nearly half a year of block, the behaviour of Koavf is the same. The same pro-Polisario POV pushing, and the same disruptive behaviour. The WS related disruption by koavf is visible only because there are people to oppose it. What about the week-long block related to disruptive page moving?, shortened only due to the admin's kindness?, in addition to more complaints. For those who think Koavf only has trouble on WS related pages.--A Jalil 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolling More trolling about. The only thing that makes any sense in the post you just made is the injunction that a disinterested editor can see through this obfuscation. Your arguments are paltry at best, and your actions speak volumes - you and Wikima exist solely on Wikipedia to revert my edits to Western Sahara articles. Anyone who looks at your edits can see that literally 99% of them are reverts to push a Moroccan nationalist agenda. In the six months that I did not edit, can you point to one constructive addition that was made to these articles? One? The entire WikiProject laid fallow and my immediate concern on resumption of editing was getting started editing Western Sahara-related articles again and contributing to their breadth and scope. Silly statements about how Western Sahara is not occupied, there is no flag of Western Sahara, and how there is no Independence Intifada show how disconnected your ideology is with reality; the fact that you refuse to have any kind of coherent posts on talk reinforces this. In point of fact, your first allegation against me - which you and Wikima have repeated ad nauseum - is patently untrue. Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever. It also shows how you are more interested in trolling about your Moroccan nationalism on every page rather than discussing the merits of your actions - do you have any response to the allegations made above or do you only have these illogical arguments in favor of your POV? Again, will some admin please take accountability for this series of disputes? As much as I appreciate Fayssal's gestures, he's been ineffectual at stemming the tide of nonsense and is apparently incapacitated. I have posted at AN/I and RfCs several times and have sought mediation over and over again. Would someone please help me here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to not have read my edit (as usual), because I have put links to just a few from the many articles where you use the SADR flag and SADR coat of arms, and you use, SADR symbols to represent Western Sahara. In many occurences of Western Sahara youd add SADR in brackets -- Western Sahara(SADR)-- If that is not confusing the SADR with Western Sahara, then what is it?. At the same time you came here on the AN/I to claim without shame that "Never have I ever equated Western Sahara with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or either with the Polisario Front. Ever.", 10 minutes later you created an article titled History of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and ... directed it to the History of Western Sahara. Is that lying or Schizophrenia?. Against an admin's intervention, you insist on adding the SADR to the template of African sovereign states, and at the same time calling it occupied. are not you putting yourself in a ridiculous situation?. The Moroccan POV, is that Western sahara is an undisputed integral part of the kingdom as the southern provinces, while I describe it as a disputed territory. Am I then pushing pro-Morocco POV?. After your unblock, on the 15th of June, you reverted many articles to the half year old versions you left, and in some cases to a nearly 2 years old version in dirsregard of the contributions of half a dozen editors. Is that what you call "resumption of editing", or is it resumption of reverting and edit-warring?. While Picaroon was putting this on AN/I you were reverting, and continued after that. My concern here on Wikipedia is to remove the POV that you have added with Arre. To change the situation where Wikipedia has become a repository for activism and POV pushing of the Polisario. If that is what you do, and in your own words, that is why you are for, then, of course I will remove your pro-Polisario POV, and I welcome anyone to remove Pro-Morocco POV also.--A Jalil 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous So I guess you're just going to ignore the allegations above. That gives a tacit agreement to them (silence is approval.) I have in fact used the phrase "Western Sahara (SADR)" just like editors have used the phrases "Taiwan (ROC)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)." They don't equate the two, simply show that there is some relationship between them, not that they are identical. A perfect example: the history of the SADR is pretty intimately related with the history of Western Sahara, isn't it? I would prefer that there were two articles, rich in sources and facts. Since there are not, one should redirect to the other, shouldn't it? In no small part the confusion is do to colloquially associating one with the other. As far as the flags go, you keep on calling it the "flag of SADR" whereas the most common name of it is the "flag of Western Sahara" and you know this, and the consensus is to leave the article name there, and you know that, and several sources refer to the flag as such, and you know that. I'm not getting into these ridiculous semantic games with you. As far as the Africa in topic template goes, your preference is apparently to remove Western Sahara from Africa altogether. Isn't that a bit of an extreme POV, to remove a country from a continent entirely? Then again, you apparently see no problem with that. I agree that it is ridiculous that the SADR is a sovereign state and its claimed territory is mostly under military occupation, but I had nothing to do with that; talk to Hassan II of Morocco. You push the Moroccan POV by claiming that Western Sahara is not occupied, when in fact and the eyes of international observers it is. As you admit yourself, your concern on Wikipedia is (just?) to revert my edits. I, on the other hand, contribute to the well-being of the project at large. This is not to say that every edit I have made is justified, nor is it to say that I am always dispassionately and objectively correct, but it is to point out the false balance and fallacious parity between your edits and mine. For some reason, you pretend like you right from no POV and you present sources as if they have no POV as well. Which is nonsense. I write my biases on my user page for the purpose of full disclosure and in the interests of neutrality. Meanwhile, your stealth edits, obfuscation, and outright lies (e.g. about the UN never calling Western Sahara occupied, which you know for a fact is not the case) hide your pro-Moroccan agenda, which is increasingly obvious to anyone that has looked at your contributions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * POV. I am removing your POV edits not your edits. Western Sahara is a disputed territory not a country. the SADR is a government-in-exile based in Algeria, not a sovereign state. The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing. I think that was a desperate comparision. If you write "Western Sahara(SADR)" and claim you don't mean they are the same, you are in trouble. At worst, that is insulting the intelligence of the readers, among them the admins. They look by themselves and judge. I will say no more. --A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right So you have no defense of your actions? What on earth does "I am removing your POV edits not your edits" even mean? The fact that you write completely ignorant statements like "The Republic of china is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of china. It is not they are related, they are the same thing." shows a gargantuan lack of knowledge about what you're talking about; for instance, read the first three or four sentences of Republic of China and Taiwan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While I do admit I do not know much about the area, I am willing to work with all parties to resolve other issues. It was hard trying to get the flag issue right. Even some of the folks I work for, like Flags of the World, gives a confusing view about the flag. But, once everything was settled, the results were satisfying to me and some of the others. It would be best if I can get all editors involved in this dispute to tell me, on my talk page, to pledge to me to work with me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost uninvolved editor tries to help
Obviously, I can't understand everything going on here, but I think I can detect who is attempting to bring scholarship to this article and who is not. There appears to be a book on the subject that is particularily valuable - and the scholarship of it is not at issue. In conditions like this, using the book must be far preferable to using web-sources, particularily those of parties that have multi-$billion financial interests and have been defying the UN. Removing references to the book (on simple factual matters, such as recognition of SADR by particular nations) looks very much like vandalism - meanwhile, other edits, such as Justin (koavf)'s edit here persuade me that there are editors capable of properly assessing sources, and their contributions are likely to produce a much better article.

Separate to the question of sources, some parties (perhaps only one individual) seem to be attempting to act cooperatively with the 'facilitator'/mediator, while other parties or individuals are refusing to cooperate and are 'personalising' the discussion in unhelpful ways. It looks increasingly to me as if this AN is an abuse of process, and Justin (koavf) should not have been put on trial in this fashion. I'm very tempted to endorse Reisio's suggestion above and state that Wikima and Jalil should be topic-blocked from anything related to Western Sahara or the SADR, and likely from articles on Morocco as well. There will undoubtedly be other factors I've not accounted for, the proper name for this article, whether certain information/images should be included here or elsewhere, etc, etc. PRtalk 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PR (a.k.a PalestineRemembered), If you don't understand what is going on here, you do better switch off your detecting radar, or turn it to the case rised against you above. Your edits to a whole range of articles look obviousely biased, as is your intervention "to help" here. You picked one article out of dozens, and did not even understand what is the issue there, and used your mis-understanding of it as a basis to call for my (and Wikima's) block. the diff of Koavf's edit your refer to implies that when the Emir of Kuwait was on a visit to Morocco last year, and asked by journalists about his country's position in the Sahara conflict, and he answered that he supported the territorial integrity of Morocco, that implies he might be talking about the Canary Islands, that Morocco has never claimed. If your mind approves of this laughingly nonsense, then I do now understand why you trail such a long block record and why you are under mentoring and the subject of many complaints.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PR if you have been following on the topic you would have realised that koavf has broken by all records of edit warring
 * For this he has been blocked on indefinite
 * And when he was away, for months (can't remember how long), the topic was in rest. There was peace.
 * As soons as he came backl edit warring began again.
 * Your judgement shows that your position is simply unfair and irrealistic.
 * wikima 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolling about "The topic was in rest." In other words, we did nothing to contribute to the articles, and we had nothing to do since we couldn't revert Justin's edits. Since he has come back, we have been reverting his edits. Is anyone else reading this stuff? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that means that there was no edit warring when you were away.
 * This is a fact that everyone can verify
 * Edits continued and despite from some tension with Arre and Reisio there has never been an edit war like with yourself
 * You are excessive in using wikipedia and in your edit war.
 * Your blocks are incomparable. You have broken records.
 * Any admins who wants to say anything here must first look at the block logs (PR obviousely did not)
 * wikima 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No edit warring Of course there was no edit warring - you had your way and you did nothing on those pages. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is indeed the sad thing about you
 * When you were away there was no edit warring.
 * Of course there was tension with other activits of polisario like Arre or Reisio, but in general we could move further and get more progress in the topics quality than in all the time you were around.
 * This is unfortunately not the case with myself or Jalil only but I can remember Daryou, Fayssal himself and other editora whom you completely discouraged from editing with your excessive reverts. All that people gave up and left because of you.
 * And I am not familiar with the other topics you are involved in but I think other people had complained about your behaviour in otehr areas as well.
 * wikima 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Supplementary Comment - I looked at parts of this case and I saw cooperative editors and non-cooperative editors. I saw editors who had proper sources to work from, and editors who sourced to parties who have big financial interests in the outcome. I saw one editor who appeared to be taking an analytical attitude, and others who seemed to be taking a personalised attitude. After all of this, I may not have dug deeply enough, and could be completely wrong in my assessment. But I know how it looks and my views have not changed in response to further contributions. I know what kind of editor I would choose to collaborate with in articles, and I know what kind of editor I'd like to see editing articles in the encyclopedia. Lastly, it's always interesting to speculate on the motives of an editor who immediately draws attention to the supposed ethnicity of another editor. PRtalk 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve this, at least partly

 * For those who have been following with the conflict, a main source for it is the confusion of Western Sahara with the "sahrawi republic"
 * Koavf, pro-polsiario activist, is misusing wikipedia to make sure Western Sahara is exactly the same thing as the "sahrawi "republic"
 * In fact it is not. Western Sahara is the disputed territory, while the "sahrawi republic" is the entity that claims the independence for this territory.
 * If you (admins) really want to help resolving this then I suggest you look into this.
 * I suggest that admins who have been involved in the topic get involved in this debate, otherwise it would not make sense


 * Thanks - wikima 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Look into this? Please do, admins. Please do. Just look at the diffs I've provided above and tell me if they are reasonable in any sense of the word. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the admins will look, and they will see that you were actually unblocked from the indef-block to have a second chance, and you are not supposed to engage anymore in edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, and not to be blocked 4 times within a short time from your unblock.--A Jalil 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah the dialogue des sourdes: As neither a partisan of Morocco nor Polisario, frankly the core issue is that neither wikima nor Koavf in particular are able to listen and compromise. It's rather hard to advance anything with the Western Sahara articles when both play pretend dialogue - Koavf being rather better at the special pleading and wiki-lawyering, indeed he seems to be making it his new approach -while insisting on their POV. Frankly the entire thing is tiresome. I would simply like then to note that in my experience trying to gain consensus, Koavf is as much a problem as this Moroccan tormentors, and to block them without also blocking him on editing the articles strikes me as unproductive. I await, then, Koavf's little "Wha! (collounsbury 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Sure Just look at Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara; see the rationales I provide versus what they say. Then tell me if there is parity between our dialogue. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to echo Collounsbury comment and add that this issue is really annoying too much. It is very clear that both sides are being extremely POV (especially Koavf and wikima). We have been hearing the same arguments by the same users for 2 years now. Nothing resulted. There was a period of calm because Koavf was blocked indef. True but that can also mean that at his absence all articles were biased toward the Moroccan POV. All of your issues deal w/ content disputes so admins would just ask you gently to try to discuss, mediate, and you know the etc... I say it again... Compared w/ other classical wikipedia disputes, yours seem to be relatively more civilized in general but that's all. What can admins do?
 * not a big thing. Admins rarely block for POV and if they would do so Koavf block log would explode.

Well, wikipedia policies and guidelines have little to do w/ your case unless it is a violation of 3RR, personal attacks, etc... I am sincerly against banning Koavf because of his block log. My reason is simple. Articles would become one-sided. However, Koavf and wikima are not here to make any consensus whatsoever. They are always the last editors to say their word in any discussion. It always happens to be the same word thay would start that discussion w/. White is white and black is black. What admins can do here?


 * Ask these 2 people to agree and reach a prior and general consensus (whether WS is a region, a country, a local marketplace, etc...) before delving into editing;
 * or else, ban those 2 editors from these articles and leave others reach consensus. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Fayssal, I'm glad to see you back and I hope you're better. Again, look at the edits above and show me anything I've done that is as POV. Furthermore, look at the talk on Legal status of Western Sahara; which of us is providing cogent arguments based on reliable, verifiable, and scholarly sources? I am definitely willing to play ball, but I am not willing to have the WikiProject constantly vandalized, or its user templates as well. Nor do I think that the kinds of edits that I outlined above are reasonable behavior; not the least of which is the example of reverting out the references that you told me to put back into the article. Honestly, is that justified? Have I ever done anything as egregious as that in my edits? Seriously. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Col and Fayssal, you don't seem to be able to look at things with an objective eye.
 * You compare me with koavf, although my block log is extremly low (to not to say insignificant) and koavf's is a candidate for the Guiness World Records.
 * An other fact that you ommit, is that I am for balancing the WS topic and not to make it all Moroccan POV, while Koavf only represents the Polisario/Algeria POV on the topic.
 * To help you understand this, I never spoke of the Sahara as Moroccan, but always insist to dissociate this territory from an entity that claims its independance.
 * The same is valid when I don't recognize the "sadr" entity as this is the most neutral position in international relations. Because taliking of the "sadr" as en existing, sovereign entity (as koavf and co. do) means that there is no conflict and that WS belongs to the "sadr". IS this right? No, it is NOT.
 * You should open your mind a little and try to understand this because the other way would be to simply agree with koavf and build an online independent "Polisariostan" on wikipedia.
 * You should use your mind a little bit more and not judge in such a simplicistic way.


 * Thanks - wikima 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Suggestion to resolve the issue
Folks,


 * Here is a second suggestion from my side, in the sake of Wikipedia. It adresses the roots of the conflicts. In my view if you don't deal with this the conflict will never end, as it never ends at the UN.
 * Also, the following is a package, take it as whole or leave it as whole:


 * 1/ Content Level
 * Make a clear statement among all active users involved in the WS topic that WS should NEVER be put same as the Sahrawi Republic
 * Allow for action / Encourage action to dissociate both from each other at all levels (also file naming) and present Western Sahara as what it is: the disputed territory and not the wished republic.


 * 2/ User Level
 * Ban Koavf from all Western Sahara and Morocco related topics. Koavf has had many chances and he sinply ignored them. No need I think to go into details here.
 * Block myself (wikima) for three months from editing in Wikipedia (and later for more if I am not able to show any change). Honnestly my personal block log is simply too little even for a three months block, but if this helps to resolve anything then ok.


 * Hope this helps and thanks - wikima 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MurderWatcher1 - Second (and third, fourth, fifth) opinions needed
Following the closing of Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum, the original author of the article has posted a message to the (not yet deleted) talk page. In this post, they mention three other articles of theirs (Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon), all of which appear to fail WP:NOT and WP:BIO (and - almost - WP:BLP1E); a look down their contribution history shows plenty more such as Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue which (aside possibly from Fountain Avenue) appear unsalvageable.

While I think these are all clear violations of policy and technically ought to be deleted, I am extremely reluctant to AfD them, as it seems very WP:BITEy for a good faith-editor to suddenly find their seven (at least) most substantial contributions to the encyclopedia all up for deletion; I would think that at the very least it would lead to a rerun of the Billy Hathorn incident, and quite possibly could lead to a legitimate & good faith editor leaving the project altogether in a huff. (If around 50% of my mainspace edits were simultaneously deleted, I could see myself doing the same.)

There doesn't seem to be any right answer here; does anyone have any thoughts as to what the least wrong answer is? —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From my perspective it's easy. If the articles fail the rules in a way that can't be corrected via a rewrite or amendment then it's AfD. There's a difference between not biting a newbie and sitting them down, making them a cup of tea and a cookie. If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard. WebHamste r  21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Without looking too much at the articles and judging mainly on what is here, WP:BITE does not override other policies, if the articles are completely unsalvageable, there is only 1 solution. WP:BITE means that you shouldn't go to the editor's talk page, throw a bunch of policy abbreviations at them, and threaten to have them blocked if they continue. Mr.  Z- man  21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest AfD them, but leave a polite note on their talk page to explain why you're doing it (along the lines of "thanks for your contributions, sorry but I don't feel they quite fit in with WP policy"), and maybe try to steer them towards some places they can make contributions that are more likely to stick. Confusing Manifestation 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. I put considerable research and work into these pages as, I know the materials that I am referring to. I'm not without my own, considerable skills as, I work as a legal secretary for a well-known law firm and, other than Wikipedia style and policy, I'm pretty knowledgeable about some law matters.

While I didn't create the Imette St. Guillen page, if you have read my user page then you know that I was personally involved with the case. User:ImmortalGoddezz started editing and putting this page into Wikipedia format from a tag from User:Garzo.

Perhaps WP policy should change or be amended as, these incidents were of unusual occurrence and circumstances and can apply to civilized people everywhere who enjoy nightlife in general.

Also, I've 'weighed-in' on some subjects that I'm very knowledgable of, two of which are Eschatology and Photography. I have and would consider making considerable edits and formatting to these pages but only if they are received positively. Now I have no feedback on how my edits were received, nor do I have any idea of how many people are viewing a particular page. Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers, and I have worked as a Computer Technician as well.

In response to User:WebHamster comment: "If nothing else it's a lesson to them about what does and doesn't make it into WP. At the moment the editor is learning nothing in that regard." well my response that that statement is, what 'kind' of lesson are you trying to teach? That 'the work ethic is false'? That would be the lesson that I would learn if all of my work were destroyed on Wikipedia, so I would see no further reason to contribute to anything here. There comes a point where 'enough is enough' and I've learned to cut people off in that regard. That's a lesson that I give to you, from life as I've lived it, and the various experiences that I have lived. Have any of you worked at the World Trade Center in 2001? I have. Have any of you been a victim of a corrupt legal system? I have. This and many other things I have 'brought to the table' so understand that, in this respect, I will at least try to fight for my input and for what I believe in, but again, if my pages are deleted, then I'm done with Wikipedia. Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? The decision rests with all of you.--MurderWatcher1 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In general I consider the subjects of these articles notable, but the nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP, and, alas, I think it is fair to say that the ed. has made it clear in various ways that he writes in that fashion deliberately.  I think the consensus that the deleted article was is not notable may have been affected by the article content  to the extent that even the competent re-writing by another ed did not help. I did not !vote at the AfD--because of my conflict over these two factors.  The analogy with BH is correct--an excellent writer whose style is not that of an encyclopedia, and seems determined to keep that style.  I  supported deletion of many of BH's articles--I doubt anyone would have even nominated them if the length had been proportional to the importance. I'd think the same here.  I suggest a moratorium on further deletions of these articles in the hope  that we can reconsider  what makes a murder in a large city notable--and--even more important, try to find a way to have community binding decisions on content as we do on notability. We have only one tool, and all we can do is delete, or ask for improvements under the threat to delete.  Iridiescent suggested I comment here as a representative inclusionist, but my intent at WP is not primarily inclusion, but upgrading of content--if we wrote more appropriately we could have a wider range of content without looking foolish. It is not the presence of articles on minor subjects that attracts unfavorable attention, but their length and elaboration. DGG (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I've been nominally involved with some of the things that this editor has edited and have interacted with him I thought I'd leave input, also I was notified of the AN/I. I don't think the user is a bad editor, unfortunately despite prodding on my part the articles that he writes continues to be POV. My efforts at this have been minimal, I don't have the time or the patience, so they might not have been effective as they could have been. I do believe his editing habits can be changed. I think the solution here would be to have somebody mentor the user; discuss whatever article he wants to create prior to creation, discuss whether it would be worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, guide his edits/tone, and whatnot. I do believe this has been done before, having a mentor, however whether it works or not is the question. I have told the editor that if he continues on as he has an independent wikia might be more to his style. As for the articles themselves I do believe that some of them have notability; Imette St. Guillen, Jennifer Levin and Fountain Avenue. However of the three I've listed the only article that he has had edits of any major proportions are St. Guillen, which I've totally rewritten and her notability, I believe, is established due to a NY law that was passed in her name and influenced because of her death. His edits on Levin are minimal (and actually have mostly been removed) and the Fountain Avenue can easily be formatted and cited; same with Levin (heck give me time and I can do both of them). The others I believe are questionable in their notability, unfortunately. I believe the articles for the time being could be moved over to the user's sandbox, and the original article AfD'ed. I mean articles can be recreated if notability is established. With the articles in the sandbox and a proper mentor the articles could be gone over with a mentor to see if they do in fact meet the notability guidelines and gives the user a chance to fix the articles and not loose all of the work, and reinserted if they meet guidelines. I think his intentions are to honor the people who have died however the user does not realize that wikipedia does not necessarily view the same things as being notable that he does. I think if he is mentored about wikipedia then that can possibly become a better wikipedia editor. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * MurderWatcher, you may want to keep in mind that you do not own Wikipedia articles that you create. You should be prepared to have your contributions thoroughly edited or even deleted. If you simply cannot tolerate that, then you are correct in coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia may not be for you (although you seem to be putting the blame in the wrong place). --Cheeser1 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have neither said nor implied that I do 'own' an article! I put some of them up on Wikipedia, to use one administrator's term, 'in good faith' -- that someone more skilled than I am would contribute to the stories (RE: style, etc. and that work also would be 'in good faith'). I still continue to say that these stories are valid, and they are valid if you will but read some of ImmortalGoddezz comments above. I watched and learned some style from her, and when I had completed the page on Boitumelo McCallum almost two weeks ago, she praised me as definitely improving as an editor.


 * When she had started editing the Imette St. Guillen reference months ago, I decided to exercise patience and to simply watch and learn from what she did. I didn't get upset with her or anything like that. Cheeser1, you've come to the wrong conclusion about my work if you believe your own comments above.


 * In regard to ImmortalGoddezz comment about the minimal edits to the Jennifer Levin page, I had personally considered spending time in a Library researching her murder and adding to that page. That's more work than you can know as, her murder story "stretches" through a number of years. In regards to using the Internet to research her story - the only way that would be possible is if the New York City newspapers had all of their archives online for the past few decades! This they currently do not have! Only a library would suffice for researching materials for the Jennifer Levin reference.


 * Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place. Perhaps, since there are a lot of "Learning Annex" classes taught monthly in New York City, Wikipedia might consider actually setting up a class to explain the style, etc.


 * FYI, there was an article some time ago in one of the 1977 issues of "New York Magazine" by an excellent writer, Gail Sheehy, which was titled "The Mentor Connection". Unfortunately, to my knowledge, few programs of any kind of mentoring anywhere are in place, except perhaps in Union Shops which teach the skills needed for a particular job. The attitude in New York City is that "you should be up and running on the job" the moment you are hired. This expectation is unrealistic, nevertheless there are those individuals who can do that.


 * Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc. which, let's be honest here, can be rather arcane! So many rules and regulations! I have read some of it but, let's face it -- it needs to be put into a book and that book studied. It took me some time just to learn how to properly do a cite ref. This I learned from simply studying what ImmortalGoddezz performed on the Imette St. Guillen reference.


 * Nevertheless, I have seen and read some Wikipedia pages which, I understand, that you Administrators' have had to clean up because of vandalism, profanity, etc. I've paid attention to these abuses. Seeing as I have used good taste in my approach here, I would think that this merits something, unlike one unauthorized user putting in something childish such as "boobs", which I believe was done on a photography page that I was editing. Also, one person criticized both myself and User:ImmortalGoddezz saying to "GET A LIFE". I don't see these people getting this much criticism as I am here.


 * Also, to respond to the comment of DGG given above "... nature of the articles deplorable. The detailed recounting of crimes does not belong in WP ..." well my response to that is "what about the Holocaust?" That was 'deplorable', nevertheless the Holocaust happened; it was and is covered in detail in a number of books and television specials. There is currently a series of television documentaries on New York's WPBS Channel 13 on World War II, and at least one of these showed the conditions of the prisoners in the death camps. These are facts of life.


 * Perhaps I am being "too wordy" here but I stand by my initial comments above. Again, the decision rests with all of you.User:MurderWatcher1 COMMENT: Can't put my signature here for some reason.

Pre-disclosure: Me and iridescent have previously discussed this matter on-wiki and the original ANI posting is partially a result of that (and partially the result of my being a yellowbellied chicken on the matter). In that discussion, I agreed that these articles should be sent to AfD.

I still agree with myself.

To deal with MurderWatcher1's points (which I am grossly simplifying):


 * If the... pages are deleted then I would, indeed, consider leaving Wikipedia as an editor. Yeah, and I don't blame you. But you'd be making a mistake, Wikipedia would be poorer for not having you here, and the articles would have to go regardless. I think you got a WP:OWN thrown at you before, and I think that "threat" (for want of a better word) is why.


 * I have no feedback on how my edits were received. Yeah, tell me about it. Wikipedia lacks the positive version of uw-test1. I'm just as guilty - in my first days here, I'd have climbed over my grandmother (not a good example, she's a cow) for some positive feedback. But with our level of vandalism etc, lack of feedback is good feedback. Ugh. Horrible, but real.


 * Your Wikipedia Project does not provide "software counters" for the pages. I would assume that only an Administrator would know those numbers. Nah. Not available to anyone. The only clue is the amount of editing/vandalism. And not even then. Your articles could have been read by 100m people or 10 people. But the figures would tell us nothing. I could put up an article with a description of how I fellate goats on Wednesdays, digg/slashdot it, and get millions of visitors. Would it be encyclopedic? Nah.


 * Are you going to be 'robots' to rules or clear thinkers? Wikipedia editors are going to try to protect Wikipedia. What else can we do?


 * Wikipedia doesn't really have any 'mentoring' program in place Per my second point, I agree. However, Editor review and so forth exists. We don't have a pro-active system for this, asking our editors to find people or places willing to comment. This leaves editors to contribute for ages and then get slammed. A flaw in the pedia's design. But not one aimed at you or anyone else.


 * Anyone 'coming onboard' in Wikipedia, by your reasoning, has to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Oh, but I'd love to delete article for being poorly laid out and thought through - I think poor articles are far, far worse than no article at all. But Wikipedia's rules don't allow for people to delete them (despite poor articles discouraging new editors, go figure). They allow for a poorly formatted article to be sent to WP:AfD, but even a well-formatted article can be sent to AfD. And deleted.


 * I don't see these people [vandals] getting this much criticism as I am here We don't value them at all. We just vaporise them quickly. People we value get talked to, threads made, their articles discussed for second, third, forth opinions before we even start to ask about deletion. That's what we do for people we value. You're not a vandal. People are agonising here because your articles don't appear to fit our policies. It isn't you, it isn't vandalism, it's just Wikipedia stuff.


 * what about the Holocaust? Yeah, close to Godwin's Law, but I see what you mean. Our articles go into detail about the Holocaust because the event was practically without precedent and the ultimate results of such a barbaric act are still to be experienced daily throughout the world. The murder of a single person in a single city in a single country really doesn't match in any way you can come up with. An arch-inclusionist like DGG will try to find notability and encyclopedianess in any article. But even DGG is having problems with the content here. This is no reflection on you, just a problem with the nature of the articles in question [for DGG - once the gory details are removed, the articles become just a set of "X was murdered by Y for Z reason claimed by the tabloids" mini-articles. Murder, in the US, is commonplace, indeed normal; we may as well have articles about individual paving slabs].


 * the decision rests with all of you It does. It was brought here to see what people think before the sheer demoralising hell of AfD was inflicted on these articles and you as author. So far, we've not had reasons to keep from you or anyone else, just reasons to make an exception to, or change, Wikipedia's rules.

Above all, I was terrified of putting you in an awful position with these articles when discussing them last night. But the bullet must be bitten - as I should have said to iridescent, these articles must go to AfD; there will be hell to pay, but there's no alternative. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm crossposting this from my conversation with Redvers, as I think it's more appropriate here where other participants in the discussion will see it. As anyone who's been watching me will notice, I've flip-flopped 180o on this, but Redvers's arguments above have persuaded me.
 * I deliberately invited DGG and ImmortanGoddezz to the discussion in the hope they could provide some reason to save at least some of them - and in the expectation that if even they can't, they really aren't savable. (Looks like you've come to the same conclusion.) IG makes a good case for saving Imette St. Guillen, and I think I'll leave that out of any AfD run. I started this whole sorry episode, so I suppose I ought to be the one to finish it; I think I'll wait until the thread is archived from AN/I, to let as many people as possible comment, although I think we can all see where it's headed. I'll nominate them separately, and reasonably spaced apart, to avoid them becoming a de facto delete all/keep all bulk nomination.


 * The quote on MW1's userpage "In a sense, Imette St. Guillen's Wikipedia reference is something like her gravesite - sacred - more representative of who and what she was than a physical gravestone - and it should be respected", I think sums up the problem perfectly. MW1 doesn't just see WP as a memorial, but as a shrine, and is starting to see us as desecrating the shrine. It's ironic, given the lengths everyone is going to not to drive him off (if these had been by, say, Lucy-marie or Billy Hathorn they'd all be A7'd by now), but with an editor who seems to have violation of Wikipedia policy as a religious obligation, in some ways I'd rather scare him off now, then face the same problem in a couple of months time with 20+ articles instead of seven. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment on this discussion and since I have a free moment, I am willing to offer my thoughts; considering that we are not a paper encyclopedia and that we want to make it so that "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge," I think these articles are valid and do not weaken our project any. They are well-organized and contain numerous references/external links that attest to their notability and verifiability.  I therefore support Murderwatcher's creation of the articles and their continued inclusion on Wikipedia.  I hope that helps.  Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia not being paper isn't a reason to keep everything, so stop using that as a reason to keep everything. There is guidelines in place that should be followed and not ignored. Anarchy with no deletion isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is talking about "Anarchy" RobJ1981? Does my work offend you that much? By the way, to all of you: I did searches on your website:

On this page:
 * 4.3 Dispute resolution process and ANI

I learned that you have a "History of Pedophilia" page. What? Are you kidding me? This should be AfD and not my pages! Futhermore, in regards to people who are dead, and also to respond to User_talk:Iridescent post dated 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC), talk about 'nasty'! You took my comment out of context altogether! I said "in a sense". Well 'in a sense' you could say that: Benjamin Franklin, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Satchmo which as a redirect leads to Louis Armstrong - are also 'memorials' and sacred. I just believe that history in general is sacred. That was my reasoning, not creating an actual shrine but 'in a sense'. And again, I know I don't own the page but I do want to see it continue.

Now look at my search below:

Lindberg Kidnapping

4 The body On May 12, 1932, delivery truck driver William Allen pulled his truck to the side of a road about 4.5 miles from the Lindbergh home. He went to a grove of trees to urinate, and there he discovered the corpse of a toddler. Allen notified police, who took the body to a morgue in nearby Trenton, New Jersey. The body was badly decomposed. The skull was badly fractured, the left leg and both hands were missing; and it was impossible to determine if the body was a boy or a girl. Lindbergh and Gow quickly identified the baby as the missing infant, based on the overlapping toes of the right foot, and the shirt that Gow had made for the baby. They surmised that the child had been killed by a blow to the head. The body was soon afterwards cremated. Once it was learned that the Little Eaglet was dead, the U.S. Congress rushed through legislation making kidnapping a federal crime. The Bureau of Investigations could now aid the case more directly.

This reference talks about murder, just as I had attempted to do! This child was horribly murdered! All of you are way out of line here with your thinking!--MurderWatcher1 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is starting to get silly. As I suspect you're perfectly well aware, the reason you've put "History of Pedophilia" in quotes whilst everything else you cite is wikilinked, is because History of Pedophilia does not exist and has never existed. If you want to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, at least choose other stuff that does exist.


 * The Lindbergh kidnapping was a case that received international publicity, was the primary impetus for a major rewriting of US law, and continues to influence popular culture to this day. The thousands of other murders that took place in 1932 don't get their own articles as (in Wikipedia terms) they aren't notable. You'll notice, I hope, that the article is called Lindbergh kidnapping and not Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Junior; this is because it's about the case, not a memorial to the (non-notable by WP standards) victim.


 * The section you cite is a single short section, in a 27kb article, and everything you seem so shocked by is directly relevant to the broad topic of the case - a brief description of the finding of the body; a description of the condition of the body (necessary, as so much of the subsequent case hinged on identification); its effect on subsequent legislation. The word "murder" appears more often in Harry Potter than in the whole of Lindbergh kidnapping.


 * As Redvers says (a long way) above, so far all your arguments have just been to attack Wikipedia policies which took six years of cooperation between thousands of editors to reach this stage. If you can make valid arguments to keep the articles within those policies, they will almost certainly be kept. If you can't - or won't - then, as ImmortalGoddezz has already told you, Wikipedia - a site which runs on consensus - is possibly not the place for you. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Flogging an increasingly dead horse here, but having found this, I'm no longer willing to accept the "I don't feel I own the articles" argument. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note: Wikipedia does have a mentoring program in place. It's called Adopt-a-User. I wish more newcomers knew about it, because there are far more willing adopters than adoptees. As #th opinion, I'll say there seem to be substantial WP:BIO issues with some of these articles: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I can't see that Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon are notable for anything other than being horribly killed. Wikipedia is not news. The death of Imette St. Guillen could probably be touched briefly in an article about Imette's Law&mdash;or at least much abbreviated for weight, since presumably it is the proposed law that makes her murder notable, not the details of the crime. I'm not sure how strong the case is that Jennifer Moore impacted the crackdown on fake ids. If a clear connection is made about that, then maybe it, too, deserves a reference somewhere in some article on fake ids. And I'm not a die-hard for tossing out every article that relates to a single event, but even if being brutally murdered is enough to make one relevant per WP:BIO, how many articles do we need relating to a single event? Why do we have both Robert Chambers (killer) and Jennifer Levin? These various articles obviously represent considerable effort, but I, too, suspect that the majority of them might be suitable candidates for AfD. While it is possible that consensus there would keep them or that the AfDs would close without consensus, I think there's a really strong case to be made that they are inappropriate on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what makes something notable is clearly described in Notability. It is: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." All these topics are notable. The only question is whether the proper article on this topic is Imette St. Guillen or Murder of Imette St. Guillen, but the topic got coverage from multiple highly reliable sources over an extended period of time. WP:BIO says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." but it doesn't say "and we shouldn't cover the event either." Don't go leaving Wikipedia just yet MurderWatcher. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is MurderWatcher1. I'm actually putting this message into an archived discussion. Very difficult finding this page again. The pages on pedophilia that I was referring to above, and that were further discussed by User:Iridescent comments were:


 * Pro-pedophile activism
 * Pedophilia
 * North American Man/Boy Love Association
 * Paedophile Information Exchange
 * Danish Pedophile Association
 * Vereniging MARTIJN


 * Now this text, reproduced below which I had found on one page, is also significant:


 * ==Paraphilias as classified by the DSM-IV-TR==
 * The numbers were given by DSM-IV Codes Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association):


 * Exhibitionism
 * Fetishism
 * Frotteurism
 * Pedophilia
 * Sexual Masochism
 * Sexual Sadism
 * Transvestic Fetishism]]
 * Voyeurism
 * Paraphilia
 * N.O.S.
 * Kern County child abuse cases
 * Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films


 * Now I'm pleased that AnonEMouse added something positive on what I was trying to do. FYI, there is now a new link on the Imette St. Guillen page which leads to a Rock Band named Interpol (band) and they have a new album out, containing a curious song titled "Pioneer to the Falls" which the user inputting this reference said referred to St. Guillen. I personally am not sure about this so I put in a ""Citation Needed" tag on that reference. I've just listened to the song which is on MySpace.com. It's hard to know if the song, going by the lyrics, does indeed refer to St. Guillen or just something else. So, these are my comments and I hope they are saved into this archive.--MurderWatcher1 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Haemo's warning to Iwazaki
gave User:Iwazaki a "final warning" for making personal attacks against User:Wiki Raja. Iwazaki's comment that he linked to was

I'm assuming the sentece taken as a personal attack was "And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils". I'm amazed as to how this could be contrived as a personal attack against Wiki Raja. The exchange between the two users had long moved away from the userbox in question (it was at an MFD discussion), with Wiki Raja accusing Sri Lanka of State Terrorism and Iwazaki likewise accusing the LTTE of terrorism and killing Tamils. Unless Wiki Raja himself is a member of the LTTE, how could he be offended by Iwazaki saying "the LTTE kills Tamils"? Even if he is a member of the LTTE, how can that be taken as a personal attack? --snowolfD4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE, and that support for the LTTE is tantamount to "want[ing] them to kill more tamils [sic]". Iwazaki has been warned, and blocked, before about his personal attacks on other users yet has not demonstrated that he (1) sees anything wrong with his behavior and (2) is going to persist with it since he feels it is appropriate.  I do not believe any editor, no matter what their political affiliation should be accused of wanting other people dead, and I feel that this whole Sri Lankan civil war conflict (Which you are a prominent part of) is currently generating a poisonous atmosphere on Wikipedia.  Notice the sheer number of complaints it has generated on this, and other, administrator boards &mdash; the numerous MfD, AfD debates which break down cleanly along partisan lines with only lip-service paid to guidelines.  The tit-for-tat incivility reports, canvassing, and outright skulduggery (forged email headers, anyone?) that has occurred.  The gross incivility and personal attacks all around are commonplace, and the only way they are going to stop is if they administrators around here start putting their collective foot down against what is an outright war.  I stand by my actions, and am going to put my foot down here.  Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and I will not stand idly by while it becomes one.  --Haemo 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's abundantly clear from that sentence that he feels that WikiRaja supports the LTTE"? Where did pull that out of? Where does he say Wiki Raja supports the LTTE? All his critisism was directed at the LTTE, not Wiki Raja, and it started off after Wiki Raja made comments a number of times linking to a ridiculous propoganda essay on his userspace, User:Wiki Raja/Sri Lanka State Terrorism (which I subsequently speedy deleted), which criticized Sri Lanka. Iwazaki retorted that the LTTE kills thousands of Tamils, which you have somehow contorted to a threat against Wiki Raja. As for his previous block, it was made by an admin with whom he had a number of content related arguments in the past, which incidentally is the same situation you are in. So (1) if saying the LTTE kills Tamils is a blockable offensive you're going to have a lot of blocks to carry out and (2) I say, right now, The LTTE kills Tamils. Block me for that if you think you could get away with it. (And yes, I edit almost exclusively Sri Lanka related articles, and it a debate about one of my userbox's where the above comments happened, so of course I'm a prominent part of it).


 * As for the rest of your angry rant, remember who forged the email headers, who makes all these AN/I complaints, and who has been blocked, on both his accounts, for a total of over over 7 the past 12 months for various reasons, including "persistant harassment of other editors", "dirt-digging", "sockpuppeteering" and "uploading obscene images". --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4   ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I noticed User:SheffieldSteel has commented above, that he doesn't see any personal attacks in that comment either. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come now. WikiRaja makes a page which Iwazaki disagrees with; Iwazaki calls it LTTE "propaganda" and accuses him of pro-LTTE soapboxing.  He then claims that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed.  The issue is not him saying that the LTTE kills Tamils, as you seem to believe, but the statement that supporters of the LTTE want to see Tamils killed.  That's what makes it a personal attack; it's directed specifically at a user who he knows, and has explained, supports the LTTE.  Don't misrepresent the facts by claiming I said it was "threat" against WikiRaja, and don't try to pretend that all he said was that the LTTE kills Tamils.  That's not my issue with what he said, and that's not why I warned him.  I would also note that  tu quoque is a fallacy &mdash; bad behavior by one user does not excuse bad behavior by another.  My exasperation with your nationalistic edit warfare extends to both sides, not just one as you are trying to imply. And SheffieldSteel commented on WikiRaja's complaint, which was not the comment I took issue with &mdash; in addition, he struck his comments when he saw this discussion below, and the comment I warned him over.  Says something, indeed, no? --Haemo 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if disagreeing in an MfD is having "a number of content related disputes" I'll eat my hat. --Haemo 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Snowolf, you should not misrepresent what happened. User:SheffieldSteel later on did notice the personal attack here <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked SheffieldSteel to comment on whether he stuck out his comment because he thought Iwazaki did violate WP:NPA, or because he noticed there was already a discussion going on here.


 * To Haemo, so saying that supporters of the LTTE want the LTTE to kill Tamils is now a personal attack? Then you better do something, cos I'm sorry but I agree with that statement. And you need to show me where Iwazaki calls Wiki Raja an LTTE supporter, because I can't see such a thing. His point was that although Wiki Raja claims abuses by the government, he does not do so about the LTTE. That does not mean he is inferring that Wiki Raja is an LTTE supporter and that certainly does not mean Wiki Raja supports the killings of Tamils. The rest of his comments are merely a criticism of the LTTE.


 * Also, you can keep your hat, lol,  but  my comment was related to the fact that, there are 1300+ admins on Wikipedia, but over the last two weeks, you closed an AFD as merge, when, as I see it, there was no consensus, you declined Iwazaki's unblock, you got involved in a related MFD, and you pop up here and gave Iwazaki a warning. Now I believe in coincidences, but that's pushing it.


 * So you want to start showing neutrality? How about doing something about this. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, saying that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils killed is a personal attack &mdash; especially when you are talking to other editors who support the LTTE. If I assert you want to see innocent people killed, that's a personal attack. Iwazaki said that WikiRaja was pushing pro-LTTE propaganda.  He then said that people who support the LTTE want to see more Tamils murdered.  The syllogism is clear; all A want B.  C is an A.  Therefore, C wants B.  The logic of a personal attack.  In the interests of good faith and  neutrality I'll protect that page again to stop the nascent edit war on that page.  Please, feel free to bring any and all attacks, stalking, harrassment, etc etc to my attention.  I'd love for this conflict to de-escalate on all sides. --Haemo 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki is factually correct. The LTTE does kill Tamils. See the recent murder of a Hindu priest in Sri Lanka. Baka man  03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is disputing this; it's totally unrelated to the discussion at hand and not related to why I warned him. --Haemo 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I made my original post because I couldn't see how saying, or implying, that supporters of an organisation must in some way condone what that organisation does, constituted a personal attack. I simply did not interpret Iwazaki's post the same way that Haemo did. I did not, however, read up on the background to this debate, so my view of the incident may be too narrow. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to comment Sheffield, i just wanted to clear up why you struck out your previous comment.


 * Haemo, are YOU are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the LTTE? You also say no one is disputing that the LTTE kills Tamils. To use your words, A Supports B, B does C, so A supports C. That in essence means you are saying Wiki Raja is a supporter of the killing of Tamils. That itself is a blatant personal attack. How would you like if someone said you were a supporter of the Nazis? And that pretty much illustraits the unfairness of your warning.


 * Also, I think you have gotten what Iwazaki said wrong here. Iwazaki did not say Wiki Raja was pursuing a pro-LTTE stance. He said Wiki Raja was anti-Sri Lanka, and asked him to add murders by the LTTE to his little propaganda page to make it neutral. He did not say Wiki Raja was a supporter of the LTTE, it is you who directly have said it now.


 * And yes, everyone wants the bickering on Wikipedia to end, but other that Ricky81682 last year, no neutral admin has ever really tried. In fact, no one has even bothered to comment here.--<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Snowolf4, Iwazaki even revealed unethically at a AFD discussion, the subject is an adamant LTTE supporter by his edits on wikipedia. Now you are dragging Haemo equating by your pseudo calculus that; "it is you who directly have said it now." Hameo's one is unintentional but the Iwazaki's one is intentional. That is the difference which is not put forward in rules with tangibility and help always people to evade from punishment on wikipedia and outside. Hiloor 06:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A possible WP:SOCK or WP:TROLL made only to push certain POV at ANI. The very first edit of this user is this post at ANI, which clearly indicates a hidden agenda behind the sudden creation of this account
 * I woudn't take much notice. That's probably just Rajkumar Kanagasingam, known on Wikipedia as User:Rajsingam, User:DoDoBirds, User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam etc., still bitter that his biography got deleted. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't I be a Tamil from India? I couldn't understand your logic relating me with Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Hiloor 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm willing to step into helping you guys get together on this. However, it's going to require a fair bit of work, and civility all around.  In order to kick-start this willingness to work with everyone, I acknowledge that there is good faith disagreement over my warning and I therefore retract it, with my apologies.  However, I do ask everyone involved to please be civil and assume copious amounts of good faith.  Again, I extend my offer to anyone who is having a problem is leave a note for me on my talk page to have me look at it. --Haemo 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the birds of the flock have lost a feather. Wiki Raja 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's wikiraja's impressive wiki-resume in just the last twelve months


 * Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption
 * Sep '06 - Blocked for disruption again
 * Sep '06 - Blocked for uploading obscene pics
 * March '07 - Blocked for 3RR
 * March '07 - Blocked for socking and evading block
 * May '07 - Unblocked and reblocked 50 days.
 * Sep '07 - Blocked for 3RR
 * Sep '07 - Blocked again for 3RR

Impressive. Isnt it? Add to this his nonsensical template which gets deleted with overwhelming consensus but not before he defaces dozens of talk pages with his templates. And the hoax of an article with gfdl violations to boot which eventually had to be rewritten from scratch. And in the latest, he scales new heights - forged email headers in an attempt to get his opponent blocked!! (of course, he didnt do that, right?).

Dear Haemo, could you explain to me how this user continues to live and breathe on wikipedia? Why isnt he indeffed already? You talk about admins putting their 'collective foot' down. Now if you could walk the talk and indef him, I'd be really grateful. You dont let users like this out in the loose and then pounce on whoever loses his temper with them!! Wikipedia isnt about Anger Management. Sarvagnya 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarvagnya, thanks for submitting that wonderful resume.Didn't I mention you that, he is in many occasion acting as a 3RRR evading tool for other editors? Have a look at the LTTE article,　where his only edits were reverts!! NO other edits not even anything in the talk page, no involvement in discussions, just reverts. I guess this alone prove your above remarks of WP:TROLL.Thanks for our input again. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are a worse troll, looking at this. More a fanatic level doing edits.Hiloor 15:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haemo ,could you please ask this person to stop insulting me by calling my edits, fanatic. This WP:TROLL with no existing edit record in wikipedia was suddenly created and now engage in personal attacks on me. I would appreciate if you could check his IPs ,as I have the felling that he is the same person, as snowolf has mention above. Thanks you. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, when you want you can request Haemo, but when others request something and when he is getting into action, accuse him. You want the world as you want!Hiloor 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that feelings are very strong about support for violent struggle or terrorism - even as someone who lived in England at a time when US citizens were contributing money to the IRA my own. For the record, I believe that Haemo has acted 100% in good faith throughout this episode. Let's hope that other editors act likewise, and that normal dispute resolution can provide a way forward in this subject area. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SheffieldSteel san, Thanks for your input. I am just thankful to snowolf san for bringing this matter here So I could at least hear what the other editors say regarding this.I was once blocked for calling some sites racist(and they are 100% racist sites), and even in that case,admin misinterpreted my words and accuse me of calling others racists!!! Past is past, and I am hoping after this discussion admins would stop giving final warnings solely based on their misinterpretation of what I said.SheffieldSteel san,Allow me to prove what I said about LTTE, or to actually add something to that.LTTE and their supporters want not only tamils, but also wikipedian editors and their families dead.Some how, they know whats going on in wikipedia and threatening not only wikipedians but their innocent family members too. So ,were I wrong in making my original statement? Isn't this alone prove what I said about the LTTE? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the proof that is your orginal name and not sent by your friends to deceive the wikipedia and others.Hiloor 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the same friends with whom you share your wikipedian passwords? OR are those friends were the ones who were angry because you are not defending tamil issues? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why your head went wrong asking me to answer unnecessary things. Answer to this What is the proof that is your orginal name and not sent by your friends to deceive the wikipedia and others.Hiloor 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me could you please translate your question into ENGLISH? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is getting way, way off track. I'm going to close this thread, and would strongly suggest that everyone commit to the following guidelines:
 * Assume good faith on the part of other editors. Assuming deception until proven otherwise is not good faith.  Accusing each other of being sockpuppets is not showing good faith.
 * Be civil to each other. Calling other people "trolls" and "worse trolls" is not civil.  SHOUTING is not polite.  Demanding other users be indefinitely blocked is not civil.  Deliberately trying to provoke one another or smear one another is not polite.
 * Don't feed the trolls when they try and provoke you. When someone acts like a jerk to you, ignore them.  Just walk away, and don't interact &mdash; they're looking to provoke a response, so don't give them one.
 * So, if you're willing to commit to all of these, feel free to bring up issues on my talk page. It would be much appreciated, and I promise to do my best to help calm this situation down.  --Haemo 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, and WP:POINT by Duke53
'''Note: I have created Requests for comment/Duke53 at User:Llywrch's request. Please do not add to this section.''' alanyst /talk/ 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

initiated an edit war at Marion Jones which has now turned into disruption to make a point at Michael Jordan, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.
 * Edit war at Marion Jones:
 * Duke53 adds info about Jones's alma mater to lead paragraph of article (Duke53 is a strident fan of Duke University, so highlighting Jones's affiliation with UNC-Chapel Hill makes UNC, Duke's arch-rival, look bad by association.)
 * ,, , , , , Edit war ensues between Duke53 and three different editors; Duke53 reaches but does not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours
 * Discussion at Talk:Marion Jones follows
 * WP:POINT violations at Michael Jordan and incivility at User talk:Zodiiak
 * Duke53 removes Jordan's college affiliation from lead: "See the Marion Jones talk page; apparently this is the accepted format." User:Zodiiak reverts: "rv; the article achieved Feature Article Status as is; an incredible amount of effort was made in doing this"
 * Discussion at User talk:Zodiiak follows
 * Duke53 says "apparently many editors feel that the mention of a person's university affiliation has no business being in the lead of an article. Just trying for some consistency here." &mdash;clear WP:POINT vio.
 * Incivility at and : "Monitor anything as closely as you choose, but don't pretend I altered any other data on that page, because that just isn't true."  Then: "Yeah, leave your phony allegations though."
 * Further edit warring and WP:POINT vio at Michael Jordan: "deleted university mention in lead, per discussion on this and other talk pages. His university affiliation is mentioned later in the article."  Note no discussion occurred at Talk:Michael Jordan.  Reverted at  by User:Chensiyuan.


 * Incivility cuts both ways ... people who are snarky deserve what they get, IMO. If the mention of a person's university affiliation is allowed in one article it should be allowed in all, just for the sake of consistency. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Duke53's editing history is full of incidents of this type, too many to offer diffs for here. He has been blocked once before for incivility. Apparently he has not seen fit to change his behavior. I'd like an admin to take a close look at his behavior, in this incident but also his extensive history here.


 * <I>"He has been blocked once before for incivility</I>. More wrong info? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong? Not according to your block log, which is clearly linked at the top of this section. Technically you were blocked twice for incivility, within the same day, and briefly unblocked in between. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically? One does not equal two ... but you stated something as fact that is not true. Seems to happen a lot. Let's stick to dealing with facts, <I>M'kay</I>?<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have had numerous interactions with Duke53, most of which were less than pleasant. I invite scrutiny of my own history and behavior too; it's only fair. alanyst /talk/ 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If asked, I can offer dozens of examples of Duke being downright cruel, generally without provocation, to everyone who crosses his path--especially if they belong to his least-favorite religion. Very little has ever been done to curb his behavior--not by admins, and definitely not by himself. I also invite scrutiny of my own behavior and that of the others he's targetted. Something needs to be done. --Masamage ♫ 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

<I>" ... if they belong to his least-favorite religion"</i>. Why in the world would you presume to know what religion is my 'least favorite'; feel free to post those 'dozens of examples', I will be more than happy to defend any and all of your perceived notions of cruelty. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I just don't see you harping on anyone else. But, if you insist. Examples coming right up. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay ... if <B>you</B> don't <U>see</U> something then you are allowed to create 'statements' out of whole cloth and treat them as fact. Consider this a warning about a personal attack. You haven't a clue about my dislikes; don't pretend to be all knowing about them. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you like done with the user? a simple block for incivility (a two day wikibreak) or would you like some longer term more permenant remedy?  If you think this is a long term problem that is not going to get better, then ask for a permenant remedy, and back it up.  I would have advised you to use the Community Sanction Noticeboard, but it's closed now and it's activity remanded here.  --Rocksanddirt 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent.] First off, I think Duke53 deserves a fair opportunity to respond if he so chooses, before any action is settled on. As for what should be done with him, my perspective is undoubtedly colored by my past disputes with him, which is why I'd rather an uninvolved admin (or several, if they like) take a close look and come to a conclusion about appropriate action to take. This particular incident might already be over; who knows whether Duke53 will try to perpetuate it at this point? But I'm satisfied that his long-term problem behavior is not going to end unless he is quite strongly made to understand that his approach is intolerable. If you need more evidence of long-term problems to justify a proportionate action, just say the word and I can supply diffs, or I can take this to WP:RFC/U or any other venue you think would be more appropriate. alanyst /talk/ 19:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly some manner of consensus on what to do will need to be arrived at, but 1) if you ask for what you want, 2) get the other party to participate, 3) you will get more activity out of this noticeboard. So, put a notice (a suggestion is at the top of this page) on Duke's talk page, and come up with what you'd like.  Some manner of revert parole?  topic or aticle restrictions?  short civility leash?  outright ban from the project? and get some other community by-in on what is appropriate.  --Rocksanddirt 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alanyst left a note for Duke at the same time this report was posted. Similarly to him, I've long been uncomfortable with the thought of doing anything myself, because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse. Of the options you list, though, "short civility leash" sounds the most like what's needed. I have no problem with him continuing to edit in his areas of opinion and interest, just as long as he can do so without being rude. His history does not make me optimistic, but it's worth a try. --Masamage ♫ 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>" ... because I'm very biased as a result of having been a target of Duke's abuse</I>" Melodrama is again your strong suit ... show the supposed instances of cruelty and I will defend and / or rebut them. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masamage, with the addition that civility is not Duke53's only problem behavior. So I'd also suggest a strict revert parole to stop his POV warring.  I'd also like to see, as part of the short civility leash, a close eye on WP:BITE behavior, which I didn't mention above for brevity but has also been a problem I've unsuccessfully tried to resolve with him before.  I thought of a topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University and related subjects) but since Duke53 seems to get aggressive about anything he has an opinion about, it would be tough to formulate a list of topics that will adequately cover the scope of the problem. alanyst /talk/ 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"I agree with Masamage ... "</i> Surprise, surprise. :>) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"I thought of a <U>topic ban from the major problem areas (primarily Mormonism and Duke University"</i> Aha! I think we are now seeing the crux of your problem with me: <I>a non-mormon</i> having the audacity to edit mormon related articles. Wouldn't life be grand at Wikipedia if only mormons were allowed to edit mormon related articles? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I deny categorically that this complaint is based on religious differences. Let our edit histories demonstrate which of us is being forthright here. alanyst /talk/ 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. What we three have in common is that we all revert pro-Mormon vandalism and anti-Mormon vandalism with equal readiness. The big difference is, Duke insults the crap out of them before, during, and after--but only if they're pro-Mormon (at which point they don't even have to be vandals). --Masamage ♫ 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the diffs revealing Duke's uncivil behavior. If more are needed, there is no shortage. An obvious standalone. Accusations of bias, deceit, censorship, etc. etc. made based on religion: "nice try" "cut the crap", plus rejection of WP:BITE. Quotes CIV, breaks it in his PS. And wow. Later today I will post diffs of the exchange that first caught my attention over a year ago. --Masamage ♫ 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But first, here are some of his recent cracks at me. I expressed concern to an admin at Duke's calling someone an asshole, and the admin successfully convinced me that the IP in question was sufficiently a jerk that this wasn't worth worrying about. Duke found it days later, during the interim of which I became an admin, and told me to get a life, then anachronistically mocked me on his talk page. In this section I explain exactly why I am watching his talkpage, and I am frosty, but do not insult him as he does me. ("I didn't know exactly how stupid you are. As far as you disliking me: there isn't much here that I could give a shit less about.") More diffs to come later; I'm sure alanyst has a few more choice examples to share as well. --Masamage ♫ 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty, but given the size of this page I'll refrain unless an admin asks for them. There's a lot of evidence here already, and it's the proverbial tip of the iceberg. alanyst /talk/ 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"There's a lot of evidence here already ..."</I> Well, 'counselor', it looks like you have really got me now. :>) Show me the Wikipedia policy that states that I can't respond to other editors in kind. I have <B>never</B> lied (or distorted facts) on these pages; can you say the same? I can give as good as I get, but don't whine about it like others do; in short, if someone is smarmy or lies <I><B>to</B></i> me or lies <I><B>about</b></i> me, then all bets are off. If you attack me, expect to get some in return. Should I list the blatant lies that have been told about me by a 'certain crew' ?
 * I fully expect a 'swarm' to pile on here shortly, and <I>we <U>both</U> know who will be in that swarm, don't we?</I> Your '<I>categorical denial</i>' not withstanding, I <I>know</i> why I am attacked ... the truth is out there. Face up to it. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Duke, your words remind me of the saying, "An eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind." And just because there are no policies keeping you from doing something stupid doesn't mean that you should. If everyone involved in this thred wants to air dirty laundry, may I suggest filing an RfC, which is done over there --> llywrch 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Masamage and Alanyst, and can attest to Duke53's chronic incivility and instant assumption of bad faith (often calling good faith edits vandalism). Any and every time I've crossed paths with Duke53, I've been amazed by his incivility and edit warring.


 * Edit warring
 * Marion Jones - Inclusion of university in lead
 * 
 * Ford Mustang - Inclusion of Image:1987 Mustang GT.jpg
 * 
 * Beth Smith - Inclusion of court cases
 * 
 * Beth Smith - Inclusion of South Park image
 * 
 * Mountain Meadows massacre‎ - Inclusion of "kidnapped" or "abducted"
 * 
 * Mountain Meadows massacre - Inclusion of "Friday"
 * 
 * 2006 Duke University lacrosse case - Inclusion of deleted image and "false/falsely accused"
 * 

These are merely the main articles, as Duke53 has also edit warred on Undergarments, Clothing, Temple garment, George W. Bush, Roy Williams (coach), and Jack Shea. I have outlined the edit warring as it is much more clear cut when viewed in diffs than incivility. However, diffs are available in the history of each respective article talk page, as well as user talk pages and the edit summaries of the above links. I believe Duke53 needs to change his behavior, or we need to prevent his continued disruption through appropriate blocks. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * •"<I>Duke53 has also edit warred on Undergarments, Clothing, Temple garment, George W. Bush, Roy Williams (coach), and Jack Shea</I>". Are you sure that you aren't confusing '<B>reverting VANDALISM</B>' with edit warring? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'''Note: I have created Requests for comment/Duke53 at User:Llywrch's request. Please do not add to this section.''' alanyst /talk/ 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncooperative editors
A sentence in the lead of the Israel article has been the subject of a debate. The sentence is based on the text: "In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region. There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent)." It comes from a report by Freedom House. The source is agreed upon. 

But some editors, based on their own personal opinion, wish to alter the text of the source, and thus the text does not accurately reflect the stated opinion of the source. The sentence must be verifiable, and the source has considered Israel as such. Still some editors, in particular User:Tariqabjotu have been saying only their personal opinion.

I pointed out the Citing sources says: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

Tariqabjotu completely and utterly disregarded this policy. Their argument now is that the definition of Middle East can also sometimes include Cyprus, which is considered a liberal democracy, but is not considered by Freedom House to be in the Middle East. (These types of challenges are noted in WP:CITE.) The editor has opted to write "Unlike most countries in the Middle East, Israel is considered a liberal democracy." but this sentence applies only a single definition of the Middle East (that is NOT that of the source) and does not reflect the stated position of the source. The source's opinion is not to be altered, even slightly, to appease an editor's opinion. Another editor mentioned linking to an article of this regional group.

It is undisputed that Freedom House groups countries into regional groups they define, and it is clear that Israel is the only one in this regional group to be a liberal democracy. What can be done is to link the term "eighteen countries" to the eighteen countries that are included in this Middle East group. This is seen in Freedom in the World (report).

"Freedom House has ranked Israel as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East."

OR

"Israel has been ranked as the only liberal democracy out of eighteen countries in the Middle East."

Or whatever similar. This way readers can see the group for themselves, letting them see a list showing which countries are included that out of which Israel is the only one, as the view of the source. This eliminates any ambiguity as to the definition of the region. They have said Israel is the only one out of a group they have categorized in the Middle East, and now users can see the group and exactly which countries are categorized; reflecting the source and having the list of countries in the group be visible. There is no dispute that these are the countries included in Freedom House's regional group: Middle East & North Africa. But Tariqabjotu did not pay any attention to this. He did not state how this sentence would have any issue with WP:CITE or any other policy. He never suggested an edit based on any policy at all.

I suggested WP:Mediation as a proper way to resolve the dispute and concentrate on Wikipedia guidelines, but Tariqabjotu refused. He still did not want to talk about any WP policy. Obviously, a discussion cannot reasonably take place this way. --Shamir1 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what is it that requires admin intervention here? Are people sockpuppeting? Edit-warring? Extremely incivil? It would seem based on Talk:Israel, and in particular Tiamat's contributions there, that a normal, legitimate, good-faith content disupte is occuring. I sincerely hope that this posting isn't just forum shopping. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN gone wild. "No original research" doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that you can't do ANYTHING useful with cited facts. Freedom House assigns a scalar number, not a relative ranking, and we're free to compare the numbers it assigns among ANY set of countries we choose. Did Freedom House even SAY "Israel is the only liberal democracy", or did it simply publish a list categorized in such a way that there are no other democracies in the same category? If the latter, then stating the former is technically original research by your definition. Having to correctly represent what the cited source says about what it's cited for doesn't mean that its regional groupings have to be used in order to use its freedom rankings. —Random832 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the dispute over the wording, this doesn't sound like information that should be in the lede. Corvus cornix 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is suited for the lead, the ranking is used in several country articles. Tiamut's edits are relatively recent and are not related to this. No good-faith content is occuring as User:Tariqabjotu does not wish to address any policies. What can be done if he cannot even accept mediation? That is where WP:SYN comes in: He is taking the position of one source and combining it with another position (that Cyprus is sometimes considered in the Middle East). This position, as WP:SYN addresses, does not publish an argument in relation to this topic at all. We are not using their regional groupings, we are stating what they have said. "Unlike most countries in the Middle East" applies one definition of the Middle East, does not represent what the source says, and leaves no room for the group they have categorized. It is not disputed that they have categorized that group, and a link can be made to it. The sentence must properly represent that it is the only one out of this group. User:Random832, to answer your question: Yes, they have said Israel is the only liberal democracy: "In the 18 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, only one, Israel, ranks as Free; Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region." (To be clear: Freedom House's methodology explains that a "free" country is a liberal democracy; every liberal democracy is an electoral democracy, but not every electoral democracy is necessarily a liberal one.) So far, the editor is explicitly disregarding WP policy. He constantly does that while refusing to hear what a mediator should say. I welcome your feedback. --Shamir1 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter does not require admin intervention. Shamir has been trying to get this sentence (which is, in itself, the result of a compromise) or other parts of the introduction of the now-featured Israel article changed for over a month now, to no avail. He has seen that everyone has gotten tired of responding to his repetitive misinterpretations of policies. So, now he has decided to go around the 'pedia – opening a mediation request (with insufficient evidence that other steps in dispute resolution have been attempted), seeking help from an arbitrary person, and posting here – giving distorted, and ultimately false, accounts of the arguments of his opponents. If Shamir feels continuously obliged to ignore the many coherent rebuttals that have been provided to his argument, I feel it is my prerogative to stop entertaining his viewpoint. It's time this thread, and every other one related to this sentence, be shut down. --  tariq abjotu  01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These are things you should be telling a mediator. I did not misinterpret a single policy, I posted them exactly. You have not even addressed them! How are they "misinterpreted"? I sought advice from an editor (how is that bad?) as you have been completely uncooperative. What it is time for is dispute resolution. --Shamir1 04:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on Tariqabjotu's talk page: I really wish you would try formal dispute resolution. I understand you have added many comments to talk, so have I. None of your reverts were based on any guideline, and you have not addressed the policies to which your sentence has a very clear issue with. So you feel you are right, that there is nothing else to it; if that is the case, and if I am "misinterpreting policies", then there should not be anything to fear in a mediator. Please give it a try. --Shamir1 06:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He replied: You're a waste of my time. I'm not going to burden a mediator by letting you waste his too. --  tariq abjotu  06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith and continue with dispute resolution processes (as it tells us to) when an editor is acting this stubborn? --Shamir1 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement about "countries in the Middle East" must come with some hint that it's a disputed definition of the Middle East that's in use. Like it or not, systemic bias, liable to mislead some/many readers is slipping in - particularily when the same statement about democracy would not be true for all Muslim countries (as some readers are bound to think they've read). PRtalk 10:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to use Freedom House's definition of "free country" then for consistency you should also use Freedom House's definition of "the Middle East". But per WP:NPOV their assessments should not be presented as fact. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Isarig violating terms of mentorship.
Isarig is under mentorship, and forbidden from making more than one revert a day to any article. He has today twice reverted my edits to Jajah, the second time deliberately (as he confirms on the article's talk page) re-adding information which I had removed because it was clearly added by a company employee as advertising. I request that steps be taken to ensure that this user abides by the very strict terms of his probation and mentorship. RolandR 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit once, and then rewrote the section, significantly expanding it, adding material about the controversies, and using different, mainstream relaible sources. That is not a revert. Please do not wikilwayer in order to win content disputes. Isarig 18:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a borderline technical violation of the probation. I'd advise RolandR not to exploit Isarig's probation in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and more broadly to avoid slanting the article because of his personal experiences with the company. I'd advise Isarig to be more careful about this sort of thing, and to err on the side of conservatism given his probation and the concern many editors have expressed over his prior actions. (For those who want to see for themselves, the article is Jajah.) Raymond Arritt 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)It was a revert or more specifically a partial revert according to WP:REVERT. The section specifies as follows: A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version. The former is convenient, for example, for a partial reversion of a recent addition, while the latter is convenient for a partial reversion of a deletion.  The only thing I am not clear is what the terms were for this 1RR parole and what exactly would be the consequences of violating it?  Link to the discussion please. (edit after edit conflict: Raymond Arritt has a point as well)<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion is here, from which iit is clearthat it is Isarig's constant edit-warring which is the issue, and he is not permitted to edit another editor's contributions more than once a day. I repeat, Isarig's comment on the article talk page that "I have a different view regarding the appropriateness of posting by employees, but you are correct that current WP guidelines frown on this. It is a moot point, though, because I am not a Jajah employee, have no such conflict of interst, and *I* have added this content now, so you are now removing well sourced content by an editor with no COI" makes it clear that he is adding this in order to edit-war with me, rather than on its own merits. RolandR 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to rigorously define "partial revert" is going to be highly contentious, and might as well be saying "don't dare EDIT an article twice in one day" - the very term amounts to forbidding attempts at making compromise versions. —Random832 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True but in reality the edit reinserted information that was taken out (comparison of the first edit with the second). However, I completely agree that this discussion should not be leaning towards "don't dare EDIT an article twice in one day."<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ray Arritt, if you're going to pile-on with these accusations, it would be nice to have some smidgen of evidence for them. RolandR's involvement seems to have been solely to roll-back spammy changes to an extremely spammy article. I haven't seen him add one smidgen of personal analysis to the article, the talk page, or anywhere else. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I take it back. Roland did add information which he should have sourced to JaJah's AUP, which notes that "JAJAH sometimes limits free calling minutes on a daily, weekly or monthly basis...JAJAH asks its customers to pay from time to time. If you choose not to pay, JAJAH may need to limit your free minutes. To take advantage of free minutes, users should deposit funds into their JAJAH account." Instead he sourced it to an internet forum post, and to a letter the company sent to customers. Not exactly a "slanting" of the article to refer to the company's own officially declared policies! <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (I'm sure this wasn't in their terms and conditions when I last looked, or I would have used this. Perhaps it has been added as a result of my complaints!)--RolandR 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Google has it cached from 13 September, looks like you added it first on 3 September and Isarig started arguing with you on the 24th. So even at that time, it was verifiable, although you didn't provide proper citations. True-but-improperly-cited material is added to Wikipedia at a rate approximating that of Niagra Falls, so it's really juvenile to try and make this a user conduct issue. Just cite [www.jajah.com/info/help/faq/freecalls/] next time, summarize it accurately, and you're iron-clad. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As you note, when I added the comment it was apparently NOT on the Jajah site. I agree that I could, and probably should, have rechecked when this was removed; my failure to do so certainly does not invalidate my earlier edit. I have now made an appropriately sourced edit.
 * But this is entirely irrelevant to the current issue, which is Isarig's blatant breach of his very strict mentorship conditions, in order to reinsert what even he conceded was a spam link originally added by a Jajah employee. Isarig's whole behaviour and involvement in this article looks like deliberate edit-warring with an editor with whom he has frequently clashed on Middle East issues, on which he is currently forbidden to edit. RolandR 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's offtrack, and I was actually trying to defend you there, rather than contribute to the usual CSN ANI mudslinging festival. Anyway, you deleted information about "Jajah Buttons", Isarig re-added it, you deleted it again, and Isarig re-added it with slightly different phrasing and sourcing. That's 2 reverts. I suggest you sidestep the ANI sideshow and just report it to AN/3RR with a link to Isarig's mentorship conditions. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the problem is the sourcing, how is it a revert to change it to cite a better source? —Random832 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When a user has a mentor (and if I recall correctly, Isarig has a pair), it is often better to first discuss the issue with the mentor(s) than to bring it to a more general forum. The mentors both can enforce (or if not an admin, can readily get an admin to enforce) and more importantly can educate and advise the editor being mentored - but they can only do this if they are kept informed.  So where is the evidence of having talked to the mentors before coming here?  GRBerry 13:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree w/ Raymond. Technically speaking, Isarig is in "partial" violation of the probation. True that Isarig reverted before partially reverting (as explained above by PPG) but he did provide RSed material to the article. That's very important. i don't see any harm on that. Indeed, the article is out of the scope of the ban. This is how i see things based on the terms of the mentorship.

Having said that, and however, there is one important note which i could take. I'd not blame Roland for bringing this issue here if not because of the particularity of the case in general. RolandR is one of the editors w/ whom Isarig disagreed most of the time when both were editing Arab-Israeli conflict articles. Now, we are handling another disagreement on another area (a Voip-related article). We've just celebrated the 2 million milestone and we can easily calculate mathematically the chances for such a disagreement between 2 editors who used to disagree on other unrelated hundreds of articles or so to happen. An hypothesis is needed in order to have accurate results. An hypothesis where User1 nonrandomly and deliberately edited the same article User2 had edited. In the wiki lingo such an hypothesis is identified as Wikistalking. IOW, Isarig knows that he should be the last wikipedian to go revert, on an unrelated topic, someone who used to disagree w/ in other areas. Isarig's case has been and still is a case of behavior and conduct. It is true that his mentors were absent for more than a few weeks (me and Avi) but he missed a good opportunity for him to behave better so he could get back the trust of the community quicker. Isarig has only shown that it is impossible for him to be left alone. Alas! he couldn't do work alone. He looked for where other people work and followed them there.

Why, Isarig? At your mentors' absence you could have contacted any admin to intervene before making controversial edits and violating your ban terms. Avi and i have made it clear to you to contact us before delving into anything controversial but that never happened. It only happens when you write to apologize and promise to be more careful in the future. i have nothing to say about technicalities but i am really tired w/ the way you deal w/ this collaborative project. You really are not taking issues seriously until you make a mistake and apologize for it. There are respected people out there who edit and contribute and many of them are fed up w/ immature dealings. This is just like real business Isarig. People are serious devoting much of their time to this project and they are expecting not to waste their time w/ excessive disruption and immaturity. I am not blocking you as blocks are not meant to be punitive but i will take this opportunity to inform, remind and tell you that your wiki-fuel is being used irrationally which may cause your engine to stop before reaching destination. You still can get a wiki-break and relax as long as you are still not far away from the oasis. It will certainly be very helpful. Remember that the only navigational system in this desert you got is your mentors and for that reason you should not carry that tool if you are not going to use it. If you would not consult your mentors and stop misusing your editing tools you'll be certainly lost in the desert. I am hoping this would be the last detailed comment i have to make about this case. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:White Cat
White Cat white washing Wikipedia again. This time he deleted categories from related articles, and then AFD's the category because its empty. DerHaxer then deletes the categories the same day with the following reason {"was an empty category for at least four days"). Which according to the diffs provided isn't true. I request immediate restoration of the categories.

Category:Mountains of Kurdistan

Awyer

cheeka Dar

Nalishkene

Zagros Mountains

Category:Geography of Kurdistan

Ilam province

Kurd Dagh

Iraqi Kurdistan

Hawraman

Category:Lakes of Kurdistan

Lake Van

He did the same thing back in April but was reverted by User:Khoikhoi. Just couple of days ago he had the Kurdish-Israeli_relations article deleted. . He's trying to get the Kurdish-Israeli_relations article deleted. --VartanM 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewed and restored. I'm assuming good faith on DerHexer's part, at least; it's easy to forget that categories must be empty for four days, especially when using Twinkle as he was.  It seems to me that White Cat was being disruptive and unnecessarily surreptitious with edit summaries like this.  I'll look around for evidence of consensus.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 03:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know (or forgot) that these categories must be empty for four days. Excuse me! —DerHexer (Talk) 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No discussion regarding these categories, and White Cat likely has a conflict of interest, seeing as he's the creator of Category:Iraqi Kurdistan. I think this has been taken care of now, though an eye should be kept on it.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the articles. I'm sure DerHexer just made a mistake, after all the categories don't have histories. As for White Cat its no secret that if it was up to him every mention of Kurd would be deleted from wikipedia. Unless White Cat protests, I think this issue has been resolved. Thanks for the quick response. VartanM 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagging of these categories is done not based on sources or consensus but though drive by editing. Discussion attempts in the past were been promptly ignored. Removal is in line with

Categorization #7: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
 * -- Cat chi? 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that applies, from what I have seen these categories are obviously relevant. Secondly, tagging a cat for speedy deletion under the premise it has been empty for at least 4 days when you emptied it minutes ago is nothing short of lying. Viridae Talk 05:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me one self evident reason why these places are inside the borders of this country called Kurdistan. Kurdistan is heavily controversial as a term in referance to a region with undefined borders - it's very existence is disputed. It isn't problem free. -- Cat chi? 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about it to really say either way, but judging by the kurdistan article, it is a relevant classification of a region. That wasn't the disruptive part though, the disruption is depopulating a cat and then nominating it for deletion minutes later on the premise that it has stood unpopulated for four days. Viridae Talk 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I initiated discussions on it in length. The state of flux "Kurdistan"'s borders are in and its "aspirational country" status make it a very poor criteria for categorization. I still do not see a self-evident reason for this categorization. -- Cat chi? 06:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't exuse depopulation and then tagging for speedy a cat under the premise it had been empty for 4 days, which is the disruptive part. If you want it deleted, we have deletion dicussions for that, and they would be a perfect place to plead such a case. Viridae Talk 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any categorization not based on a solid and meaningful criteria can be depopulated on sight. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial (which I have provided many times), should not be included on the article. On occasions rather than the ambiguous "Kurdistan" (there exists so many definitions for this, it isn't funny) I recategorized it under "Iraqi Kurdistan", a federal state in Iraq. Any other non-Iraqi categorization is only based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. I have waited for months - nearly a full year for an inclusion criteria for articles to these categories, far more than four days. Note that the articles actual content is not at stake, just the categories. Also some of the categorization was conducted by User:Diyarbakir, who has been banned and blocked indefinitely. -- Cat chi? 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can be depopulated on sight? Oh link to that one if you will... And it is clearly controversial considering it was immediately overturned. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous, and AT NO POINT DOES EMPTY FOR 4 DAYS MEAN EMPTY FOR A FEW MINUTES. Viridae Talk 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this vendetta of yours to delete anything Kurd related from wikipedia. Also how is a mountain in Iran or a river in Turkey categorisable in Iraqi Kurdistan?--VartanM 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no vendetta to delete anything Kurd related (or any other topic for that mater). If you reanalyze, you'll see the issue is over machine generated lists, categories. The content of the article is not affected at all. A mountain not in Iraqi Kurdistan (solid defined borders for the most part) cannot be inside "Iraqi Kurdisan" by simple logic. Because the borders of Kurdistan follows the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, using its borders to identify what falls inside and what doesn't is problematic. It can be discussed in an article, no problem there (provided there are reliable, notable, and verifiable sources). It is a very very poor category inclusion criteria. -- Cat chi? 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So, is there a sanction to go along with User:White Cat's abuse of admin's good faith? Granted sanctions should be preventative, but it seems, based on the discussion, that this is not the first time a deletion spree has being attempted by the user. Is prevention necessary or can the user ease up?--Rocksanddirt 17:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no history on category contents. When an admin is going through CAT:CSD and sees that a veteran user has tagged a category for a speedy as an empty category, they have to rely on that user's word.  So I don't see any cause to fault the admin.  I'm not thrilled by White Cat's explanation, but I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve - it would be symbolic at this point. -- B  19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Block me for what? User:TTN isn't blocked for non-consensus mass blanking of articles... I merely removed a few categories and recategorized several others based on official guidelines while not touching articles content whatsoever. The 4 day rule is an arbitrary time period to allow discussion. Involved parties have only ignored discussions so far. I have attempted discussion for months... How is their complete lack of interest in a discussion my error? -- Cat chi? 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial - this clearly wasn't so you shouldn't have tried to speedy delete it. We have xfd discussion for a reason. Viridae Talk 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly non-controversial. I do not want to requote the guideline. No doubt Kurdistan is a controversial term and no doubt the tagging was done in a controversial manner. Therefore the addition is the problem, not the removal. If someone creates a pov category (say Category:Worst presidents of the US) and starts tagging articles (say George Washington (for the sake of argument)), he would be reverted and the category would be promptly deleted. This is no different. Feel free to nominate it for CfD but I see CfD as useless bureaucracy at this particular case. I can't think of one non-controversial self evident reason why this categorization should be done. Feel free to point one. -- Cat chi? 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu know very well that it is a controversial subject and as such should have gone through an xfd. Regardless, depopulating a cat then immediately nominating it for speedy deletion on the premise that it has been empty for four days is disruptive, paticuarly because I am sure you are quite aware categories do not contain a history so the admin could have no idea wether you were lying or not. Continue such disruptive behaviour and you be blocked. Take it to cfd next time or don't do it at all. Viridae Talk 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't controversial at all but whatever. Continue? I hardly revert at all in general. Have I made any reverts after the undeletion? No? Will I? No. So does your warning have a purpose? No. Was my action disruptive? I do not think so. I could have waited for a four days of no action... Will I nominate this for CFD? No. Someone else can. But I do find this double standard jaw dropping (in contrast with the TTN case if nothing else). -- Cat chi? 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. Cat, take it to WP:CFD. You may very well have a good case for deleting these categories, but your actions were irresponsible and misrepresentative (WP:CSD). Your strawman of an obvious vandalism category doesn't help your case...Needless to say, don't do anything like this again. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
I blocked for being a sockpuppet of. We know for sure they use the same IP address and both accounts primarily edit Fellowship of Friends to the point, indeed, that both accounts are essentially single-purpose accounts. Could someone please review this block with an open mind? I would not consider it wheel warring if you took a look, judged that these two accounts are entirely independent, and unblocked. I don't expect this to be the case but please don't let that colour your investigation. I'm asking for this review because Love-in-Ark claimed there's no relationship between the two editors (see talk page). I'm going to bed now. --Yamla 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a twenty-four hour block, and it quacks like a duck (how's that for mixing rationales?). Baby Dove was hit by the autoblock, and I find it too coincidental that two of seventy users supposedly using the same connection belong to the same organization and are trying to push the same point of view.  They need to just wait it out.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The netblock belongs to the Fellowship of Friends. Both editors need to be warned of Conflict of interest, and should they continue to be disruptive, they may need to be blocked indefinitely.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Love-in-ark is a significantly older account than Baby Dove, which is obviously problematic for the block. However, I will not say they are completely independent. They both edit from the same IP range and that IP range is owned directly by the Fellowship. I have pointedly questioned both of them about this, particularly noting Baby Dove's less than honest presentation of the matter. On the other hand, I can attest from my involvement as an informal mediator in the past that the two users to indeed appear to be distinct people. They appear to have unique personalities from one another and even seem to differ somewhat in their understanding & interpretation of both Wikipedia policy and the Fellowship, though they possess the same (or very similar) agenda. While I disagree with the block, I will not lift it until Baby Dove honestly addresses my questions. Even then, both users need a clear warning about conflict of interest given the IP evidence. Vassyana 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm an editor on the Fellowship page and I have been in conflict with both users, who tend to combine reverts so that other editors would be forced into making a third revert. I received continual accusations of being a sock puppet of Moon Rising, and I can't believe that the accusations were even meant sincerely. Perhaps it might be possible to block the Fellowship's IP range but to allow the two editors to edit from their homes or from other IP addresses, depending on their conduct. One or both of them actually works for the Fellowship. Waspidistra 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there were earlier edits from the Fellowship IP block:- http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=Fellowship%20Of%20Friends http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=65.98.192.48-55

ip	title	diff	comment	time 65.98.192.50	Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130916171	/* Designation as a Fourth Way School */ added section replying criticism on 4th way school	2007-05-15 00:10:33 65.98.192.50	Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130918680	/* Response to Designation as a Fourth Way School */ fm	2007-05-15 00:23:39 65.98.192.50	Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130919879	/* Response to Designation as a Fourth Way School */ gm	2007-05-15 00:29:14 65.98.192.50	Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130921292	/* Predictions by Robert Burton */ fact tag added	2007-05-15 00:36:32 65.98.192.50	Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130921714	/* Response to critical view of predictions */ - not needed fact tag - see talk	2007-05-15 00:38:47 65.98.192.50	Garden Angelica [cur] 	123668374		2007-04-17 23:33:39 65.98.192.50	Genichi Taguchi [cur] 	72855369	/* External links */	2006-08-30 17:42:12 65.98.192.50	Taguchi methods [cur] 	72855108	/* External links */	2006-08-30 17:40:48 65.98.192.50	Talk:Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	129935078	/* Comments about the official statement of the FOF */ + missing parts of comment	2007-05-10 21:23:27 65.98.192.50	Talk:Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	130922338	/* Response to Predictions */ cm	2007-05-15 00:42:00 65.98.192.50	Talk:Fellowship of Friends [cur] 	136690335	/* Arbitration */ cm	2007-06-07 21:23:14

Waspidistra 00:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is related to the IP range block at the Fellowship of Friends page. I am an editor of that page and my company rents an office at a building owned by the Fellowship of Friends. Sometimes I do edits from the office, but since last Thursday I am not able to edit any Wikipedia page if I connect to the interned through the internet connection that I have at the office. Note that besides me there are more than 70 people working in this building that can’t edit any Wikipedia page at the moment. The reason that was used for blocking the building’s connection is COI. I can’t understand this. Why is it that a person editing Wikipedia from this building is a case of COI but the same person editing from anywhere else is not? Wikipedia should block editors, not IP ranges, so I am asking for the IP block to be released. I am copying several administrators in this message. Mfantoni 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tip of the hat...
How many eyes do we have on Elephant? I ask because there's an unprot request from an anon with the reasoning "The gentle beast should be free for the world to enjoy." I advised rejecting the request because of its unfortunate connections to The Colbert Report. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have it watchlisted, but it's generally pretty quiet. It'll get hit once a week or so by sleepers.  That episode aired a year, 2 months, and 12 days ago, and the page still has to be sprotected.  Crazy!  Stephen gets a wag of my finger for that one.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds similar to Mudkip (except our sleepers come en masse). So, it's quiet right now, but sees sleepers regularly? -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd advise keeping it pro'd for a while longer ... - Che Nuevara 19:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User chat service
It seems like user Rhandzel is just using their talk-page as a chat site with friends. I thought according to WP:NOT this is discouraged, and didn't know what action could/should be taken. Arthurrh 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User warning issued. - Philippe &#124; Talk 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page and left a level 4 warning as they made another tlak page edit. I also deleted and warned User talk:TrishRaj. Also warnings left for User talk:Ajjkajj (previous deletion by Can't sleep, clown will eat me) and User talk:128.151.141.111 as they all appeared in the history. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of those, Ajj replied with an attack ("SE IF I CARE, B****!") Removed the personal attack and warned him for that. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 04:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CarloPlyr440: is a week long enough?
first started editing just a few weeks ago--and in that time has turned into (in this user's opinion) one of the project's most severe vandals. His talk page is crowded with warnings about images he has uploaded, and he was blocked twice in two days (24 hours on October 6, and then 72 hours on October 7) for repeatedly uploading images without including fair-use rationales. His only response to concerns expressed on his talk page has been to blank it (though it was restored in short order).

Well, after he returned from his 72-hour block, he kicked it up from mere negligence to outright vandalism by uploading images labeled as free when they were actually copyrighted. And to top it off, he claimed that he owned these images. I've caught at least eight of them and slapped I7 speedy tags on them. That earned him a weeklong block--but given that is behavior is similar to those of other severe vandals (Verdict and ParthianShot immediately come to mind), I don't think a week is nearly long enough and propose that it be extended longer ... a month at least. I hope I don't sound too jumpy, but this is a potentially serious problem that needs to be reined in pronto. Blueboy96 12:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I say give the user the week off and if they return to the same behavior - indef ban. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Link spam rollback request
appears to be adding "see also" links that point to the related Mother Jones (magazine) article. I randomly sampled four of the user's 32 October edits, and all added an external link to the Mother Jones article on the same topic. (Judging by this edit, my guess is that Jnp2109 may be an employee of the magazine.) I went ahead and left a WP:LINKSPAM warning  for the editor. Would it be possible for an admin to rollback the rest of these spam links? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Warned. If it continues the conflict of interest noticeboard is thataway. Raymond Arritt 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't asking someone to warn the editor, they were asking someone with the rollback tool to rollback this person's edits. I'm working on it. Natalie 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rolled back the ones that were obviously not relevant, although I think some of the external links they added are probably fine. Natalie 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This was first taken to WP:RFCN by User:GreenJoe, the name User:Greengreg was allowed but the suggestion was made to bring here for behaviour issues. The account and its edits seem to have been made to disrupt State Farm Insurance and agitate Greenjoe, see User:Greengreg's contribs. Rlevse 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot to add, Rlevse has pretty much summed it up. GreenJoe 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning given. If he continues, let me know. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki's personal attack
User Iwazaki has attacked another user saying. I reiterate, any consensus should be made among the free-wikipedian writers, not some people who does full time writing in racist web-sites and then bring their POV here to defame the good name of Wikipedia. He is referring to Taprobanus. Here is him calling a specific user, Taprobanus, a writer to racist website Also note that there have been three users who voted and they are User:Sinhala freedom and User:Taprobanus. This is a direct personal attack on Taprobanus and implied attack on Sinhala freedom. Watchdogb 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just issued a 78h block. The Taprobanus incident is old but the words racist, writer, etc.. keep being used. It is clear that talkpages are set to discuss the article edits and not the editors. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwazaki's second attack on new user
Iwazaki seems to accuse that another editor is a TROLL( this might or might not be true as this account has only edits here). The problem is that he seems to accuse that this new account belongs to another user. This is breaching WP:AGF and seem to be a person attack as it implies that the new account is another user. Take a look here for edit [] Watchdogb 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've handled these above, and messaged the users. --Haemo 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall
A user has created an article regarding a new Palladium Plaza Shopping Mall which is to be built in the Czech Republic. However, the article is obviously copied from the official page which is provided in the extrenal links section. I've placed the template on the page with the URL provided three times, see this diff and this. However I've only reverted the edits twice because of the 3 Revert Rule. NicolasLord provided a statement in an edit summary explaining that he is the owner of the centre. However as the article seems suspiciously like an advert for the company with an added notability (in the 2006 collapse section) I believe the page is spam. The fact that he "is the owner" doesn't make the centre more notable or give a reason why it should be kept or why he should remove the copypaste template. Appreciate any help available. Regards, Onnaghar Editor Review 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Onnaghar: FYI, per WP:3RR, reverting copyvio or blatant vandalism does not put you in breach of the 3RR, no matter how many times you revert. - Che Nuevara 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted for now. I've also left a personalized message on the user's talk page about the situation.  If he is indeed the owner of the mall, then he does have authority to release his text here, but he needs to understand that he must do so under the GFDL, and that he must take a couple of steps to prove that he has the right to do so, as shown at the copyvio template.  And beyond that, the text is indeed very spammy.  IMHO, the mall may very well be notable, and deserve an article, but this article, or anything close, is likely not a good one. - TexasAndroid 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you TexasAndroid and CheNuevara for the advice and the actions upon it. Regards, Onnaghar Editor Review 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted impersonation by User:Nathan G. Ott
has created this account to impersonate me. He has used my name, and posted information about me on his user page. This user is likely a sock puppet of, who previously used the sock , both of which have a record of using my name or attempted impersonation of me. An administrator can look at the deleted edits on Talk:Perkins High School (Sandusky, Ohio) to see that this user has attempted to impersonate me before. Please indefinitely block this user now. Parsecboy 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Do you know who Jetwave is in real life?  He seems to have an odd fascination with you.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested blocking of IP 68.100.89.173
First of all, there really should be an easier way to find this link. It took me about 20 minutes to settle on this page, and I'm still not sure that this is the right one. There should be a simple explanation, such as "this is where to request a block." In the spirit of a Wiki, all users should be able to request a block, not only ones who already know how. Most people would just give up.

Anyway... 68.100.89.173 has been doing a lot of sneaky vandalism. "Contributions" may be found here. Most of these edits are particularly bad because they violate WP:BLP. Most of the edits involve changing names (especially Stacy Farber's middle name from Anne to Annabelle), but some are more damaging, such as this one. Also, in such an article as Alkali, an edit stating that the pH of a base is above 12 stood for eight days. This person's intentions are clearly malicious; it is clearly not a public institution, because every edit is similar. I have posted a warning on the talk page. However, it is highly unlikely that this person will check the talk page, considering that they don't even have a username (unless they are given a bar at the top saying that someone has posted on their talk page--does that happen for unregistered users?). I would usually wait for another vandalism after my warning; however, this person has no history of constructive edits, so blocking them for a few days will not harm Wikipedia. If you look at their contributions, you'll notice that the edits have come in bursts; another burst seems to be occurring right now, and a block the next time they try to vandalize a page should serve as a sharp reminder--hopefully enough to stop this behavior. Twilight Realm 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User has been warned. That should be enough for now. Ronnotel 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments left by on 's talk page
Hi could some one have a look at these comments left by User:Blacksun on my talk page, I believe for this opinion I expressed on the Talk:India page, and let me know if this constitutes personal attack. I have asked him not to engage in personal attacks and offer only constructive critcisms if he has any, but he left the second message before my last message on his talk page. Please have a look.Rueben lys 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of more frequent users are blocking the India article
Could somebody please have a look at the India page and Talk:India page? A number of more frequent users have began a process of possesive editing whereby any expansion, editing, or addition to the article is zealoulsy disputed on different grounds. The latest of this is reversion (at the time of this edit) of the addition of a subsection under the heading Science and Technology in India insisting that any edit "needs to be discussed first". Please take a note that this endangers the wikiness of the whole article .Also, A number of editors, including myself, have had to come to the conclusion that this group of more frequent editors are Gaming the system such that any edit that is not desirable by this group of three or four editors is subjected invariably to a process of lengthy discussion (dragged into weeks, if not months), RfCs(with liberal use of trolling),followed by threats of Arbcom or formal mediation, by which time most editor would've lost any interest. The process of consensus here, I feel, is being abused for a form of group ownership. This urgently needs to be looked into because a number of editors have expressed exasperation and the opinion that the wikiness of the article is being abused, and itself is being prevented from being improved.Rueben lys 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack on me via edit summary
Check this diff and this "contribution" page. The user is knowledgable enough to use a "pipe" to effect their attack on my username, so it's probably not just a random schoolkid's vandalism.

Reading through the policies associated with ANI, I know this probably doesn't rise to the level of an "extraordinary" attack requiring immediate intervention. I did, however, want to lodge a complaint against this person, and have them be told that this is definitely not OK around here. I'll trust this to the judgement of others. Thanks, +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The same user made another personal attack at User:ILike2BeAnonymous here. Chris! ct 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I tossed a warning on the talk page (which you could have done yourself, anybody can warn). Unless the anon persists, that's all that is really necessary. -Chunky Rice 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Some anon is trying to threaten me
This is the second time this happened: first was here, on which I did not respond, and the second time here: here. Please somebody give this anon an appropriate warning. Thank you. Mhym 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but looking at the discussions you've shown, the IP, while not being very civil, does not seem to be attacking you in anyway.--Jac16888 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what do I do to stop those all caps rude messages? Mhym 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point the user to WP:CIVIL, then just ignore the caps, believe me, it could be a lot worse--Jac16888 00:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Several vandal articles not being deleted
I have a problem several pages that have been previously deleted are coming up all articles have to do with Dj KFK. So far I have seen 2. Not sure how many others there are. But previous deletions had to do with Copyright Infringement.

The pages are

DJ_KFK and obviously Dj_KFK

the vandal editor has removed the deletion tag..I was planning on re-tagging anyways to deleted material so not as big a deal but still becoming hard to keep the tag.

Warning for first deletion on vandal editors talk page

Rgoodermote 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User Makesomethingelseup
It appears that this user has created their account for the sole purpose of vandalism. The first edit that they made was a series of vulgar and tasteless changes to Chocolate chip cookie and the second was to deface the user page of AngelOfSadness with degrading comments about her.

Any chance that they could be blocked please?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Reports like this go at WP:AIV, I will look at this user. 1 != 2  01:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maplefan again
and are pretty obvious Maplefan sockpuppets. The IP was used a couple of weeks ago to act as confirmed sock Gavegave30, and just now to act as Darano. In both cases, he/she apparently forgot to log in. Add to that the demands for unsourced negative criticism on Talk:RuneScape and the usual post about player numbers on Talk:MapleStory, and it fits the pattern perfectly. Can someone deal with them, please? Thanks! CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAs and socks pushing POV, PR, and advertising on the Chapman_University_School_of_Law Page
For several months, a few anon IPS have been removing sourced info from U.S. News and World Report, indicating that Chapman ranks in the lowest tier of American law schools . The result has been a rather tiresome edit war. Most likely, these reversions are coming from Chapman U. itself. (See the next paragraph for the reason why.)

A few days ago, one barely used account, and one brand-new account,, began to escalate the edit war by filling the page with advertising from Chapman's website. . One of the vandals, "Hyperion357," claims on the Talk Page that he has "received permission" from the university to use its ad campaign on the article page. It's pretty clear what's going on here: Somebody from Chapman is attempting to scrub sourced info from the page, and paper it over with PR. I'd appreciate any help you could provide. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 03:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin going overboard with blocks?
I noticed that some two-edit or three-edit vandals were being blocked without warning by User:Raul654. I am not entirely sure whether this is overboard or not, please check. thanks. 204.52.215.107 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, at least one of them, User:Carlcarlcarl. Not sure about others. 204.52.215.107 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fairly normal practice to block wikipedia accounts who's first and only contribs are vandalism. Admitedly this is not clear cut vandalism so a block wasn't really necessary IMHO. I can't see any other examples that fit this complaint. Most of the others seem to have done more blatant vandalism and have been warned at least once. The fact that we are often too lenient (IMHO anyway) with vandals doesn't mean we have to be. Nil Einne 10:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this just tacit custom? Or is it mentioned explicitly somewhere in the block policy? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is up with that "alternative history" comment? El_C 06:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Raul's user page. Raymond Arritt 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Carlcarlcarl's edit isn't blatant vandalism (meaning recognizable to someone with no knowledge of the subject). Whether it is an edit in good faith or not, I have no idea ... but it needs explanation. I have no problem with blocking without warning someone who believes that all articles should have references to human anatomy - such a person is not going to be a serious contributor. But something like this at least needs explanation that it really is vandalism, not just a POV. (I have no idea whether this edit is accurate or not.) -- B 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anal-oral contact
The legality of a photo in this article has come under some debate at VPR. The photo has been removed and replaced several time so far. Disregarding my reasons for thinking the image should be permanently removed, it is my opinion that if there is a question of the legality of content, it should be removed until the issue is properly settled, for it's better to err on the side of caution. I think the photo should be removed and the page protected until this can be properly sorted out. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:54, 10/13/2007
 * Wow. So, it's OK to have trivia, but not an image that goes against your morality. Well done. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Woo. Only on Wikipedia, folks... HalfShadow 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Waiter, i'll have soup instead, tonight. Simple reminder, WP:CENSOR. We aren't censored, we provide it in educational, non-salacious manner. ANy elgit reason for complaint? ThuranX 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion on the talk page about the image at all, mostly name changes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See VPR (anchored link) for the discussion. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:02, 10/13/2007
 * Legality where? Which country? Which laws? <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion, as I'm ill-equipped to accurately present the issue myself. I've requested that the editor who brought up the legal question (User:Wikidemo) to comment here though. <div style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap;">Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:08, 10/13/2007

Do we really need to have this discussion on three different pages? -Chunky Rice 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC) This doesn't need administrator attention, please keep the discussion on one page. Viridae Talk 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No sufficient argument has been made so far in the discussion to justify the hasty removal of the photo. From my own personal bias, it isn't clear to me that the photo qualifies as pr0n per the document being quoted. But notwithstanding, the upshot of the discussion was to bring it to the Foundation, which seems to me like the only reasonable next step. Illustrative photos of sexual and deviant behaviour have been on WP since the beginning. Let's wait for the clear word from the Foundation that they have to go before removing any based upon our interpretation of the quoted document. Anchoress 04:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you think the page should be locked down for edit warring over the image, this is hardly an "incident" for admin attention. Mr.  Z- man  04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User Erwin Morland suspicous activity...
User:Erwin Morland recreated the page Dead black males imediately after an AFD closed to delete it, an AFD he opposed. As soon as that article was speedied per G4 as a recreation of deleted material, he went to GNAA and entered Gay Nigger Association of America as a dab article, an article with an historic AFD history of its own... See Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28/Gay Nigger Association of America Given the number of edits this person has on their edit page, and their WP:POINT making move to GNAA, an historicly contentious moment in Wikipedia history, this may need someone to keep an eye on. See user's contribs, though deleted articles don't appear. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Picaroon (t) 04:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They should have been perma-blocked at that first edit to Dan Glickman. Corvus cornix 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Date-specific sub-categories of [Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload] to be deleted
See Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload ... quite a few of those categories are old and now empty. If someone would be willing to delete the empty ones, I would appreciate it. :-) Thanks, Iamunknown 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the ones older than 20 days. --JWSchmidt 07:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The ones up to and including October 4th are also empty.  Anyone willing to delete?  :-)  --Iamunknown 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They're all deleted now (I deleted some, and another admin started at the other end). --ais523 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. :-)  --Iamunknown 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Student erotica resuming edit war in Erotica
Resuming an edit war documented here. Editor has been blocked at least twice now from different IP addresses, the latest for 3RR evasion using sockpuppets. There has been substantial Talk page discussion over this, on various User talk pages as well as in Talk:Erotica.

Is this an "Incident" or is there a better place to report this one? / edg ☺ ★ 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Return of PatPeter
I'm hesitant, though I think it's likely. So I'll directly ask for others to view:

Is User:Sox207, User:PatPeter?

I find him creating sub-pages of PatPeter's userpages. He's setting up the same "rules" (and using the same wording) in userboxes. He seems to have the same tone, and uses similar phrasing ("Seriously"). And he's editing inactive userpages based on his "rules".

I ran into him changing userboxes against concensus at Userboxes, and WP:UCFD. Though the more I talked with him, and the more I looked into his edit history, the more I think he is. He even started editing when PatPeter stopped.

However, I don't think I can request a CU, as this might fall under "just curious". (It looks like it would fall under "F".)

I'd appreciate it if others would check this out and offer insight. - jc37 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter for more information. - jc37 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possible - let's see how the checkuser goes. Durova Charge! 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked, but not sockpuppeteer?
A few days ago, I reported a possible sockpuppeteer at Suspected sock puppets/I Am Mclovin. I also filed a request for checkuser at Requests for checkuser/Case/I Am Mclovin. This morning, I learned that an admin had blocked the sockpuppet but not the puppeteer. Another user informed me on my talkpage that puppeteers are blocked for two weeks for their first offense. I tried to contact the blocking admin, but no response yet. Basically, I am asking that a sockpuppeteer be blocked. Thank you. <font color="#F00">NA <font color="#800080">SC <font color="#00F">AR Fan<font color="#BB0">24 (radio me!) 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an extreme newbie who is skating on the edge of an indefblock. Additionally, s/he has stopped editing anyway.  I'd recommend watching to see if they return.  If they do and are still up to no good, we can indef.  Otherwise, consider the matter closed.  They're probably on to another account anyway - hopefully a good-faith one.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but shouldn't they be blocked anyway? The puppet was clearly used to evade a block. <font color="#F00">NA <font color="#800080">SC <font color="#00F">AR Fan<font color="#BB0">24 (radio me!) 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if sockpuppeteers should be blocked for as long as their sockpuppets unless they continually use them to disrupt the encyclopedia. I'd say give them a chance to contribute, and if they refuse to do so constructively, this could warrant something far more serious. After all, I think that they deserve a second chance (as they were not fully aware of our policies at the time). Cheers, ( <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ar <font color="#483C32" face="Verdana">ky ) 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Opera Mini
Mmm, User:Zyxoas is asking his block to be reviewed. Apparently he is using Opera Mini (p09-04.opera-mini.net == 88.131.66.88). I couldn't find the relevant thread but I remember OM to have been discussed lately, and that it was agreed they should be added to the list of proxies sending XFF headers. Can someone confirm this has been done and lift the relevant blocks? -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 06:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I occasionally edit from Opera Mini and can confirm that most of their proxies are only softblocked. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">east <big style="color:#090">. 718  at 07:21, 10/12/2007
 * Softblocked for now then. Can someone poke a dev to check if the XFF project updated the list? -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an updated list here, and it doesn't include Opera Mini. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">east <big style="color:#090">. 718  at 08:40, 10/12/2007
 * Yeah, I wondered if that list was up-to-date in fact :) -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * XFF Project says "Contact xff AT wikimedia DOT org for listing and delisting inquiries." Neil   ム  10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International
has continuously added material that includes contentious, unduly self-serving claims about Ali Sina to the article Faith Freedom International, using primary sources, which Clearly violate WP:BLP. The material added is meant to depict Ali Sina as a hate monger by use of selective primary source quotespamming.  Yahel  Guhan  06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have used the exact same source that is already used in the article, namely this one:.
 * Regarding making Sina look like a hate-monger. Currently the article says 'Sina describes Muhammad as a "rapist", a "pedophile",a "monster", and mass murderer"'. Does that not make Sina a "hate monger"? And aren't we simply supposed to state facts as they are, or are we supposed to cherry pick which facts make Sina look best?Bless sins 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last two links posted by Yahel Guhan, I'm no longer adding that content. But I would like it if there was debate over whether using FFI for the views of Sina is appropriate.Bless sins 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, which this issue apparenlty does not. You want dispute resolution. Natalie 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Prehaps I should have clarified. I was reporting a BLP violation.  Yahel  Guhan  03:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion/block review of Cberlet
I need a second opinion on. He posted a Wikibreak announcement which, among other things, accuses unnamed editors of being "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots." Since the editors are unnamed, I left it alone. But he also made disparaging remarks against Lyndon LaRouche which would certainly be unacceptable in article space as BLP violation, so I redacted them. He has since twice restored the comments, after which I blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. (I also blocked, an apparent SPA troll.) I would like a review of Cberlet's edits and my block. Thatcher131 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good block to me. --70.109.223.188 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. I'd also suggest a checkuser, considering that this guy's very first edit was to Cberlet's page.  Blueboy96 14:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely comfortable in this specific case. Chip Berlet is a known critic of Lyndon LaRouche off-wiki, & is expressing his own opinion -- which is cited in the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche. We do allow for a degree of free speech on user pages. LaRouche is arguably a public figure, so I believe that the concerns of WP:BLP may not apply here -- & if LaRouche believes himself to be libeled he would proceed after Berlet. Then again, Berlet says he is on a WikiBreak, so he shouldn't be looking at his user page & a 24-hour block would be more symbolic than effective in that case. -- llywrch 20:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether someone is a public figure who has made notable criticism or not. BLP violations are not magically ok in userspace simply because the person saying it is notable. This was the correct decision. JoshuaZ 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me as after all its only a short block, SqueakBox 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it already expired at this point (?), I don't think a blocking was the best idea. Not because I tend to agree with llywrch, which I do, but due to the fact (and I keep saying this though I'm not sure anyone is listening) that, when it comes to possible disruption on userpages, protection is almost always preferable to blocking. A block, even a brief one, is traumatic. Protection, on the other hand, is a much more narrow, targeted solution. And userpages are not like articles; it's not as if it's a priority to leave the page unprotected so others can edit it. I once had userpage protected for two weeks until the user agreed to adhere to policy terms in one of its sections. Throughout that time, he was able to make many other unrelated edits, which he would have been unable to had he been blocked (he might have agreed to the terms more quickly in that event, but a lot of hurt feeling were spared, I believe, by not issuing a block, again, by virtue of this problem being limited to a user page). El_C 09:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That action -- protecting the page, rather than blocking the user -- I'm more comfortable with, although it's not the perfect answer. (And no, I don't know that that would be.) Blocking a user -- especially one like Cberlet who has had to confront the combined venom of LaRouche's followers dealing with their POV-pushing -- can be received as an unfairly punitive thing. Especially when the LaRouchies were the first group to attempt to push their own agenda & opinions upon Wikipedia; before the Scientologists, the US Congress, the Catholics, the Neo-Nazis & even the anti-circumcision activists. They would see driving Cberlet as a victory, which would motivate them to keep pushing for a mention of LaRouche's lunatic fringe ideas into every article they could find. Out of concern for Wikipedia, I hope we treat him better when he returns from his WikiBreak. -- llywrch 23:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed this issue on user talk:Cberlet. Basically, all the derogatory terms Cberlet used about LaRouche can be amply sourced, unlike typical BLP violations. I think the matter here is the subtler issue of neutrality, which manifests itself in saying that Larouche "is" those things, rather than that he "has been called" those things. Since the BLP violation was subtle rather than egregious it might have been more helpful to have had a discussion rather than reverts and a block. (Since neither side sought a discussion that goes both ways). I'm more concerned with the comments about other (unnamed) editors. I think Cberlet may have been acting out of frustration at the endless stream of accounts, many of them apparently socks of HK, that keep appearing to push the LaRouche POV on Wikipedia. That doesn't justify incivility, but it is understandable.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg, new WP:SPA with serious WP:COI and disruptive WP:ABUSE & WP:NPA & WP:NPOV problems
We need to block at least briefly to get his attention to the fact that policies and guidelines need to be respected at least a bit. The problem has been documented and discussed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard as well as at Wikiquette alerts, but so far we have not asked for a block. All his latest contribs today continue the abuse and POV pushing. If someone thinks a block is not yet obviously needed, please advise on suggested process here. Dicklyon 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now also asked for a 3RR block, since he continued to revert on two articles after my warning. But his offenses are much worse than that and deserve a more serious block than that's likely to get (and may get me one, too). Dicklyon 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this history shows that Geoeg is engaging in a revert war with Dicklyon. As always, it takes two to tango. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does, and I apologize for my part in it, but calls for help on 3O, COI, wikiquette, etc., did only a little to slow him down; that's why I'm here now. Please review the problem and advise.  He's now blocked for 48 hours on second 3RR violation, but he'll be back Monday most likely.  By the way, I visited the steel museum last time I was in Sheffield; nice place. Dicklyon 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review
I blocked User:Johntex for 3RR (really, edit-warring in general) on today's featured article, Intelligent design. Ordinarily this would be a routine case but my understanding is that we tend to err on the side of encouraging editing of FAs. Review welcome. Raymond Arritt 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the block should be lifted if John agrees to cease editing ID until after it comes off the main page. Raul654 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I wish I had the time to look into this.  I sincerely question the need for a block, given my interaction with John in the past.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, I really wish I wasn't in the middle of class. Where, exactly, do you get 4 reverts from?  Ugh.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * John is a good guy and is a great editor. I don't think he knew the extensive background and warring that went on over that particular use of the word. He added the MOS reversions then went after a NPOV tag Spryde 16:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like he's just tidying up terminology and following procedure by giving it an NPOV tag since it keeps getting reverted. HalfShadow 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One man's tidying is another groups ignoring of WP:CON and WP:UNDUE. It should get resolved pretty quickly. Unfortunately ID is one of those subjects that gets harped on for a long time and unless you know the history, you become part of the "But what about..." people. Spryde 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with this, since there have been many 3RRs on the page (I think I may have gone over 3RR although I wasn't keep ing track. Most of the edits I reverted were vandalism and a few were technically reversions but were atempts to restore content lost in edit conflicts). While there is some leeway aloud with featured articles in general, that's to keep the content ok despite possible POV pushing. The matter in question was (and is) being discussed on the talk page and it is unbecoming for an editor to keep edit warring rather than take further part in the discussion (although John did play a minor part). The most serious issue is that the number of reverts was very high. If I read this correctly I count at least 6 edits which are reversions which is way over 3RR. Overall, I probably would not have blocked, but I'm not inclined to unblock. It seems like a call within reason. JoshuaZ 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction, no actual 3RR appeared to occur since only 3 of the edits were actual reverts. JoshuaZ 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My quick review of his contributions confirms his assertions. There were serial edits, but they were not reverts.  There's no edit warring here, let alone 3RR.  I think this block was improper. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it certainly looks like edit warring to me, when multiple editors are telling someone to stop doing something and you keep doing it but in other sections of the same article that's still edit warring. JoshuaZ 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. I see a bunch of serial edits, a few reverts, and then posting of an NPOV tag.  The way I see it, assuming good faith on all sides is that he was in the process of making these changes, multiple editors told him to stop and then he stopped.  To me, that's not edit warring. -Chunky Rice 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he is unblocked per agreement not to edit the article for the rest of the day. Spryde 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I unblocked him per his agreement to Raul and Brad's request. Sorry I couldn't comment here more quickly, I was moving to a different class.  I'll comment later about the block when I'm free.  — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much everyone. I am sorry this trouble arose.  I definitely had no intention of edit warring or violating WP:3RR.  I don't believe I did violate 3RR.  Per the WP:MOS, "claim" is a loaded term that is often used to denigrate  the assertions to which is is referring.  The exceptions are references to legal proceedings and when inside direct quotes.
 * I was going through the article section by section checking instances to see if they complied with WP:MOS and changing those that did not comply to more neutral terms like "said" (v) or "assertion" (n).
 * I was not aware I was being reverted until someone left a message at my Talk page.
 * When I realized I was being reverted, I responded by posting my concerns to the article Talk page.
 * Since I could not restore my changes without running afoul of 3RR, I tagged the article with a NPOV tag. The reason is that the article is POV with all these instances of "claim" being used to denigrate one side of the debate.
 * Unfortunately, the tag was twice removed, despite the fact that the tag clearly states not to remove it until the dispute is settled.
 * I request that an uninvolved admin restore the tag until the issue is resolved through discussion. Johntex\talk 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that an NPOV tag should not be applied to the mainpage featured article. (Whether an article that might arguably be subject to such a tag should be mainpaged is a separate question, and I haven't investigated the merits of this one.) The issue can be raised again tomorrow when the article is off the main page. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is prominently displayed on the Main Page is more reason to fix the problem, not less.
 * As a procedural matter, removing the tag was very bad form. The tag clearly states it is not to be removed while the matter is being discussed.
 * As a practical matter, we need to restore the tag as a service to our readers. We have to warn the unsuspecting reader that the article they are about to read is riddled with loaded language. Otherwise, they will get the wrong impression about how we strive to employ neutral language in our writing. Johntex\talk 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Biased articles don't get to be the main page featured article. If someone is adding an NPOV tag to the featured article, that person is wrong (almost automatically and by definition), and we don't let it stay there. Johntex's in in a minority of one here, and his arguments have been totally debunked on the talk page - which is par for the course when someone adds a tag to the daily featured article. Raul654 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Raul, it is a tenant of Wikipedia that Featured Articles are still not perfect. If we thought they were perfect, we would protect them from editing.  We don't do that, so obviously there is room for improvement.
 * As a case in point, the recently featured Fightin' Texas Aggie Band was also slapped with a NPOV tag as a direct result of the exposure it got on the Main Page. However, instead of reverting, as you did, we left the tag in place and discussed matters on the Talk page.
 * As for biased articles reaching the Main Page, articles get to the Main Page pretty much on your say so, since you are the Featured Article director. I don't think you, or I, or anyone, are infallible.  Do you disagree?   Is it possible that you missed something?
 * Your views that Intelligent Design is ludicrous are quite clear. Could your dislike for ID could be clouding your usually clear judgment? Could problems in this article have slipped through simply because you are over-worked?  Perhaps the job of FA director needs to be split between more people.  I don't know.  I don't know how the flaws in this article remained in it all the way to the Main Page.  I just know the article has some subtle bias that needs to be corrected.  I know that my attempts to correct the problem have been met with knee-jerk status-quoism and stonewalling.  As such, the article is disputed and the tag should remain.
 * As to your assertion that I am "a minority of one", please check again. TSP, Alec92, Kenosis, dave souza, and Merzul have all either questioned the use of "claim" in the article and/or provided some measure of support for the points I am making. Johntex\talk 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: you can add Neil to the list of those who are questioning the usage of "claim". He has even started a new section on the topic and seems to be directly disagreeing with you, Raul. Johntex\talk 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all and thanks to User:Bbatsell for the unblock. I saw edit warring and blocked to prevent further disruption. It's now clear that there's no need. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lesson of this is we need more knowlegable people willing to be FAC reviewers; if the article has a POV issue it should never have become featured. Neil   ☎  18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With controversial topics such as Intelligent design, Global warming and the like, there will always be someone who claims the article has POV problems even if the article is as NPOV as humanly possible. Raymond Arritt 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but this exposes a fault in having Raul as the FA director- he is deeply involved in such issues, and thus there is a clear conflict of interest here. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is he deeply involved or just deeply interested? If he has extensively edited the articles and discussed improvements on the talk page, then obviously he is involved and should have recused himself from the decision about whether they became featured articles or not. If he merely lightly edits a wide range of environmental science and science articles (which would not be surprising given his background), then that shouldn't be a problem. Carcharoth 08:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, he is the sole FA director- which means that every article, no matter what his opinion on the subject, goes to him. While I'm going to assume good faith that Raul wouldn't let that interfere, my involvement with him suggests that he has let personal disputes with other users get in the way. Of course, I am not one to comment on the POV of an issue I know only by cursory overview, and so can't comment on COI issues there. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've heard any allegations that Raul might be less than objective in managing the FA process. I have a lot of gripes with that process, but form what I've seen his part in it is limited to handling the administrivia -- closing nominations where the conversation has ended, reading through the discussions & counting noses to decide which articles passed, & so forth. He has been in charge of this part of Wikipedia because he has been reliable & thorough. If you think he has too much power shuffling the papers related to this process, go ahead & either offer to help or volunteer a friend. I'm sure he would welcome the assistence to handle this largely unacknowledged & unthanked task. -- llywrch 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist
New is removing Chinese characters from such articles as [{Giant Panda]] and Bamboo. Is this an improper activity? I've reverted him once on each article and another User has reverted him once. If others think this is no big deal, I won't press it. I just want a second opinion. Corvus cornix 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He has now added to my request for him to stop on his Talk page, "I will continue to remove any Chinese or other language references as I see fit.". I won't push it if I'm in the wrong here. Corvus cornix 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an English-Chinese dictionary. As well, it has a Chinese language section. Chinese characters have no place in an English language encyclopedia entry on Pandas, bamboo, or anything else and I will continue to remove any such characters I come across in Chinese or any other language where the inclusion of such serves no good educational purpose. Jimmy Hammerfist 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I may be wrong (and I'm also not an admin), but Manual of Style (China-related articles) seems to support this. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct; there is nothing wrong with putting Chinese characters/translations for subjects that are Chinese-related. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be up to local consensus on whether the information is relevant enough to be in the article. Certainly there is no site-wide consensus that Chinese characters are forbidden; that would be nonsense. In the case of Giant Panda and Bamboo, my opinion is that the information is relevant and useful. One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it can jump into foreign alphabets or writing systems to use the exact original name of something. EdJohnston 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Adding native spellings of names for things that are primarily known by those names is perfectly normal, useful practice, and removing them without good and sufficient reason verges on vandalism. Doing so systematically, I think, crosses that line. The fact that Chinese names are written in Chinese characters (which MediaWiki is expressly designed to support) should make no difference to that principle. -- The Anome 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says as follows:


 * This edition of Wikipedia is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article. Proper nouns' Chinese characters should also be supplied, unless it is Wikified and the target article in the English Wikipedia contains the characters.

The words "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" are common words, not proper nouns. They are not the names of particular persons or places, such as Mao Zedong or Beijing. They are also not obscure words lacking established translations. As such, the insertion of the Chinese-language words for "Giant Panda" and "bamboo" is recommended against by the Manual of Style. --FOo 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The part of the Manual of Style that I think is relevant is, "do not use characters or romanized forms excessively". In the case of the disputed edits to Wonton, Giant Panda, and Bamboo, the use of Chinese characters is not excessive, it improves the articles, and it is supported by the Manual of Style. --Ben James Ben 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats due to deletion of a company article
An IP, has had his company's article deleted, Five Hour Films. He made a talk page, saying this:

"Hi, this is the creator of the page.

I would just like to say, categorically, that I am totally outraged by the way this article has been treated. Notice after notice reading about "falsities" and "nonsense" - How dare you say such things about a Film Company that has striven for excellence since its birth. No where in the article does it promote the company and The work that the members of this company have put in trying to become a recognized cause is phenomenal so for a website like yours to criticize is frankly soul destroying.

Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility by Wikipedia. Not a single false-hood is written into this and your administrators would have found this very easy to see if they had done research rather than jump in head first with their almighty opinion.

I can assure that in Britain, responses from companies in this manner and tone are taken as SLANDER. If this continues Wikipedia can add another move of legal action to the ever growing list they seem to be ammasing against them.

Any further remarks from your company I would rather recieve through private e-mail as this is highly un-professional and embarrassing for both parties involved.

Thank - you."

Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ever-growing list"? Corvus cornix 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't that deemed to be libelous? :) <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the nonsense at Adam McGill, this looks like a troll, to me. Corvus cornix 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that fact that it's "libel" not "slander". And I can assure you that in Britain truth is always an adequate defence against either :) <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are all edits of this nature trolls. An ip address makes an edit like the one described above - the ip is a troll - is that right? Please don't call me a troll or a sockpuppet.  I'm just making a suggestion which may be helpful86.141.66.176 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Said suggestion is proscribed the way it is written. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "in Britain" it happens, although this user thinks he knows better, that it depends on whether you live in Scotland, England Ireland or Wales. It is definitly permitable in Scotland and England - I have a father who is profesionaly involved in the former and the latter is very similar but with a less effective system - and i find it hard to believe Wales and Ireland are really that backward. May I suggest we block him for trolling? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yes because we are all trolls - right?86.141.66.176 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blood Red Sandman, legal threats are legal threats. If said user wants to contact the foundation they should do so rather than making threats.  PS I assume Blood Red Sandman is referring to Northern Ireland when they include Ireland as a part of Britain - because the Republic of Ireland aint part of Britain--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to stray of subject RoI isn't a part of the United Kingdom, whether it is a [part of the British Isles is disputed but certainly not untrue. If this company are claiming we shouldn't have deleted their article they have no right to say so as nobody can foce wikipedia to accept an article, its not a public broadc aster or anything remotely similar, SqueakBox 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are all ips trolls. Please explain. your WP:DENYing me.86.141.66.176 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and it's community has the right to delete any article it sees fit. If you continue to make legal threats on wikipedia your editing privilege will be revoked.  Is that clear? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you now accusing me of being the company who wrote that rubbish just because im an ip? ips seem to be very unwelcome here.86.141.66.176 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant NI. And 86.141.66.176, law accross the UK (indeed, accross the civilised world) allows some incredible damaging things to be said about an organisation. May I also point out, though, that nothing degrading was said about the company. It was deleted for lacking any sign of importance, because, as the article stood, it did indeed lack any sign of importance. It may be the best company in the world - nobody said it wasn't - but it shows no evidence that it has done anything more significant than countless other similar organisations. Please understand that not notable does not mean it's not good. Also, no-one said you are the company, but you admitted yourself to at least have a connection with the company - you 'know' that "Five Hour Films take this as a personal attack on their professionalism and credibility". Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand before you reply - I beg you - I don't particularly care that that article which I didn't write was deleted and I don't particularly care if you dont believe that i'm not the same person. You have the right to delete whatever is inappropriate. What I do care about is that all ips seem to be unwelcome here. All ips are accused of trolling, sockpuppeting or something. Why?86.141.66.176 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all of them are - the problem is that there is a largish number of such people, and most of them happen to use IPs. But, look at your edits, you gotta admit they can be taken to look quite troll-like? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because most anonIP editors are trolls, vandals, or sockpuppets, or make baseless legal threats. Argyriou (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So why don't you just force everyone to become registered by making it easier to register and banning ips.86.141.66.176 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it could be any easier to register than it is now. You simply choose a username and password...that's it. You don't even need an email address or any personal information. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe for experienced users like yourself but not for new people. Firstly it takes a while to figure out where the register button is.  To a new person wikipedia looks a mess with buttons everywhere that have no meaning to new people.  Then when you do find the register button problems - such as not being able to see the letters.  A new person being directed to request an account would have no idea what to do.  The reason I haven't registered is because I only make occassional spelling corrections and watch discussions where I see ips being blocked every second.86.141.66.176 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments concerning trolling were addressed at the IP who was making the legal threats, and then going in and creating/working on an article supposedly about the head of this organization, whose father was Louis XIV. You don't think that's trolling?  Corvus cornix 23:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think its trolling but I think its stupidand not something you would find in an encyclopedia. As for legal threats, do they mean anything - I mean I doubt anyones ever actually filed a lawsuit against wikimedia.86.141.66.176 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) Making legal threats, even frivolous ones, is not allowed --Haemo 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean frowned upon by the community. 86.141.66.176 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he means "not allowed". If you do make a legal threat, you will be blocked to ensure you don't exacerbate situations through Wikipedia. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ye but don't you still say frowned upon? Community, not bureaucracy?86.141.66.176 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * — 86.141.66.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's one of the rules. "Official Policy" level.  WP:NLT.  If you make one, and any admin notices, you're going to be blocked.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tossing aroung legal threats also makes you look like a dick. HalfShadow 23:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly it has a major anti-community impact. See our article on "Chilling effect". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)